Morons like this don't help us responsible CC citizens. - Page 8
Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 94

Thread: Morons like this don't help us responsible CC citizens.

  1. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
    Whahhhhhhh, I'm telling..... lmbo, Dont have any facts to back up your argument, so you try and change the subject... or mis-direct it anyways, typical....

    My brashness is the result of not being politically correct, deal with it... I tell the truth without any sugar coating... It keeps people like you from getting away with giving out FALSE AND DANGEROUS advice to people who dont know any better and might take it and end up in a world of hurt or dead....

    If you cant stand being wrong, stop typing dude...... That, or get a clue what the real world actually is like before posting about it....
    Im done with you. Just try to be responsible and safe when you carry. I have proved everything I have set out to prove, and have proven everything you ask me to. No more with you.

  2.   
  3. #72
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Pasco, Washington, United States
    Posts
    6,271
    Quote Originally Posted by wooddoctor:237889
    Quote Originally Posted by Firefighterchen View Post
    Not hurt feeling here. Education is not the issue. You have some true hatred for your fellow American, and you like to argue ad hominem, so good luck to you sir.
    Democrats believe in the rule of man not the rule of law. That is the hatred that is spews from Democrats.
    Don't even know how to reply to that...cool? Does cool work? Republican...democrat...both believe they are better than each other, both believe the other side is a bunch of selfish crazy lunatics, both sides hate each other. You have fun with that. :)

  4. #73
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Carolina/Charleston
    Posts
    2,388
    Hey Fire: In reply to your #66 post,"sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me". A verbal threat means nothing and if you are CC and get enraged over verbals, even if they are directed to your wife in a vulgar manner, you had better learn to calm down or give up CC, because you will get in trouble. As far as Flynn in the OP is concerned, he is lucky he did not die that day--if that motorist had a firearm and Flynn is in his verbal abuse rage with a brandished gun, the motorist could easily have defended himself--he chose to drive away which he was able to do and which is what he should always do even if he had a firearm.
    In the SC tow guy case--- As I said, the evidence is not 100% on where the van guy's gun was right after the brandishing (showing it in his waistband). The gun did end up on the ground at the end of all this--how and when it came out is subject to believing conflicting stories--I am sure the van guy's family will insist that the gun never came out (then why is it on the ground) and the defense will tell you that it was pointed at the tow guy. It really is somewhat like the pharmacist case in OK--everything was fine until he fired that last shot--murder.
    Bottom line to me is verbal means nothing when you are CC. If a gun appears and is pointed at you and you have no alternative after doing everything possible to avoid the confrontation including yelling (witnesses) you have, as a reasonable person, presumed that you are in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury and can shoot to kill.

  5. #74
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    Quote Originally Posted by Deserteagle View Post
    Im done with you. Just try to be responsible and safe when you carry. I have proved everything I have set out to prove, and have proven everything you ask me to. No more with you.
    You are correct, you have proven that you will MURDER someone because at one time IN THE PAST they were a threat, although at the time you shot them they no longer were....... Your prior posts prove this time and time again and you NEVER ONCE even HINTED at denying it..

  6. #75
    kelcarry - FN1910 is from a FN 1910 model pistol that my Grandfather passed down to me. I am not sure of the history of the present FN company and how it comes from the original Belgium company but the 1910 was designed by Moses Browning back in 1910 and made by the FN company. Later it was made in the US by the Browning company. Notice that the 1910 was before the 1911 and has some of the same characteristics such as the grip safety. I am not sure when the one I have was made but my Grandfather carried it in his pocket for years back in the 40's and 50's until he started carrying a lighter .25 auto.

  7. #76
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Firefighterchen View Post
    Is a verbal threat reason enough to go get a gun and come back and kill the person threatening? In that case, the man who drew his gun in the OP was justified because the one in the car could have been threatening and had a deadly weapon in possession. I don't think you have stated your opinion on the OP...do you think he had reason enough to draw? After drawing, the other party ran away, so he did not fire. The firearm did it's purpose and stopped the threat. If OP is not justified, how is the tow truck driver justified by shooting over verbal threats?

    Do you see what I'm getting at?
    I see your point. A verbal threat doesn't rise to the level needed to exercise deadly physical force. Once the perp fills his hand the threat exists. We should all realize that the justification of defense is based in the standard of the reasonable person. Not the smartest, dumbest, bravest or most cowardly person, but the average person. Now let's say the person being threatened is elderly, handicapped or even has a cardiac condition. They can't easily retreat or defend themselves. They may use deadly force sooner than the healthy, young, strong person. Yet there still must be more than just a verbal threat in every instance. With so many defensive uses of a gun that didn't require a shot (91% of 2.5 million DGU's) one can deduce that the introduction of a firearm to the situation can be enough to defuse the attacker. In such cases the presentation of a gun is not brandishing or menacing, but the beginning steps of an act of self-defense. In an attack where a gun is presented in defense, defusing the attack before it happens, the victim has acted within most state laws.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  8. #77
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Pasco, Washington, United States
    Posts
    6,271
    Quote Originally Posted by kelcarry:237922
    Hey Fire: In reply to your #66 post,"sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me". A verbal threat means nothing and if you are CC and get enraged over verbals, even if they are directed to your wife in a vulgar manner, you had better learn to calm down or give up CC, because you will get in trouble. As far as Flynn in the OP is concerned, he is lucky he did not die that day--if that motorist had a firearm and Flynn is in his verbal abuse rage with a brandished gun, the motorist could easily have defended himself--he chose to drive away which he was able to do and which is what he should always do even if he had a firearm.
    In the SC tow guy case--- As I said, the evidence is not 100% on where the van guy's gun was right after the brandishing (showing it in his waistband). The gun did end up on the ground at the end of all this--how and when it came out is subject to believing conflicting stories--I am sure the van guy's family will insist that the gun never came out (then why is it on the ground) and the defense will tell you that it was pointed at the tow guy. It really is somewhat like the pharmacist case in OK--everything was fine until he fired that last shot--murder.
    Bottom line to me is verbal means nothing when you are CC. If a gun appears and is pointed at you and you have no alternative after doing everything possible to avoid the confrontation including yelling (witnesses) you have, as a reasonable person, presumed that you are in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury and can shoot to kill.
    Good points, but you didn't touch on the facts the tow driver retrieved his gun from another location, so the threat was not imminent.

    Let me put it in another scenario (i swore i read this somewhere...but I dont want to find it, so i will just say its fictional). Two neighbors are arguing over the lawn mover that was borrowed but never returned. The one with the mower brandishes a firearm. He is in the wrong. The other neighbor goes inside, gets a gun, comes back, walks over to the neighbors house, and shoots his neighbor. Was he right in doing so? He has no reason to back down on his property, the other guy had his mower. But he had time to go get a gun, wouldn't that time be better spent calling 911, defusing yourself/situation, getting out of the dangerous area (by staying inside)?

    Quote Originally Posted by BC1:237962
    Quote Originally Posted by Firefighterchen View Post
    Is a verbal threat reason enough to go get a gun and come back and kill the person threatening? In that case, the man who drew his gun in the OP was justified because the one in the car could have been threatening and had a deadly weapon in possession. I don't think you have stated your opinion on the OP...do you think he had reason enough to draw? After drawing, the other party ran away, so he did not fire. The firearm did it's purpose and stopped the threat. If OP is not justified, how is the tow truck driver justified by shooting over verbal threats?

    Do you see what I'm getting at?
    I see your point. A verbal threat doesn't rise to the level needed to exercise deadly physical force. Once the perp fills his hand the threat exists. We should all realize that the justification of defense is based in the standard of the reasonable person. Not the smartest, dumbest, bravest or most cowardly person, but the average person. Now let's say the person being threatened is elderly, handicapped or even has a cardiac condition. They can't easily retreat or defend themselves. They may use deadly force sooner than the healthy, young, strong person. Yet there still must be more than just a verbal threat in every instance. With so many defensive uses of a gun that didn't require a shot (91% of 2.5 million DGU's) one can deduce that the introduction of a firearm to the situation can be enough to defuse the attacker. In such cases the presentation of a gun is not brandishing or menacing, but the beginning steps of an act of self-defense. In an attack where a gun is presented in defense, defusing the attack before it happens, the victim has acted within most state laws.
    I understand all of that, and those are great points, but that's not what I was asking about. I do want to say though, in this verbal argument, one did have his hands filled with a threat, 1000+ lbs of steel, engine, and tires threat. Definitely like your post though, especially since it, even if you didn't mean it to, proves open carry deterrance works. At minimum, 91% of the time open carry will stop an attack, or preventativly defuse an attack. That is a great percentage of deterrance.

  9. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
    You are correct, you have proven that you will MURDER someone because at one time IN THE PAST they were a threat, although at the time you shot them they no longer were....... Your prior posts prove this time and time again and you NEVER ONCE even HINTED at denying it..
    You really do need help from a psychologist.

  10. #79
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Firefighterchen View Post
    Good points, but you didn't touch on the facts the tow driver retrieved his gun from another location, so the threat was not imminent.

    Let me put it in another scenario (i swore i read this somewhere...but I dont want to find it, so i will just say its fictional). Two neighbors are arguing over the lawn mover that was borrowed but never returned. The one with the mower brandishes a firearm. He is in the wrong. The other neighbor goes inside, gets a gun, comes back, walks over to the neighbors house, and shoots his neighbor. Was he right in doing so? He has no reason to back down on his property, the other guy had his mower. But he had time to go get a gun, wouldn't that time be better spent calling 911, defusing yourself/situation, getting out of the dangerous area (by staying inside)?



    I understand all of that, and those are great points, but that's not what I was asking about. I do want to say though, in this verbal argument, one did have his hands filled with a threat, 1000+ lbs of steel, engine, and tires threat. Definitely like your post though, especially since it, even if you didn't mean it to, proves open carry deterrance works. At minimum, 91% of the time open carry will stop an attack, or preventativly defuse an attack. That is a great percentage of deterrance.
    Yes, there are times/places where OC will be a deterrent.

    A car is also a deadly weapon in the hands of a nutjob. Police routinely fire at the driver of a car when he presents a threat. In 2009 there was a case in Chester, NY where an off-duty LEO shot and killed a guy who was aiming his truck at a bar bouncer. Despite being armed while having a few drinks in a bar the officer was cleared of any wrongdoing.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  11. #80
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    2,004
    Quote Originally Posted by kelcarry View Post
    Further to my comment and agreeing with Desert, when you are CC you are a wuss---a dangerous wuss who can kill someone with their firearm that is CC but you are a wuss--period/end of story. You beg foregiveness, you retreat if you can, you yell and scream and can cry mama if you want so that witnesses will see you are not trying to provoke but actually trying to minimize the interraction. If after doing all those things, if they are possible, and a threat is still possible, it is now "miller time" you act (ie-your firearm) and when you act it is the last and final resort at your disposal because any further delay will, in your mind, (presumption of imminent danger of death or great bodily injury) cause your possible death or serious injury. The quick chain of events and dynamics are easy to write about and I can see them clearly in my mind, but I surely hope they never appear before me--I am not so sure my actions will follow such a clear and unmistakeable and, IMO, legally correct course, but I know that I will use situational awareness as my first course and being a complete wuss as my second course with lots of yelling and screaming for witnesses---I will always be looking at the jerk and looking at his hands and thinking about his demeanor and having myself in a position (distance from the jerk) where I can defend myself.
    Wow! I just don't know where to start with this CC = Wuss drivel.

    So you're say that everyone that CC's is a wuss? Statements like this are what perpetuates the rift between CC and OC. What, in your mind, makes someone who lives in a particular state that only allows CC, a wuss? You personal and vast experience as a world renowned authority on carry methods and state laws?

    Completely unnecessary and not germane to the conversation originating from the OP.

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast