I guess shoot first and ask questions later doesn't always work out. He could have said--"Hold it asshole or I'll blow your brains out"--before opening fire.

I'm sure if you had asked him yesterday he could have told you all the reasons why he needed the gun in his house and what a responsible gun owner he was--all the training he had etc etc. He'll have to live with his decision the rest of his life--unfortunately his fiance has already lost the rest of her life to this coward.

Here's the link---I must have made a mistake in the posting. Sorry.

If only she had a car antennae she could have gotten to . . .

#3 | Posted by goatman at 2009-10-12 07:08 PM | Reply | Flag

If only HE had had a car antenna--she would be alive now.

FTFY

;-)

Well, da bOoB disproves his theory that when someone is in the house, you don't have time to get to your gun, because this person was already IN the house, didn't have to make a bunch of noise breaking in, and he had plenty of time to go get it and shoot her.

Now that bOoB has been summarily destroyed with impeecable logic...

#17 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-10-13 10:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

Um yeah dumbass--escept that this person wasn't trying to kill the homeowner, and was just coming back from taking a whiz. I suggest you buy all the weapons you can and keep them loaded and close at hand to protect you from all the bad guys who want our ipod. Shoot first and ask questions later. It worked out so well for this guy. You should follow his example.

What a dumbass---you think this was a good example of home protection. Don't forget to make your ammo capable of piercving armor---you never know what those nasty 62 year old women might try.

Get some depends too pants pisser. Best to be prepared when you pull that trigger.

HAHAHA you resort to strawmen. Shows how weak your logic is, and how stupid you are.

I specifically pointed out the guy's error in judgement in #18, and said he'd make a great case for safety training.

HAHAHA seriously HAHAHAHAA.

#27 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-10-13 11:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

The strawman is YOURS dUmMy as shown in your #17. You used this example as to how a weapon could be used against an intruder.

Now if the man had had the brains to install an alarm system, he would have known there was no intruder and everyone would still be alive and kicking.

Guns are offensive weapons--not defensive weapons. If a bad guy wants you, no amount of guns will protect you. Ask JFK---he had the whole dallas police force loaded up with all kinds of weapons---they weren't much good for defense were they. Ask Lee Harvey Oswald. He had an armed cop on each arm--their guns weren't much good in defending him were they? The cops didn't have enough time to get to their weapons. The bad guy makes the first move---your gun is no good for defense.

Guns are for cowards with no brains--you qualify.

The only other option being a loaded automatic with a hair trigger & hollow points right under your pillow.

#53 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-10-13 02:01 PM | Reply | Flag

So---tell us how a responsible gun owner such as yourself keeps your gun ready to protect yourself.
Tell us where your gun is kept when you leave the house, and how it will deter someone from breaking in and stealing it when you aren't there.

Since "there is no in between", where does that leave you in regards to law enforcement???

#101 | Posted by Capt_Of_Uranus at 2009-10-13 09:24 PM | Reply | Flag

Cops guns are not safe. If someone really wants a cops gun, all they have to do is wait until his back is turned, whack him in the head, and take it. Cops get killed frequently, and their guns don't save them---WHY? The bad guy makes the first move.

Prison guards don't walk among the inmates with a weapon on their hip for just that reason. Some of the guys in there have nothing to lose.

So, cops shouldn't have guns either? I want to live in this utopia that you speak of... What planet is it on again???

#105 | Posted by Capt_Of_Uranus at 2009-10-13 11:19 PM | Reply | Flag: Moron conclusion

I didn't say cops shouldn't have guns now did I little mind. I said they weren't safe. Very few people would think of taking a gun from a cop. But those who do, are often successful--that's how cops get killed.

I forget why I love this board sometimes.

#109 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-10-14 12:57 AM | Reply | Flag Moron

18,000 police have paid with their lives. They were armed--their guns didn't protect them.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, if Beefalo_Bobble had his way, it seems as if he'd want all firearms banned.

