Two Armed Men Use Daughter As Human Shield — Until Her Father Guns Them Down

a reply to: Xcathdra

Again i agree on most of your saying.

But comparing gun violence to carcrashes and other stuff is not ok IMO.

They are completly different things.

Cars have been regulated and made more safe since they started creating dead people, so that thing is actually being taken cared of and still being regulated, though you can't completely remove car accidents as accidents happens but they are in most cases just accidents and not directly murder.

Drunk driving is the same, though again some people just don't seem to get it sadly, but the cops/ gowernment can't really do more than what they do to stop drunk drivers or stupid drivers unless you get more control and that is then going against people who drive safely, more rules doesn't help either as the rules there are clearly says don't do it and be respectful in your car .

The other weapons used are also completely different and have been regulated by law as much as you can without banning them, but as always some people just don't listen.

When it comes to guns, which obviously are very deadly in the wrong hands, well...there really isn't much regulation but at the same time there isn't really more you can do unless you completely ban them, which i already stated is too late in todays US.

So the problem is and always will be stupid and maniacally people, if you can remove some of the tools these people use or regulate them so they can't use or obtain them so easily, you are on the right track but that also means that it will affect normal people unfortunately, but the people would just have to accept that in the sense it does save life and i'm sure the future people who are going to get killed would be happy about that.

The protection of your self in case the government is turning against you, is IMO far out, though not impossible, i just don't see it as an issue in the gun debate.

But as i said the overall thing is the brokken society, not the items in society though protection of life is the dominator and always should be.

a reply to: Mianeye
The purpose for the comparison to other incidents that result in death is to expose how badly laid out the argument for gun control is.

A gun with a 7 round clip cannot kill more than 7 people where as a drunk driver behind a 2,000 pound missile can kill more than 7 people. Not only can he kill more, his weapon will allow him to continue that death spree across state lines for up to, give or take, 400 miles.

The purpose of trying to restrict guns has nothing to do with preventing shootings. That is an excuse / situation the government is using / exploiting to make the goal of banning guns justifiable and more palatable for people to accept.

The second amendment does not restrict gun ownership.
just as the first amendment does not restrict certain religions.


Chicago has THE toughest gun control laws in the United states.
How many other cities, aside from Chicago, report that they had more then 30-40 people shot over the weekend?

Gun control does NOT work.


ETA - By the way im not singling you out so if its coming across in that manner my apologies.

a reply to: Xcathdra

It is a good question, but as i'm no US citizen it's kind of hard for me to answer as my government is too small and non capable of suddenly turning against its people unless it's a whole EU act, which i simply don't believe in as there is no sign of such an act to occur not now or later.

I was only referring to crime in general, not conspiracy, so i have no answer for you

a reply to: Xcathdra

Gun control does NOT work.

I agree, but only because it's too late to apply gun control as the US looks now, but you could regulate a bit here and there and it might save one maybe two or many lives, like putting seatbelts in a car potentially saves life in case of an accident or meeting a drunk driver.

A gun with a 7 round clip cannot kill more than 7 people where as a drunk driver behind a 2,000 pound missile can kill more than 7 people. Not only can he kill more, his weapon will allow him to continue that death spree across state lines for up to, give or take, 400 miles.

Anything can potentially be a weapon, but some are for sure a weapon, a car is just a car where a gun is definitely a weapon, they should therefore be treated independently .

ETA - By the way im not singling you out so if its coming across in that manner my apologies.

It's cool...i know, we are just having a conversation and i feel no hostility from you or anyone else.

I to is just voicing my opinion as we should to have a mature conversation

a reply to: Mianeye
Cool and thanks

Out of curiosity then what type of restrictions would you like to see / that you think would work?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Mianeye

Question -

If you think the 2nd amendment is wrong I am assuming you mean it is directed at a well regulated militia and not the individual correct?

If that is correct then my counter argument would be since I am male and all males are required to register for selective service at 18 (failure to do so is a crime) and maintain / update my status to the government every time I move up to the age of 36 then I would argue I am in fact a part of a well regulated militia.

The purpose behind selective service is so the government, during times of war, can institute the draft and start call ups of men between those ages for forced military duty.

Since females are not subject to the draft I could then make an argument that the 2nd amendment does not apply to females.

That line of thought requires an answer to one more question -
If the Federal or state government go stupid and declare martial law, will you comply or would you take up arms to defend the constitution and your freedoms?

if you answer yes, you would fight, then you are a part of a well regulated militia whose purpose is to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign AND domestic.

The likelihood of something like that occurring is dependent on ho well armed the people actually are. The government is suppose to fear the people, not the other way around.

Removing / massively restricting the 2nd shifts the balance in favor of the government.

Nice argument. I'm actually impressed.

