Gun Control is Completely Useless.


DaSleeper
+1
#1861
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

18 year old girl with baby, intruders trying to break in. Dispatcher knew police would not get there in time. yes, telling her to shoot was the correct response.

Actualy what the dispatcher said was "I can't tell you to do that" then went on to say "Do what you have to to protect yourself"
I know ....It's almost the same thing...but she did it the legal way
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#1862
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

Actualy what the dispatcher said was "I can't tell you to do that" then went on to say "Do what you have to to protect yourself"
I know ....It's almost the same thing...but she did it the legal way

Yes thay did.
 
Niflmir
Free Thinker
#1863
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

I had problems with this one before, but after seeing this....... I call all out BULLSHYTE. I can think of no reason what so ever for a person to bring something like this up out of the blue.

Here is a little lesson in etiquette, since this comment was extremely insensitive.

You don't believe it, fine. You don't need to reply. Nobody is keeping score. It costs you nothing to let a comment slide by. Especially if you don't see the point of the comment.

But replying like this? If it was true? Incredibly insensitive, my fellow forum goer.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
+3
#1864
Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

Here is a little lesson in etiquette, since this comment was extremely insensitive.

You don't believe it, fine. You don't need to reply. Nobody is keeping score. It costs you nothing to let a comment slide by. Especially if you don't see the point of the comment.

But replying like this? If it was true? Incredibly insensitive, my fellow forum goer.

As much as Gerry is very astute, truthful and to the point, I'm not sure that "etiquette" is at the top of Ger's vocabulary list!
Last edited by JLM; Jan 7th, 2012 at 10:26 AM..Reason: Alzheimers
 
bobnoorduyn
Free Thinker
+2
#1865
[QUOTE=bluebyrd35;1529176]
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

To protect her 3-month-old son, Sarah McKinley grabs a shotgun, and asks 911 for permission to kill intruder.


Oklahoma Mother, 18, Kills Intruder Breaking Into Her Home While on Phone With 911 - Yahoo! (external - login to view)[/QUOTE)

If she has had the course and paid for the license and has the gun registered, she has the right to fire the weapon and injure or kill the intruder. Otherwise, she can hit the bugger over the head with her baseball bat. No one gets in my house without my hearing them enter. My bats are behind many doors.

Don't shoot an intruder in Quebec without making sure you are able to prove it was a forced entry. Many who have shot people without such proof were charged.



You put a lot of restrictions on the right to self defense, a right that has been re-affirmed from the 17th century, until 1995. Defense of self and those under our care is one of those inalienable rights, the bane of statists and the like who would have such rights either eliminated or qualified.

As for having bats in the house, you will want to also make sure you are competent with those as well. You have to get up close and personal with possibly more than one attacker, and believe me, they are attackers; if someone breaks into an occupied dwelling they are not coming for tea, and some of them have probably take worse beatings than you or I could ever dish out.

I don't care what Quebec thinks, it is Federal law, unauthorised entrance to a dwelling may be met with force up to and including deadly force, even if it is police raiding the wrong house. The courts have already ruled on this at least three times, (once in Quebec). The home is the last refuge, you are not required or expected to retreat from your home to escape danger, and you can defend yourself.



I forgot to mention, there are a lot of women who not only own firearms, but actively lobby for the right to concealed carry. It's not just a guy thing.
 
Niflmir
Free Thinker
#1866
[QUOTE=bobnoorduyn;1530274]
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

[/FONT]

You put a lot of restrictions on the right to self defense, a right that has been re-affirmed from the 17th century, until 1995. Defense of self and those under our care is one of those inalienable rights, the bane of statists and the like who would have such rights either eliminated or qualified.

As for having bats in the house, you will want to also make sure you are competent with those as well. You have to get up close and personal with possibly more than one attacker, and believe me, they are attackers; if someone breaks into an occupied dwelling they are not coming for tea, and some of them have probably take worse beatings than you or I could ever dish out.

I don't care what Quebec thinks, it is Federal law, unauthorised entrance to a dwelling may be met with force up to and including deadly force, even if it is police raiding the wrong house. The courts have already ruled on this at least three times, (once in Quebec). The home is the last refuge, you are not required or expected to retreat from your home to escape danger, and you can defend yourself.

[/FONT][/FONT]

I forgot to mention, there are a lot of women who not only own firearms, but actively lobby for the right to concealed carry. It's not just a guy thing.

Well, at face value, if you shoot an intruder in your home, you are a murderer.

It is up to you to prove in court that you were defending yourself. Self defense is a legal defense. The prosecutor may try to circumvent your defense by arguing you lured the person there.

So yes, you better be able to prove that it was a forced entry, and I shudder at the thought of country where you wouldn't need to: I'd just lure people I don't like into my home and then shoot them
 
bobnoorduyn
Free Thinker
#1867
[QUOTE=Niflmir;1530279]
Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduynView Post


Well, at face value, if you shoot an intruder in your home, you are a murderer.

It is up to you to prove in court that you were defending yourself. Self defense is a legal defense. The prosecutor may try to circumvent your defense by arguing you lured the person there.

So yes, you better be able to prove that it was a forced entry, and I shudder at the thought of country where you wouldn't need to: I'd just lure people I don't like into my home and then shoot them

Sure, its better to be able to prove forced entry, however, we do have the constitutional right to be deemed innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution has the burden of proof, in other words they would have to prove you lured the person there, which has proven to be a bit of a tough sell considering that in one of the aforementioned cases both participants were known drug dealers.

Police and prosecutors have at times been over zealous because they share the same convictions as the abolishionists, but leaving your doors unlocked does not give one the right to unauthorised entry. It is also hard to prove forced entry if you opened the door and the intruders forced their way in, which is what happened in the drug dealer case, and happens in almost all the cases of home invasions in this part of the country.
 
Niflmir
Free Thinker
#1868
Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduynView Post


Sure, its better to be able to prove forced entry, however, we do have the constitutional right to be deemed innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution has the burden of proof, in other words they would have to prove you lured the person there, which has proven to be a bit of a tough sell considering that in one of the aforementioned cases both participants were known drug dealers.

Police and prosecutors have at times been over zealous because they share the same convictions as the abolishionists, but leaving your doors unlocked does not give one the right to unauthorised entry. It is also hard to prove forced entry if you opened the door and the intruders forced their way in, which is what happened in the drug dealer case, and happens in almost all the cases of home invasions in this part of the country.

What I really lament is that we lost the right to booby-trap our own property.

How am I supposed to build a Tomb of Horrors in such a state?

More seriously, I love a good police bashing (notwithstanding the guilt I feel towards my uncle), but it is probably a good idea for police to always consider charging individuals where there has been a homicide. Given the expense of defending yourself in court even for something which should be easy like self defense, maybe the police need to loosen up. But at the very least there needs to be a <strikeout>public</strikeout> investigation.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#1869
Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

What I really lament is that we lost the right to booby-trap our own property.

.

I hope it was done with the safety of children in mind because I can't think of any other reason why it shouldn't be booby trapped!
 
bluebyrd35
No Party Affiliation
#1870
[QUOTE=bobnoorduyn;1530274]
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

[/FONT]

You put a lot of restrictions on the right to self defense, a right that has been re-affirmed from the 17th century, until 1995. Defense of self and those under our care is one of those inalienable rights, the bane of statists and the like who would have such rights either eliminated or qualified.

As for having bats in the house, you will want to also make sure you are competent with those as well. You have to get up close and personal with possibly more than one attacker, and believe me, they are attackers; if someone breaks into an occupied dwelling they are not coming for tea, and some of them have probably take worse beatings than you or I could ever dish out.

I don't care what Quebec thinks, it is Federal law, unauthorised entrance to a dwelling may be met with force up to and including deadly force, even if it is police raiding the wrong house. The courts have already ruled on this at least three times, (once in Quebec). The home is the last refuge, you are not required or expected to retreat from your home to escape danger, and you can defend yourself.

[/FONT][/FONT]

I forgot to mention, there are a lot of women who not only own firearms, but actively lobby for the right to concealed carry. It's not just a guy thing.


Like most, I want the best protection possible, with enough restrictions to make certain only those serious about target shooting, hunting or self defence of one's home can legally acquire guns. That does not cover, carrying concealed weapons. It is too easy to haul out a pistol and start firing during heated arguments. I can just imagine what would have happened to me if these discussions were face to face with concealed weapons available.

What I see as unreasonable, is the excuse of cost being the reason for doing away with a gun registry. How far would this argument go if used for getting rid of the automobile registry?? I do not believe it is reasonable to allow citizens to acquire AK47s or other types of machine guns under any circumstances. Fine, if a hunter, target shooter, or a home owner wishes to acquire a gun for home defence, not my problem. But like a person owning 5 automobiles,they must expect to pay for five registrations, 5 lots of insurance etc. why should someone owning 5 or more guns, feel no need to have the same principles apply??









.
 
bobnoorduyn
Free Thinker
#1871
Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

What I really lament is that we lost the right to booby-trap our own property.

How am I supposed to build a Tomb of Horrors in such a state?

More seriously, I love a good police bashing (notwithstanding the guilt I feel towards my uncle), but it is probably a good idea for police to always consider charging individuals where there has been a homicide. Given the expense of defending yourself in court even for something which should be easy like self defense, maybe the police need to loosen up. But at the very least there needs to be a <strikeout>public</strikeout> investigation.

I don't know that we ever had the right to booby trap, I guess you could use air-soft guns. But the problem with booby traps is that there enough people who may have authorised access to your property, i.e firefighters, police on a legitimate call, or even a passerby alerting you to a fire, (I'm assuming you meant your house) who could suffer injury as a result and booby traps lack the ability to assess a threat.

What police need to do is use discression, too often they are quick to lay not one charge, but a battery of them. The ones that seem hardest to make go away deal with firearm storage and/or careless use. A victim can be out of pocket $5000 or more even if the Crown decides not to prosecute.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#1872
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean BreezeView Post

In a critical moment like that, how does she have time to ask for permission to kill?? Was it to kill or to shoot ?? Isn't she setting up the 911 operator as a co conspirator??

No, she has been programed to ask permission rather than think for herself. Fortunately for her the states does not have such repressive laws as we do and not only was she permitted to own a gun she is permitted to defend herself with it. Unlike in Canada where criminals have all the rights and this poor woman would have either found herself dead or in jail.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#1873
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

No, she has been programed to ask permission rather than think for herself. Fortunately for her the states does not have such repressive laws as we do and not only was she permitted to own a gun she is permitted to defend herself with it. Unlike in Canada where criminals have all the rights and this poor woman would have either found herself dead or in jail.

The best advise in that situation is the old rule of thumb....................."shoot first and ask questions later".
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#1874
[QUOTE=bluebyrd35;1530316]
Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduynView Post


Like most, I want the best protection possible, with enough restrictions to make certain only those serious about target shooting, hunting or self defence of one's home can legally acquire guns. That does not cover, carrying concealed weapons. It is too easy to haul out a pistol and start firing during heated arguments. I can just imagine what would have happened to me if these discussions were face to face with concealed weapons available.
What I see as unreasonable, is the excuse of cost being the reason for doing away with a gun registry. How far would this argument go if used for getting rid of the automobile registry?? I do not believe it is reasonable to allow citizens to acquire AK47s or other types of machine guns under any circumstances. Fine, if a hunter, target shooter, or a home owner wishes to acquire a gun for home defence, not my problem. But like a person owning 5 automobiles,they must expect to pay for five registrations, 5 lots of insurance etc. why should someone owning 5 or more guns, feel no need to have the same principles apply??
Yer still barking up the wrong tree. The problem with guns is criminals owning them, not law abiding taxpayers. When you can prove that every criminal in Canada has registered and insured ALL his guns I might consider registering mine. And guarantee that future governments won't use this registry to confiscate my...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Last edited by taxslave; Jan 7th, 2012 at 12:40 PM..Reason: not sure what happend but part of my reply wound up in the quote.p
 
bobnoorduyn
Free Thinker
+2
#1875
[QUOTE=bluebyrd35;1530316]
Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduynView Post



Like most, I want the best protection possible, with enough restrictions to make certain only those serious about target shooting, hunting or self defence of one's home can legally acquire guns. That does not cover, carrying concealed weapons. It is too easy to haul out a pistol and start firing during heated arguments. I can just imagine what would have happened to me if these discussions were face to face with concealed weapons available.

What I see as unreasonable, is the excuse of cost being the reason for doing away with a gun registry. How far would this argument go if used for getting rid of the automobile registry?? I do not believe it is reasonable to allow citizens to acquire AK47s or other types of machine guns under any circumstances. Fine, if a hunter, target shooter, or a home owner wishes to acquire a gun for home defence, not my problem. But like a person owning 5 automobiles,they must expect to pay for five registrations, 5 lots of insurance etc. why should someone owning 5 or more guns, feel no need to have the same principles apply??

The majority of people who "haul out a pistol and start firing" are those not authorised to legally own firearms in the first place. There are many good folks in the US who have such permits and they are not the ones starting firefights. Back when it was far easier to get such a permit here there was only one, count 'em one, case of someone with a concealed carry permit who used one, or four, criminally, (Valerie Fabrikant). The only time a legal automatic firearm was used in the commission of an offense was
when Denis Lortie used his government issued firearm to take over the Quebec Legislature, (he was a soldier with the van-doos.)

You seem to think that everyone who owns firearms is a Clint Eastwood wannabe, the reality is far from that. And What is wrong with the AK-47? Other than it isn't terribly accurate over long ranges, but the semi automatic version is legal for deer.

Again, you can own 5 vehicles, but you don't have to register them unless you drive them on public property or roads. What people own and keep on their own property is their own business, save for things with obvious nefarious purposes. Since after registering my vehicle I can drive it in public, it stands to reason that if I register my firearm, I should be able to take it out in public. The simple fact here is that owning, (not even using) a firearm that some government body arbitrarily says you can't own, is a criminal offense.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+2
#1876
[QUOTE=bluebyrd35;1530316]
Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduynView Post



Like most, I want the best protection possible, with enough restrictions to make certain only those serious about target shooting, hunting or self defence of one's home can legally acquire guns. That does not cover, carrying concealed weapons. It is too easy to haul out a pistol and start firing during heated arguments. I can just imagine what would have happened to me if these discussions were face to face with concealed weapons available.

What I see as unreasonable, is the excuse of cost being the reason for doing away with a gun registry. How far would this argument go if used for getting rid of the automobile registry?? I do not believe it is reasonable to allow citizens to acquire AK47s or other types of machine guns under any circumstances. Fine, if a hunter, target shooter, or a home owner wishes to acquire a gun for home defence, not my problem. But like a person owning 5 automobiles,they must expect to pay for five registrations, 5 lots of insurance etc. why should someone owning 5 or more guns, feel no need to have the same principles apply??









.


Yer still barking up the wrong tree. The problem with guns is criminals owning them, not law abiding taxpayers. When you can prove that every criminal in Canada has registered and insured ALL his guns I might consider registering mine. And guarantee that future governments won't use this registry to confiscate my private property like they did with previously legal automatic rifles. So far no government has seriously tried to confiscate any cars. Also you must guarantee that future governments will not tax my private property out of my financial abilities to retain ownership. Paying tax once on a rifle , just like on a car is more than enough. And similar to cars I do not require either registration or insurance on anything that never leaves my property.
 
bluebyrd35
No Party Affiliation
#1877
Gun related deaths per 100,000 in the US ......15.22
Gun related deaths per " in Canada.......4.78. Only South Africa, Colombia, and Guatamala had higher rates than the US.

So what are the advantages of adopting more lenient laws??
 
DaSleeper
+1
#1878
If it's ok to compare gun registration to car registration ...let's compare gun related deaths to vehichle related deaths......
 
bluebyrd35
No Party Affiliation
+1
#1879
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

If it's ok to compare gun registration to car registration ...let's compare gun related deaths to vehichle related deaths......


Why??? Everyone wants a car, not everyone wants a gun. What is the gunslinger's favourite expression?? Guns don't kill, people do.

Cars are not produced as a killing machines, but for travelling. Unfortunately, with rampant population explosion, cars have become too many for old roads to accommodate. I suspect that will happen with guns. What happens when too many guns with not enough prey, or lands are available?

The automobile industry has developed 4 wheel drive for going overland. What will gun manufacturers or gun enthusiasts recommend?? Perhaps instead of hunting deer, moose or bears, maybe setting a human hunt??

Oh but wait, isn't that what paintball ranges are all about?? Sort of a fake war. When that excitement stales, the next step would be real war...........ahhh yes we have that already too...... But it seems that is not quite fair though.....the gun owners are told what & who they can shoot at and gee whiz,nobody is exempt from becoming the target in that scenario. Ah I know, we would then move to human hunts instead of fox hunts. We can use those who use guns for criminal purposes and recklessly as the prey. Solves two problems in one fell swoop.

Perhaps, I should warn everyone, I have a nasty cold today and I am cantankerous!! Time to get my book and hit the bed.
 
bobnoorduyn
Free Thinker
+1 / -1
#1880
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

Gun related deaths per 100,000 in the US ......15.22
Gun related deaths per " in Canada.......4.78. Only South Africa, Colombia, and Guatamala had higher rates than the US.

So what are the advantages of adopting more lenient laws??

