[quote=mrnoodle]
A) the article says they were
B) he says they didn't threaten him directly, but that he didn't know their intentions, either. As the only person in this scenario who was minding his own damn business, he deserves to be heard out.
C) So, is that your perception, or a fact? Making snap decisions about people's intentions seems to be the order of the day...QUOTE]


A) the article said they had gone partway into his yard, then ran back to the car. When he shot at them they were driving by in their car.
B) and C) So, the snap decisions of a guy putting bullets in kid's heads is OK, but us supposing he's a nut is not? Good thing I don't go around shooting people I perceive to be bonkers.

Unless they're in your house. Then, I recommend as large a caliber as you can handle accurately and safely. There are probably local firearm safety classes that can help you with any questions you might have.

Oh, unless you live in a country where The Government Has Done Something About The Gun Problem.

In that case, you're already perfectly safe. :worried:



Oh, did you guys hear about the guy who was swimming around with what should have been a harmless stingray and got stabbed in the heart? Something's got to be done about stingray barbs before more innocents are lost.

They weren't in his house, numnuts. :rattat:

And he didn't "go around shooting people".

I call a draw :D

Being "in" a house is a pretty concrete thing. You are either in a house, or you're not.

You know very well that "going around" is a figure of speech, but as semantics are your best defense, I'll take your draw. ;)

This thread was just getting good and now you two are going to stop? Sheesh.

;)

(better put winky smilie in so noodle doesn't think I'm being caustic)

Conflict makes my head hurt. :) (I could just shoot him!) :p

JUST KIDDING

Pre-emption: they might be a threat. Therefore attack them before they do threaten. No different from what George Jr promotes when he says we must kill all those in a world wide terrorist network before they can become terrorists. Some believe George Jr is correct and moral.

Pre-emption: those girls might be a threat. Therefore a home occupant has every right to fire a gun in defense.

Is there a "Godwin's Law"-type definition for when you turn a not-about-Bush thread into an about-Bush thread?

Maybe we need a "flypaper strategy" for teenage girls. Maybe a permanent boy-band concert?

That's like begging for an increase in gun violence.

Both events go right to the heart of each person's morality and ability to think logically; ignore silly emotions. Both events involve a same fundamental grasp of reality. Where is the difference between pre-emption at a presidential level and pre-emption on your own sidewalk? Both events challenge your morality, test your ability to decipher reality from emotional bias, and imply whether you are an extremist or an honest, decent, intelligent, sane, and secure person.

Would those so extremist as to justify unilateral international invasion also sanction gn use to defend a sidewalk? In both cases, use of deadly force was warranted only by a perceived and fictional threat. Why must I lay out the irony step by step? That is a threat? Of course not. Those are events that might precede a threat. Same reasoning, ironically, justified 'Pearl Harboring' of Iraq and is currently being used to declare war on a 'worldwide network of international terrorists'. An honest person cannot, for one minute, ignore that rancid reality - the sardonic similarities of both events. In both cases, a threat did/does not exist. But one with a big gun entertained his fears; speculated the existence of a fictional threat.

Again, I should not have to demonstrate the sardonic similarity of both events nor detail how Cellar dwellers respond to similar events. Some think logically perceive the irony - immediately. Same irony might escape those who respond first with emotion. An irony so obvious that this post should be unnecessary.

Save it for Sunday, Padre. :rolleyes:

The guy's a wacko. He's got no business shooting out the window at possible threats.

But, I agree with noodle that the girls had no business screwing around the guys house. If one of the girls hadn't honked the horn and caused them to bolt back to the car, what had they planned on doing? Roaming around a strangers property at night is pretty stupid. They don't know if there's wackos, dogs, attack roosters or bear traps. If the yard is fairly flat....there could be snakes on the plain.

That is really funny, xob. Thanks!

Well, at least the girl who was shot didn't give up the ghost. :ghost: