"Good guy" with gun shoots car jacking victim, then flees.

[Brain357]

Texas ‘good guy with a gun’ shoots carjacking victim in head — then runs away

At least he didn't kill him.

Shooter needs to go to jail. Good example of concealed carry creating crime.

LOL one instances out of literally MILLIONS of concealed carry and you make this statement. You are a MORON.

Well yes. So it is ok to just shoot people in your world?

"Just shoot people" is very misleading here.

The shooter was aiming to stop a crime. THat is hardly "just shooting people".

And he was negligent in shooting an innocent person and fleeing the crime.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Just shoot people" is very misleading here.
The shooter was aiming to stop a crime. THat is hardly "just shooting people".

Presumably.
He may also have been trying to kill the driver.
Either way, it is impossible to soundly or honestly argue that concealed carry created any of the crimes involved here.
Now watch as Brain continues to lie to you.

 

[Correll]

REally? Your words look pretty clear.

What was you intention?

As was already stated:
The carjackers caused the carry guy to committ a crime. You can't just shoot people.

Shooting someone who is committing a violent crime is not "just shooting people".

That sounded very dishonest of you.

How was the victim of a car jacking committing a violent crime? You sound very dishonest.

NOpe. I was obviously making a reference to intent.

You just lied again, by pretending to not understand me.

Do you doubt he was aiming at the criminals?

Doesn't matter he was negligent in shooting innocent person. Also left the crime.

Big difference from if he targeted an innocent man, or accidentally shot an innocent.

It "matters" from a legal and moral and ethical perspective.

What world are you from?

Leaving the crime scene certainly sounds bad. There could be charges there.

Interestingly enough in that case, the thing that probably caused him to commit that crime is fear of anti-gun people like you (no offense).

Ironic, isn't it?

 

[Correll]

Texas ‘good guy with a gun’ shoots carjacking victim in head — then runs away

At least he didn't kill him.

Shooter needs to go to jail. Good example of concealed carry creating crime.

LOL one instances out of literally MILLIONS of concealed carry and you make this statement. You are a MORON.

Well yes. So it is ok to just shoot people in your world?

"Just shoot people" is very misleading here.

The shooter was aiming to stop a crime. THat is hardly "just shooting people".

And he was negligent in shooting an innocent person and fleeing the crime.

Negligent WHAT?

iT'S NOT negligent homicide, that guy didn't die.

 

[Correll]

"Just shoot people" is very misleading here.
The shooter was aiming to stop a crime. THat is hardly "just shooting people".

Presumably.
He may also have been trying to kill the driver.
Either way, it is impossible to soundly or honestly argue that concealed carry created any of the crimes involved here.
Now watch as Brain continues to lie to you.

It would be a pretty rough night for that guy if he got car jacked at the same time as someone was coming to kill him.

But, yes, it is a possibility.

 

[Brain357]

As was already stated:
The carjackers caused the carry guy to committ a crime. You can't just shoot people.

Shooting someone who is committing a violent crime is not "just shooting people".

That sounded very dishonest of you.

How was the victim of a car jacking committing a violent crime? You sound very dishonest.

NOpe. I was obviously making a reference to intent.

You just lied again, by pretending to not understand me.

Do you doubt he was aiming at the criminals?

Doesn't matter he was negligent in shooting innocent person. Also left the crime.

Big difference from if he targeted an innocent man, or accidentally shot an innocent.

It "matters" from a legal and moral and ethical perspective.

What world are you from?

Leaving the crime scene certainly sounds bad. There could be charges there.

Interestingly enough in that case, the thing that probably caused him to commit that crime is fear of anti-gun people like you (no offense).

Ironic, isn't it?

And he clearly should be prosecuted.

Ironic is the idea guns make us safer and the only person shot was the innocent victim of a car jacking. How was he made safer?

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Just shoot people" is very misleading here.
The shooter was aiming to stop a crime. THat is hardly "just shooting people".

Presumably.
He may also have been trying to kill the driver.
Either way, it is impossible to soundly or honestly argue that concealed carry created any of the crimes involved here.
Now watch as Brain continues to lie to you.

It would be a pretty rough night for that guy if he got car jacked at the same time as someone was coming to kill him.
But, yes, it is a possibility.

Indeed. But, if that were the case, there is a significant probability that the weapon was carried illegally, negating any honest argument regarding LEGAL concealed carry because a cause of anything.
Now watch as Brain continues to lie to you.

 

[Brain357]

"Just shoot people" is very misleading here.
The shooter was aiming to stop a crime. THat is hardly "just shooting people".

Presumably.
He may also have been trying to kill the driver.
Either way, it is impossible to soundly or honestly argue that concealed carry created any of the crimes involved here.
Now watch as Brain continues to lie to you.

It would be a pretty rough night for that guy if he got car jacked at the same time as someone was coming to kill him.
But, yes, it is a possibility.

Indeed. But, if that was the case, there is a significant probability that the weapon was carried illegally, negating any honest argument regarding LEGAL concealed carry because a cause of anything.
Now watch as Bran continues to lie to you.

I love how you are too scared to debate me.

 

[whitehall]

The chance that the car jackers would have killed the victim is statistically high. If an accidental shot hadn't hit the victim, the left wouldn't have bothered with the story. That's the secret of left wing journalism. They print the truth but it's the selected truth designed to promote an agenda. All the other truths that don't conform to the agenda are discarded.

 

[Correll]

Shooting someone who is committing a violent crime is not "just shooting people".

That sounded very dishonest of you.

How was the victim of a car jacking committing a violent crime? You sound very dishonest.

NOpe. I was obviously making a reference to intent.

You just lied again, by pretending to not understand me.

Do you doubt he was aiming at the criminals?

Doesn't matter he was negligent in shooting innocent person. Also left the crime.

Big difference from if he targeted an innocent man, or accidentally shot an innocent.

It "matters" from a legal and moral and ethical perspective.

What world are you from?

Leaving the crime scene certainly sounds bad. There could be charges there.

Interestingly enough in that case, the thing that probably caused him to commit that crime is fear of anti-gun people like you (no offense).

Ironic, isn't it?

And he clearly should be prosecuted.

Ironic is the idea guns make us safer and the only person shot was the innocent victim of a car jacking. How was he made safer?

Not really. YOu have millions of crimes and millions of defensive uses of guns in such crimes, you will have some that don't have happy endings.

THis guy? Was likely NOT made safer as he was accidentally shot.

 

[Correll]

"Just shoot people" is very misleading here.
The shooter was aiming to stop a crime. THat is hardly "just shooting people".

Presumably.
He may also have been trying to kill the driver.
Either way, it is impossible to soundly or honestly argue that concealed carry created any of the crimes involved here.
Now watch as Brain continues to lie to you.

It would be a pretty rough night for that guy if he got car jacked at the same time as someone was coming to kill him.
But, yes, it is a possibility.

Indeed. But, if that were the case, there is a significant probability that the weapon was carried illegally, negating any honest argument regarding LEGAL concealed carry because a cause of anything.
Now watch as Brain continues to lie to you.

A very good point.

 

[Brain357]

The chance that the car jackers would have killed the victim is statistically high. If an accidental shot hadn't hit the victim, the left wouldn't have bothered with the story. That's the secret of left wing journalism. They print the truth but it's the selected truth designed to promote an agenda. All the other truths that don't conform to the agenda are discarded.

Please give that statistic. I don't believe it is statistically high.

 

[Brain357]

How was the victim of a car jacking committing a violent crime? You sound very dishonest.

NOpe. I was obviously making a reference to intent.

You just lied again, by pretending to not understand me.

Do you doubt he was aiming at the criminals?

Doesn't matter he was negligent in shooting innocent person. Also left the crime.

Big difference from if he targeted an innocent man, or accidentally shot an innocent.

It "matters" from a legal and moral and ethical perspective.

What world are you from?

Leaving the crime scene certainly sounds bad. There could be charges there.

Interestingly enough in that case, the thing that probably caused him to commit that crime is fear of anti-gun people like you (no offense).

Ironic, isn't it?

And he clearly should be prosecuted.

Ironic is the idea guns make us safer and the only person shot was the innocent victim of a car jacking. How was he made safer?

Not really. YOu have millions of crimes and millions of defensive uses of guns in such crimes, you will have some that don't have happy endings.

THis guy? Was likely NOT made safer as he was accidentally shot.

Well we know who gets shot and killed by guns, and by far it is the owner of the gun(accidently and intentionally). That hardly makes it a safety device.

Studies show many defenses are not lawful btw.

 

[Correll]

NOpe. I was obviously making a reference to intent.

You just lied again, by pretending to not understand me.

Do you doubt he was aiming at the criminals?

Doesn't matter he was negligent in shooting innocent person. Also left the crime.

Big difference from if he targeted an innocent man, or accidentally shot an innocent.

It "matters" from a legal and moral and ethical perspective.

What world are you from?

Leaving the crime scene certainly sounds bad. There could be charges there.

Interestingly enough in that case, the thing that probably caused him to commit that crime is fear of anti-gun people like you (no offense).

Ironic, isn't it?

And he clearly should be prosecuted.

Ironic is the idea guns make us safer and the only person shot was the innocent victim of a car jacking. How was he made safer?

Not really. YOu have millions of crimes and millions of defensive uses of guns in such crimes, you will have some that don't have happy endings.

THis guy? Was likely NOT made safer as he was accidentally shot.

Well we know who gets shot and killed by guns, and by far it is the owner of the gun(accidently and intentionally). That hardly makes it a safety device.

Studies show many defenses are not lawful btw.

It is pretty obvious that to be able to HONESTLY state that guns are not "a safety device" you would have to consider all the defensive gun uses, that do not result in anyone getting shot.

Why do you hold a position that you know you can't HONESTLY defend?

 

[Godboy]

The car jackers should now own that murder charge. I hope they go away forever.

What murder charge?

The correct response should have been..."He was shot in the head, but he survived."

Instead you took the bitch route, presumably because you're a bitch.

 

[Brain357]

Doesn't matter he was negligent in shooting innocent person. Also left the crime.

Big difference from if he targeted an innocent man, or accidentally shot an innocent.

It "matters" from a legal and moral and ethical perspective.

What world are you from?

Leaving the crime scene certainly sounds bad. There could be charges there.

Interestingly enough in that case, the thing that probably caused him to commit that crime is fear of anti-gun people like you (no offense).

Ironic, isn't it?

And he clearly should be prosecuted.

Ironic is the idea guns make us safer and the only person shot was the innocent victim of a car jacking. How was he made safer?

Not really. YOu have millions of crimes and millions of defensive uses of guns in such crimes, you will have some that don't have happy endings.

THis guy? Was likely NOT made safer as he was accidentally shot.

Well we know who gets shot and killed by guns, and by far it is the owner of the gun(accidently and intentionally). That hardly makes it a safety device.

Studies show many defenses are not lawful btw.

It is pretty obvious that to be able to HONESTLY state that guns are not "a safety device" you would have to consider all the defensive gun uses, that do not result in anyone getting shot.

Why do you hold a position that you know you can't HONESTLY defend?

Well most defensive gun uses are a myth. We do however know who gets shot and killed, by far the owner.

 

[Correll]

Big difference from if he targeted an innocent man, or accidentally shot an innocent.

It "matters" from a legal and moral and ethical perspective.

What world are you from?

Leaving the crime scene certainly sounds bad. There could be charges there.

Interestingly enough in that case, the thing that probably caused him to commit that crime is fear of anti-gun people like you (no offense).

Ironic, isn't it?

And he clearly should be prosecuted.

Ironic is the idea guns make us safer and the only person shot was the innocent victim of a car jacking. How was he made safer?

Not really. YOu have millions of crimes and millions of defensive uses of guns in such crimes, you will have some that don't have happy endings.

THis guy? Was likely NOT made safer as he was accidentally shot.

Well we know who gets shot and killed by guns, and by far it is the owner of the gun(accidently and intentionally). That hardly makes it a safety device.

Studies show many defenses are not lawful btw.

It is pretty obvious that to be able to HONESTLY state that guns are not "a safety device" you would have to consider all the defensive gun uses, that do not result in anyone getting shot.

Why do you hold a position that you know you can't HONESTLY defend?

Well most defensive gun uses are a myth. We do however know who gets shot and killed, by far the owner.

I personally know of two people who have used guns to protect themselves. In both cases no shots were fired.

 

[Brain357]

And he clearly should be prosecuted.

Ironic is the idea guns make us safer and the only person shot was the innocent victim of a car jacking. How was he made safer?

Not really. YOu have millions of crimes and millions of defensive uses of guns in such crimes, you will have some that don't have happy endings.

THis guy? Was likely NOT made safer as he was accidentally shot.

Well we know who gets shot and killed by guns, and by far it is the owner of the gun(accidently and intentionally). That hardly makes it a safety device.

Studies show many defenses are not lawful btw.

It is pretty obvious that to be able to HONESTLY state that guns are not "a safety device" you would have to consider all the defensive gun uses, that do not result in anyone getting shot.

Why do you hold a position that you know you can't HONESTLY defend?

Well most defensive gun uses are a myth. We do however know who gets shot and killed, by far the owner.

I personally know of two people who have used guns to protect themselves. In both cases no shots were fired.

I personally know of none.

 

[Correll]

Not really. YOu have millions of crimes and millions of defensive uses of guns in such crimes, you will have some that don't have happy endings.

THis guy? Was likely NOT made safer as he was accidentally shot.

Well we know who gets shot and killed by guns, and by far it is the owner of the gun(accidently and intentionally). That hardly makes it a safety device.

Studies show many defenses are not lawful btw.

It is pretty obvious that to be able to HONESTLY state that guns are not "a safety device" you would have to consider all the defensive gun uses, that do not result in anyone getting shot.

Why do you hold a position that you know you can't HONESTLY defend?

Well most defensive gun uses are a myth. We do however know who gets shot and killed, by far the owner.

I personally know of two people who have used guns to protect themselves. In both cases no shots were fired.

I personally know of none.

Probably due to the increasingly polarized way that people socialize only with others that agree with them.

You probably don't know very many people who carry.

 

[Brain357]

Well we know who gets shot and killed by guns, and by far it is the owner of the gun(accidently and intentionally). That hardly makes it a safety device.

Studies show many defenses are not lawful btw.

It is pretty obvious that to be able to HONESTLY state that guns are not "a safety device" you would have to consider all the defensive gun uses, that do not result in anyone getting shot.

Why do you hold a position that you know you can't HONESTLY defend?

Well most defensive gun uses are a myth. We do however know who gets shot and killed, by far the owner.

I personally know of two people who have used guns to protect themselves. In both cases no shots were fired.

I personally know of none.

Probably due to the increasingly polarized way that people socialize only with others that agree with them.

You probably don't know very many people who carry.

I know many.