The case against guns

[JimC]

Your left-wing, criminal coddling flatly deranged opinion is noted...and rejected.

One day, Seth, you might actually surprise me by saying something intelligent.

How good are you at holding your breath?

[Seth]

Your left-wing, criminal coddling flatly deranged opinion is noted...and rejected.

One day, Seth, you might actually surprise me by saying something intelligent.

I'm reasonably certain that you never will.

[Seth]

Seth

You are being deliberately naive. The guy came home, saw his wife bonking another man, pulled out a gun and fired. That was a case of acting on anger, which is murder. Pure and simple.

Evidently not, because he was acquitted by a jury of his peers, which means he's not guilty of murder, notwithstanding your outrage.

If

he thought it was possibly rape, he still did not have to fire that gun.

But the law permits him to use deadly physical force to stop what he REASONABLY BELIEVES to be a rape in progress. The question to the jury was whether, given the totality of the circumstances at that moment, was his believe reasonable. The jury, being privy to all sorts of evidence YOU aren't privy to concluded that he was, and that's good enough for me.

He had all the time in the world to take alternate action, which would have left the 'rapist' with a long prison sentence.

He's not required to take "all the time in the world" when reacting to what reasonably appeared to him to be a rape in progress, he's permitted to act immediately on that reasonable belief to prevent or end a rape in progress. Waiting even a second might allow the rapist to cut the woman's throat with the knife that he couldn't see.

And frankly, rapists caught in the act need to be made dead whenever it's legally permissible to do so because it saves society a lot of time, trouble and cash.

It's also a 100 percent cure for recidivism. A dead rapist isn't going to get off or get out and do it again, which is the preferred state of affairs.


No. He killed the man who was enjoying a good bonking session with his wife out of anger. It was murder, pure and simple.[/quote]

[Tero]

You are the bear in the woods. You are behind some cedar trees, the hunter is on the other side. There are scattered clusters of cedars here and there. But not enough for cover if you run. The hunter is on the other side of the cedars. He is looking in the other direction with his binoculars. He has a fire stick. You know about fire stick, some pellets are still in your leg from the time you surprised the duck hunter.

You are innocent, never killed a human before. You never want to see those anyway. But here he is. If you kill him, it means days of running afterwrds. Because if you kill the human, hunters with dogs will come in a day or two and track you down.

But this is a no brainer after all. You come out and quickly kill the guy. It was the fire stick that made you decide. Otherwise he was of no interest, too much trouble as lunch.

[Seth]

You are the bear in the woods. You are behind some cedar trees, the hunter is on the other side. There are scattered clusters of cedars here and there. But not enough for cover if you run. The hunter is on the other side of the cedars. He is looking in the other direction with his binoculars. He has a fire stick. You know about fire stick, some pellets are still in your leg from the time you surprised the duck hunter.

You are innocent, never killed a human before. You never want to see those anyway. But here he is. If you kill him, it means days of running afterwrds. Because if you kill the human, hunters with dogs will come in a day or two and track you down.

But this is a no brainer after all. You come out and quickly kill the guy. It was the fire stick that made you decide. Otherwise he was of no interest, too much trouble as lunch.

If bears thought that way your scenario would be interesting. Unfortunately....

Besides, that wouldn't be a case against being armed in the woods, it would be a most excellent reason TO carry a gun in the woods, which I do, every single time.

[Blind groper]

TO carry a gun in the woods, which I do, every single time.

Which does not surprise me in the least. The US Forest Service points out from its collected data that bear spray has a much better record at permitting survival against bear attack than guns do. However, this is Seth, and we cannot expect ratrional decisions when a gun is an alternative.

[Collector1337]

TO carry a gun in the woods, which I do, every single time.

Which does not surprise me in the least. The US Forest Service points out from its collected data that bear spray has a much better record at permitting survival against bear attack than guns do. However, this is Seth, and we cannot expect ratrional decisions when a gun is an alternative.

Why would I go out and waste money on "bear spray" when I already have a gun?

[orpheus]

TO carry a gun in the woods, which I do, every single time.

Which does not surprise me in the least. The US Forest Service points out from its collected data that bear spray has a much better record at permitting survival against bear attack than guns do. However, this is Seth, and we cannot expect ratrional decisions when a gun is an alternative.

Why would I go out and waste money on "bear spray" when I already have a gun?

(bold mine)

That would be one good reason.

[Jason]

I believe Seth has stated (in fact I know he has) that he carries both - bearspray and a firearm. Why would he do that if his first resort was his firearm?

Can we get some people with a memory spanning more than the last sentence they typed in here?

[orpheus]

I believe Seth has stated (in fact I know he has) that he carries both - bearspray and a firearm. Why would he do that if his first resort was his firearm?

Can we get some people with a memory spanning more than the last sentence they typed in here?

What were we talking about?

[Collector1337]

TO carry a gun in the woods, which I do, every single time.

Which does not surprise me in the least. The US Forest Service points out from its collected data that bear spray has a much better record at permitting survival against bear attack than guns do. However, this is Seth, and we cannot expect ratrional decisions when a gun is an alternative.

Why would I go out and waste money on "bear spray" when I already have a gun?

(bold mine)

That would be one good reason.

I doubt bear spray has the range of a .44 magnum. I'll stick with the .44 mag.

[orpheus]

TO carry a gun in the woods, which I do, every single time.

Which does not surprise me in the least. The US Forest Service points out from its collected data that bear spray has a much better record at permitting survival against bear attack than guns do. However, this is Seth, and we cannot expect ratrional decisions when a gun is an alternative.

Why would I go out and waste money on "bear spray" when I already have a gun?

(bold mine)

That would be one good reason.

I doubt bear spray has the range of a .44 magnum. I'll stick with the .44 mag.

You don't believe the US Forest Svc's data? Or you just like to play fast and loose with your own safety?

[Collector1337]

I doubt bear spray has the range of a .44 magnum. I'll stick with the .44 mag.

You don't believe the US Forest Svc's data? Or you just like to play fast and loose with your own safety?

Rangers have guns...

[orpheus]

I doubt bear spray has the range of a .44 magnum. I'll stick with the .44 mag.

You don't believe the US Forest Svc's data? Or you just like to play fast and loose with your own safety?

Rangers have guns...

And you know for a fact that they don't have bear spray too?

[JimC]

Of course we expect Collector to take his shooting iron into the woods...

Separation from the Precious for too long leads to withdrawal symptoms...