This has been a pretty darn good thread with good points from both sides. This is one of the few gun posts I've enjoyed reading through.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Mianeye
Cool and thanks

Out of curiosity then what type of restrictions would you like to see / that you think would work?

Hmmm...To be honest i really don't know as it is now it seems almost impossible to regulate guns in to a "good balance", as i said earlier, fix society instead of going for the items, starting with a clean out of the government.

One thing is for sure, its not going to be easy and it will take a heck of a long time to find and do the right things, there are a lot of rotten apples.

a reply to: Mianeye

if you're gonna do numbers then you should be comparing apples to apples. 300 per 60 million people, compared to 1700 per 300 million people.

Its easy math, the UK death toll from knifings would be 1500 per 300 million people.

AND

If we are going to really compare this to other death numbers its a tiny tiny percentage, not that any are acceptable.

16,000 people die from NSAID usage in the US every year, just to give you a little perspective.

We need to ban ibuprofen

a reply to: zardust

The numbers i picked was not to be taken seriously as they were just quickly handpicked, they might even be from different years as i didn't check that, they were only to show that if you are going to talk about weapons used to kill, you should take them all overall not singling them out when comparing to country's.

Thats why i put a little note in (......)

Mornin' again,

Nothing is quite so terrifying as watching the well-meaning casually toss aside everyone else's freedoms (and right to said freedoms by extension) simply because it gives them the "warm and fuzzies".
Freedom isn't some fluffy kitten with a pink bow.
To keep freedom takes eternal dedication...you have to be willing to get dirty.
No one will do it for you.
How people ever believed sacrificing freedom for security could be a good trade literally scares me outta my bed at night.
All these two parents did is exactly what your supposed to do when trouble knocks on your door.
Some might try point out that it could have easily turned into a tragedy.
Yeah, well it didn't.
By all accounts, it seems like they had already reached tragic proportions long before the parents broke out the firepower anyways.
That is the type of family I'd be proud to live beside.

-Peace-

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

Because I've never heard of one before....

Not being a gun hater just a gun realist, I can say I'm happy they missed their daughter.

Oh come on now, thats the best you can do? Your not glad that another murderous, child kidnapping, hide behind a little girl thug, is off the streets? That doesn't make you feel a little safer? The father showed complete gun control. Killing the real threat and winging the coward that ran away. That shows real composure. He is obviously well practiced and fluent in proper procedure. Two big thumbs up lady. The good guys won that day and the best you can say is your glad he didn't shoot his daughter by accident? If he didn't have a weapon, what do you think those fellas would have done? They went straight for the young girl and used her as a shield.

Will anyone here be surprised when criminal charges are brought against the parents? - backed by Holder - then we'll probably see a civil lawsuit for wrongful death, then we might see Holder again pressing federal charges as well. You think I'm exaggerating don't you!!!

a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

Why is it the the gun haters never bring up these types of articles? This is just reason #1,632 why having a gun for your personal protection is a good idea.

Because many "gun haters" support this type of gun ownership and the gun is being used in the proper way in defense of ones home and family. What many "gun haters" don't support is some idiot that thinks they need a AR15 to order a latte.

a reply to: buni11687
How come we don't see this kind of story on GMA?

Fear of this outcome prevents countless home invasions.

a reply to: buni11687

This may give some much needed info on guns.

www.justfacts.com...

" Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]"

There are many more facts in this article to read about.Some would support gun control and others would not. I'll let everyone decide for themselves.

Good old fashioned justice.

a reply to: skunkape23

I'm glad he lived.. only because of the fact that they charged him with his friends death

a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

If there were no guns involved, no one would be dead right now. I bet those guys wouldn't of even had the balls to do such acts without their guns. That's why.

originally posted by: 0bservant


If there were no guns involved, no one would be dead right now. I bet those guys wouldn't of even had the balls to do such acts without their guns. That's why.

How do you know that? Stop talking through your hat!

Instead of the taxpayers picking up the tab for exorbitant medical bills, and a million dollar defense & trail bill, they should have given him a Band-Aid and Tylenol.

Just my heartless intolerance for this type of behavior from the dregs of society.
When we spend more money protecting the rights of criminals than we do on improving the quality of life for law-abiding citizen and protecting children, I have a hard time mustering up any compassion for people like this.

Dad needs to hit the gun rage more often; it would have been to the benefit of humanity if he had permanently removed both animals from society.

"Two Men Use Girl As Human Shield — Until Her Father Guns Them Down"






This is exactly why people should have the right to own guns.
These people had little to no time to grab a phone and call the police.

And even if they had, how much death and damage would have been done to that family before the cops arrived.

Cops are a responsive unit, the rarely prevent anything.
We, as people, are left to defend ourselves in times like this.