Was Housewife Too Quick To Pull Trigger?

Collin · December 2007

onelongsong wrote:

he shouldn't have ANY free rapes. i was replying to a post about dogs which was totally off topic. my neighbours dog attacked me on my own property so i shot it. i didn't ask if he attacked someone else prior. if attacked; i will protect myself. be it a mountain lion; dog; or person.
i think the housewife did the right thing. i was asking for others opinions here. only because they flip-flop from day to day. they say she was correct to shoot this attacker; yet they don't believed an armed shopper at the nebraska mall should have shot the guy who killed 8 innocent people. more women carry guns than men. women are more likely victims. i would have risked my life to save innocent victims. i want to understand why other wouldn't.

People don't flip flop, they see things aren't as black and white as you think. Not every case that involves a gun is the same. Joe Horn's case isn't the same as this one. In this case, her life was in danger, which wasn't the case with Joe Horn, he wanted to shoot some people.

An armed shopper? Here's an insane idea, how about keeping guns out of malls and schools, instead of bringing more in.

Guns allowed at malls means nutjobs can easily walk in and start shooting everyone. Did you forget that little part? Oh, wait, yeah, trained shooters can take those nutters out, yes, well, considering the fact that they want to die I don't think that will stop them or make them change their mind.

Please spare me your saving the innocent bullshit rhetoric. How the hell will more people with guns save more people? You said so yourself 85% of the population shouldn't have guns and now you want to arm these people and let them take the law into their own hands? To stop suicide terrorists? Because that's what these guys are. They try to cause as much terror as possible and kill themselves or get killed.

onelongsong · December 2007

Collin wrote:

People don't flip flop, they see things aren't as black and white as you think. Not every case that involves a gun is the same. Joe Horn's case isn't the same as this one. In this case, her life was in danger, which wasn't the case with Joe Horn, he wanted to shoot some people.

An armed shopper? Here's an insane idea, how about keeping guns out of malls and schools, instead of bringing more in.

Guns allowed at malls means nutjobs can easily walk in and start shooting everyone. Did you forget that little part? Oh, wait, yeah, trained shooters can take those nutters out, yes, well, considering the fact that they want to die I don't think that will stop them or make them change their mind.

Please spare me your saving the innocent bullshit rhetoric. How the hell will more people with guns save more people? You said so yourself 85% of the population shouldn't have guns and now you want to arm these people and let them take the law into their own hands? To stop suicide terrorists? Because that's what these guys are. They try to cause as much terror as possible and kill themselves or get killed.

how long have you known joe horn? did he tell you he just wanted to kill people?

why don't these shootings happen in states where guns are allowed in malls? walk into an arizona walmart and you'll see people with guns on their hips. also keep in mind that 80,000 people have permits to carry conceald weapons so you don't see those guns. so yes; it's already working in many states. if they're suicide terrorists; why not take them out before they kill 8 innocent people? allowing them to inflict terror doesn't solve the problem.

soulsinging · December 2007

onelongsong wrote:

if you look back; i'm using your own agruments yet now you don't agree with your own arguments. wasn't it you that said there'd be a wrongful death suit in almost every citizen shooting?

(private note: i threatened a judge yesterday so we'll see what she thinks she can do)

nope. i never said anything like that.

soulsinging · December 2007

onelongsong wrote:

they were shipped overnight by fedex. they knew they'd be there by 10:30 am. haven't you ever ordered a phone via internet or phone?

no i havent. im just very confused. before you were saying they wait for ups guys to deliver phones so they can steal them and somehow use them to have credit cards offers delivered to their homes. now you're saying they use stolen credit cards to order phones online that are delivered by fedex?

onelongsong · December 2007

soulsinging wrote:

no i havent. im just very confused. before you were saying they wait for ups guys to deliver phones so they can steal them and somehow use them to have credit cards offers delivered to their homes. now you're saying they use stolen credit cards to order phones online that are delivered by fedex?

you need to read that again. maybe i accidently typed ups instead of fedex. it may have been another carrier. all i know was that the dudes credit card bill/information was stolen; a change of address put in; and phones ordered over the web; and those activated phones sold for meth.
i'm not privy to exactly what happened.

810wmb · December 2007

onelongsong wrote:

he shouldn't have ANY free rapes. i was replying to a post about dogs which was totally off topic. my neighbours dog attacked me on my own property so i shot it. i didn't ask if he attacked someone else prior. if attacked; i will protect myself. be it a mountain lion; dog; or person.
i think the housewife did the right thing. i was asking for others opinions here. only because they flip-flop from day to day. they say she was correct to shoot this attacker; yet they don't believed an armed shopper at the nebraska mall should have shot the guy who killed 8 innocent people. more women carry guns than men. women are more likely victims. i would have risked my life to save innocent victims. i want to understand why other wouldn't.

cool - that's what i thought...didn't want to assume too much

soulsinging · December 2007

onelongsong wrote:

you need to read that again. maybe i accidently typed ups instead of fedex. it may have been another carrier. all i know was that the dudes credit card bill/information was stolen; a change of address put in; and phones ordered over the web; and those activated phones sold for meth.
i'm not privy to exactly what happened.

clearly. but at least not being privy to exactly what happened hasn't stopped you from using this one incident of a few (maybe) well-organized meth-heads to deduce that all people who break into houses are criminal masterminds that commit their crimes only after weeks of thought and preparation.

Jeanie · December 2007

soulsinging wrote:

clearly. but at least not being privy to exactly what happened hasn't stopped you from using this one incident of a few (maybe) well-organized meth-heads to deduce that all people who break into houses are criminal masterminds that commit their crimes only after weeks of thought and preparation.

As opposed to poor misguided, misunderstood wouldn't harm a fly types????
Lets face it, you learn to get good at what you do. Be that law abiding work or breaking and entering and criminal activities. Why wouldn't they know all kinds of things about breaking and entering that you or I couldn't even concieve of thinking? Or how to rip off a person's identity? Or how to kill? It is what they do to sustain themselves. Just like you studying up a storm to become a lawyer.

soulsinging · December 2007

Jeanie wrote:

As opposed to poor misguided, misunderstood wouldn't harm a fly types????
Lets face it, you learn to get good at what you do. Be that law abiding work or breaking and entering and criminal activities. Why wouldn't they know all kinds of things about breaking and entering that you or I couldn't even concieve of thinking? Or how to rip off a person's identity? Or how to kill? It is what they do to sustain themselves. Just like you studying up a storm to become a lawyer.

my point was most crimes are crimes of opportunity. they're not planned. they're "hey, that house looks empty," break the window, grab as much shit as you can, and get out. he spoke like 95% of the crimes committed when someone goes into a house occur after the criminal cased the place, took notes on the resident's habits, bought a gun, practiced firing, and went into the house ready and planning to kill if necessary. surely, there are criminals who are so methodical. but they are in the minority. most just take advantage of an opportunity and have no idea what they're going to even steal once they get inside a house, let alone what they will do if someone shows up.

that said, i still think you're entitled to shoot anyone who breaks into your house. im just saying be honest about it and stop trying to rationalize it by saying that anyone who breaks in is probly going to kill you if they see you so you're entitled to kill them. you're entitled to kill them becos you don't know which is which, but it's a lie to think most are just itching to shoot you. most will run with whatever they've got in their hands, or try to club you in the head and then run. but so it goes.

Jeanie · December 2007

soulsinging wrote:

my point was most crimes are crimes of opportunity. they're not planned. they're "hey, that house looks empty," break the window, grab as much shit as you can, and get out. he spoke like 95% of the crimes committed when someone goes into a house occur after the criminal cased the place, took notes on the resident's habits, bought a gun, practiced firing, and went into the house ready and planning to kill if necessary. surely, there are criminals who are so methodical. but they are in the minority. most just take advantage of an opportunity and have no idea what they're going to even steal once they get inside a house, let alone what they will do if someone shows up.

that said, i still think you're entitled to shoot anyone who breaks into your house. im just saying be honest about it and stop trying to rationalize it by saying that anyone who breaks in is probly going to kill you if they see you so you're entitled to kill them. you're entitled to kill them becos you don't know which is which, but it's a lie to think most are just itching to shoot you. most will run with whatever they've got in their hands, or try to club you in the head and then run. but so it goes.

Well I disagree. If most crimes are crimes of opportunity then why are there so many new government departments set up to try to combat organized crime? Yeah, there are still criminals who aren't great masterminds and do just do things on the spur of the moment but there are far more who spend their whole life perpertrating one crime after another and working out new and interesting ways to perfect their craft. Otherwise our courts would be full of first time offenders that they never saw again.

And I don't think they run either. There's been more than enough incidents of home invaders hell bent on inflicting harm on the residents and going above and beyond what could be considered reasonable action to ensure their escape. Some of them even break in solely for the purpose of inflicting harm on the occupants. Some people DO just learn shitful ways of dealing with their world and it is all about inflicting their crap on others. Yeah sure there are people that do have no plan, but check with your neighbourhood watch or you local police and I'm sure you'll see that there are far more planned and organized break ins and home invasions than random, "oops I accidently broke" in type situations.

soulsinging · December 2007

Jeanie wrote:

Well I disagree. If most crimes are crimes of opportunity then why are there so many new government departments set up to try to combat organized crime? Yeah, there are still criminals who aren't great masterminds and do just do things on the spur of the moment but there are far more who spend their whole life perpertrating one crime after another and working out new and interesting ways to perfect their craft. Otherwise our courts would be full of first time offenders that they never saw again.

And I don't think they run either. There's been more than enough incidents of home invaders hell bent on inflicting harm on the residents and going above and beyond what could be considered reasonable action to ensure their escape. Some of them even break in solely for the purpose of inflicting harm on the occupants. Some people DO just learn shitful ways of dealing with their world and it is all about inflicting their crap on others. Yeah sure there are people that do have no plan, but check with your neighbourhood watch or you local police and I'm sure you'll see that there are far more planned and organized break ins and home invasions than random, "oops I accidently broke" in type situations.

the only stats i've read from police all say most crimes are crimes of opportunity. every break in i've ever heard of was just that.

"they broke my car window and grabbed my cd's."
you think they planned that? no, they saw cd's in a car and no one around and grabbed it.

"someone stole my computer."
"did you lock your door when you left?"
"no, i forgot."
did they case the apartment building? no, they got in and tried every handle until they got an open one.

organized crime? what is this? chicago in the 1920's? the mob are goners. they have more wiretaps than criminals. what new government agencies are being created in america to combat organized crime? maybe things are different in australia, but we're talking about american self defense and criminology. most criminals aren't the complicated bank heisters from heat. sure, there are psychos who break in to hurt people, and career criminals who plan their break-ins very carefully. but the average home invasion in inner city america is a dude trying to score a couple bucks off an opportunity they just stumbled upon. there is no planning involved.

Jeanie · December 2007

soulsinging wrote:

the only stats i've read from police all say most crimes are crimes of opportunity. every break in i've ever heard of was just that.

"they broke my car window and grabbed my cd's."
you think they planned that? no, they saw cd's in a car and no one around and grabbed it.

"someone stole my computer."
"did you lock your door when you left?"
"no, i forgot."
did they case the apartment building? no, they got in and tried every handle until they got an open one.

organized crime? what is this? chicago in the 1920's? the mob are goners. they have more wiretaps than criminals. what new government agencies are being created in america to combat organized crime? maybe things are different in australia, but we're talking about american self defense and criminology. most criminals aren't the complicated bank heisters from heat. sure, there are psychos who break in to hurt people, and career criminals who plan their break-ins very carefully. but the average home invasion in inner city america is a dude trying to score a couple bucks off an opportunity they just stumbled upon. there is no planning involved.

Ok. As you like it. We don't agree.

onelongsong · December 2007

soulsinging wrote:

clearly. but at least not being privy to exactly what happened hasn't stopped you from using this one incident of a few (maybe) well-organized meth-heads to deduce that all people who break into houses are criminal masterminds that commit their crimes only after weeks of thought and preparation.

dude; you'll never be a lawyer. find something else before you waste the money on law school. i can't remember 1 time when you were able to quote me right. i never once said ALL.
franch posted more information about the horn case somewhere. they were caught with $2000 and were illegals from colombia. AND; part of a crime ring. the police also believe the house was targeted and watched for some time.

you can't babble on without information and become a lawyer.

onelongsong · December 2007

soulsinging wrote:

the only stats i've read from police all say most crimes are crimes of opportunity. every break in i've ever heard of was just that.

"they broke my car window and grabbed my cd's."
you think they planned that? no, they saw cd's in a car and no one around and grabbed it.

"someone stole my computer."
"did you lock your door when you left?"
"no, i forgot."
did they case the apartment building? no, they got in and tried every handle until they got an open one.

organized crime? what is this? chicago in the 1920's? the mob are goners. they have more wiretaps than criminals. what new government agencies are being created in america to combat organized crime? maybe things are different in australia, but we're talking about american self defense and criminology. most criminals aren't the complicated bank heisters from heat. sure, there are psychos who break in to hurt people, and career criminals who plan their break-ins very carefully. but the average home invasion in inner city america is a dude trying to score a couple bucks off an opportunity they just stumbled upon. there is no planning involved.

look up RICO

edit: what about the FBI organized crime unit? most state police; sheriffs; and even police depts have organized crime units. they also have gang units which is also organized crime.
dude; really; think about another profession.

onelongsong · December 2007

Jeanie wrote:

Well I disagree. If most crimes are crimes of opportunity then why are there so many new government departments set up to try to combat organized crime? Yeah, there are still criminals who aren't great masterminds and do just do things on the spur of the moment but there are far more who spend their whole life perpertrating one crime after another and working out new and interesting ways to perfect their craft. Otherwise our courts would be full of first time offenders that they never saw again.

And I don't think they run either. There's been more than enough incidents of home invaders hell bent on inflicting harm on the residents and going above and beyond what could be considered reasonable action to ensure their escape. Some of them even break in solely for the purpose of inflicting harm on the occupants. Some people DO just learn shitful ways of dealing with their world and it is all about inflicting their crap on others. Yeah sure there are people that do have no plan, but check with your neighbourhood watch or you local police and I'm sure you'll see that there are far more planned and organized break ins and home invasions than random, "oops I accidently broke" in type situations.

the crimes that are planned; are the blokes who don't get caught. for every crime solved; there's a thousand that don't get solved. you may see more "crimes of oppertunity" being prosecuted; but that's because those criminals are easily caught. the other thing is he doesn't know the effects of meth. my son created a fool proof security system (for computers) while on meth. when he gets out of prison he may try to sell it to the government.

Jeanie · December 2007

onelongsong wrote:

the crimes that are planned; are the blokes who don't get caught. for every crime solved; there's a thousand that don't get solved. you may see more "crimes of oppertunity" being prosecuted; but that's because those criminals are easily caught. the other thing is he doesn't know the effects of meth. my son created a fool proof security system (for computers) while on meth. when he gets out of prison he may try to sell it to the government.

Exactly my point.

If criminality and criminal activities are your business then you have a vested interest in not getting caught. It's bad for business.
And should you get caught that's what hot shot lawyers are for.

It's well documented here. Either way, as the victim of a crime I doubt very much if you're gonna care one way or the other while it's happening if you're dealing with a first time offender OR a career criminal. Might be of more importance to you after the fact if you find out that not only has charming charlie done you over this week but he's got a list of priors a mile long OR that he's known to the police but unfortunately yet again, even though they know it was probably him, they're probably not going to be able to do anything about it this time either.

onelongsong · December 2007

Jeanie wrote:

Exactly my point. If criminality and criminal activities are your business then you have a vested interest in not getting caught. It's bad for business.
And should you get caught that's what hot shot lawyers are for.
It's well documented here. Either way, as the victim of a crime I doubt very much if you're gonna care one way or the other while it's happening if you're dealing with a first time offender OR a career criminal. Might be of more importance to you after the fact if you find out that not only has charming charlie done you over this week but he's got a list of priors a mile long OR that he's known to the police but unfortunately yet again, even though they know it was probably him, they're probably not going to be able to do anything about it this time either.

normally the police response is: we don't have enough evidence. when i had to do something "on the fence" i learned everything about it. especially what evidence is needed to prosecute. normally; crooks get caught when they become comfortable and get complacent. but our lawyers get them off so they have the oppertunity to build 50 page rap sheets.

Jeanie · December 2007

onelongsong wrote:

normally the police response is: we don't have enough evidence. when i had to do something "on the fence" i learned everything about it. especially what evidence is needed to prosecute. normally; crooks get caught when they become comfortable and get complacent. but our lawyers get them off so they have the oppertunity to build 50 page rap sheets.

Yes. Haven't we heard that time and again? And having called the police on numerous occassions and had them actually ask me, "Well what do you want us to do?" :rolleyes: One would have to wonder, even supposing they take an interest in "your criminal" or the crime perpertrated against you, what the point of putting yourself through ringing them, making a statement, pissing off Charlie Charming and having it go to court only to have their lawyer get them off anyway really does for you? I suspect that we're all supposed to just sit back and let whoever do whatever they damn well like and live with the consequences of their actions somehow. :mad:

Collin · December 2007

onelongsong wrote:

why don't these shootings happen in states where guns are allowed in malls? walk into an arizona walmart and you'll see people with guns on their hips. also keep in mind that 80,000 people have permits to carry conceald weapons so you don't see those guns. so yes; it's already working in many states. if they're suicide terrorists; why not take them out before they kill 8 innocent people? allowing them to inflict terror doesn't solve the problem.

No, that doesn't mean it's working at all.

It can happen anywhere, Arizona included. These people are nuts. They want to kill people and die. So why would they be afraid of someone with a gun?

They are suicide terrorists and the reason why you can't take them out before they kill is because you do not know who is going to kill. And before you tell me you can reach for your gun and kill a man before he ever has the chance of doing harm, let's hope no one else is as skilfull as you, because someone might see you reach for your weapon and shoot you mistaking you for a killer. Or you might shoot someone who's trying to stop a killer. And I'm sure you are always 100% focused and completely aware of your surroundings but let's face it onelongsong, it's a crowded mall and people can block your view or worse your shot. And let's not forget about the 85% incompetent gun owners, who shouldn't have guns. You want these people shooting in a mall filled with people? (by the way that 68,000 incompetent people who have a concealed weapons permit).

It's a recipe for disaster if you ask me and I think any reasonable person will agree. I think your love for guns has blinded you, or maybe it's because you fear more people will want a ban if these things continue to happen, I don't know. But it's unreasonable. Allowing citizens to shoot in crowded places when you know more than half of those shouldn't even have guns in the first place because they're incompetent or irresponsible isn't a solution.

If you think guns are the solution at least come up with something a little more reasonable than this.

onelongsong · December 2007

Collin wrote:

No, that doesn't mean it's working at all.

It can happen anywhere, Arizona included. These people are nuts. They want to kill people and die. So why would they be afraid of someone with a gun?

They are suicide terrorists and the reason why you can't take them out before they kill is because you do not know who is going to kill. And before you tell me you can reach for your gun and kill a man before he ever has the chance of doing harm, let's hope no one else is as skilfull as you, because someone might see you reach for your weapon and shoot you mistaking you for a killer. Or you might shoot someone who's trying to stop a killer. And I'm sure you are always 100% focused and completely aware of your surroundings but let's face it onelongsong, it's a crowded mall and people can block your view or worse your shot. And let's not forget about the 85% incompetent gun owners, who shouldn't have guns. You want these people shooting in a mall filled with people? (by the way that 68,000 incompetent people who have a concealed weapons permit).

It's a recipe for disaster if you ask me and I think any reasonable person will agree. I think your love for guns has blinded you, or maybe it's because you fear more people will want a ban if these things continue to happen, I don't know. But it's unreasonable. Allowing citizens to shoot in crowded places when you know more than half of those shouldn't even have guns in the first place because they're incompetent or irresponsible isn't a solution.

If you think guns are the solution at least come up with something a little more reasonable than this.

i think you're in a "dirty harry" mindset here. it doesn't work like that. my bounty hunter training and other firearms training qualify me to act. you never shoot in a crowded mall. normally people run away from the shooter; or hide behind something. you work your way up to the shooter to take him by surprise. sure; he's a suicide terrorist; but if you can stop him from killing innocent people; you should. there's a proper way to handle the situation. nomally; these shooters want to take out as many people as they can. thus the reason so many are caught with pipe bombs and such. when the 80,000 permit holders took the class; they were trained how to deal with shootouts. if another is trying to get the same shooter; he's not the guy shooting at innocent people. i'm not going into how it's done. there's a way and we'll leave it at that.

having armed people is not the solution to these terrorists mental illness. guns are not the answer to society's failure to these people. and all the laws in the world won't stop these people. the stricter the gun laws; the bigger the black market; which means the cheaper the illegal gun will cost. if anyone wants an illegal gun; just ask a drug dealer. 9 times out of 10; a drug dealer can find you an illegal gun. 3 times out of 10; they'll have one available.

this is not a situation for the average citizen. it should be done by off duty or retired law enforcement. someone trained for this situation would be the second choice. i'm not saying i'm superman or dirty harry. just that i'd risk my life to save innocent lives because i feel an obligation to my community. here's some interesting reading.
http://www.usconcealedcarry.com/public/83.cfm

i'm not saying those 60,000 are unqualified. i'm saying 60% of gun owners are criminals. remove that 60%; the other 25% that carry for protection; won't need to. my comment about 85% of the population shouldn't have guns has nothing to do with qualifications. it means that if you remove the criminals; the others won't need to carry. the other 15% are sportsmen.

Was Housewife Too Quick To Pull Trigger?

Comments

Categories