So you're a statistician now? Stats never tell the whole story, they are often the tools of advocates because of that. I have been been trained in the art of spin, how to recognize it and how to use it. There can be little comparison between the US and Canada. Our firearms laws are federal, laws in the US vary from city to city and state to state, so these stats are useless as a comparison in defense of stricter laws. The US has 10 times our population and far more inner city ghettos. They are a major importer of illicit drugs simply because of the huge market. Why not compare homicide rates, you'll find a much higher rate in the Russian Federation than canada and the US combined, where firearm ownership is far more prohibitive than here.

You continue to focus on the tools used by criminals rather than the causes of crime. And you don't seem to get that criminals will still get their hands on firearms, all it takes is money. Disarming law abiding citizens will not stop criminal use of firearms. In fact, criminals are even more emboldened when they know the chance of someone being able to shoot back is nearly non existant.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#1881
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

Gun related deaths per 100,000 in the US ......15.22
Gun related deaths per " in Canada.......4.78. Only South Africa, Colombia, and Guatamala had higher rates than the US.

So what are the advantages of adopting more lenient laws??

Fewer repeat offenders.
 
DaSleeper
+1
#1882
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

Why??? Everyone wants a car, not everyone wants a gun. What is the gunslinger's favourite expression?? Guns don't kill, people do.

Cars are not produced as a killing machines, but for travelling. Unfortunately, with rampant population explosion, cars have become too many for old roads to accommodate. I suspect that will happen with guns. What happens when too many guns with not enough prey, or lands are available?

That's the problems with you antis....quite willing to compare cars and guns when it comes to registration, but then you find all kinds of damned excuses when you compare death statistics of both....lady...you can't have it both ways....if you don't want to compare death by car...then forget comparing registrations.
If I ever took my truck through a crowd of people I could cause more damage with it, than I could with any firearm you could find on the open market.
So quit moving the goal posts and comparing apples and oranges.

The rest of your post is just the ramblings of a doddering old........?
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#1883
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post



Like most, I want the best protection possible, with enough restrictions to make certain only those serious about target shooting, hunting or self defence of one's home can legally acquire guns. That does not cover, carrying concealed weapons. It is too easy to haul out a pistol and start firing during heated arguments. I can just imagine what would have happened to me if these discussions were face to face with concealed weapons available.

What I see as unreasonable, is the excuse of cost being the reason for doing away with a gun registry. How far would this argument go if used for getting rid of the automobile registry?? I do not believe it is reasonable to allow citizens to acquire AK47s or other types of machine guns under any circumstances. Fine, if a hunter, target shooter, or a home owner wishes to acquire a gun for home defence, not my problem. But like a person owning 5 automobiles,they must expect to pay for five registrations, 5 lots of insurance etc. why should someone owning 5 or more guns, feel no need to have the same principles apply??

But the biggest point behind this discussion is the FACT that criminals don`t pay attention to laws concerning guns, carrying guns, using guns, etc. The more laws you make the more laws they get to ignore ........ and incidentally, the more pissed off regular, legal owners of guns get.
Too bad there isn`t a season for hunting stupid politicians.
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#1884
[QUOTE=bobnoorduyn;1530274]
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

[/FONT]

You put a lot of restrictions on the right to self defense, a right that has been re-affirmed from the 17th century, until 1995. Defense of self and those under our care is one of those inalienable rights, the bane of statists and the like who would have such rights either eliminated or qualified.

As for having bats in the house, you will want to also make sure you are competent with those as well. You have to get up close and personal with possibly more than one attacker, and believe me, they are attackers; if someone breaks into an occupied dwelling they are not coming for tea, and some of them have probably take worse beatings than you or I could ever dish out.

I don't care what Quebec thinks, it is Federal law, unauthorised entrance to a dwelling may be met with force up to and including deadly force, even if it is police raiding the wrong house. The courts have already ruled on this at least three times, (once in Quebec). The home is the last refuge, you are not required or expected to retreat from your home to escape danger, and you can defend yourself.



I forgot to mention, there are a lot of women who not only own firearms, but actively lobby for the right to concealed carry. It's not just a guy thing.

Florida:
Self-defense is a legal protection for the use of force, even deadly force, to protect one's life or the life of a third party. In 2005, under Governor Bush, Florida became the first state to pass a "Stand Your Ground Law," expanding the right to self-defense in the home to other areas including the workplace and in a car. The law has since been duplicated in other states.

Effects
  • Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law had three important effects on existing law. First, it expanded the justification of force in the home under the Castle Doctrine. Whereas as previously, defenders had to prove they were in danger of their lives to justify deadly force, under the new law deadly force is justified against anyone who illegally enters the home, whether they are a physical threat or not. Second, the definition of "castle" was expanded from just the home to include boats and cars, which a person is expected to defend rather than retreat. Third, it provided the right to counter deadly force with deadly force, in proportion, anywhere and everywhere independent of the Castle Doctrine.


Read more: About Florida Self-Defense Laws | eHow.com (external - login to view) About Florida Self-Defense Laws | eHow.com (external - login to view)



[/FONT][/FONT]
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#1885
Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduynView Post

So you're a statistician now? Stats never tell the whole story,

As I told S.J.P. a hundred times!

Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduynView Post

So you're a statistician now? Stats never tell the whole story, they are often the tools of advocates because of that. I have been been trained in the art of spin, how to recognize it and how to use it. There can be little comparison between the US and Canada. Our firearms laws are federal, laws in the US vary from city to city and state to state, so these stats are useless as a comparison in defense of stricter laws. The US has 10 times our population and far more inner city ghettos. They are a major importer of illicit drugs simply because of the huge market. Why not compare homicide rates, you'll find a much higher rate in the Russian Federation than canada and the US combined, where firearm ownership is far more prohibitive than here.

You continue to focus on the tools used by criminals rather than the causes of crime. And you don't seem to get that criminals will still get their hands on firearms, all it takes is money. Disarming law abiding citizens will not stop criminal use of firearms. In fact, criminals are even more emboldened when they know the chance of someone being able to shoot back is nearly non existant.

For sake of argument you could get rid of every gun in the country and the criminals will keep on killing! That should tell people something!

[QUOTE=bluebyrd35;1529176]
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

To protect her 3-month-old son, Sarah McKinley grabs a shotgun, and asks 911 for permission to kill intruder.


Oklahoma Mother, 18, Kills Intruder Breaking Into Her Home While on Phone With 911 - Yahoo! (external - login to view)[/QUOTE)

If she has had the course and paid for the license and has the gun registered, she has the right to fire the weapon and injure or kill the intruder. Otherwise, she can hit the bugger over the head with her baseball bat. No one gets in my house without my hearing them enter. My bats are behind many doors.

Don't shoot an intruder in Quebec without making sure you are able to prove it was a forced entry. Many who have shot people without such proof were charged.



Hey Bluebyrd- YA CAN'T SUCK AND BLOW AT THE SAME TIME!

 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
+2
#1886
Just put this on your front lawn.

 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
#1887
^ Awesome! ^
 
bluebyrd35
No Party Affiliation
-1
#1888
Frankly at this point, I really don't give a damn. Arm everyone to the teeth, let's make sure the would be criminals and the numbnuts all have enough arms to start WW3. What fun!! Just be careful not to get caught in the cross fire. Should we be providing free bullet proof vests for our the teenagers?? Surely most have not become proficient enough to blow their opponents heads off just yet.

Canadians can soon enjoy the daily slaughter, just like the US does now. This month alone here there have been two righteous shootings. Of course, the other 28 or so, were of the unrighteous kind, never mind though, getting rid of at least two is better than none, I suppose........Oh but wait, Canada does not have that many shootings yet. Never mind, I am sure we will catch up, right??
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#1889
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

Frankly at this point, I really don't give a damn. Arm everyone to the teeth, let's make sure the would be criminals and the numbnuts all have enough arms to start WW3. What fun!! Just be careful not to get caught in the cross fire. Should we be providing free bullet proof vests for our the teenagers?? Surely most have not become proficient enough to blow their opponents heads off just yet.

Canadians can soon enjoy the daily slaughter, just like the US does now. This month alone here there have been two righteous shootings. Of course, the other 28 or so, were of the unrighteous kind, never mind though, getting rid of at least two is better than none, I suppose........Oh but wait, Canada does not have that many shootings yet. Never mind, I am sure we will catch up, right??

I think this subject has already been beaten to death by more cognizant minds than yours..................don't you think?
 
bluebyrd35
No Party Affiliation
#1890
Of course, since anyone who can reason logically must be downright stupid; is the strange but true sort of thinking here. You know someone recently commented that it was all about me. I guess it is, since, all the replies I seem to get are not legitimate responses, but catty remarks about my brainpower. (_*_)
 
no new posts