Why A "Good Guy with a Gun" is Bullshit

[daws101]

Charles Joseph Whitman was an American engineering student at the University of Texas and mass murderer who gunned down 49 people, killing 16. In the early morning hours of August 1, 1966, Whitman murdered his wife and his mother in their homes. Wikipedia

Died: August 1, 1966, Austin, TX
Spouse: Kathy Leissner (m. 1962–1966)

There were dozens of cops with rifles shooting back at him.

Say stupid, didn't Whitman use a bolt action .30-06?

Guess we better outlaw single shot rifles, right?

Inside his garage, Whitman sawed off the barrel and butt stock of the 12-gauge shotgun, and packed into his footlocker the weapon, together with a Remington 700 6-mm bolt-action hunting rifle, a .35-caliber pump rifle, a .30-caliber carbine M1, a 9-mm Luger pistol, a Galesi-Brescia .25-caliberpistol, a Smith & Wesson ...

You might want to stop talking out your ass
He used all the weapons listed.
Any more bullshit justification?

 

[daws101]

Charles Joseph Whitman was an American engineering student at the University of Texas and mass murderer who gunned down 49 people, killing 16. In the early morning hours of August 1, 1966, Whitman murdered his wife and his mother in their homes. Wikipedia

Died: August 1, 1966, Austin, TX
Spouse: Kathy Leissner (m. 1962–1966)

There were dozens of cops with rifles shooting back at him.

Say stupid, didn't Whitman use a bolt action .30-06?

Guess we better outlaw single shot rifles, right?

Don't worry....those are on their list too.......just give them time....

Thanks delusional man.

 

[hadit]

What is the purpose of that post? To make the point that the cops should not have been armed?

Are you really that ignorant?

The point of that post is gun toting citizens are not the panacea you clowns wish it was.
If the police (trained shooters) could not stop him , what do think the odds are the Joe six pack and his merry band of buddies could do any better. ?

As I've stated before, a weapon in the hands of a victim gives that victim a chance. You want to give that victim no chance. That's the bottom line. And, yes, we have seen that Joe six pack HAS been able to stop a shooter. Why are you ignoring that?

I'm not.

Then why do you continue yammering on about how it's so hard to stop a shooter? He's killing people, why do you want no one to be able to shoot back? That's the bottom line here. You don't want anyone to shoot back, and that's a problem.

The only yammering going on is yours.
The bottom line here is over compensation.
And panic.
Your posts prove that.

Tell us again why it's a good thing to take away a victim's last line of defense?

 

[hadit]

[
Not always not even 50% of the time.
If the shooter has the gun out and is firing or is got a bead on you .

10% is better than 0%, stupid.

Never helped you.

When was the last time you were sober?

Serious question.

They don't allow you to drink when you are only 9 years old.....

I have hemorrhoids older than you.

There's a cream for that.

 

[daws101]

Are you really that ignorant?

The point of that post is gun toting citizens are not the panacea you clowns wish it was.
If the police (trained shooters) could not stop him , what do think the odds are the Joe six pack and his merry band of buddies could do any better. ?

As I've stated before, a weapon in the hands of a victim gives that victim a chance. You want to give that victim no chance. That's the bottom line. And, yes, we have seen that Joe six pack HAS been able to stop a shooter. Why are you ignoring that?

I'm not.

Then why do you continue yammering on about how it's so hard to stop a shooter? He's killing people, why do you want no one to be able to shoot back? That's the bottom line here. You don't want anyone to shoot back, and that's a problem.

The only yammering going on is yours.
The bottom line here is over compensation.
And panic.
Your posts prove that.

Tell us again why it's a good thing to take away a victim's last line of defense?

Never said that.
You assumed it.
Classic delusional thinking.

 

[daws101]

10% is better than 0%, stupid.

Never helped you.

When was the last time you were sober?

Serious question.

They don't allow you to drink when you are only 9 years old.....

I have hemorrhoids older than you.

There's a cream for that.

And you buy it by the truckload.

 

[hadit]

As I've stated before, a weapon in the hands of a victim gives that victim a chance. You want to give that victim no chance. That's the bottom line. And, yes, we have seen that Joe six pack HAS been able to stop a shooter. Why are you ignoring that?

I'm not.

Then why do you continue yammering on about how it's so hard to stop a shooter? He's killing people, why do you want no one to be able to shoot back? That's the bottom line here. You don't want anyone to shoot back, and that's a problem.

The only yammering going on is yours.
The bottom line here is over compensation.
And panic.
Your posts prove that.

Tell us again why it's a good thing to take away a victim's last line of defense?

Never said that.
You assumed it.
Classic delusional thinking.

Let's look at this logically, something that's been missing in your argument. What is the last line of defense a potential victim has when faced with a crazed lunatic out to kill him/her?

1. A cell phone. Yeah. Call the cops, they'll be there with a mop and bucket to clean up after your lifeless body is taken away.
2. A really stern voice and an admonition that this is going on his permanent record. Sure, that'll stop him.
3. A weapon. Can you stop someone who is shooting into a crowd of people if you have a weapon in your hand? I say yes, the evidence says yes, you have been trying to say no.

Which of these three are you trying to take out of the victim's hand? The weapon, obviously. It is logical, therefore, to say that you are trying to take away a victim's last line of defense. If you are not, then explain how you are not by taking away his right to carry a weapon.

 

[hadit]

Never helped you.

When was the last time you were sober?

Serious question.

They don't allow you to drink when you are only 9 years old.....

I have hemorrhoids older than you.

There's a cream for that.

And you buy it by the truckload.

Awww, they try to grow up so fast. Look at you, all cute and stuff, trying to be insulting. Seriously dude, if you have hemorrhoids that old, you need help.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
The yur on drugs or alcohol ploy again!

It's pretty obvious. You can't follow a conversation or engage in a coherent exchange.

 

[daws101]

False there is no evidence of planned attacks on so called gun free zones because they are "gun free".
That's a lie you clowns tell youselves .

Well, cowards like mass murders always pick the easiest, path of a least resistance. It's in their very nature, no easier path for a murderer than thru a "gun free zone"... Dip shit

Gun free zones are imaginary slapdick.
A mass murder will shoot no matter what.
They will inevitably kill as many as possible whether or not they are being shot at.

And when no one shoots back at them, they will kill more people. Can anyone really argue with that?

It all depends on the skill of the good guy shooters.

The Myth of the Good Guy With the Gun

That’s neither true in general nor true in this instance. The FBI tells us that active-shooter scenarios occur in all sorts of environments where guns are allowed—homes, businesses, outdoor spaces. (In fact, there was another mass shooting the same day as the Oregon massacre, leaving three dead and one severely wounded in a home in North Florida.) And Umpqua Community College itself wasn’t a gun-free zone. Oregon is one of seven states that allow guns on college campuses—the consequence of a 2011 court decision that overturned a longstanding ban. In 2012, the state board of education introduced several limitations on campus carry, but those were not widely enforced.

Read more: The Myth of the Good Guy With the Gun
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Twit....Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year.....at least......you have seen the actual research....this number is of course from the Department of Justice...you know....where the FBI comes from....

Irrelevant to the thread, you're swinging at shadows.

 

[hadit]

Well, cowards like mass murders always pick the easiest, path of a least resistance. It's in their very nature, no easier path for a murderer than thru a "gun free zone"... Dip shit

Gun free zones are imaginary slapdick.
A mass murder will shoot no matter what.
They will inevitably kill as many as possible whether or not they are being shot at.

And when no one shoots back at them, they will kill more people. Can anyone really argue with that?

It all depends on the skill of the good guy shooters.

The Myth of the Good Guy With the Gun

That’s neither true in general nor true in this instance. The FBI tells us that active-shooter scenarios occur in all sorts of environments where guns are allowed—homes, businesses, outdoor spaces. (In fact, there was another mass shooting the same day as the Oregon massacre, leaving three dead and one severely wounded in a home in North Florida.) And Umpqua Community College itself wasn’t a gun-free zone. Oregon is one of seven states that allow guns on college campuses—the consequence of a 2011 court decision that overturned a longstanding ban. In 2012, the state board of education introduced several limitations on campus carry, but those were not widely enforced.

