Since you own a gun...

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Hopefully you started that thought with "That *is* a target", and followed it with "There's clear space behind."

You have never been shot at.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Of course those situations exist. But she has already acknowledged that she's not going to play the "what if" game--both because of the futility of such a thing, as well as the potential legal complications if she ever were to have to shoot someone and this messageboard somehow got entered into evidence.

Of course! Maggie has legitimate reasons. Anybody with an opposition to the way Maggie thinks does so for illegitimate reasons - liberalism, weakness, ignorance.

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

You clearly meant to say rhubarb, not re-barb. Rhubarb is a poisonous plant, so I can understand your apprehension. If not cooked properly, one could die.

Well it was a thin length of metal that I beleive they use to re-enforce concrete or something? What-ever it was, it was pretty scarey looking. My stalker wanted instant gratification by threatening with heavy objects or just his fists. Poisoning me would have been too slow and he might not have been around to see me die. He also drove around with a gun in his car for a while. He'd borrowed it from a friend. The weirdest thing of all was that the stalker considered himself in love with me. Hint to all you guys out there: Threatening someone and their mother with death is not exactly the way to a girl's heart.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by marichiko

Well it was a thin length of metal that I beleive they use to re-enforce concrete or something?

Which is why it's called "re-bar"...short for "reinforcing bar". They run from like a half inch up to two inches or more in diameter. The larger sizes make a nasty bludgeon.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

You have never been shot at.

True dat. I hope to keep it that way, too.

[Pangloss62]

Well it was a thin length of metal that I beleive they use to re-enforce concrete or something?

Well marichiko, I was joking with that one. You are right about re-bar, it's just when you wrote "re-barb" I couldn't resist the rhubarb comment.

It reminded me of some dude here who was upset that the Coast Guard wanted him to have a "collage" degree. I told him I could have understood if they wanted him to have a degree in macrame for all the knot-tying he would have to do, but why collage?

Just fun with typos.



Whoever that stalker was, I hope he is totally out of your life. That would freak me out.

Perhaps he should be put into some formwork with rebar and have concrete poured around him?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Of course! Maggie has legitimate reasons. Anybody with an opposition to the way Maggie thinks does so for illegitimate reasons - liberalism, weakness, ignorance.

How very lame.

You clearly want to get out onto the slipperly slope and play with hypothetical edge-cases until somebody says something that you can wave around as a bloody shirt to prove how "humane and progessive" you are compared to the "gun nuts". A childishly transparent ploy. Sorry to spoil your game.

The law defines the conditions under which I can use deadly force to defend myself or another person, and I accept those conditions. How hard is that to understand?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

It just amazes me how conservatives think that because the law states such-and-such, that such-and-such will actually happen. Don't you have a gun for situations occur outside of the law?

Have you read the law yet?

I didn't think so.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by marichiko

.. Hint to all you guys out there: Threatening someone and their mother with death is not exactly the way to a girl's heart.

That explains a lot!

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Have you read the law yet?

I didn't think so.

Have you answered my question yet.

I know you did not, it's not just what I think.:p

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Have you answered my question yet.

Yes, I did. As I've said several times, my behavior would be guided by what the law allows. Since you say you don't care about the law, you're out of luck.

If it was my intention to violate the law, I'd have to be a moron to admit that intention in writing.

[warch]

And your observation that the 3% of us who do carry extend protection to the 97% who don't just by creating that uncertainty is very much on-point.

Gee Maggie, I wonder what stats you can find to support that righteous claim.
Here's mine: I'll continue to extend protection to the 3% of handgun carriers by remaining unarmed in daily life, thus cutting down on accidental discharge and gun theft.

(heh heh she said "discharge" heh heh)

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by warch

Gee Maggie, I wonder what stats you can find to support that righteous claim.

Typically when a state implements "shall-issue" concealed carry, about 3% of the eligible population gets licences. Now a criminal doesn't know if their intended victim is packing or not...so the protection extends to people who don't carry, but *might* be.

Unless they're wearing a Kerry button or something.

If it's stats you seek, there's a boatload of them at gunfacts.info

[Hippikos]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Yes. If you are protecting your life or anothers. It is very simple.

Also, you do not think, you just do or do not... you pull your weapon and fire.

So, in the US you can kill another citizen without any question asked? You don't think, you pull your weapon and BANG! Go ahead, make my day punk... No wonder so many gun related death in th US.

Who is going say you're protecting life? You never have to proof that?

It's state, not federal law, so you are welcome to look up the justification law in all 50 states. For all intents and purposes, the United States actually functions like 50 little independent countries, each with its own laws.

Well, is it allowed by law to kill another citizen? Any proof? I can't imagine this Wild West rule still holds law in the modern US and A. In our country it's against the law to kill or even shoot at another citizen, at any circumstances. Probably we'r too liberal here. Then again gun related deaths are about 100 times less here too...

[Hippikos]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

It just amazes me how liberals will hold forth on this issue without actually being willing to read the law. Pennsylvania's justification law is typical amongst the "shall-issue" states; I posted a link to it earlier.

For once, could you just answer my question without the knee jerk Pavlov reaction about liberals? Show me the law and define the situation, pretty please...