• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Its a cliche, but true none the less, Never bring a knife to a gun fight.......

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
JSt0rm said:
Gah. The stupidity on display is amazing.
Click to expand...

You are the biggest idiot on these forums. Never once have I seen you make an intelligent post. All you do is troll and call people names.

You are the first person on my ignore list. I'm surprised you aren't on everyone's ignore list.
 
As one of the men was going from door to door outside her home trying to gain entry, McKinley called 911 and grabbed her 12-gauge shotgun.
Click to expand...

"I've got two guns in my hand -- is it okay to shoot him if he comes in this door?" the young mother asked the 911 dispatcher. "I'm here by myself with my infant baby, can I please get a dispatcher out here immediately?"
Click to expand...
????? I want to see her hold a 12-gauge shotgun and another gun in each hand and fire.
 
I say good for her! She has every right to protect her family and property. I wonder I the family of the person who was shot will sue the 911 operator?
 
thraashman said:
Actually I think most states allow it. It falls under felony homicide where if someone dies in the process of and as a result of a felony you are committing, you get charged with causing their death. I've heard of it being applied when someone had a heart attack during a robbery.

I feel sorry for that woman. Just lost her husband to cancer and now has to deal with having to kill another person. I know it doesn't apply to most of the more gun fanatic nutballs in P&N who would relish in being legally allowed to kill a person, but most human beings don't handle having to take the life of another too easily. There's a reason police have to do mandatory counceling in most states if they are involved in a lethal shooting.
Click to expand...

Its the exact opposite. Most states follow the general rule that the felony murder rule does not apply to the death of a co-conspirator. OK doesn't follow the general rule, but most states do.
 
Last edited:
Wow, this chick has had it rough;
McKinley said that she was at home alone with her newborn that night because her husband just died of cancer on Christmas Day.
Click to expand...

And, what a couple of dirt bags;
Sarah McKinley says that a week earlier a man named Justin Martin dropped by on the day of her husband's funeral, claiming that he was a neighbor who wanted to say hello. The 18-year-old Oklahoma City area woman did not let him into her home that day.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I wouldn't have even asked the 911 operator. Call it in, stay on the line, shoot the asshole.
 
BladeVenom said:
You are the biggest idiot on these forums. Never once have I seen you make an intelligent post. All you do is troll and call people names.

You are the first person on my ignore list. I'm surprised you aren't on everyone's ignore list.
Click to expand...




Because like **ckbeard and **ky and **l, he's a true troll who takes over threads. Ignoring them detracts more than it adds.. If there was a way to ignore them and anyone that quotes them it would help, but also remove 95% of posts.


Jstorm every post you've made in this thread is full of misinformation.
 
Lemon law said:
Usually the Mommy has a right to shoot to kill when the intruder threatens here with a knife, but technically until the intruder sees her gun, and is given time to retreat instead of still coming at her, Mommy may have no legal right to use deadly force.
Click to expand...

wrong. and you have been proven wrong on this many times over the years but for some reason you will not accept it. no knive no weapon needs to be present to use deadly force inside my home. just being an intruder is enough to blast them. sorry pal but thats the law so stop trying to put your own little spin on it.

Lemon law said:
And if Mommy then shoots the fleeing robber in the back anyway after the threat of robber's knife deadly force is removed, ole Mommy is going to be facing murder charges in almost every State in the Union
Click to expand...

and again 100% wrong. why can you not get it through your thick head that being un armed or being shot in the back HAS NO BEARING WHAT SO EVER!
 
Last edited:
if there were a way to absolutely guarantee my kids won't ever be able to get to it while still being able to access it in an emergency, I'd be all for having it in the house. They're 3, and climbing. I don't care how much gun safety instruction you can teach the kids, and my wife... the last thing she'd allow in the house is a gun and I can see her point of view. I'm just gonna dig out that small metal bar I had and pretend it offers just as much protection.

Carrying in public I'm still totally against.
 
Last edited:
SpatiallyAware said:
Because like **ckbeard and **ky and **l, he's a true troll who takes over threads. Ignoring them detracts more than it adds.. If there was a way to ignore them and anyone that quotes them it would help, but also remove 95% of posts.


Jstorm every post you've made in this thread is full of misinformation.
Click to expand...

It was not my choice to argue over the definition of Pansy.

