that gets to shoot somebody and get a pat on the back for doing it???

Give ‘em a chance and they’ll shoot an unarmed teenager rummaging in the carport.

I do think once someone is in your house, they are a danger. But sounds like killing them wasn’t the only option here.

You bring up training, I wonder what your view is on it. I have seen anti-gunners on this site complain about gun owners "training to kill", then complain that gun owners don't train enough after an accidental shooting. Just wondered how you felt about that issue.

for HOME protection, etc., you should be under surveillance. Most public toters are scum like George Zimmerman and/or too paranoid/afraid to be trusted with lethal weapons.

You responded with a post that had nothing to do about training. I asked again how you felt about training, and here we are. And, what gun love junk am I posting? That anti-gunners state 2 different opinions at 2 different times? Little hard to follow logic when that happens. Calls for policy change when 2 different views are presented at the same time makes things difficult. Just wanted to know how you felt about it. I guess I know, now.

if you are training with assault style rifles, hi cap mags, etc., you are no longer interested in self defense other than an excuse to use your lethal toys. And, gun supporters — again, particularly assault style weapons — are not interested in a better society.

Restricting certain types, or all of them? And "toting isn't fully defined, either. Do you mean ALL firearms carry, or just open carry?

Training with other than an "assault weapon" is OK, then? Do you have a good description of an "assault weapon"? Many descriptions have been offered on this site, some, completely wrong. Just want to make sure we're on the same page.

What does supporting the 2d amendment, "gun supporters", have to do with a better society? No guns, no violence? That won't happen, and for more than one reason. There was violence in the world before guns, and would be long after you would get rid of them. Violence is currently committed without firearms, in case you need a cite.

I have not posted anything about having intercourse with firearms, nor the killing/injuring of multiple beings. You might want to take a chill pill, and breathe deep for a moment.

I answered "I didn't." Asked, answered. Your post is incorrect.

Transference, I believe it's called? And, when you assume...

Do you change the oil in your car? Oil bicycle chain? Clean microwave? I can ask silly questions, too. But, it just makes things sillier, doesn't it?

It will have zero impact on crime.

Less drunks means less DUI accidents/deaths. Sounds like a plan. Oh, wait...

even though booze and guns don’t mix.

Sit outside a bar out in the suburbs/rural area. Nearly everyone there arrived by car. Betcha a lot drive themselves home, too.

We can do this all day.

this is their reasoning why school shootings are just collateral damage

What would you prefer?

not everyone is a gun humper

DONE HERE

But thanks for playing I guess. That individual had every right to defend the home. Glad we have the 2d Amendment to the Constitution and it is a key platform for Democrats to defend.

If there is evidence you shot them fleeing, especially if they were unarmed and did not attack you, then that presumption begins to weaken.

Too many innocent people shot on the front porch or front yard for me to play these “what ifs” with gunners.

Closest is near the bottom, where the word "inside" is used. No info on where, how, how many shots, etc. Might have to wait for a better source to determine. Being "under investigation", it may be awhile.

Not gonna try to read between those lines.

You're in it, in case you weren't aware. It's up to OP to decide to post it or not. If you don't like it, don't click on it, trash it, or report it. You DO have options here.

Of course. I was only answering the question you posted above. Did you forget that you asked it?

For who? Certainly not gun owners or supporters of the Constitution. If anything, “gun rights” have strengthened and expanded over the last 30 years.

As per Pres. Clinton, upon the loss of the House after passing the 1994 AWB.

Gun control a strong issue for anyone supporting the American People:



If, on the other hand, you're a Republican . . .



Almost all of this money comes from:
The NSSF
Gun Owners of America
The NRA
Almost none of this money is from membership, but from the gun makers filtered through these organizations.

If you want votes, go for gun control, if you want money with blood on it go Republican.

I know as much or more about the mythological 2nd as anyone and I'm here to tell you the 2nd isn't what you've been told by the NRA and NSSF

Doesn’t seem like the sort of data point that justifies infringing on the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms.

I guess legality has no bearing on the answers.

However what you think is moot because you're simply wrong on this point.

They valued someone else's stuff more than their own life. No loss.

but you know who wasn't shot around 2:10 PM on Friday? Over 300 million people who didn't break into someone's house.

I reckon there's a lesson in there, somewhere.

Good riddance.
Kudos to the homeowner for taking out the trash.