What if they’re just running for cover? I would probably wait till I saw their hands in the air. If there is more than one of them, I don’t know if that would be enough.
And?
Too freaking funny, ElvisL1ves.
He was an instructor at a "gun safety training course. “The man’s injuries were non life-threatening, and he is being treated for a gunshot wound to his lower body at a local hospital.”
Two bits sez he blew his balls off which, according to Darwin rules of for ilk, would indeed be “non- life-threatening”.
Check the thread title. :rolleyes:
I’m sure it seems ironic and like proof of something to you, bless your heart. Enjoy.
It’s gun news, it’s stupid news, it’s stupid gun news!
The thread is *not *solely about you barrel-strokers’ fetishes and delusions, despite their numerical dominance by post count. It’s also about your Dunning-Kruger-case-level intelligence (both general and specific), competence in the skill you falsely claim to have, and, as Little Pig astutely suggests ( 
), your reproductive adequacy.
You were gone for a while, Scumpup. What’s the story - something toddler-related again?
Careful E, the doctor might order your internet privileges revoked again.
You’re thinking of Clothahump, who looks like Einstein compared to you.
Dude, you are the one_the only one_ who refuses to make the simple statement that you don’t desire to molest or murder toddlers. I used to attribute that to you having a crippling fear of what you thought of as “losing” on the internet. I now realize I was wrong about that. You’re just really, really stupid. I was gone for a while, but that was because most of the people who used to make this board interesting are gone. Now, it is mostly Big T and a few others scolding and you being stupid.
I thought about you for a bit, which is something I seldom do, and so I’ll have a go at explaining my new opinion of you to those who don’T get the toddler references and don’T want to search an endless thread. In several discussions, you advanced your ill-considered idea that every gun owner is one bad day from being a murderer, perhaps even a mass murderer. I asked you whether you were “one bad day” off of raping and murderer in a toddler. I offered that all you had to do was say that you would never do such a thing and the topic would be closed. To date, you have refused to make that statement. I used to think it was because you recognized that you saying you would never commit such a crime would give equal weight to a gun owner saying he would never commit murder. I figured you would perceive that as “losing on the internet” and a crippling fear of that kept you mum. Now, I realize that you are just so hopelessly dumb that you don’t recognize how stupid your whole “one bad day” schtick is, but your dim little mind does suspect I must be setting some kind of trap for you. Anyway, you are really dumb and even the people on your side of the gun debate consider you a buffoon. Hope you have a good day. I worry for the children in your neighborhood.
Dumbest gun control argument ever. (maybe)
Self defense is BAD because it denies due process rights to dead criminals?
I had to double check to make sure I wasn’t reading an Onion article. Some gun control proponents are enjoyable to debate with. Others just make my head hurt.
Not news as such, but this movie review does involve guns and stupidity:
It is one thing if you are protecting life or limb of yourself or others.
It is quite another if you kill someone to protect property.
The author specifically states “using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal”. I personally read that to mean protecting life or limb, but YMMV.
Huffpo: Home of some of the greatest examples of maturbatory self-importance on the planet.
Well strictly speaking you don’t kill someone to protect property; you use lesser force first and then if they escalate to the point where you’re in danger of death or great bodily harm, THEN you kill them. e.g. George Zimmerman. 
If you are the one who causes the escalation, as in the case you mention, the use of a gun to defend yourself from your own irresponsible behavior is entirely improper. Killing a person because you pissed them off is the exact opposite of acceptable.
Depends. We recently passed the anniversary of the LA riots. Was the use of deadly force to prevent and deter looters in the first category or the second?
Can I use deadly force to prevent looters from looting and burning my store? Or do I have to let them take everything I have worked for my whole life? The source of income with which I support my family. Or do I let them loot and burn down my store and apply for welfare, I mean its not like my family is going to starve if I let them take everything I own, the government will step in and make sure my family doesn’t die of starvation, exposure or treatable disease, right?
What if they only want to take my car?