Guns used for lawful self defense Pt. 4

[Gallstones]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/11/h ... nsylvania/

A man with at least four weapons — including a military-style M4 assault rifle — is in police custody after he allegedly killed at least one while shooting up a bar in North Fayette, Pennsylvania.

Allegheny County police said that the shooter may have been talking on the phone to his girlfriend at the Fort Pitt Inn before briefly leaving. He later returned to the bar with three weapons and opened fire, according to KDKA.

The station reported that one of the two men who were shot in the neck and head died from his injuries. The other man was at a local hospital in critical condition.

<SNIP>

Let's hear it for responsible gun ownership, huh?

Facts are that every time something like this happens we are treated to a No True Scotsman campaign of epic proportions. This guy was a responsible gun owner until he suddenly wasn't. Like all these killers are former responsible gun owners. But somehow the responsible gun owner is supposed to be a bulwark against anarchy? How's that supposed to work?

So when you getting rid of all yours--now's the time with inflated demand and all--you know, to protect society from your volatile passions?

[Jason]

Dude wants to trade a tractor (I have a Massey Ferguson 135) and some cash for a Benelli MR-1 (.223).

This:


I'm considering it.

[Gallstones]

If you need a tractor and the cash?

[Jason]

No no.. he has the MR-1, I have the tractor and cash.

[Gallstones]

Seth, you're arguments are shit.

When all I'm presented with is shit, why bother to put anything into a response? I could present 2.5 million sworn affidavits from people who used their guns in self defense and the fuckwitted hoplophobes would just ignore them and claim they mean nothing because they are "anecdotes."

The truth is out there, but you could pound it into the eyeballs of someone like you or BG with a sledge hammer until it pops out the backside of your skull, along with your brains, and you still would hold fuckwitted, ignorant, illogical and unreasoning opinions on the subject.

I'm not going to waste time refuting horseshit hoplophobe lies. I've done it before and I'm tired of presenting verifiable evidence to fuckwits.

So when I get something other than a shit proclamation of bullshit ideological mendacity perhaps I'll put some more thought into it.

You have nothing but fucking Lott et al. You associate with fucking low IQ fuckwits because you can be their king. You do not care about other people on this forum, or their views. I'm a gun owner. I'm not anti gun. I'm against fuckwits owning guns, you know, like conspiracy theorists who think that American dictatorship is just around the corner, and you will have your penisguns taken away by the bad people. Remember, in your country the unstable elements arm first. Just like you did. That's why you are the typical Ugly American. And you can't even see how chained you are. You can't even leave the country because Seth without a gun is just a fearful geek.

I can only surmise that I would be one of those low IQ fuckwit associates.

I'm not in the least bothered by that, JSYK.

[Gallstones]

No no.. he has the MR-1, I have the tractor and cash.

Trade.

Got ammo?

[Jason]

I have a single .223 cartridge.

He didn't offer any ammo with it.

[Seth]

Yet another data point:

Crime
Robber Confronts 81-Year-Old Man and Demands ‘Everything You Got’ — Turns Out, What He Had Was a .38-Caliber Revolver
Mar. 11, 2013 10:30pm Jason Howerton

81 Year Old Man Confronts, Shoots Robber in Ocala, Florida

shutterstock.com

As he was driving home on Sunday night, 81-year-old Florida resident James Stevens said he knew something was amiss after he realized a 2010 Kia had been following him for about 20 minutes.

Stevens wasn’t about to lead the man tailing him to his Ocala, Fla. home, so he pulled over in a field. Sure enough, the Kia also stopped. In retrospect, the suspected robber would tell you he should’ve just kept on driving.

The quick-thinking 81-year-old then retrieved his .38-caliber Smith & Wesson revolver and got out of his truck, according to Marion County Sheriff’s Office reports.

Stevens told investigators that the driver of the Kia — later identified as Lonnie Lorenza Hollingsworth Jr., 28 — got out of the vehicle, approached him and demanded “everything you got,” reports state.

“I didn’t want to shoot him, but I had to. I shot him,” Stevens told deputies.

According to evidence photos, it appears that Stevens fired four rounds from the six-shot revolver.

Hollingsworth was shot once in the abdomen and was lying in the grass motionless when the first deputy arrived. The deputy began performing CPR until an ambulance arrived and paramedics took over. Hollingsworth was taken to Ocala Regional Medical Center, where he remained in critical condition Monday afternoon.

Michelle Barron, a resident in the area of the shooting, called 911 and mistakenly thought Hollingsworth was dead.

“We have a dead person out here,” Barron told the 911 operator. “The guy that lives across the street was parking his truck in the field and someone tried to rob him and he shot him and killed him.”

Hollingsworth has had numerous run-ins with the law and was convicted in 2008 of carrying a concealed firearm and altering the serial number of a firearm. He also was charged with wearing a bulletproof vest in the commission of an attempted crime, but that charge was dropped.

Hollingsworth did not have a weapon Sunday, reports noted.

The sheriff’s office is continuing to investigate the incident. No charges had been filed late Monday.



The Associated Press contributed to this report

[klr]

For "data points" to be worthy of the description, we'd need thousands of them. A story supporting your POV isn't a "data point" unless it's part of a much, much bigger package. Even then it should not be taken at face value. Correlation =/= causation and all that.

[Seth]

For "data points" to be worthy of the description, we'd need thousands of them. A story supporting your POV isn't a "data point" unless it's part of a much, much bigger package. Even then it should not be taken at face value. Correlation =/= causation and all that.

Each data point is part of a much bigger picture, and there are thousands more of them. Hundreds of thousands to millions. That's what you can't accept.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So when you getting rid of all yours--now's the time with inflated demand and all--you know, to protect society from your volatile passions?

I see all anecdotes are equal, but some are more equal than others.

[Gallstones]

A Response to Someone's Comments on Gun Control

You cannot "protect" a right while calling for limitations on it.

I have a constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. SCOTUS says so. I'm sorry it makes you feel uncomfortable. At this point, your options are education on the subject, or therapy. Otherwise, you're trying to negotiate away my rights in exchange for…what? A "compromise" requires each side to give something. So what are you going to give me in exchange?

I've never heard anyone from your side (well-intended or not) offer a "compromise." What they want is for me to give up something I have, in exchange for…nothing.

No. Happy now?

No? Oh, I'm sorry. How about "No"?

You're not getting what you want. End of discussion. You have nothing to offer, and it wouldn’t matter if you did.

Consider: What can the hardcore fundamentalists offer as a compromise for ending abortion? What can they offer in exchange for outlawing recognition for gay partners? What can they offer in exchange for outlawing pornography?

See the problem? You want 100% of what you have, and 50% of what I have. When you talk about "weapons of easy mass murder," you're conflating the concept with guns that I own, and guns that my teenage kids have owned since they were seven years old http://olegvolk.livejournal.com/551736.html

http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/image ... icBee2.jpg. Perfectly normal, common, guns, of the kind that shoot bullets, like every other gun. You do want to take those away from me, or make it more complicated for me to own them, and in exchange, you're offering me nothing.

So, it's not a compromise, so there is nothing to discuss.

And, SCOTUS says it's a constitutional right on my part. So again…nothing to discuss.

What we need to discuss is that you're afraid of something you can't effectively define in words, and you are a published author. If it's that hard for you, how hard is it for others? And why should we pass laws based on ignorance?

[Blind groper]

Seth

No one has denied that occasionally a crime is stopped by a citizen with a gun. So what? For every such situation, there are 4 to 5 (from my earlier reference) when a citizen with a gun does the reverse, and causes a gun crime.

There are, doubtless, dozens of anecdotes on the internet of the former, and many more dozens of the latter. Quoting anecdotes and trying to draw generalisations from them is pure 100% garbage.

I have already offered four separate reasons why the charlaton Lott's 2.5 million per year is total and absolute horse shit. You have not offered a single rational argument why we should accept it.

[Gallstones]

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

[Jason]

I can bear a rocket launcher.