#111 | Posted by Zarathustra at 2009-10-14 01:11 AM | Reply | Flag

You are wrong. I have consistantly supported the right to bear arms. In fact, I have consistantly held that the right to bear arms should not be infringed--just like the second amendment says, and not how the pussy USSC has killed what the second amendment says CLEARLY--the right to keep bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. That includes--tanks--
flamethrowers--warships--
aircraft carriers--fighter jets--nuclear weapons. The right to keep and bear arms is a liberal concept, and there are plenty of American who can afford the things I have mentioned. Oprah herself could probably field the worlds fifth largest fighting force. So how about yourself Nazi boy--which weapons would you infringe on the right of American to have in their homes? How bad would YOU mangle the second amendment? What phrase would YOU use to replace the phrase SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, if Beefalo_Bobble had his way, it seems as if he'd want all firearms banned.

#111 | Posted by Zarathustra at 2009-10-14 01:11 AM | Reply | Flag

You are wrong. I have consistantly supported the right to bear arms. In fact, I have consistantly held that the right to bear arms should not be infringed--just like the second amendment says, and not how the pussy USSC has killed what the second amendment says CLEARLY--the right to keep bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. That includes--tanks--
flamethrowers--warships--
aircraft carriers--fighter jets--nuclear weapons. The right to keep and bear arms is a liberal concept, and there are plenty of American who can afford the things I have mentioned. Oprah herself could probably field the worlds fifth largest fighting force. So how about yourself Nazi boy--which weapons would you infringe on the right of American to have in their homes? How bad would YOU mangle the second amendment? What phrase would YOU use to replace the phrase SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?

It's no carbon-fibre car antenna, but I imagine it'd bet the job done, were anyone to attempt to break in to the house...

#117 | Posted by Zarathustra at 2009-10-14 01:42 AM | Reply | Flag

Why would you think a carbon fiber car antenna would be better for defense than a loaded weapon in your hand? That is an incredibly stupid remark.

Guy pulls a gun first--takes your gun. No guarantee the bullet won't go through him and kill someone else. I'd rather have a car antennae than a gun in that situation. Even a rock or a club.

I'm going to bed tonight with a very hearty chuckle indeed!

#121 | Posted by Zarathustra at 2009-10-14 01:57 AM | Reply | Flag

I missed the funny part---maybe you can explain it to me...

Let's take a look at that statement--when we get to the funny part, you let me know and point it out next time---Mkay?

Guy pulls a gun first--takes your gun.

So a guy is standing there with his gun on you--do you think you should attempt draw your gun and shoot him? Would that be your plan on how your gun would protect you? Is this the funny part? Let me know.

I would say any criminal that tries to hold someone up with a knife is a fool, but if he has a knife and you make a move, you could be sliced pretty bad and there's no guarantee you shoot him or don't have the gun used on you.

So a guy has a knife on you---do you think you should attempt to draw your gun and shoot him? If he has the knife pulled from across the room or across the street, you have a point. But if he has the knife to your throat or pressed against your chest, do you think going for your gun is the best move? Is this the funny part?

No guarantee the bullet won't go through him and kill someone else. I'd rather have a car antennae than a gun in that situation. Even a rock or a club.

Maybe THIS is the funny part--it does mention the car antenna at least. Is the funny part when your bullet goes through someone and kills someone else? I guess it is a matter of judgement. Much like the story this thread relates. The man in this story who shot his fiance. Was that funny to you? Do you think the man who shot his fiance wouldn't choose to have had the car antenna rather than the gun, if he could go back in time and make that choice? Tell me which you would choose if you were the man who killed his fiance--the gun or the car antenna--and tell me where the humor is---I still can't see it.

Tell me which scenario above would you attempt to pull your gun. I say if the gun is on your hip, the bad guy knows you have it(because he can see it--get it) and he approaches you from behind, and simply takes your gun before you respond--or if you attempt to respond, he cuts out a kidney and simply holds your arm until you bleed out. If the gun is in a shoulder holster, the guy with the knife may approach you from the front(because he can't see your gun---get it) but then if you make a broad movement such as attempting to go for your gun, you wind up with a knife in your heart or throat, and chances are, you won't get the gun out of your holster anyway before it starts to get dark. Maybe this logic is funny to you---if so, again---point it out---I still don't see the humor.

If it were me, and a man with a knife had it pressed against my chest from the front, or against my throat or kidneys from the back, I would give him my gun and anything else he wanted. I doubt he wants to kill me, unless it is personal, because if he wanted to kill me, he would have simply cut my thoat, or stabbed me in the heart. I doubt he would have let me get to my gun with my dying efforts. Maybe this logic is funny to you---if so, again---point it out---I still don't see the humor.

