Your wife or shooting the guys who want to "harm" her....which do you choose...?

[toxicmedia]

[
Go smoke another one you reetard, and some of what you wrote might make sense.
I don't know one single gun control advocate that would let his wife be raped, or wants to take your guns.
You're delusional

Two inescapable and unarguable truths
1: "Gun control advocates" (properly known as anti-gun loons) want to make it as hard as possible for the law abiding to exercise their right to keep and bear arms
2: This includes banning rifles.shotguns and handguns, something they openly support - especially whenever there is a school shooting.

So, they won't succeed. There isn't enough of them.
You're fighting an imaginary threat

A threat, however unlikely to succeed, is not imaginary, if it can be demonstrated to exist.
Both of the items, above, can be so demonstrated.

I still have my rifles and pistols, and you still have your guns.

Nobody is coming to get them.

Take a breath and relax, because nobody will

 

[Brain357]

If she was gone why would they be going back for someone not there?

Sure did and second one caught.

We dont know if she was coming back. For all we know the guy told em she was grocery shopping.

I would hope he would have lied about where she was. You think he's that stupid?

Who the hell knows? You're making assumptions you cant back up.
You said we had to take the word of the criminals that they were going to let the guy go,why arent you taking their word when they said they were going back to fuck with his wife?

It would insure they were caught. The story doesn't say where the wife was for all of this so we can guess at that.

This whole line of questioning is stupid.
They deserved to get shot whether they were going back to the house or not.

Yes. And the guy was very lucky. They could have killed him had they wanted.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually, all my "elected officials" are right wing, so they don't represent me anyway.

Ah. So you will agree with me if I say that The Obama doesn't represent me.

There hasn't been any substantial national gun control legislation that I've been aware of in four decades.

1993: Brady act
1994: 'Assault weapons' ban

ok, then 21 years ago and not 4 decades, but over two decades...

Three. 1990s 2000s 2010s
The Democrats got the message in 1994 and are reminded of that message whenever they try something new.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

[
Go smoke another one you reetard, and some of what you wrote might make sense.
I don't know one single gun control advocate that would let his wife be raped, or wants to take your guns.
You're delusional

Two inescapable and unarguable truths
1: "Gun control advocates" (properly known as anti-gun loons) want to make it as hard as possible for the law abiding to exercise their right to keep and bear arms
2: This includes banning rifles.shotguns and handguns, something they openly support - especially whenever there is a school shooting.

So, they won't succeed. There isn't enough of them.
You're fighting an imaginary threat

A threat, however unlikely to succeed, is not imaginary, if it can be demonstrated to exist.
Both of the items, above, can be so demonstrated.

I still have my rifles and pistols, and you still have your guns.

Nobody is coming to get them.

Take a breath and relax, because nobody will

Are you really going to say that dems wouldnt if they could and that they havent tried?

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
Go smoke another one you reetard, and some of what you wrote might make sense.
I don't know one single gun control advocate that would let his wife be raped, or wants to take your guns.
You're delusional

Two inescapable and unarguable truths
1: "Gun control advocates" (properly known as anti-gun loons) want to make it as hard as possible for the law abiding to exercise their right to keep and bear arms
2: This includes banning rifles.shotguns and handguns, something they openly support - especially whenever there is a school shooting.

So, they won't succeed. There isn't enough of them.
You're fighting an imaginary threat

A threat, however unlikely to succeed, is not imaginary, if it can be demonstrated to exist.
Both of the items, above, can be so demonstrated.

I still have my rifles and pistols, and you still have your guns.
Nobody is coming to get them.
Take a breath and relax, because nobody will

Do you disagree that there are those - consequential people, like the President, Senators, Congressmen - who openly advocate and seek the banning of rifles, shotguns and handguns?
If not, it is in impossible to argue that the threat does not exist; that they have not made good on that threat in no way means it is not there.

 

[Oldstyle]

This man did as the anti gunners want victims to do.....he complied with the demands of the two violent robbers, gave them the cash they wanted....and then...they were going to pay a visit to the man's wife....so he pulled his gun and shot them.....

So gun grabbers....it would have been a better outcome if he didn't have the gun...right?

And considering he only used the gun as a very last resort, having complied with all of their demands...I guess your stupid theories that gun owners will simply panic or be easily disarmed is crap as well...right?

Kidnapped and robbed victim fatally shoots attacker VIDEO


Around 6:30 a.m., the man was putting items into his truck, which was parked in his driveway, when he was approached by two men who were armed with guns. The suspects instructed the man to go into his house to retrieve his wallet, then forced the man back into his own truck to drive to an ATM to get more cash for the suspects.

The man did as instructed, but after withdrawing the money, the suspects had the man drive to an area near his home. Local media reported the suspects indicated they were going to leave the man at that location and return to the man’s home to harm his wife.

It was at that point, the man turned the tables on the suspects, who were unaware the man had a handgun in his truck. The man grabbed his gun and fired several rounds, striking one of the suspects, and sending the second fleeing from the scene.

One neighbor, who did not wish to be identified, told reporters that when she was letting her dogs outside that morning, she heard six gunshots, followed by several more.

So...the bad guys have guns and they have control of the victim...and he still managed to get his gun and shoot the assholes......

What is it the gun grabbers say...the victim will just get shot for his efforts....from my experience this outcome is not an exception to the rule....

Criminals do not want to get shot, so most of the time they run when the victim has a gun....and even when they shoot back, the victim has as much a chance against them as they have at harming him...

And it was 2 to 1 odds.......

Go smoke another one you reetard, and some of what you wrote might make sense.

I don't know one single gun control advocate that would let his wife be raped, or wants to take your guns.

You're delusional

Did you just claim that not a single gun control advocate wants to take away guns from private citizens? Sure you want to go with that, Toxic?

God........

Not you too

Read it again, only slower

I don't know one single gun control advocate that would let his wife be raped, or wants to take your guns

Did you want to rephrase that? It's obvious to me that what you wrote is struggling to have the meaning you seem to think it should. I can read it fast...slow...or somewhere in between, Toxic and the meaning won't change.

The fact of the matter is that there are a number of gun control advocates that would like to seize people's guns. Is that what you were trying to convey?

You better keep reading it as you still don't have it right. I don't see where he says they don't exist. They are clearly rare though as he doesn't know anyone that would seize guns. Neither do I.

Hold on...are you both saying that because you don't "know" them personally that they don't exist? Is that the game that you're playing here? I don't personally know that Tibet exists, having never visited it in person...yet I would never tell someone that because I've never seen Tibet that it might not exist. That's just plain stupid!

 

[Brain357]

Go smoke another one you reetard, and some of what you wrote might make sense.

I don't know one single gun control advocate that would let his wife be raped, or wants to take your guns.

You're delusional

Did you just claim that not a single gun control advocate wants to take away guns from private citizens? Sure you want to go with that, Toxic?

God........

Not you too

Read it again, only slower

I don't know one single gun control advocate that would let his wife be raped, or wants to take your guns

Did you want to rephrase that? It's obvious to me that what you wrote is struggling to have the meaning you seem to think it should. I can read it fast...slow...or somewhere in between, Toxic and the meaning won't change.

The fact of the matter is that there are a number of gun control advocates that would like to seize people's guns. Is that what you were trying to convey?

You better keep reading it as you still don't have it right. I don't see where he says they don't exist. They are clearly rare though as he doesn't know anyone that would seize guns. Neither do I.

Hold on...are you both saying that because you don't "know" them personally that they don't exist? Is that the game that you're playing here? I don't personally know that Tibet exists, having never visited it in person...yet I would never tell someone that because I've never seen Tibet that it might not exist. That's just plain stupid!

You don't read very well. I clearly said they are very rare.

 

[Oldstyle]

So you admit that there ARE people who want to take away my guns?

 

[Oldstyle]

But that's OK because they're "rare"?

 

[Brain357]

So you admit that there ARE people who want to take away my guns?

I don't personally know any but I'm pretty sure people who want a ban exist.

 

[Brain357]

But that's OK because they're "rare"?

As long as your arguments for are better than theirs against you have no worries. You are confident there are good reasons not to ban guns right?

 

[Oldstyle]

But that's OK because they're "rare"?

As long as your arguments for are better than theirs against you have no worries. You are confident there are good reasons not to ban guns right?

As long as there are people out there in positions of power that believe that there are good reasons to ban gun ownership by private citizens then I'll continue to "worry".

 

[2aguy]

Go smoke another one you reetard, and some of what you wrote might make sense.

I don't know one single gun control advocate that would let his wife be raped, or wants to take your guns.

You're delusional

Did you just claim that not a single gun control advocate wants to take away guns from private citizens? Sure you want to go with that, Toxic?

God........

Not you too

Read it again, only slower

I don't know one single gun control advocate that would let his wife be raped, or wants to take your guns

Did you want to rephrase that? It's obvious to me that what you wrote is struggling to have the meaning you seem to think it should. I can read it fast...slow...or somewhere in between, Toxic and the meaning won't change.

The fact of the matter is that there are a number of gun control advocates that would like to seize people's guns. Is that what you were trying to convey?

You better keep reading it as you still don't have it right. I don't see where he says they don't exist. They are clearly rare though as he doesn't know anyone that would seize guns. Neither do I.

Hold on...are you both saying that because you don't "know" them personally that they don't exist? Is that the game that you're playing here? I don't personally know that Tibet exists, having never visited it in person...yet I would never tell someone that because I've never seen Tibet that it might not exist. That's just plain stupid!

Yes...sadly he is...he also thinks that defensive gun use is pretty mythical as well.....

 

[2aguy]

My sister went through a very similar incident, got home from work, a guy with a gun came out from the front bush right after she had entered her unlock mode for her security system....she couldnt hit the alarm....he made her go throughout the house with the gun to her temple and give him money and jewelry, then at gunpoint made to go to the ATM to withdraw money....(earlier he actually was trying to put her in the trunk of her car, but she absolutely refused, told the guy if he wanted to get caught because she was screaming bloody murder from the trunk due to her claustrophobia, then so be it, so he changed his mind and had her drive) And some other thugs were waiting down the end of the street that he was with....

Some how, (with her experience as a teacher in a detention center for boys) talked the guy in to letting her just drop him off after she withdrew the money...with promises on not calling the police....(as she said later, he was dumb as a rock)

My sister went straight to the police of course, and drove them back to the area where the perp got out of the car....

turns out a neighbor had called the cops on the car filled with the perp's buddies that was loitering down the end of her street a little earlier, and the cops got the name and address of the driver....

the area my sister let the perp out was the same area/street as the perps earlier....the cops made all the guys in the home come outside and my sister, through the tinted windows, spotted the robber and identified him.

I'm glad she was safe......

 

[Oldstyle]

The threat of defensive gun use prevents crime. I have no doubts about that. If criminals were confident that there were no guns in private residences then I'm quite certain that the level of home invasions would go through the roof.

 

[Brain357]

Did you just claim that not a single gun control advocate wants to take away guns from private citizens? Sure you want to go with that, Toxic?

God........

Not you too

Read it again, only slower

I don't know one single gun control advocate that would let his wife be raped, or wants to take your guns

Did you want to rephrase that? It's obvious to me that what you wrote is struggling to have the meaning you seem to think it should. I can read it fast...slow...or somewhere in between, Toxic and the meaning won't change.

The fact of the matter is that there are a number of gun control advocates that would like to seize people's guns. Is that what you were trying to convey?

You better keep reading it as you still don't have it right. I don't see where he says they don't exist. They are clearly rare though as he doesn't know anyone that would seize guns. Neither do I.

Hold on...are you both saying that because you don't "know" them personally that they don't exist? Is that the game that you're playing here? I don't personally know that Tibet exists, having never visited it in person...yet I would never tell someone that because I've never seen Tibet that it might not exist. That's just plain stupid!

Yes...sadly he is...he also thinks that defensive gun use is pretty mythical as well.....

108k a year is hardly mythical.

 

[Brain357]

The threat of defensive gun use prevents crime. I have no doubts about that. If criminals were confident that there were no guns in private residences then I'm quite certain that the level of home invasions would go through the roof.

Yet many countries with few guns don't have invasions through the roof. Fewer guns do not create more criminals.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The threat of defensive gun use prevents crime. I have no doubts about that. If criminals were confident that there were no guns in private residences then I'm quite certain that the level of home invasions would go through the roof.

Just so you know...
Brain will only lie to you.

 

[2aguy]

Braindead is just disappointed they didnt get their chance with the guys wife.

No he was very lucky. They could have gunned him down had they chosen. They chose not too.

Yes...he was lucky. But he was also prepared...if he hadn't had that gun he would not have been lucky would he....they would have done whatever they wanted to the wife....next time he and his wife will probably both carry guns on their hips....and then it won't matter.

And shall we take bets on wether the two criminals passed background checks for their guns............

More likely they would have left him there and wife was fine.

More likely? You're not married are you? If you are you must really hate your wife.

Yes more likely. Going back would assure being caught. Criminals try to avoid that.

If they didn't want to get caught they wouldn't be breaking the law...especially threatening to kill this man if he didn't cooperate....

again...

an anti gun self defense course survival techniques......

1) rely on the kindness of violent criminals...

2) rely on the stupidity of violent armed criminals

3) rely on plain old dumb luck....

I have a video series on these 3 techniques which I just developed....I will send you a price list for this course......

 

[Oldstyle]

The threat of defensive gun use prevents crime. I have no doubts about that. If criminals were confident that there were no guns in private residences then I'm quite certain that the level of home invasions would go through the roof.

Yet many countries with few guns don't have invasions through the roof. Fewer guns do not create more criminals.

Fewer guns create BOLDER criminals!