ADDED: Here's another guns and fathers story in the news today:
A woman who was alone in the house believed someone was breaking in and called [Jeffrey Giuliano], who lives next door, and he grabbed a gun and went outside to investigate, police said.
The father confronted someone wearing a black ski mask and black clothing and then fired his gun when the person went at him with a shiny weapon in his hand, police said.The gunshot was fatal, and under the mask was the face of Giuliano's 15-year-old son Tyler.
पोस्ट्स
१०१ टिप्पण्या:
My adult daughter loves to drag her father to the firing range. Of course, I'm buying the ammo, and maybe a meal.
Kind of wish I was exposed to this as a kid, but neither family was in to hunting.
More points to Ryan, if it wasn't pink.
I've said it before; and I don't think it's a case of "women are better at everything."
Shooting is one thing that women DO tend to be good at. And for some bizarre reason, 12 year old girls are particularly good at.
As for Ryan taking his daughter hunting... bravo! At least we know that he doesn't have lists of "boy things" and "girl things" in his head.
Remember when empowering little girls was a good thing?
I thought libs want their daughters empowered.
Annie Oakley was, I think, a female.
Women especially need gun skills to protect themselves, as we don't tend to do so well in fistfights with males.
Uh... kid outside wearing black ski mask and black clothing at 1 a.m. in late September?
Kid was definitely up to no good. Just what sort of no good we don't know.
About the dad who shot his son; the blame should be put where it belongs; joke or junior criminal, the kid rushed someone with a gun.
All three of my sons have earned the rifle and shotgun shooting merit badges in the Boy Scouts, taught by NRA instructors. My youngest son, who's still at home, and I go to the range a few times a year to practice. If I had girls I would certainly do the same.
Tragic about the boy being shot. The article doesn't say what he was armed with though.
A "shiny weapon." That's... not very descriptive. Guns can be shiny. Knives can be shiny. Golf clubs can be shiny.
But it doesn't matter; if it was a weapon, then the father was justified in shooting. This is pretty much all on the son, who acted stupidly and made his father's life pretty much unlivable for the foreseeable future.
I do wonder how much coverage the story would be getting if the man had stopped any other alleged robber who attacked him, though.
Every liberal's nightmare, a female that takes her personal safety seriously. She purchases her own "protection" and becomes proficient in it's use. Exact opposite of the Fluke syndrome of the perpetually helpless female. Too bad the lady who called the neighbor didn't have her own 9mm defensive tool. Note for the record, she called her neighbor not 911.
"Women especially need gun skills to protect themselves, as we don't tend to do so well in fistfights with males."
Many males don't do well in fistfights with other males. Certainly not the types who are prone to prey on people. A woman can more easily articulate the use of a gun in defending herself with an unarmed male attacker, with her story being more readily accepted.
Again, what was the young man doing out at 1 a.m. wearing a black ski mask?
Most obvious guesses... burglarizing somebody else's house or Peeping Tom.
Synova said...
I've said it before; and I don't think it's a case of "women are better at everything."
Shooting is one thing that women DO tend to be good at. And for some bizarre reason, 12 year old girls are particularly good at.
As for Ryan taking his daughter hunting... bravo! At least we know that he doesn't have lists of "boy things" and "girl things" in his head.
Women have much better fine motor control than men.
Maybe he kid was on drugs like that actor!?
Trayvon being a recent example. If Zimmerman had been a woman does anyone doubt this story would have played out differently?
Another suspicious wearer of a hoodie in a frightened neighborhood bites the dust.
"But it doesn't matter; if it was a weapon, then the father was justified in shooting."
If the father thought it was a weapon he did the right thing. It could be a shiny plastic toy knife or tin foil wrapped around a piece of cardboard.
That won't help the Dad, though. But in any case where it wasn't his son, he'd be right not to demand to inspect the "knife" to make sure it was real, or demand to inspect the "gun" to make sure it wasn't plastic.
"Shooting is one thing that women DO tend to be good at. And for some bizarre reason, 12 year old girls are particularly good at."
Girls are also very good at martial arts. If they start young, they progress rapidly and have no trouble kicking the boys asses.
One thing when it comes to fist-fights: When men fight, people understand that there are different "levels" of fighting. There's establishing dominance, there's stopping undesirable behavior, there's getting something the aggressor wants/protecting something the defender wants to protect. Most of those are not fights to the death, in fact, fights to the death are -rare-, and that makes it hard for a man to explain why he felt his life was in danger.
However, most people understand that if a man attacks a woman, that her life is at risk. Now, a man's is at risk too, even if the fight is not one intended to be to the death, but like TWM said, its easier for people to believe that when it is a man attacking a woman.
Every liberal's nightmare, a female that takes her personal safety seriously.
We don't all fit your stereotype, vet.
Why would anyone give a dad flak for buying his daughter hunting gear? There's only one phrase that works here: MYOB.
I taught my daughter and my son to shoot when both were in grade school.
Both learned gun safety, gun respect and show a high skill level on the range.
Plus---Fun!
And my wife has a multi-state CCW permit. And a properly sized pistol that fits her hand exactly the way it should.
I can't imagine what it would be like to spend the rest of my days wishing I had taught them to shoot after some horrible assault had happened to one of them.
Speaking of guns, and we are, anyone have any experience with that Savage 320 shotgun? (It's also know as a Stevens for some reason) I'm looking to get another gun for home defense and this one is well-priced.
Mmmmmmm, bambi!
Trey
Imagine having to live with the knowledge that you killed your own son.
Shakespearean tragedy.
I was trying to see if I could tie this into some late term abortion thing but... the father did what he did with the partial information he had at the time.
This is what I was talking about the other day in the context of censorship and why it is so dangerous to a society... Situationally, we are blind and deaf.
Women especially need gun skills to protect themselves, as we don't tend to do so well in fistfights with males.
So you think that deadly force is an appropriate response to an unarmed assault? Where exactly did you get your law degree?
As for Ryan taking his daughter hunting... bravo! At least we know that he doesn't have lists of "boy things" and "girl things" in his head.
Good point! I never went hunting with my dad, mostly because I have zero interest in it, but I have been wanting to get out to the range to shoot my little 22.
When I was little, we did a lot of fishing.
Also, that story is awful.
Sometimes I find the headlines at the stories that althouse links to too interesting to pass up. Today's story about the guy shooting his son (tragedy) had one: Beauty pageant with nipple distance mandate!.
Reminds me of the story 10 or 15 years ago about the young daughter who hid in the closet to scare her dad and he ended up shooting her. She died in his arms saying "I love you Daddy."
I think people should be allowed to arm themselves with handguns in the home, I don't have a problem with that. I've often thought I might do so myself. But bad stuff happens. That story has haunted me for years.
"So you think that deadly force is an appropriate response to an unarmed assault? Where exactly did you get your law degree?"
Seriously? You think it can't be appropriate response? Deadly force can most certainly be employed against an unarmed attacker if you are afraid of being killed or seriously injured. They don't have to be armed to kill you or seriously injure you.
Laws vary from state to state but it is a valid defense.
And you don't need a law degree to understand that.
"So you think that deadly force is an appropriate response to an unarmed assault? Where exactly did you get your law degree?"
I think a woman can shoot a man trying to rape her, even if his only weapon is strangling her or beating her with his fists, yes.
"So you think that deadly force is an appropriate response to an unarmed assault? Where exactly did you get your law degree?"
-- People have been killed when attacked by an unarmed assailant. If a 5'0, 100 pound when soaking wet woman is attacked by a professional boxer, let's say, then yes. Deadly force is more than allowable.
Heck, if -I- am attacked by a 200~ pound male, all muscle, who has made his intent to deal me serious bodily harm, then yes, enough force to stop the attack is allowed. If the attacker ends up dead, provided I honestly felt I was in jeopardy, had tried to retreat if my state requires it (or been barred of a retreat), and did not continue to attack once the assault ended, then yeah.
Basically, if an attacker meets these requirements (this is incredibly basic, just so you know, but a starting point), force -may- be allowed. Simply because a man is unarmed doesn't mean he is not dangerous.
Or do you think small women who are not trained in martial arts should be able to be raped, provided the man doesn't plan to kill them? After all, their only response available to them is an armed, lethal response (otherwise, the first strike against them will overwhelm them.)
Do you really think rapists should be allowed to rape and women not be allowed to use lethal force in their own defense if the man just happens to be unarmed?
"So you think that deadly force is an appropriate response to an unarmed assault? Where exactly did you get your law degree?"
Clearly the proper response to an assault is to ask the attacker if they plan to harm you to a degree that justifies drawing your weapon and shooting them. :-P
So you think that deadly force is an appropriate response to an unarmed assault?
Really Freder? My finance professor used to say the answer to every question is 'it depends' and I think that holds true, but there are many, many situations where 'deadly force' (I'm assuming you mean a gun here) might be appropriate in response to an 'unarmed assault' (which I'll note could very easily be deadly as well).
"So you think that deadly force is an appropriate response to an unarmed assault? Where exactly did you get your law degree?"
I'm still shaking my head at this one. God it's stupid.
I read about a guy in living in a less desirable neighborhood who was jumped by four or five guys who, unarmed mind you, beat him into the ground, stole his belongings and left him there until someone came along hours later and found him and called an ambulance. Clearly a case where, had he been armed and able to defend himself, he should not have. They were, after all, unarmed.
Freder Frederson said...
So you think that deadly force is an appropriate response to an unarmed assault? Where exactly did you get your law degree?
Given your comical level of stupidity, we know you don't have a law degree.
"So you think that deadly force is an appropriate response to an unarmed assault?"
Have fun finding a jury that would convict her.
Freder: So you think that deadly force is an appropriate response to an unarmed assault? Where exactly did you get your law degree?
Idiot. Deadly force is appropriate if you are in fear of your life or grievous bodily harm. Doesn't matter what the method of harm is.
And its ignorant of you to assume that unarmed assualt cannot result in this. I can kill you with my pinkie.
Mind you again, that the reason Freder came to his conclusion is because he assumed that the assault was two equals meeting to fight it out because they want to (at least, I'm assuming that, since it is the only way his statement has a glimmer of rationality.) The idea that a strong person might intentionally prey on someone so much physically weaker than him- or herself to completely preclude anything but an armed defense is completely outside Freder's world view, or at least, outside of it when making that comment.
I don't know what to make of that, but at least that way, it is simply a bit of blindness to how nasty some people really are as opposed to complete and utter idiocy.
"...choked her to death" - various coroner reports from across the globe.
Really Freder, lets just pretend you mispoke.
"I can kill you with my pinkie."
You'll have to get past my Glock first ;)
So you think that deadly force is an appropriate response to an unarmed assault?
Freder, I typically weigh 112 lbs (more now, but I'm pregnant)and am 5 ft 4 inches tall. Any male that I've ever tangled with could easily pin me down, hold me, or beat me senseless without a weapon.
If a man attacks me, provided he's not a 90 year old cripple, can you please explain how I am supposed to defend myself without a weapon? Ask him nicely to stop? Just lie there and take it?
Freder Frederson said...
So you think that deadly force is an appropriate response to an unarmed assault? Where exactly did you get your law degree?
Hey Dum-Dum:
In the state I live in it is perfectly legal for me to shoot & kill someone who is choking or beating a woman who screams "He is going to kill me, HELP!" on my property or in a public place.
Let's chalk this up to you going full retard at the mention of Paul Ryan's name, mmm-kay?
I have to wonder, if much of the attitude Freder displayed here comes from the screwed-up perception of violence that the movies and TV have given many people.
In any movie you can get shot, knifed, beat to a bloody pulp, and afterward still go out for beers with the guys. Add that to the fact that the vast majority of people have never been in a slap-fight, much less a life and death struggle, and it's no wonder they don't ever see a situation where one could justify using a gun to defend themselves.
Again, I think a good example is the Trayvon incident.
*Had to correct the name. I was thinking Bender from Futurama.
About the father and the son, the ski mask, and the shooting:
1. Was the son estranged? Was the son under the guardianship of his mother (separated from the father)? Or was the son living with the father in the week preceding this event?
2. Why the heck did the son not recognize his father? Or recognize the danger of a drawn gun?
it is simply a bit of blindness to how nasty some people really are as opposed to complete and utter idiocy.
In that way, Feder is not unlike the brain trust at US Dep't of State.
So you think that deadly force is an appropriate response to an unarmed assault? Where exactly did you get your law degree?
Freder again points out one of the differences between right and left here. And, in response, I would give the answer to the first question that is one of the first things that most learn in law school: "it depends".
The Zimmerman/Martin case is an interesting example of just this - pointing out that the exact line where shooting someone in self-defense is legal and justified. In some states, Zimmerman would be toast, but luckily for him, he lives in a state where the standard is reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury. And, personally, I think that Florida there has drawn a decent line. Which does mean, though, that if women put themselves in the sort of dangerous situations that men tend to do much more frequently, they would be the big beneficiaries of such.
I think the more problematic line is using deadly force to defend property, when no lives are at stake. But, with the Berny Madoffs of this world stealing the life savings of thousands of folks, which they, the victims, had toiled for decades to accumulate, and the perps only face some prison time, and with the Jon Corzines of this world escaping even that by buying the right politicians, with even more life savings being effectively stolen, sometimes I think that the fear of a bullet between the eyes by a victim of their theft might be better deterrence than our current mismatch between crime and punishment when it comes to such massive thievery.
Oh, and note that it is the same left that is trying to disarm Americans that also is the greater supporter of the politicians who allow themselves to be bought by the Jon Corzines (and, really, Wall Street this last 4 years), allowing those responsible for the loss of many billions of pension monies to walk free, and, under Eric Holder, not even face trial.
I don't know what to make of that, but at least that way, it is simply a bit of blindness to how nasty some people really are as opposed to complete and utter idiocy.
Interpreting your opponents arguments in the most charitable and rational way possible is what good people do.
My daughters love to shoot. 10, 8 and 6.
"Rusty said...
Shooting is one thing that women DO tend to be good at. And for some bizarre reason, 12 year old girls are particularly good at."
12 year old Annabelle Ayres is one of the top sporting clay competitors in the US.
"packing heat" really refers to someone having a handgun on their person. Sheesh.
Sometimes, I wonder if the Julias and the Sandra Flakes of this world, have really thought out the ramifications of their desire to replace men in their lives with governments. There is a saying that when seconds count, the police are minutes away. Something like that.
Point is that the alternatives to personal responsibility for one's own safety and security are family, community, or government. A lot of women today live a distance away from their families, and are trying to live without a male to protect them in their household, as they marry late and/or divorce early. And, ignore that the way to get males in the community to defend them is to get them committed through marriage and the like. Which leaves government. But, that means that their protection is minutes, or even hours, away, when seconds count, but also, as I noted above, subject to being bought off by the rich and politically connected.
Which is maybe a long way of saying that gun ownership and skill should be empowering for women, and not something to be feared. Rather, it is the lack of gun ownership that should be feared by them.
For his next trick, Freder will explain how a lightbulb works. ;-)
Deadly force can most certainly be employed against an unarmed attacker if you are afraid of being killed or seriously injured.
The belief has to be reasonable. Althouse was referring to a "fistfight". That choice of words implies a situation where there is a remote chance of serious or deadly injury. She is advocating escalating a fistfight into a shooting.
Ah, yes. It's just a confusion; when I think fistfight, I think of people fighting. With fists. That's it; there's no implication on the "level" the people fighting are on. I don't assume they've consented to some set of rules that make the chance of serious injury remote.
A guy jumping me on my way home from work unarmed? That's a fistfight.
"The belief has to be reasonable. Althouse was referring to a "fistfight". That choice of words implies a situation where there is a remote chance of serious or deadly injury. She is advocating escalating a fistfight into a shooting. "
Seems to me she didn't imply anything, but that you inferred it when no one else here did.
You're tracking back now trying to save yourself from an incredibly stupid statement. Can't say I blame you though.
And, yes a fistfight can escalate into a shooting. Whether it is justified or not will be determined by the facts and circumstances along with the state of mind of the person using deadly force.
Again, you don't have to be a lawyer to get this.
As a sport, shooting is one of the safest, after camping and billiards in the linked study. More kids die from bicycle accidents than accidental gunshot wounds. Fishing is one of the most dangerous sports. In Australia, rock fishing, i.e. fishing from a rock in the ocean, is considered the most dangerous sport based on fatality rates.
A guy jumping me on my way home from work unarmed? That's a fistfight.
I would call that an assault, not a fistfight. A fistfight, at least to me, implies the escalation of an argument into physical violence, not a unprovoked assault on an unsuspecting victim.
That's just a problem with your definition being overly narrow; I guess it only becomes a fistfight if I defend myself as opposed to allowing myself to be beat to a pulp.
A 200 pound 6 foot tall woman is physically weaker than an average man. It isn't about size it's about upper body strength.
You don't have to be tiny to be a victim.
"I would call that an assault, not a fistfight. A fistfight, at least to me, implies the escalation of an argument into physical violence, not a unprovoked assault on an unsuspecting victim."
Are you thinking a boxing match or something? Because rarely do two people just say, "Hey, let's have a fistfight for the fun of it."
And what's the difference in the result of violence from a "fistfight" and an assault? Are the fighters pulling their punches?
Do you have any idea how many domestic fights start out as simple arguments but end up in someone getting killed? Without a gun even being involved?
A guy answers his neighbor's call for help and confronts an intruder wearing a black mask, brandishing something that may or may not be a knife or a gun, who doesn't back down or try to flee? Of course he shot him. I'm sure his life is shattered now that he knows the victim was his son -- the more so because he knows he raised a 15-year-old who was breaking into women's houses wearing a mask.
But the father did the right thing despite the personal tragedy that resulted. Anyone prowling around in an inhabited house at night in a mask is begging to die. I just wish someone else had been there to kill him and spare his father a small part of the inevitable agony.
Maybe all fights should start with someone shouting out, "Marquess of Queensberry rules!"
I would call that an assault, not a fistfight.
In your original quote, you specifically said 'unarmed assault'.
It's very Things Fall Apart. If someone had to kill the robber (and maybe no one had to kill him to stop the crime, whatever), it really should not have had to have been the father (or, in TFA, the surrogate father.)
Whatever. Look, I read a book. Worship my worldliness.
I would call that an assault, not a fistfight. A fistfight, at least to me, implies the escalation of an argument into physical violence, not a unprovoked assault on an unsuspecting victim.
But, even there, it isn't clear cut. Sure, engaging in fistfights implies consent. Though, that is not always the reality. But, even then, they can get out of hand, and even if you entered the fight knowingly and willingly, you have the right to withdraw that consent when you are getting the sh** kicked out of you, and if you find yourself in reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury at that point, then, again, most states will let you use deadly force to prevent that.
Keep in mind that people routinely die as a result of fistfights. A hugely greater number than the number of children dying as a result of the accidental discharge of firearms in this country.
It kinda reminded me of seeing a family of bighorn sheep right alongside MT 200 a couple of months ago. The juvenile males were practicing their head butting, which would occasionally result in one of them bouncing out onto the road, that, at the time, had a 70 mph speed limit. Luckily, none were killed as I watched, but some 350 or so of their species have died on that stretch of road over the last 10 years.
Point is that species are most often willing to sacrifice some, or even many, of their males in order to provide the best genes for the next generation. Human males have always died in fighting, which we are wont to do, just to try our strength and prepare to compete for mating privileges. The problem is when the one being sacrificed doesn't want to be sacrificed. Which may be a long way around to explaining why deadly force may be justified in self-defense, even if one voluntarily engaged in fisticuffs.
It's How The West Was Won.
Anybody who saw "The Patriot"; when Mel goes after the Redcoats who murdered one of his sons (and some Continental prisoners) and kidnapped another, he takes his 11 and 13 year old sons with him to ambush the Limeys.
You think if they had been daughters, it would have been any different?
That was the real beginning of women's lib.
Ann Althouse said...
Women especially need gun skills to protect themselves, as we don't tend to do so well in fistfights with males.
May I suggest judo and karate?
It saved The Blonde's life when he ex came at her with an axe.
Feder: Althouse was referring to a "fistfight". That choice of words implies a situation where there is a remote chance of serious or deadly injury.
Ahhh, the crystalline clarity of 20/20 hindsight, or of the carefully-constructed hypothetical, or of not being the person confronted realtime by one or more uknown assailants, armed or otherwise.
remote chance of serious or deadly injury.
...one of many video'd beatdowns (just search on YouTube -- McDonalds Beatdown or Middle School Beatdown) -- notice the victim's head getting stomped against a tiled floor and the epileptic seizure triggered.
Ann said:
Women especially need gun skills to protect themselves, as we don't tend to do so well in fistfights with males.
Amen. That is why it shocks me when liberal women are so against personal gun rights. To me, it is the one thing that will put my wife on equal footing (or better) with a assailant.
It is a women's rights issue as much as anything else.
I would call that an assault, not a fistfight. A fistfight, at least to me, implies the escalation of an argument into physical violence, not a unprovoked assault on an unsuspecting victim.
Are you suggesting then that once your consent has been given, that it cannot be withdrawn? And, that you consented to be beaten to death, despite thinking, maybe, that it was just a friendly fight?
Reminds me a bit about an episode I watched recently, where a guy dies from being beaten. Turns out that the guy he was fighting was let go, because he had no criminal intent. They were both stock traders or the like, and were voluntarily engaged in fights for the thrill. And, the dead guy was bigger, stronger, and had played hockey in college. Should have won, except that the other guy's gloves had been weighted, and the guy who did that was arrested.
Point is not that TV is reality, but rather, that cops, prosecutors, and judges routinely have to decide whether someone being hurt in a fight was essentially consented to by the one hurt, or if the aggressor went too far. And, yes, if you hit someone in a voluntary fistfight, and they ultimately die from it, it is likely that you will ultimately have to convince a jury that you were just as surprised as everyone else, that the decedent went down so hard, and then didn't get up, after you last hit him, and, that sure, if you had known that he would die, you never, never, never, would have swung that last punch. And, that no, he never begged for mercy, nor gave any hint that he wanted the fight to stop. Because, the natural assumption of everyone else, including the jury, is that consent is most likely withdrawn when one is getting the sh** beat out of them, and would reasonably be in fear of death or great bodily injury.
I dont carry a gun but I do have a machete in my truck.
People need guns to protect themselves, especially women and older people. There will be accidents with guns but a lot of people die in car accidents too.
son.
the anecdote is about a son. The article is about daughters and fathers.
Shame on you.
Tell us about your gun skill, Althouse.
Tell us about the guns you own. And tell us about the events in your life when you use your guns, such as days spent at the range in practice.
Tell us, Althouse.
Well, I'm not going to pile on Freder, after all he's unarmed and already buried beneath a pile of assailants.
Idiot.
I carry a light weight knife with a serrated blade, its makes feel safer.
"Tell us about the guns you own. And tell us about the events in your life when you use your guns, such as days spent at the range in practice.
Tell us, Althouse."
I don't think that was her point. People feel safer if they think they have some control, some means of defense.
an intruder
The article indicates the father went outside, and confronted the son in the ski mask, not inside the neighbor's house.
If you search around, you can find out more about the 'father shoots son' case.
The father is a fifth-grade school teacher. He adopted Tyler when he was his teacher, which means that Tyler was 10, 11, or 12. He adopted Tyler because his grandmother couldn't handle him any more. (Biological mother, father, and grandfather not in the picture any more.)
Now Tyler is 15, and he was in a mask and dark clothing prowling around/breaking into his Aunt's house close by to the family's house.
It's a tragedy to be sure, but the family bond from a late adoption is rather a bit different than a birth adoption. And the real story has quite a different character from the 'father shoots son' tale.
"May I suggest judo and karate?"
Please don't! Judo or karate is fine if you want something that's sport first, but for real self-defense you should be looking at something like Krav Maga instead.
Why would anyone give a dad flak for buying his daughter hunting gear? There's only one phrase that works here: MYOB.
Exactly. Some people are not only uptight about guns in general, but they simply can't fathom the idea of a girl wanting anything to do with a "manly" thing like a firearm.
Ain't much different than a mom buying her son a doll...folks just got to get over their preconceived ideas about kids & "gender roles"
The son, Tyler, thought he's be slick and put a few moves on his slow, dumb, old man and get away clean, so that he could keep on doing whatever he was doing. He thought wrong. Of course he could have said "It's me, Tyler, Dad!" at any time. But then he would have to explain what he had been doing, probably for months, if not years.
The son wearing a ski mask and with something shiny lunges at own dad with a gun.
"Dad, don't shoot!"
"You don't sound like my son at all." BANG
Bride that drowned in a foot of water when her dress became soaked.
Chip Ahoy" "Dumbass! What an idiot!
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Good! Gurg, gurg, gurg!"
His world and welcome to it.
I'm sure that poor Tyler was just coming back from the 7-Eleven with skittles and iced tea.
What on earth do these two stories have to do with each other? Are you saying that if you give a child a gun that you will end up killing them?
P.S. Anyone remember that last Republican V.P. candidate? I seem to remember something about her liking to hunt, too.
Wasn't there a "Moose For Obama" Facebook group back in 2008?
You would think "what WAS the shiny object" would be an obvious question for a reporter to ask. Apparently not.
Feder: Althouse was referring to a "fistfight". That choice of words implies a situation where there is a remote chance of serious or deadly injury.
Nice. But she didn't say "unarmed assault", you did.
a remote chance of serious or deadly injury.
Note the qualifier. Rather than back away by inches, just admit that "yes, even during an unarmed assault you have the right to use deadly force if you are in fear for your life or grevous bodily harm"
You would think "what WAS the shiny object" would be an obvious question for a reporter to ask. Apparently not.
Chrome plated mechanical SQUIRREL!!!
TWM said...
Speaking of guns, and we are, anyone have any experience with that Savage 320 shotgun? (It's also know as a Stevens for some reason) I'm looking to get another gun for home defense and this one is well-priced.
I don't have any personal experience with savage shotguns.
My first recomendation would be a Remington 870. They are ubiquetous. There are a lot of repair parts out there should you need them and there are a range of interchangable barrels should you wish to go deer or duck hunting.
Next would be Mossberg they make a very good home defense shotgun.
urplepenquin said...
Why would anyone give a dad flak for buying his daughter hunting gear? There's only one phrase that works here: MYOB.
Exactly. Some people are not only uptight about guns in general, but they simply can't fathom the idea of a girl wanting anything to do with a "manly" thing like a firearm.
Ain't much different than a mom buying her son a doll...folks just got to get over their preconceived ideas about kids & "gender roles"
I know you're trying to make political points, but training anyone in the use of firearms incurs a lot of responsability for both partys.
Dolls. Not so much.
I was taught to shoot by my mother. I was taught to hunt by my father. My maternal grandmother was a real southern lady and would hunt quail with her husband.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
"So you think that deadly force is an appropriate response to an unarmed assault?"
Oh Great And Wise Freder, what about the people who have been beaten to death by punks playing the "knockout game"?
I know you're trying to make political points
If you "know" that, then you don't know as much as you think you do.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
I was trying to make the point that folks should get over their preconceived ideas about kids & "gender roles"
Sorry that went over your head, but I ain't sure how to make it any more simpler to understand.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा