Happy ending gun control

a reply to: 727Sky

That little girl sounds like she was poised and very accurate. I hope she didn't damage the home too much with the spread..

p.s.
Liberal logic: "If we ban all guns, no one will have them. If we ban abortion, women will just have back alley abortions."

originally posted by: JAGStorm
It absolutely can be a good thing.

It can stop someone from doing it again, and again and again.
Next time might be your house with your mom, or daughter etc.
It might also prevent another would be home invader from making that same stupid choice.

I am really starting to question how many people on here have ever killed an other human being?

Most who have would describe it as sad or tragic. Necessary or inevitable but never good...

Strange how that is

a reply to: keukendeur

I think we can absolutely agree on that, I felt no "Goodness" for doing it, only that I had to and would again. Killing is never "Good" even if the person is awful.

a reply to: keukendeur

Well this is Urban Legends forum:

The urban legend that I heard was that one of the two guys who tackled Jared Loughner (former ATS member) to the ground had a concealed carry permit and was carrying at the time. He tackled Loughner rather than shooting him.

Loughner shot and killed lots of people that day.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: 727Sky

The shot to the genitals part was my favorite part of the story.
This could have ended very differently for that little girl.

Indeed. I love the fact she straight up merked those guys.

a reply to: keukendeur

You are confusing a good action with a good feeling. Having to shoot someone because they decided to threaten you by breaking into your housse is not a good feeling but it is a good action as it can protect others along with yourself.

Several years ago, in a nearby city to me. There was a series of home invasions. A few of the victims were shot, some died. There was evidence that it was more than one individual or group doing this but not enough to identify them. One evening, a guy broke into a home where the home owner had just finished cleaning his pistol, he was also a retired police officer. He shot the invader. All the other home invasions suddenly stopped and during the investigation, others were arrested for some of the other invasions because of the evidence found asociated with this criminal.

Can you explain how the shooting I described is not considered good?

a reply to: Crackalackin

I can only imagine the confusion and trauma this (fictional) kid has to deal with having ended a life at the age of 11 and then adding you yahoo's in the mix cheering her on and saying what a great achievement she has made.

If that kid does happen to realize the impact of a murder, she may become withdrawn, border on clinical depression, and suffer long-term emotional baggage. She will most likely suffer extensive psychopathology, and may require many years of therapy

"shot in the genitals!!! yeah you go girl!!"

I hope you guys don't have any children

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: keukendeur

You are confusing a good action with a good feeling.

The shot to the genitals part was my favorite part of the story.

Are you sure about that?

Because I get the impression that some of the people on this thread are eager to shoot home invaders for all the wrong reasons.

Having to shoot someone because they decided to threaten you by breaking into your house is not a good feeling but it is a good action as it can protect others along with yourself.

The best action isn't the same as a good action.

a reply to: keukendeur

Um, why are you attributing other peoples quotes to me?

The shot to the genitals part was my favorite part of the story.

You are not only confused about good, you are confused about the whole conversation. I never typed the above quote.

The best action isn't the same as a good action.

The best action is not to invade another persons home.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: keukendeur

Um, why are you attributing other peoples quotes to me?

I wasn't (some of the people on this thread are eager to shoot home invaders for all the wrong reasons.)

You are not only confused about good, you are confused about the whole conversation. I never typed the above quote.

Dropping the H-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was arguably the best option, it wasn't necessarily good.

a reply to: keukendeur

Dropping the H-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was arguably the best option, it wasn't necessarily good.

It saved hundreds of thousands if not millions of Japanese lives. How is that not good?

You still haven't explained the quote attribution.

edit: And he left.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: keukendeur

Dropping the H-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was arguably the best option, it wasn't necessarily good.

It saved hundreds of thousands if not millions of Japanese lives. How is that not good?

If I need to explain the lesser of two evils principle it's going to be a long night

You still haven't explained the quote attribution.

Yes I have...

edit: And he didn't leave.

YES!

Another potential victim turns the tables on human scum and puts them down hard. Way to go Patricia. You are a true inspiration, hopefully to others your age.

This is why weapons training at an early age makes sense.

Happy ending indeed. Who knows what these sickos would have done to her or their home. Guns have saved so many worthwhile lives.

a reply to: keukendeur

Better than letting them win the war, right?

When you are at war, you do whatever it takes to win. Doesn't matter how many have to die to accomplish that.

Nuclear weapons saved millions of lives.

Fortunately this situation (the OP) isn't that. There are two dead crims and one living person. Armed people are survivors. The unarmed are victims.

originally posted by: JBurns

Fortunately this situation (the OP) isn't that. There are two dead crims and one living person. Armed people are survivors. The unarmed are victims.

yeah....check the forum.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: Breakthestreak

Correct me please if I'm wrong;

Many, if not most, 18 year old American's aren't allowed to buy alcohol as they aren't deemed mature enough.....but they can own guns?
American's have to be 21 to buy and smoke cigarettes.....but they can buy guns?

Bizarre.

Correct

And nobody should take issue with that

Especially those who want 16 year olds to vote
And 3 year olds to opt for gender reassignment

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: 727Sky



It is a can of worms if you start to value something above human life, and suspend all critical judgement in such serious circumstances.

One might also sense in the report, a clear bit of racism, too. A little obvious perhaps?

If you actually read Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty or give me death!" speech, he wasn't talking about his own death or that of the fellow Americans who would fight.

He was talking about the death of British soldiers, who he (and other present) still regarded as fellow countrymen.

hrlibrary.umn.edu...

The country was founded on the idea that some things are worth trading life for.

a reply to: Breakthestreak

Especially those who want 16 year olds to vote
And 3 year olds to opt for gender reassignment

I don't see what any of that has to do with the blatant anomalies I pointed out.
Please explain?

Just to clarify;
I was wondering why people don't really question the prohibition on 18 - 21 year olds buying alcohol and cigarettes due to their alleged immaturity whilst those self same 18 - 21 year olds are considered mature enough to buy and own guns and to be sent to kill people in foreign lands?

I fail to see the leap from that to allowing 16 year olds the vote and ridiculous woke policies and the woke agenda.

a reply to: keukendeur

Thanks Keukendeur

It is a hard reality, one countless still struggle with. But the number of lives lost (and taken) to push back the tide of Hitler's ambitions were necessary even if not "good" I agree with ya there

On a personal scale, I don't think one person's life is inherently more or less valuable than another's until one person decides to victimize another. At that point, it is the intended victim I am concerned with since the attacker is the one responsible for the incident to begin with

Hope this serves as a lesson to would-be criminals who feel entitled to barge into someone's home and carry out their bad intentions

To me, the scariest part here is what would have happened to this young lady if she hadn't been able to get the shotgun in the fight quick enough

originally posted by: JBurns
To me, the scariest part here is what would have happened to this young lady if she hadn't been able to get the shotgun in the fight quick enough

Father of 6 here and I would go all "law abiding citizen" on the first person who tries anything on my kids.

But before I start to cheer about this story I really have to wonder what this does to the psyche of an 11 year old. I wouldn't leave my 11 year old (I actually got an 11 year old daughter) home alone at night.

Of course the best outcome in this story is that the kid didn't get hurt but didn't she really?