The comments on this are amazing.
I think my favorite is:
Cuz, you know, a robber escaping and not dying is a good argument for bigger magazines, we need to be able to execute everyone that comes near us all at once!Sojourner at 9:31 AM February 18, 2013
I wonder IF the 3rd one got away because the home owner ran out of bullets?
NY residents only have 7 rounds, because Mayor Doomberg says 'that's all they need'. Diane Feinstein only needs 6, because that's all her .357 revolver holds, which she carries in her purse (when-ever her security detail is not present).
Want to take another shot at that one Plow? You missed the point.
You could interpret it differently. But then you look at the context and...
above:
below:Great that he got the two! Too bad that he missed the third scum POS who is still loose to prey on the public! As my daddy used to say, this SOB animal needs killing too!
earlier:God has armed us to fight the low rent pieces of s*** and liberals that roam this earth...Thank God this person was ready and all of us will be ready from now on, don't give up what you have and only believe what you were taught growing up...It is the right way.
I'm happy happy happy!
Yeah, these folks are definitely more concerned about what would have happened if the 3rd guy had more bullets, it's clearly not that they're all about execution on the spot of burglars.Shame that the homeowner missed the 3rd scumbag!
I guess since they're not cops that's cool though, right?
But go right ahead, defend the guy that's disappointed a robber got away instead of being killed.
I am in the firm grip of Poe's Law right now.
I take those posts as seriously as I do yours.
Hey guys, I have an idea.
Let's argue about exactly how stupid random people on the internet are.
I think Plow's point is that it's frightening how many people are turning this into a gun crusade that we should execute every criminal on sight because it's "what Jesus wants".
Are you implying that its not what Jesus wants?
Jesus would still be alive if he had a gun.
And I find it frightening that proposed gun restrictions would limit my ability to defend myself against multiple armed assailants. And last I looked vigilantism isn't exactly a rampant problem.
So we should pass laws to ban standard capacity magazines or in California's case ban possession of JHP and "other assault ammunition" for the rare occurrence of the opposite end? How does that help me against someone already unlawfully entering my home or requesting my wallet again?
Another shooting in California today. This time in Orange County. Looks like 4 dead
http://ktla.com/2013/02/19/2-dead-in...#axzz2LMDiG8nd
Maybe if you weren't such a shitty shot, 15 rounds would be enough to take out a guy asking for your wallet.
Which would be totally justified, because a burglary that could cost you a few bucks should always be responded to with lethal force.
More like 3-5 rounds per person. But you're right, I'll stick to huddling in my bed and hope they don't rape my woman.
How often are you home invaded by more than 3-5 guys?
I'd wager that, of the home invasions that do occur, only a small fraction involve more than two people. Of those, an even smaller fraction involve more than five people. Of those, there will only be a few where owning a gun would make a difference as far as the eventual outcome (especially if you keep it unloaded). Of those cases, there may not even be any cases where having a few extra bullets in your clip would make a difference.
Basically, you're paranoid.