My choice of a car antenna in this situation, was made simply to show that no weapon you had could protect you from a determined bad guy---a man ready to kill and committed to the crime. But still, I miss the humor, and fail to see your logic as to how a gun would protect you. If you could explain the humor part, and the protection part, maybe we can both laugh next time.

I really think that down deep he means well... He should totally explore that someday...

#125 | Posted by Capt_Of_Uranus at 2009-10-14 04:02 AM | Reply | Flag

You can play too. How about responding to the previous two posts---point out the humor, and point out where you would use your gun to protect yourself.

I looked and came up dry, so by all means: PLEASE LINK...

#122 | Posted by Capt_Of_Uranus at 2009-10-14 03:46 AM | Reply | Flag

I did link in the #110 post. I guess your small mind missed the link. Let's try again and see if you can see it this time. They pretty much all had weapons on them---the bad guy made the first move in the vast majority of cases.

#122 | Posted by Capt_Of_Uranus at 2009-10-14 03:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

Here's the link to the number of 18,000 police officers killed in the line of duty. Their guns didn't help much. Is this the funny part?

Live or Die

Your name should be "Lie Till I Die". I do not say what you said. This is the post in its entirety.

Guy pulls a gun first--takes your gun. I would say any criminal that tries to hold someone up with a knife is a fool, but if he has a knife and you make a move, you could be sliced pretty bad and there's no guarantee you shoot him or don't have the gun used on you. No guarantee the bullet won't go through him and kill someone else. I'd rather have a car antennae than a gun in that situation. Even a rock or a club

The point was, that chances that you would have your gun taken away from you if the guy had a gun on you first. Then it switces to a guy with a knife trying to take your gun, and says that even if you could get to your gun, and shot him--you could still kill someone else if the bullet went through him. Either you don't understand english in its written form, or you simply lie to try to make a point. Either way, you are done in again by the facts and context of what was posted.

My choice of a car antenna in this situation,...

#129 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-10-14 09:30 AM

Why do you take a portion of a post and try to make it the whole post. Are you just stupid, or is your lying deliberate?

Or a rock.

Or a club.

Yes--I would rather have had a rock or a club for defense than kill an innocent bystander with a stray bullet. Which would you choose? The rock or the club or the dead innocent bystander?

Can you respond to more than 20 words at a time? Do large posts frighten you? See how I write down every word of the post I am responding to, and don't take things out of context to make a point? Try it sometime, and you won't have your ass handed to you so easily.

#135 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-10-14 09:55 AM | Reply | Flag

Akat

I was referring to homeowners who think their gun will protect them. Not cops---that is a lie by you. Cops are--for the most part--couragious and good people. But my points about the guns they carry are proven by the 18,000 that have died in the line of duty that I posted earlier. Their gun didn't save them when a determined bad guy makes the first move.

I doubt I will get broken into--the alarm system will make bad guys choose another target. Mace, the stun gun, the dog, and a baseball bat will deter anyone who doesn't see the signs, and the lack of a gun will be one less reason for someone to break in to try to steal it.

No one is safe from a determined bad guy, no matter what deterrents you, or I, can come up with. However, a gun is the worst protection of the options available. This thread should illustrate that point.

So if a police officer is walking around with his/her handgun in a 'retention' holster, you would say it is not 'safely kept'? I would say it is ... and can pretty quickly be brought into action if needed. In case you didn't know, most officers spent a fair amount of time practicing "weapons retention" - one told me that he would take "a beating rather than turn loose of his weapon".

It is not safely kept. The bad guy pulls his gun first, shoots the cop in the head, and takes the cops gun. Think it hasn't happened before? What should the cop do in a situation like that, other than die?

Thankfully the gun owner was on vacation (another fact the burglars seemed to know).

#146 | Posted by AKat at 2009-10-14 11:35 AM | Reply | Flag

That's when most break ins occur. Bad guys don't want to kill you(unless it's personal), they just want your stuff---like your guns. Guns are a powerful enticement for a bad guy who knows you have one, or a collection of guns. They wait till you go away, then they come. An alarm system would protect your guns and other valuables even when you are gone.

6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds. Of these instances, 15.6% of the people using firearms defensively stated that they "almost certainly" saved their lives by doing so...

WOW---that is impressive--how about a link to 10 of them today? How about a link to 1?

Most of these stats fail to show that if neither party had a gun, the crime wouldn't have happened in the foirst place.

You say your site is credible---by whose standards? They are as fair and balanced as Fox News. If they were credible, they would post both sides of the picture, and stories like the one this thread is about would appear.

Your site says rapes dropped ny 90% in orlando, and credits women carrying guns---maybe they caught the rapists, or maybe the rapists simply moved to another city.

I understand the point that if there were no guns, people would find another way to kill poeple. Fine,,,but I would rather face a knife than a gun, and I think bank robbery would be much harder with a knife. I think drive by shootings would be much harder to accomplish with a knife.

In addition, you lie when you say I think a rock would be better defense than a gun in your hand. The rock is only preferable if the gun would have killed an innocent bystander, such as the case in point of this thread. I bet the guy this thread is about wishes he hadn't bought that gun, nad that he had had a rock that night instead of a gun.

Bottom line is that stats mean absolutley nothing, when it comes to protecting yourself. When a bad guy has his gun on yoou--tell him about the stats that say you'll be safer by pulling your gun and shooting him.

Before you go off again without knowing what you are talking about--I support the right to keep and bear arms. Mainly because they kill the fumbducks or their families much more often than anyone else.

So far this week, we have seen the soccer mom shot to death with a family weapon, and this guys fiance. How about posting some of those 6500 you claim to show the value of the gun. Real life anecdotes are far more believable than stats pulled out of someones ass.

- therealgunguys.blogspot.com From 2007 what about the 6500 this week?

- next-thing.net From 2007 what about the 6500 this week?

- www.mysuncoast.com At least this one is from this week, but the guy was just climbing over the guys fence. The dogs were as effective as the gun. The man fired a warning shot that could have killed a neighbor

- www.foxnews.com From 2007, what about the 6500 this week? She was never in any danger--no threat was made toward her--they just wanted to leave.

- www.wwltv.com From July what about the 6500 this week? A 10 year old and an 8 year old alone in the house with a loaded gun? Sound good to you? How about an alarm system? If the kids had started screaming before they kicked in the door, they probably would have left. Now this kid will have to live with shooting another person. Think it won't have an effect on his life? The alarm system would have protected the children better.

- 209.157.64.200 From 2005, what about the 6500 this week?

- blog.pennlive.com From 2005, what about the 6500 this week? An alarm sytem would have avoided the whole thing. The dog was probably more a deterrent than the BB gun.

- www.the-daily-record.com From 2007, what about the 6500 this week?

- www.freerepublic.com From April, what about the 6500 this week? The dead kid was 20. An alarm system might have saved his life.

- www.ksl.com From 2008, what about the 6500 this week?

- www.keepandbeararms.com From 2000, what about the 6500 this week?

- www.wbir.com From 2007, what about the 6500 this week?

- www.nytimes.com From 1988, what about the 6500 this week?

- www.kptv.com Close to this week, but no cigar. This was personal---the bat stopped the intruder more than the gun did.

- www.mlive.com Still not from this week. The church had an alarm system. The pastor should have called the cops. His gun wasn't necessary as no one was in the church--no ones life was in danger--the police should have gone in--not the pastor even though he was an ex-cop

- www.click2houston.com Still not from this week. Now this sensitive teen has to live with shooting a man armed with a BB gun that died in his house---nice memory. An alarm system would have prevented this tragedy.

And, here's a couple tidbits for you as-well Bob:

- www.learnaboutguns.com A tragic case, but that isn't even this country. What about the 6500 in this country this week? They have alarm systems in England also. Having a 120db alarms system going off in your ear makes it hard to rape anyone.

- www.seattlepi.com As long as people like you insist on having guns, people like him will have guns.

Protect your home with an alarm system, a good dog, mace, tazer, baseball bat. You fight for the right of bad guys to have guns.

#162 | Posted by capt_of_uranus at 2009-10-14 09:53 PM | Reply | Flag