Please quote the most misinformed post and I will defend it.
 
classy said:
Dude I didn't even catch the S to be honest. I didn't know what the hell he was talking about. I didn't and still don't know the race of people involved. But when I read it, its an incredible story, and the part where she put the bottle in the babies mouth first just sounded so cool. Race never even entered my mind, as a matter of fact for several months now I have stayed out of 99.5% those discussions. And many of them that I argued with over the years are no longer here or suspended.
Click to expand...
One great thing about radio and usually print news is that it doesn't identify race, so everyone starts without any possible racial bias in evaluating a particular event.
 
woolfe9999 said:
No, actually it is not. Urban Dictionary just tracks slang in actual usage. That said, I don't think in most cases people mean "gay" when they say pansy or sissy.
Click to expand...
Actually I should say that Urban Dictionary is being used for the progressive side in the same way Conservadepia was designed to be used by conservatives, as witnessed by what happened to Santorum. While I do take a certain amount of guilty pleasure in that, as Santorum is one opf the politicians I despise, on principle it's a terrible thing to do to a politician simply because you disagree with him, no matter how violently. My main objection to Urban Dictionary though is its destruction of our language.

I too don't think "gay" when I hear pansy or sissy, but I can see how someone might honestly make that inference.
 
BladeVenom said:
You are the biggest idiot on these forums. Never once have I seen you make an intelligent post. All you do is troll and call people names.

You are the first person on my ignore list. I'm surprised you aren't on everyone's ignore list.
Click to expand...

poor baby...
 
OutHouse said:
wrong. and you have been proven wrong on this many times over the years but for some reason you will not accept it. no knive no weapon needs to be present to use deadly force inside my home. just being an intruder is enough to blast them. sorry pal but thats the law so stop trying to put your own little spin on it.



and again 100% wrong. why can you not get it through your thick head that being un armed or being shot in the back HAS NO BEARING WHAT SO EVER!
Click to expand...
I dunno, I'm very pro-gun/pro-self defense and I have a problem with an intruder being shot in the back. I wouldn't necessarily convict her or even go to trial, but that definitely requires a public inquest or grand jury in my opinion. I'd have to believe that she was totally panicked, or began firing and hit the intruder after he turned to flee, or something similar, to be okay with that. I would definitely shoot an intruder to protect myself, my family, or even my stuff, even if he isn't visibly armed, but I certainly wouldn't intentionally shoot him in the back, assuming that he is fleeing. Not even if he's fleeing with my stuff.
 
werepossum said:
I dunno, I'm very pro-gun/pro-self defense and I have a problem with an intruder being shot in the back. I wouldn't necessarily convict her or even go to trial, but that definitely requires a public inquest or grand jury in my opinion. I'd have to believe that she was totally panicked, or began firing and hit the intruder after he turned to flee, or something similar, to be okay with that. I would definitely shoot an intruder to protect myself, my family, or even my stuff, even if he isn't visibly armed, but I certainly wouldn't intentionally shoot him in the back, assuming that he is fleeing. Not even if he's fleeing with my stuff.
Click to expand...

If an intruder is my home, they are getting shot period...It doesn't matter where the bullet lands...If I am coming from upstairs and they happen to have their back to me while I am coming down the stairs, it will not matter. They have NO right to be inside my house. Chances are, if they were to leave my property, they would just repeat the process and terrorize another family tomorrow. They have no respect for other people's lives or property. Why should we respect theirs?
 
spacejamz said:
If an intruder is my home, they are getting shot period...It doesn't matter where the bullet lands...If I am coming from upstairs and they happen to have their back to me while I am coming down the stairs, it will not matter. They have NO right to be inside my house. Chances are, if they were to leave my property, they would just repeat the process and terrorize another family tomorrow. They have no respect for other people's lives or property. Why should we respect theirs?
Click to expand...
I can respect that, but - what if it's a retarded kid who doesn't know any better? What if it's a friend or relative you didn't recognize from the back? What if it's a drunk neighbor who forced your door thinking it was his? It's possible that it's an intruder who means no harm; not every intruder is necessarily dangerous. I don't advocate taking chances, but just shooting someone in the back seems harsh. If I saw a weapon, or had some reason to think the intruder was dangerous, then yes, but I'm not going to shoot him in the back just because he's in my home. I don't think I'd ever get over that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top