That story says the twins died the first week of January, and it kind of hints around that the mom knew.
Still, that’s pretty weird.
Aren’t you letting the perfect get in the way of the good? Sure the armed passerby might be a psycho, but then they might not. You want to allow people the opportunity to do good.
Indeed. I’m Canadian and I’m looking forward to the opportunity to use deadly force to save my own life.
Not really. I want to allow the right people the opportunity to do good.
Lookee … I’m not an anti gun person. But I am a big supporter of liscencing and proper training. In this specific situation, I truly wish that there were someone there to shoot this guy in the nuts, if nuts there be. But I’m also not foolish enough to think that the situation would be rectified by any guy with any gun. But I’m not really sure if that’s what Argent Towers was even arguing. I think he woud posit that most gun owners are properly trained and would know what to do. I would submit that I’ve known enough wacko gun owners that I just don’t think it’s the case.
I would respectfully submit that even if the gun owner is every bit as bad as gun owners are often made out to be, the child was killed. It would be hard to do worse.
Not sure whether you’re serious, but this is precisely the mindset (a stereotypical one perhaps, but one that seems to be held by a number of firearm aficionados, including several notables on this board) that makes those of us who prefer to risk life unarmed (you know, we who were graced with giant penises) especially uncomfortable.
If you’re going to quote me, quote the entire thought in context:
{Bolding mine}Looking at it, I should have been more clear; as far as I know, you can use deadly force IF YOU HAVE TO, but you better be sure you have to, because you’ll be explaining that dead body to the police and the legal system.
We had a case like this in Calgary just recently, where a homeowner did in fact kill an intruder. The case was looked at by the legal dudes and it was decided not to press charges, because he acted reasonably. It could have gone the other way, and he could have been facing charges.
Please, Canadian lawyer types, step in. I only have knowledge from what I’ve heard in the news, and there is a chance that I heard wrong or they only told us part of the story.
Oh, as for your respect, Argent Towers, since you seem to be getting increasingly mean and surly here, it is becoming less of a concern for me to retain your respect.
Really? Who would those people be? I can’t recall a single person who said that they were looking forward to shooting somebody. Not even one.
In other words, spare me your hyperbole.
EDIT: What’s really scary is that you recognize the obvious sarcasm but still think that he might be serious. What the hell is wrong with you?
I’m only mostly serious. Though I don’t own any firearms, nor am I seeking to get any (I had a Firearms Acquisition Certificate as it was then known for a time in the nineties, but never exercised it), I don’t recognize featherlou’s stance as a typical “Canadian” one, nor do I understand fully what the heck he’s talking about. I fully intend to use deadly force to defend myself or others from potentially lethal threat should the (admittedly highly unlikely) situation arise. If somebody breaks into my house and doesn’t skedaddle promptly when I tell him to, I’ll gladly use one of the large knives in my kitchen to carve him up.
Frankly, I’m offended by the notion that Canadians are passive. Sure, we don’t live in fear, but most of us are not idiots.
What are you talking about? Are you referring to my comments about the guy who got hit by the car? I seem to recall having a slight change of heart in that thread, and saying so, although I still think the guy was an idiot. If it’s something other than that, please let me know. We’ve had a lot of threads about guns lately in which lots of unbelievably ignorant, derogatory nonsense was thrown at gun owners, and you had better believe I am not going to sit still for that crap. If I get surly and mean during a debate about guns, it’s only after all of my efforts (and those of a small number of other posters) to discuss the topic in a reasonable manner get ignored and steamrolled over by more foolish, uninformed anti-gun bullshit.
Anyway, your quote made it seem like you liked the fact that in Canada, “you’re NOT allowed deadly force even to save your life or someone else’s.” Maybe you could have been more clear; I don’t know. Any way you look at it, you seem to be saying that my life is worth less than that of a criminal murderer, and I don’t really take kindly to people who imply such things.
Really? I didn’t see sarcasm, just rote ‘guns are bad, and only the government can decide who can have them’ ignorance.
Fuck guns, on this. Here’s the question. Do you think you could have stopped this, do you think you would have?
I honestly don’t know if I’d have recognized the situation in time to do something about it. But I know what my first reaction would have been, even if I had the theoretical Colt .45 I may get in the near future. I would have gotten between the guy and the kid. Any way I could. I can suck down a beating fairly well.
I hope we all have the courage to do that much, if we see something like that happening.
I just also know we can’t always recognize situations like that in time.
I imagine people were afraid of hurting the child themselves, as well. I mean, if I try to grab the child you’re slamming into a car and we get into a tug of war with a toddler…
Option one: you attack the guy (with a gun, with your fists, whatever) and risk hurting the child.
Option two: you do nothing, while the guy kills the child.
How can there be any question over this?
Killer has been identified.
It undoubtedly will surprise you that the same is true in the US. I fully expect if I shot someone that it would at a minimum cost me thousands of dollars in legal fees even if I were judged in the right, and life in prison if I wasn’t.
A further factoid from the Modesto Bee story:
A sheriff’s helicopter set down an officer in a field near where the beating was going on. The officer couldn’t get all the way to the scene because he was stopped by a barbed wire/electrical fence. He shot the guy from where he was, and got him smack in the forehead, killing him instantly. Now, the article doesn’t say how far the fenced-in officer was from the guy, but considering it was at night, I’d say that’s some pretty good shootin’.
If he had no criminal history, where’d they get that mug shot?
Bryan (who admits he was only mostly serious, so there’s only mostly something wrong with me) is the first poster I’ve seen with the candor to admit it. But if you want me to believe that not a single one of the gun proponents on this board feels the tiniest little tingle up their spine when they daydream about putting a hole in some would-be home invader’s forehead for a change, rather than some boring paper target, I’m afraid I cannot. I could name some suspects, but being that it’s only my impression and they aren’t present, I shall not.
After all, what’s the use of the private arsenal, the target practice, the tough talk, the sleepless nights lovingly polishing one’s barrel, if you never get your own “home defense” anecdote with which to bludgeon the feeble arguments of the confiscation crowd, when you’re not recounting it to impress the other barflies every $4 Pabst Pitcher Night?
You imply that you aren’t eager to kill, and yet would cut me off at the legs like that…
Well, it sounds really simple when we’re sitting in our cube farms reading a news article, doesn’t it?