I’ve not finished the thread, Sir, but as far as I am concerned, you won it.
I think it’s pretty clear here, that if only there had been more guns, this accident would never have happened.
Anyone else want to state the obvious reason why?
Well, a woman would have just shot the door…
Close, but not quite.
You see, if there had been many more guns in Eugene OR, and indeed at the Indra’s Internet Lounge, then obviously, the establishment would have been better prepared for customers with guns. This would have entailed gun holders in each bathroom stall, and next to each urinal.
Because guns are still fairly rare in Eugene OR, that means that fine establishments like Indra’s Internet Lounge do not have bathroom gun racks. If only there were more guns, we would clearly help eradicate senseless accidents like this one. Please note that this could happen to anyone- there is NO need, I repeat NO NEED for any gun safety courses. This would just lead to a slippery slope of courses, more courses, registration, confiscation and finally Hitler.
Now, that can legitimately be described as a cultural and regional distinction. There have always been places where carrying a hunting rifle openly is no big deal. Which is fine, different strokes.
Whatever.
The point is, there is no bad situation that cannot be improved by utilizing the very simple solution of:
More guns.
http://www.chron.com/news/local_news/article/Suspect-charged-in-strip-club-shootout-4244032.php
Two people shot “in the buttocks” as a strip club? How is that possible? Was the shooter aiming for buttocks or does he just have bad aim?
Perhaps lap dances may have been involved? “Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you…” BLAM!
Went off half-cocked, did he?
Here’s a good one!
[quote=“Kable, post:110, topic:648729”]
Here’s a good one!
[/QUOTE]How is this “stupid gun news”?
That actually looks sensible - calling 911 to determine how much force she can use to protect herself. Compared to some of the other stories discussed here, that’s positively responsible gun ownership.
Yes.
It is stupid to gun fetishists like Kable.
She should not have wasted her time calling anyone - just blown the person away. It really does not matter if you’re shooting at a potential criminal, vacuum cleaner salesman or person just asking for directions. The point is that you’re defending yourself, and as long as you probably won’t be convicted, then it is a righteous shoot.
Anyway, if the person she shot was innocent, he would have been OK. The human body has certain mechanisms and a way of rejecting bullets that are not intended for them.
But really, the obvious solution to the stupid situation that Kable above posed is…
Can you guess?
More guns. You see if the guy had a gun, he could have returned fire if she had shot at him. Then, whoever was left alive could have been lauded as a hero, since the dead person was obviously a criminal, and deserved to get shot. If he was killed, she was a hero for defending her home from a criminal. If she was killed, then he was a hero for defending himself against a crazy woman with a gun, shooting at anything that moved. Win-Win!
I believe she did right. She had the police on the way, and was reminded that you can’t shoot someone for rattling your doorknob, but you can if he breaks into your home and you are in fear for your life.
Totally obvious. Shoot through the door, you will ruin your door. Even if you have one of those wimpy-ass .32, its still going to leave a mark.
Under the castle doctrine, if they’ve navigated the moat, they’re open game for the turrets.
No, of course. I just think that saying “look, be less scared of your fellow citizens and of your government” is a sly elision that ignores the facts to preserve the status quo.
Woooo Hooooo! See? Fire away!
Pizza delivery to wrong house, Mormon, delivering flyers, neighbor telling you your cat is loose?
Who cares? You’re in the clear - it’s your castle, so fire away!
If they are at all sensible, they will be carrying too. Not your fault if they have a wimpy calibre, or a small clip.