It wasn’t the gun. It was the gun owner and his approach to what he concluded was a problem. I totally disagree with how he handled it. It may have been an accident but…it was a gun owner who poorly managed his response to what he perceived as a potential problem. He’ll have to live with it and his daughter will have to now live with out her husband. There are no winners here.
That IS the point that I am trying to make.
When you have a heavily armed society, ■■■■ like this happens. When you don’t, it does not. Or at least far less.
WuWei: W_and_C: WuWei: W_and_C: WuWei:11:30 at night you jump out of bushes growling, what the hell you think is going to happen? Scarecam?
Wonder if old dude is a vet.
Nothing. Old dude is a bit startled, then sees it’s his son-in-law and is overjoyed; they go inside and get drunk, everyone’s happy, son-in-law likely lives to tell the story to his great-grandchildren in 50 years.
Obviously not. Don’t ■■■■ with old men.
That’s almost certainly what would have happened in Norway, old men or not.
He wasn’t in Norway.
Would a cop have shot him?
That IS the point that I am trying to make.
When you have a heavily armed society, ■■■■ like this happens. When you don’t, it does not. Or at least far less.
Not if you don’t jump out of bushes it don’t.
Want to bet he had his cell phone out videoing?
Correct, the more likely outcome would be an old man dying from a heart attack or stroke instead.
Well, he probably would’ve had a heart attack or a stroke whether he was carrying or not. Scared is scared.
WildRose:Correct, the more likely outcome would be an old man dying from a heart attack or stroke instead.
Well, he probably would’ve had a heart attack or a stroke whether he was carrying or not. Scared is scared.
Yet he didn’t.
W_and_C: WuWei: W_and_C: WuWei: W_and_C: WuWei:11:30 at night you jump out of bushes growling, what the hell you think is going to happen? Scarecam?
Wonder if old dude is a vet.
Nothing. Old dude is a bit startled, then sees it’s his son-in-law and is overjoyed; they go inside and get drunk, everyone’s happy, son-in-law likely lives to tell the story to his great-grandchildren in 50 years.
Obviously not. Don’t ■■■■ with old men.
That’s almost certainly what would have happened in Norway, old men or not.
He wasn’t in Norway.
Would a cop have shot him?
That IS the point that I am trying to make.
When you have a heavily armed society, ■■■■ like this happens. When you don’t, it does not. Or at least far less.
Not if you don’t jump out of bushes it don’t.
Want to bet he had his cell phone out videoing?
Right, and if you never leave your house, it probably won’t either
W_and_C: WildRose:Correct, the more likely outcome would be an old man dying from a heart attack or stroke instead.
Well, he probably would’ve had a heart attack or a stroke whether he was carrying or not. Scared is scared.
Yet he didn’t.
Correct.
Actually as I read it, it was a perfectly lawful shooting and the proper response to the circumstances present.
Particularly in the dark you don’t have to wait until you have positively ID’d the threat or that they are armed in most states.
WuWei: W_and_C: WildRose:Correct, the more likely outcome would be an old man dying from a heart attack or stroke instead.
Well, he probably would’ve had a heart attack or a stroke whether he was carrying or not. Scared is scared.
Yet he didn’t.
Correct.
Because he had a means to defend himself.
The dead guy had the situational awareness of a ■■■■■■■ rock.
Chlorine in the gene pool.
Incorrect, you don’t need to panic raising your stress levels through the roof if you have a way to deal with an oncoming threat particularly if you’ve had any competent training.
Are you saying he didn’t have a heart attack because he had a gun?
Actually as I read it, it was a perfectly lawful shooting and the proper response to the circumstances present.
Particularly in the dark you don’t have to wait until you have positively ID’d the threat or that they are armed in most states.
I agree it was legal but personally…I wouldn’t have approached the situation as the shooter did. IMO…his methodology was wrong. He was already triggered…prior to opening the door…IMHO…and that was the catalyst for this catastrophe.
Are you saying he didn’t have a heart attack because he had a gun?
Yes. Are you saying he did?
WildRose:Actually as I read it, it was a perfectly lawful shooting and the proper response to the circumstances present.
Particularly in the dark you don’t have to wait until you have positively ID’d the threat or that they are armed in most states.
I agree it was legal but personally…I wouldn’t have approached the situation as the shooter did. IMO…his methodology was wrong. He was already triggered…prior to opening the door…IMHO…and that was the catalyst for this catastrophe.
What “triggered” him?
Did I say that? You can’t possibly know that’s not why he didn’t have a heart attack.
Did I say that? You can’t possibly know that’s not why he didn’t have a heart attack.
Backatcha.
Well, according to many ammosexuals, “moar careful” translates into arming yourself to the teeth anytime you walk down to your mailbox, so…
No, it means getting training so you don’t accidentally gun down people shouting surprise! when it’s your birthday.
Why is he allowed to have a gun?
He’s American.
You can argue there might have been better ways to handle the situation but it was completely lawful and totally understandable.