OldSchool Loc: Moving to the Red State of Utah soon!

So? At least he would have had a fighting chance. Also, most perps are lousy shots.

OldSchool Loc: Moving to the Red State of Utah soon!

Me too!

OldSchool Loc: Moving to the Red State of Utah soon!

Good point! My wife, like me, has CCWs from three states.

OldSchool Loc: Moving to the Red State of Utah soon!

No, all of your i***t posts needs to be doused in gasoline and set afire!

alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa

a long chance is better than no chance

rumitoid

Let me see if I got this straight: it was the Draconian gun law and not a random act of violence, that may or may not have ended badly anyway, that did the carjacking and k**led that man? The two who did this are innocent? The law did the crime? Great defense. Make it happen for liberals everywhere.

alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa

if it hadn't been for the draconian gun laws he might have been able to change the outcome of the random act of vilence

MrEd Loc: Georgia

I think you are reading that just a little bit wrong. The law was at fault because it did not allow him to carry a gun to defend himself and his wife. You are twisting this to mean something it is not just like most liberals. Is the law Draconian? Sure is. Why, because the constitution says we can be armed and protect ourselves and the federal and state laws that take that away from you are Draconian in nature and leave you out on a limb with no means to protect yourself.

Now the liberals say we have police for that and is there to protect you. Where is that cop when the shooting starts? In every case, the police say they are not there to protect the individual, but to protect the society as a whole. That means that after the bad guys get done shooting you full of holes, the police will come and investigate. Does that REALLY make you feel better????

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

It is well known your position on gun laws; there will never be enough until only the government and of course those who will have guns regardless of laws have them. The point of this thread is; had the laws not been in place then the thugs (yes, I know they are just misunderstood poor people that rob and steal because they are hungry and the rich hoards their money) may have thought twice about robbing this couple. Had the gentleman had a weapon he may have had a fighting chance. Your position of allowing only the government and thugs ownership of guns make people such as this man a target.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Excellent! Could never have said it better!!!!!
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

rumitoid

Perhaps you have not been desperate enough, ginnyt. But wait! Following your logic, no crimes have ever been committed where there are loser gun laws? Is that right? Only NJ and states like it have problems with such crimes? Yes?

I AM NOT AGAINST PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF GUNS! I AM AGAINST THE MANY LOOPHOLES that allow the PURCHASE of ARMS BY CRIMINALS, TERRORISTS, AND KNOWN ENEMIES OF THE STATE. If your paranoia t***slates that into black helicopters swooping down to take away both your guns and your freedom or a hitlerian confiscation due to a universal registration, dream on.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

No, you are right. I have never been desperate.....for any reason or anything. But, that has nothing to do with whether or not this man's life could have been saved had he been able to purchase a weapon.

But, to respond to guns and the control of firearms. May I recommend a study done in prisons and specifically of those incarcerated crimes committed while in possession or the use of guns.

http://www.rkba.org/research/wright/armed-criminal.summary.html

"(1) Legitimate firearms retailers play only a minor role as direct sources of handguns for adult felony offenders.

Only about one-sixth of the gun-owning felons obtained their most recent handguns through a customary retail t***saction involving a licensed firearms dealer. The remainder -- five out of six -- obtained them via informal, off-the-record t***sactions involving friends and associates, family members, and various black market outlets. The means of acquisition from these informal sources included cash purchase, swaps and trades, borrowing and renting, and often theft. The criminal handgun market is overwhelmingly dominated by informal t***sactions and theft as mechanisms of supply.

The off-the-record nature of the market is further illustrated in the responses to a series of questions concerning the ease with which these men felt they could arm themselves upon release from prison. (As convicted felons, of course, all these men are legally prohibited from acquiring guns upon release, under provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.) Most of the sample (gun owners and nonowners alike) thought it would be "no trouble at all" to acquire a gun upon release; about 80 percent felt they could obtain a suitable handgun in a few days or less. When asked where they would go for guns, their sources were friends, the street, and various black market sources.

These results suggest certain policy implications. Policies attempting to regulate handgun acquisition at the point of retail sale may be effective in preventing some types of criminals from acquiring firearms (e.g., juveniles or nonfelony offenders), but they are likely to have little effect on the most serious handgun-owning felons represented in this sample. Hardcore felons of the sort studied in this research rarely use customary retail channels to obtain handguns.

(2) Gun theft plays a critical role in connecting the adult felony offender to his firearms supply.

Half the men in the total sample had stolen at least one gun at some time in their lives (as shown in Figure 1). Many had stolen more than one. A few, particularly the more predatory felons, had stolen guns in extremely large numbers. At least 40 percent and perhaps has many as 70 percent of the most recent handguns owned by this sample were stolen weapons. These percentages include not only the guns that the felons stole themselves (32 percent), but also guns that the felons knew or believed to have been stolen prior to their acquisition of them."

Therefore, I state once again. The people the laws will affect are those individuals who obey the rules and regulations that are already on the books for gun purchase. Regardless of how many laws are passed, the rate of felonies committed by the people who are intent on robbing, murdering, or causing harm will acquire guns. By removing guns from law abiding people you are in essence painting a target on their backs.

By the way, are you aware by using all upper case in your writing it is the same as yelling at your readers? Very impolite. I am sure that you were not aware of this fact, because you are a gentle, evangelist who would never say or do anything to hurt another person's feelings.

Merry Christmas!

Augustus Greatorex Loc: NE

Dustin was not protecting his wife. He was protecting his ride.

His wife was not molested by the carjackers. Yet all presented evidence indicates, she was still in the vehicle, after her husband was shot.

He would have been more protective by giving over his keys.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Atta boy, Wolfe, jump and here and take your token sh!t on a REAL LIFE and DEATH event. A man lost his life because liberal Hoplophobic policies prevented him from defending himself and his wife. Who or what site reported this does not, in any way, turn this tragedy into one of your l*****t fantasies.