Read more: The Myth of the Good Guy With the Gun
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Twit....Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year.....at least......you have seen the actual research....this number is of course from the Department of Justice...you know....where the FBI comes from....

Irrelevant to the thread, you're swinging at shadows.

Which is likely to stop a shooter first, unarmed victims or armed victims?

Which is likely to result in a lower body count, unarmed victims or armed victims?

Which is likely to result in more mass shootings, unarmed victims or armed victims?

 

[daws101]

I'm not.

Then why do you continue yammering on about how it's so hard to stop a shooter? He's killing people, why do you want no one to be able to shoot back? That's the bottom line here. You don't want anyone to shoot back, and that's a problem.

The only yammering going on is yours.
The bottom line here is over compensation.
And panic.
Your posts prove that.

Tell us again why it's a good thing to take away a victim's last line of defense?

Never said that.
You assumed it.
Classic delusional thinking.

Let's look at this logically, something that's been missing in your argument. What is the last line of defense a potential victim has when faced with a crazed lunatic out to kill him/her?

1. A cell phone. Yeah. Call the cops, they'll be there with a mop and bucket to clean up after your lifeless body is taken away.
2. A really stern voice and an admonition that this is going on his permanent record. Sure, that'll stop him.
3. A weapon. Can you stop someone who is shooting into a crowd of people if you have a weapon in your hand? I say yes, the evidence says yes, you have been trying to say no.

Which of these three are you trying to take out of the victim's hand? The weapon, obviously. It is logical, therefore, to say that you are trying to take away a victim's last line of defense. If you are not, then explain how you are not by taking away his right to carry a weapon.

False it's only logical if you are delusional.
It's possible that you could successfully take out a shooter under very specific conditions.
However the odds of a citizen gunslinger pulling it off are exponentially against it.
The only time CC works is if the bad guy is unaware and you are in a position to get a clean shot .

 

[Uncensored2008]

Charles Joseph Whitman was an American engineering student at the University of Texas and mass murderer who gunned down 49 people, killing 16. In the early morning hours of August 1, 1966, Whitman murdered his wife and his mother in their homes. Wikipedia

Died: August 1, 1966, Austin, TX
Spouse: Kathy Leissner (m. 1962–1966)

There were dozens of cops with rifles shooting back at him.

Say stupid, didn't Whitman use a bolt action .30-06?

Guess we better outlaw single shot rifles, right?

Inside his garage, Whitman sawed off the barrel and butt stock of the 12-gauge shotgun, and packed into his footlocker the weapon, together with a Remington 700 6-mm bolt-action hunting rifle, a .35-caliber pump rifle, a .30-caliber carbine M1, a 9-mm Luger pistol, a Galesi-Brescia .25-caliberpistol, a Smith & Wesson ...

You might want to stop talking out your ass
He used all the weapons listed.
Any more bullshit justification?

He shot people from 300 yards with a 9mm?

But of course you are a drunken fool spewing shit that has no basis in reality.

Whitman used a bolt action Remington 700. The guns in his garage were a bit far for him to reach from up in the tower.

Rifle reported to be used in Charles Whitman killing spree up for sale

 

[daws101]

[
The yur on drugs or alcohol ploy again!

It's pretty obvious. You can't follow a conversation or engage in a coherent exchange.

Every time you say something is obvious or make a dumbass statement you get your ass handed to you.
If you go true to form a tantrum is imminent.

 

[hadit]

Then why do you continue yammering on about how it's so hard to stop a shooter? He's killing people, why do you want no one to be able to shoot back? That's the bottom line here. You don't want anyone to shoot back, and that's a problem.

The only yammering going on is yours.
The bottom line here is over compensation.
And panic.
Your posts prove that.

Tell us again why it's a good thing to take away a victim's last line of defense?

Never said that.
You assumed it.
Classic delusional thinking.

Let's look at this logically, something that's been missing in your argument. What is the last line of defense a potential victim has when faced with a crazed lunatic out to kill him/her?

1. A cell phone. Yeah. Call the cops, they'll be there with a mop and bucket to clean up after your lifeless body is taken away.
2. A really stern voice and an admonition that this is going on his permanent record. Sure, that'll stop him.
3. A weapon. Can you stop someone who is shooting into a crowd of people if you have a weapon in your hand? I say yes, the evidence says yes, you have been trying to say no.

Which of these three are you trying to take out of the victim's hand? The weapon, obviously. It is logical, therefore, to say that you are trying to take away a victim's last line of defense. If you are not, then explain how you are not by taking away his right to carry a weapon.

False it's only logical if you are delusional.
It's possible that you could successfully take out a shooter under very specific conditions.
However the odds of a citizen gunslinger pulling it off are exponentially against it.
The only time CC works is if the bad guy is unaware and you are in a position to get a clean shot .

And you would take that away from a victim. That's the bottom line we keep returning to. A victim with a gun has a chance that a victim without a gun does not have, and you want to take it away from him. Is it starting to sink in yet? You're dancing hard to avoid saying it, but there's really no other way to put it.

 

[daws101]

Gun free zones are imaginary slapdick.
A mass murder will shoot no matter what.
They will inevitably kill as many as possible whether or not they are being shot at.

And when no one shoots back at them, they will kill more people. Can anyone really argue with that?

It all depends on the skill of the good guy shooters.

The Myth of the Good Guy With the Gun

That’s neither true in general nor true in this instance. The FBI tells us that active-shooter scenarios occur in all sorts of environments where guns are allowed—homes, businesses, outdoor spaces. (In fact, there was another mass shooting the same day as the Oregon massacre, leaving three dead and one severely wounded in a home in North Florida.) And Umpqua Community College itself wasn’t a gun-free zone. Oregon is one of seven states that allow guns on college campuses—the consequence of a 2011 court decision that overturned a longstanding ban. In 2012, the state board of education introduced several limitations on campus carry, but those were not widely enforced.

Read more: The Myth of the Good Guy With the Gun
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Twit....Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year.....at least......you have seen the actual research....this number is of course from the Department of Justice...you know....where the FBI comes from....

Irrelevant to the thread, you're swinging at shadows.

Which is likely to stop a shooter first, unarmed victims or armed victims?

Which is likely to result in a lower body count, unarmed victims or armed victims?

Which is likely to result in more mass shootings, unarmed victims or armed victims?

The answer you are wishing for depends on the fluidity of the situation.
The out come would depend on different variables.
There is no hard and fast answer that covers all of them.

 

[Uncensored2008]

False it's only logical if you are delusional.

Actually, it's logical if you're sober.

Being sober is not delusional; you should try it sometime.

It's possible that you could successfully take out a shooter under very specific conditions.
However the odds of a citizen gunslinger pulling it off are exponentially against it.
The only time CC works is if the bad guy is unaware and you are in a position to get a clean shot .

In a room full of people, the bad guy has no idea who is armed, and who isn't, you drooling sot.

 

[daws101]

Charles Joseph Whitman was an American engineering student at the University of Texas and mass murderer who gunned down 49 people, killing 16. In the early morning hours of August 1, 1966, Whitman murdered his wife and his mother in their homes. Wikipedia

Died: August 1, 1966, Austin, TX
Spouse: Kathy Leissner (m. 1962–1966)

There were dozens of cops with rifles shooting back at him.

Say stupid, didn't Whitman use a bolt action .30-06?

Guess we better outlaw single shot rifles, right?

Inside his garage, Whitman sawed off the barrel and butt stock of the 12-gauge shotgun, and packed into his footlocker the weapon, together with a Remington 700 6-mm bolt-action hunting rifle, a .35-caliber pump rifle, a .30-caliber carbine M1, a 9-mm Luger pistol, a Galesi-Brescia .25-caliberpistol, a Smith & Wesson ...

You might want to stop talking out your ass
He used all the weapons listed.
Any more bullshit justification?

He shot people from 300 yards with a 9mm?

But of course you are a drunken fool spewing shit that has no basis in reality.

Whitman used a bolt action Remington 700. The guns in his garage were a bit far for him to reach from up in the tower.

Rifle reported to be used in Charles Whitman killing spree up for sale

As I said he used every one of the weapons.
Charles Whitman | Murderpedia, the encyclopedia of murderers



A.K.A.: "The Texas Tower Sniper"

Classification: Mass murderer
Characteristics: Parricide - Shooting rampage
Number of victims: 15 + 1
Date of murders: August 1, 1966
Date of birth: June 24, 1941
Victims profile: His mother Margaret Whitman (43) / His wife Kathy Whitman (23) / Edna Townsley (47) / Mark Gabour (16) / Marguerite Lamport (45) / Paul Sonntag (18) / Claudia Rutt (18) / Roy Dell Schmidt (29) /Thomas Aquinas Ashton (22) / Thomas Eckmann (18) / Baby Boy Wilson (unborn) / Thomas Karr (24) / Karen Griffith (17) / Doctor Robert Boyer (32) / Harry Walchuk (39) / Billy Speed (22)
Method of murder: Shooting
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Status: Shot and killed by Austin Police Officer Houston McCoy the same day





photo galleries


charles whitman

the shooting

the victims







documents

special report







After killing his mother and wife, went to the top of the University clock tower after the lunch break and began to pick off the stragglers who remained.

3 police and one retired Air Force Tailgunner found their way into the Tower, where they shot him 6 times with a .38, and twice in the face with a 12-gauge shotgun from 5 feet away.


Charles Joseph Whitman (June 24, 1941 – August 1, 1966) was a student at the University of Texas at Austin who shot and killed 14 people (including those who survived the initial shooting but later died as a result of their injuries) and wounded 31 others from the observation deck of the University's Main Building of The University of Texas at Austin on August 1, 1966, after murdering his wife and mother, and before being shot by Austin police.

The autopsy requested in the suicide note left by Whitman revealed that he had a brain tumor. This has led to speculation that the tumor was responsible for his rampage.

Background

A widely released image, of Charles Whitman on a family vacation holding two rifles.The eldest of three brothers raised on South L Street in Lake Worth, Florida, Whitman, who had scored 138 on an IQ test at the age of 6, attended St. Ann's High School in Palm Beach, where he was a pitcher on the school's baseball team. He also took five years of piano lessons.

All three brothers served as altar boys at Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Church, and Whitman chose the Confirmation name Joseph for himself. As a 12-year-old, he was among the youngest ever to achieve Eagle Scout, to his father's delight.

When Whitman was 14 and still serving as an altar boy, his Scout leader Joseph Leduc completed seminary and served as the priest of Sacred Heart for a month. Leduc, later a confidant of Whitman, was a family friend who had accompanied Whitman and his father on several hunting trips. At the age of 16, Whitman underwent a routine appendectomy and was hospitalized following a motorcycle accident.

The wedding of Kathy Leissner and Charles WhitmanAgainst his father's wishes, Whitman joined the Marines on July 6, 1959. He explained to Fr. Leduc that he had come home drunk several weeks earlier and his father had hit him repeatedly and pushed him into the family's swimming pool.

While Whitman was aboard a train headed towards Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island, his father telephoned "some branch of Federal Government" to have his son's enlistment cancelled, but was rebuffed.

Following his enlistment, Whitman was accepted into the University of Texas' mechanical engineering program on September 15, 1961 through a USMC scholarship. His hobbies at this point included karate, scuba diving, and hunting. This last hobby got him into trouble at the University, when he was involved in a "teenage prank" in which he shot a deer, dragged it to his dormitory, and skinned it in his shower. As a result of both this incident and sub-standard grades, Whitman's scholarship was withdrawn in 1963.

In August 1962, Whitman married Kathleen Frances Leissner, another University of Texas student, in a wedding that was held in Kathy's hometown of Needville, Texas, but presided over by Fr. Leduc.

The following year, he returned to active duty at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, where he was both promoted to Lance Corporal and involved in an accident in which his Jeep rolled over an embankment. After rescuing his pinned comrade, Whitman was hospitalized for four days.

That November, Whitman was court-martialed for gambling, possessing a personal firearm on base, and threatening another Marine over a $30 loan for which Whitman demanded $15 interest. He was sentenced to 30 days of confinement and 90 days of hard labor and was demoted to the rank of Private.

In December 1964, Whitman was honorably discharged from the Marines and returned to the University of Texas, this time enrolling in its architectural engineering program. Now lacking his scholarship, Whitman worked first as a bill collector for Standard Finance Company and later as a bank teller at Austin National Bank.

By 1965, he had taken a temporary job with Central Freight Lines and worked as a traffic surveyor for the Texas Highway Department. He also volunteered as a Scoutmaster for Austin Scout Troop 5, while Kathy worked as a biology teacher at Lanier High School.

Family issues

The Whitman family had a long history of dysfunctionality. By 1966, Whitman's mother Margaret had announced she was divorcing his father. Whitman drove to Florida to help his mother move to Austin, Texas, where she found work in a cafeteria. The move prompted his youngest brother John to move out, as well. Meanwhile, his brother Patrick decided to continue living with their father, whose plumbing business employed him.

Whitman's father began to telephone Whitman several times a week, pleading with him to convince his mother to give the marriage another try, but Whitman refused.

Shortly afterwards, John was arrested for throwing a rock through a window and released after paying a $25 fine.

Declining health

Whitman's daily journal.In 1966, Whitman discussed his depression with the University's doctor, Jan Cochrun, who prescribed Valium and recommended he visit campus psychiatrist Maurice Dean Heatly. On March 29, 1966, Whitman met with Heatly and spent an hour explaining his frustration with his parents' separation and his increasing strains at work and school.

During the interview, he made a remark about feeling the urge to "start shooting people with a deer rifle" from the University tower. Heatly noted that Whitman was "oozing with hostility", yet never returned. Whitman mentioned the visit with Heatly in his final suicide notes, saying that it was to "no avail". By the summer, Whitman was prescribed Dexedrine.

Although Whitman had been prescribed drugs, the autopsy could not establish if he had consumed any prior to the attacks. However, it was revealed during the autopsy that Whitman had a cancerous glioblastoma tumor in the hypothalamus region of his brain. Some have theorized that it may have been pressed against the nearby amygdala, which can affect emotive passion. This has led some neurologists to speculate that his medical condition was in some way responsible for the attacks.

Fr. Leduc met with Whitman for the last time two months prior to the shootings and said that Whitman had confided that he had lost his faith, and no longer considered himself a practicing Catholic.

After the attacks, a study of Whitman's journal showed him lamenting that he had acted violently towards Kathy, and that he was resolved both not to follow his father's abusive example and to be a good husband. However, John and Fran Morgan, close friends of Whitman's, later told the Department of Public Safety that he had confided in them that he had struck Kathy on three occasions.

Leadup to the shootings

Six images from the two rolls of film Whitman asked to be developed. They highlight a trip to Barton Springs and a trip with Kathy and his brother John to the Alamo.The day before the shootings, Whitman purchased binoculars and a knife from Davis' Hardware, as well as Spam from a 7-Eleven store. He then picked up Kathy from her summer job as a Bell operator, and they went to a matinée before meeting his mother for lunch at her job.

Around 4:00 PM, they went to visit friends John and Fran Morgan, who lived in the same neighborhood. They left at approximately 5:30 so that Kathy could leave for her 6:00-10:00 PM shift that night. At 6:45, Whitman began typing his suicide note, a portion of which read:

I do not quite understand what it is that compels me to type this letter. Perhaps it is to leave some vague reason for the actions I have recently performed. I do not really understand myself these days. I am supposed to be an average reasonable and intelligent young man. However, lately (I cannot recall when it started) I have been a victim of many unusual and irrational thoughts.

The note explained that he had decided to murder both his mother and wife, but made no mention of the coming attacks at the university. He also requested that an autopsy be done after his death, to determine if there had been anything to explain his actions and increasing headaches. He willed any money from his estate to mental health research, saying that he hoped it would prevent others from following his route.

Margaret Whitman, as found by policeJust after midnight, he killed his mother Margaret. The exact method is disputed, but it seemed he had rendered her unconscious before stabbing her in the heart. He returned to his suicide note, now writing by hand:

To Whom It May Concern: I have just taken my mother's life. I am very upset over having done it. However, I feel that if there is a heaven she is definitely there now...I am truly sorry...Let there be no doubt in your mind that I loved this woman with all my heart.

Whitman returned to his home at 906 Jewell Street and stabbed Kathy five times as she slept naked, leaving another note that read:

I imagine it appears that I brutally killed both of my loved ones. I was only trying to do a quick thorough job...If my life insurance policy is valid please pay off my debts...donate the rest anonymously to a mental health foundation. Maybe research can prevent further tragedies of this type.

He wrote notes to each of his brothers and his father and left instructions in the apartment that the two canisters of film he left on the table should be developed, and the puppy Schocie should be given to Kathy's parents.

Tower shootings

Weapons

12 gauge shotgun
Remington 700 with 4x Leupold Scope
6 millimeter Remington rifle
M1 Carbine
.357 Magnum
Galesi-Brescia pistol
Luger pistol

Nesco machete, scabbard
hatchet
Ammunition box with gun-cleaning kit
Camillus hunting knife, scabbard
Randall knife inscribed with name
Locking pocketknife
1' steel rebar
Hunter's body bag
Whitman's gear
Channel Master 14 transistor radio
Blank Robinson notebook
Black Papermate pen
light green towel
White 3.5 gallon jug full of water
Red 3.5 gallon jug of gasoline
Nylon and cotton ropes, and clothesline
1954 Nabisco premium toy compass
Davis Hardware receipt
Hammer
Canteen
Binoculars
Lighter fluid, lighter and box of matches
Alarm clock manufactured by Gene
Pipe wrench
Green and white flashlight, 4 C batteries
Two rolls of tape
Green duffel bag from the Marine Corps
Extension cord
Grey gloves
Eyeglasses
Earplugs
Mennen spray deodorant
Toilet paper
Food
Twelve cans of food
Two cans of Sego condensed milk
Bread, honey and SPAM (incl. sandwiches)
Planters Peanuts and raisins
Sweet rolls

 

[daws101]

The only yammering going on is yours.
The bottom line here is over compensation.
And panic.
Your posts prove that.

Tell us again why it's a good thing to take away a victim's last line of defense?

Never said that.
You assumed it.
Classic delusional thinking.

Let's look at this logically, something that's been missing in your argument. What is the last line of defense a potential victim has when faced with a crazed lunatic out to kill him/her?

1. A cell phone. Yeah. Call the cops, they'll be there with a mop and bucket to clean up after your lifeless body is taken away.
2. A really stern voice and an admonition that this is going on his permanent record. Sure, that'll stop him.
3. A weapon. Can you stop someone who is shooting into a crowd of people if you have a weapon in your hand? I say yes, the evidence says yes, you have been trying to say no.

Which of these three are you trying to take out of the victim's hand? The weapon, obviously. It is logical, therefore, to say that you are trying to take away a victim's last line of defense. If you are not, then explain how you are not by taking away his right to carry a weapon.

False it's only logical if you are delusional.
It's possible that you could successfully take out a shooter under very specific conditions.
However the odds of a citizen gunslinger pulling it off are exponentially against it.
The only time CC works is if the bad guy is unaware and you are in a position to get a clean shot .

And you would take that away from a victim. That's the bottom line we keep returning to. A victim with a gun has a chance that a victim without a gun does not have, and you want to take it away from him. Is it starting to sink in yet? You're dancing hard to avoid saying it, but there's really no other way to put it.

False !
Again it all depends on the situation.
Talk about not sinking in.

 

[daws101]

False it's only logical if you are delusional.

Actually, it's logical if you're sober.

Being sober is not delusional; you should try it sometime.

It's possible that you could successfully take out a shooter under very specific conditions.
However the odds of a citizen gunslinger pulling it off are exponentially against it.
The only time CC works is if the bad guy is unaware and you are in a position to get a clean shot .

In a room full of people, the bad guy has no idea who is armed, and who isn't, you drooling sot.

It makes no difference at all .
He /they will shoot anyway
History is repleat with examples.