Man shot with own gun

[kallend 2,131]

www.trentonian.com/articles/2009/12/16/news/doc4b28726f24321887688149.txt

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[AggieDave 6]

So this bad guy was beating someone with a bat, was illegally carrying a gun, it some how went off and was shot in the stomach?

Once again, a bad person was illegally carrying a gun and doing bad things to other people. Whats your point? That bad people don't care about the laws they break, no matter what they are? You really should read the articles before you post them.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[kallend 2,131]

Quote

So this bad guy was beating someone with a bat, was illegally carrying a gun, it some how went off and was shot in the stomach?

Once again, a bad person was illegally carrying a gun and doing bad things to other people. Whats your point? That bad people don't care about the laws they break, no matter what they are? You really should read the articles before you post them.

Really doesn't matter. Just some examples to illustrate that regardless of anything, guns (legal and illegal) can and do endanger their owners as well as others.

Ron (and others) would have us believe that guns are just a force for good in the world.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[AggieDave 6]

They are simply a tool. When in the hands of bad people, bad things tend to happen. Just like bats, knives, whips...just about anything can be used to hurt people.

The guy in your story was committing an aggravated assault, while illegally carrying a firearm and was shot by his own gun. Having seen Ron's arguments over the past few years, I know that what you purport isn't the message he has. It does fit your MO at attacking the person and trying to derail a discussion instead of having a polite discussion.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[kallend 2,131]

Quote

They are simply a tool. When in the hands of bad people, bad things tend to happen. Just like bats, knives, whips...just about anything can be used to hurt people.

The guy in your story was committing an aggravated assault, while illegally carrying a firearm and was shot by his own gun. Having seen Ron's arguments over the past few years, I know that what you purport isn't the message he has. It does fit your MO at attacking the person and trying to derail a discussion instead of having a polite discussion.

How is this thread not polite?

How is Ron repeatedly saying that I believe in guilty until proven innocent not an attack on me?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Levittowner John Quartuccio was shot in the stomach by his own gun when it dropped at the feet of the guy he was hitting on the head with a bat


John Quartuccio was shot with his own gun -- that as this man (Tony) got smacked three times in the head with a baseball bat, .

This the guy you want to get behind?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

How is this thread not polite?

Kallend MO part 2: Trying to turn the thread around towards him. Its been this way for a long time.

I've seen your true nature, with the cruelness you had for my dead friend and the tragedy that we went through. Others have seen your nature too. It doesn't fool anyone. It appears that you don't care for anyone outside of your absolute immediate circle, unless you can some how stroke your ego.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Ron 10]

Quote

Ron (and others) would have us believe that guns are just a force for good in the world.

This shows either:

1. You don't even read my posts and just assume you know everything.

2. you have a reading comprehension problem.

Or you could show where I said anything like that..... But you won't.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[futuredivot 0]

Kallend-got this word of advice from Joe, one of my AFF instructors at Monroe that seems to apply
You're trying to grab air-that never works.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

So this bad guy was beating someone with a bat, was illegally carrying a gun, it some how went off and was shot in the stomach?

Once again, a bad person was illegally carrying a gun and doing bad things to other people. Whats your point? That bad people don't care about the laws they break, no matter what they are? You really should read the articles before you post them.

Really doesn't matter. Just some examples to illustrate that regardless of anything, guns (legal and illegal) can and do endanger their owners as well as others.

So do cars, parachutes, forks, tree swings, camp fires, roller skates ............

So what the hell is your point???

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

www.trentonian.com/articles/2009/12/16/news/doc4b28726f24321887688149.txt

I think he's trying to confuse us with really really stupid examples. In this case, an article written so poorly that one thousand English and journalism teachers all hurled themselves off a bridge to stop the pain.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

www.trentonian.com/articles/2009/12/16/news/doc4b28726f24321887688149.txt

I think he's trying to confuse us with really really stupid examples. In this case, an article written so poorly that one thousand English and journalism teachers all hurled themselves off a bridge to stop the pain.

Were their flies zipped, do you think?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[chuckakers 426]

Quote

Quote

So this bad guy was beating someone with a bat, was illegally carrying a gun, it some how went off and was shot in the stomach?

Once again, a bad person was illegally carrying a gun and doing bad things to other people. Whats your point? That bad people don't care about the laws they break, no matter what they are? You really should read the articles before you post them.

Really doesn't matter. Just some examples to illustrate that regardless of anything, guns (legal and illegal) can and do endanger their owners as well as others.

Using that argument, so can parachutes. Oops, time to sell your gear.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

I think he's trying to confuse us with really really stupid examples. In this case, an article written so poorly that one thousand English and journalism teachers all hurled themselves off a bridge to stop the pain.

Were their flies zipped, do you think?

Only the European ones.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

They are simply a tool. When in the hands of bad people, bad things tend to happen. Just like bats, knives, whips...just about anything can be used to hurt people.

There is still some difference, as a gun makes it MUCH easier for one person to hurt a bunch of people in a spree. Gonna be quite hard (although not impossible) with a knife or a bat.

I also find it funny that those who state the society would benefit if everyone has access to guns also tend to state that the world would not benefit if every nation has access to WMDs. In my opinion those are quire similar analogies, and the same arguments can apply in both cases.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

They are simply a tool. When in the hands of bad people, bad things tend to happen. Just like bats, knives, whips...just about anything can be used to hurt people.

There is still some difference, as a gun makes it MUCH easier for one person to hurt a bunch of people in a spree. Gonna be quite hard (although not impossible) with a knife or a bat.

That same gun, in another's hands, can be used to PROTECT a bunch of people.

Tools are tools.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

That same gun, in another's hands, can be used to PROTECT a bunch of people.

However it is easier to use a gun to directly hurt 30 people than to use a gun to directly protect 30 people.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

That same gun, in another's hands, can be used to PROTECT a bunch of people.

However it is easier to use a gun to directly hurt 30 people than to use a gun to directly protect 30 people.

Think about the scenario you are describing for a moment, and I think you will find you are incorrect.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Think about the scenario you are describing for a moment, and I think you will find you are incorrect.

There is the difference between theory and practice. I'm considering practical scenarios which already happened, not something which just might happen.

Just wonder whether you support Iran and N.Korea obtaining nuclear weapons?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[pbwing 0]

Quote

Just wonder whether you support Iran and N.Korea obtaining nuclear weapons?

Absolutely not!!! They'd never pass the background check...

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Absolutely not!!! They'd never pass the background check...

I got impression that if Brady types would do background check for gun owners in U.S., most if not all wouldn't pass either. It really depends on who is doing the check.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Think about the scenario you are describing for a moment, and I think you will find you are incorrect.

There is the difference between theory and practice. I'm considering practical scenarios which already happened, not something which just might happen.

Let's go with that. Do you REALLY think it was easier for Cho to go from classroom to classroom at Va Tech and kill 30 people than it would have been for any ONE person in ANY of those classrooms to kill him?

If so, you've just proven that you have NO idea what you're talking about. Your scenario only works when the victims are unable to defend themselves.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Let's go with that. Do you REALLY think it was easier for Cho to go from classroom to classroom at Va Tech and kill 30 people than it would have been for any ONE person in ANY of those classrooms to kill him?

You're asking incorrect question - it should make it more difficult, not easier. Unless it doesn't make it more difficult, there is no reason to prove that guns would reduce crime, and that's your point, right?

So, if you like to go into theories, then it depends. My opinion is that not everyone would risk their life by approaching an armed guy who doesn't care about his own life anymore, unless their life is already at risk. So while it might make it more difficult, it doesn't mean it wouldn't happen anyway.

But if you consider real life, you'll see how it worked. How many gun owners are in Virginia? Was there any in Va Tech? And how many guns are on a military base in TX?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Let's go with that. Do you REALLY think it was easier for Cho to go from classroom to classroom at Va Tech and kill 30 people than it would have been for any ONE person in ANY of those classrooms to kill him?

You're asking incorrect question - it should make it more difficult, not easier. Unless it doesn't make it more difficult, there is no reason to prove that guns would reduce crime, and that's your point, right?

I followed your lead - you are the one the posited that it was easier for a person to kill 30 than to protect 30. Defend your position.

Quote

So, if you like to go into theories, then it depends. My opinion is that not everyone would risk their life by approaching an armed guy who doesn't care about his own life anymore, unless their life is already at risk. So while it might make it more difficult, it doesn't mean it wouldn't happen anyway.

That is true - there is no guarantee that a person would always choose to defend themself, but I posit that someone that has taken trouble to gain a concealed carry license would be MORE likely to make that choice. Your thoughts?

Quote

But if you consider real life, you'll see how it worked. How many gun owners are in Virginia?

Immaterial.

Quote

Was there any in Va Tech?

Virginia Tech does not allow licensed carry holders to exercise that right on campus.

Quote

And how many guns are on a military base in TX?

Lots - the overwhelming majority of them (those not being carried by MP's) locked up in the base armory.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I followed your lead - you are the one the posited that it was easier for a person to kill 30 than to protect 30. Defend your position.

My point has been proven by real life examples. Looking on recent history, I remember several shoot spree cases in U.S., and not a single case when a potential or existing shoot spree was stopped by a regular citizen who happen to be a gun owner. What else proof you need?

Quote

That is true - there is no guarantee that a person would always choose to defend themself, but I posit that someone that has taken trouble to gain a concealed carry license would be MORE likely to make that choice. Your thoughts?

There is a difference between defending yourself, and approaching an armed murderer who may otherwise ignore you (for example if he kills only his coworkers or only blacks). But at this moment it's quite a moot point as we do not have real-life examples of such approaches.

Quote

Immaterial.

Nope, it is very important. If your theory would only work when every citizen would be carrying, then it would never work as there are people who would not carry a gun no matter what. Then the question to you is, what rate of gun ownership should be sufficient to prevent such sprees?

Quote

Virginia Tech does not allow licensed carry holders to exercise that right on campus.

So now you're saying that even if everyone would own guns it would still be no use to prevent shoot sprees until every place, including clubs, courts and airplanes, allows you to carry a gun?

And do you know what would happen if one or more Cho colleagues illegally carried a gun in the VaTech? They would likely to share this information between their peers - after all, nobody expected their peers to be a threat - and he would shot them first. Maybe even would use their guns to shot others too.

Quote

Lots - the overwhelming majority of them (those not being carried by MP's) locked up in the base armory.

I don't care about "majority" as you apparently need only one gun to save 30 people. How many armed people were there who had a gun in possession, and why nobody stopped them? If military base personnel, who has or should have had necessary training, and have no issues firing in a real person (something not everyone can do - it is still different from a shooting range), and have better access to guns than everyone around but still was unable to stop such a spree - I doubt it would be more effective anywhere else.

And I still waiting for you to clarify your position. You've become very good in dodging questions and turning them around, and I already asked you two. It does not make any sense to seriously discuss issues with someone who has no balls to even state their opinion, so unless you do it (and answer my question about your expectations of preventing shoot sprees, and regarding owning WMDs), I will ignore your further questions on that matter.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *