Police: Woman killed man who fired rifle into party crowd

I believe there are two things all of us can agree on; we will never eliminate guns no matter how many laws are passed, and there will always be a madman with a gun which people need to defend against.

If the below situation occurred in California, the woman would be in big trouble.

 

How do you figure? Can you cite that CA law that would put her in "big trouble"?

 

Actually, no, I can not. What I can tell you is I lived in So Cal for 21 years and my home was robbed twice. I tried to get a permit for a hand gun and was denied. When I talked to the cops they asked me if I had a back door. I said yes. They told me to run out the back door because killing a burglar is seen as worse than a robbery. Another cop told me that in the unlikely event I ever get a handgun, if I’m confronted by a criminal in my home and feel the need to shoot then I should do so, then scream as loud as I can ‘stop, that’s the only warning shot you’re going to get’ so the neighbors hear me, and then fire a round into the ceiling. Then later on beg and plead that I was terrified for my life and didn’t think I could run away without the crook harming me. I was told I would almost certainly be charged with something, and after spending a lot of money I could probably avoid prison time. Welcome to California.

 

Looks like they did their job of keeping a handgun out of someone's hands who should not have one.

Cops are not obligated to give you legal advice.

 

So you think it’s preferable that an innocent person be a victim than fight off a criminal? You ooze liberalism out of every pore on your body when you take the side of criminals over law abiding people.

 

I think you need to reread my post again....and again.

 

Excellent, demonstrating once again that a good person with a gun is the best way to stop a bad person with a gun. Something some so irrationally claimed couldn’t be done.

 

19 “good” people with a gun couldn’t stop one bad one with a gun.

Out of all pro-gun arguments this has to be one of the weakest next to we need guns to defend against the government — that has tanks, jets and nukes.

 

the women did not need an ar-15, but the murder choose to use one

just like machine guns, ar-15 do not need to be allowed in public places

 

I have answered this before.

The idea of 50 million armed military aged men in every corner of the country fighting against government, would be terrifying for the government. They wouldn't stand a chance.

That's 10,000 men per tank.

They would undoubtedly lose, and quickly.

 

Tell that to Afghanistan, it worked for them. There is a reason that Democrats are relentless in their efforts to consolidate power in the federal power and there is a reason that Democrats are relentless in their efforts to disarm the population. If you are unable to learn from two millennia of human history and the relentless stream of governments butchering their own people, I can't help you. For those of us willing to learn from history, we know that the greatest threat to citizens has always been and will always be their government. What you should want and what the founding fathers wanted was divided power. Absolute power is deadly... WITHOUT A SINGLE EXCEPTION IN HUMAN HISTORY. Power corrupts the people who wield it every single time.

 

how many of those were not capable of carrying a weapon? Ok, adjust your claim. Oh, and remember they were in a gun-free zone so carrying one is illegal.
You think the gov will protect you from crime?

 

He fires at a crowd and nobody got hurt? How can that be?

Worst shooter in the world, LOL

 

You don’t think 50 million men would also be fighting back against those individuals?

I don’t know if you have noticed or not but this nation is hyper polarized. Half the nation would be defending what the government is doing depending on which side is doing it.

 

Gun free zones do work to an extent with criminals. (See Jan 6 for an example) Just not ones wanting to do what this one did.

The issue is we have high powered weapons designed to kill as quickly as possible with very little restrictions as to who can obtain one. If he had only had a shotgun, handgun, or something similar then this would have been a less fatal event.

No private citizen needs this type of weapon unless they have passed both a psychological evaluation as well as training.

 

That is an interesting statement after you just said yesterday that the Republican Party is only looking for revenge.

I have seen no evidence that the founders believed we should be able to access the type of weaponry currently available to private citizens. Using an originalist reading we should be limited to muskets alone.

 

Murder, attempted murder, assault are all crimes in California.

 

Gun free zones don't work against murderers. There have been more mass shootings since gun free zones were created than there were before.

 

No kidding. When I lived in LA and some cops saw I was working in some dangerous areas [in particular MLK hospital in Watts], they advised me to carry a weapon.

 

There are multiple different laws that could get her. Most likely, she would have been denied a permit in the first place.

Then, super progressive parts of that state often do not look very favorably on self-defense claims unless it is completely obvious and the person who committed a killing with a gun could prove it.
In this case, the woman would probably not have been prosecuted for murder because the evidence was there, but remember in these situations someone might only have a few seconds reaction time and they do not have much time to think about what they are doing. This woman might have hesitated, knowing it was possible that she could be wrong. Imagine for example there was some alternate explanation and the woman was misinterpreting what was going on, she could wind up being prosecuted for murder.

And yes, even if she saved multiple people's lives, it is likely the state would still prosecute her for not having a permit, and that is a serious thing in the state and her rights would be permanently taken away after that.

 

Correct, that was the exception I made.

They are like door locks, they keep honest criminals out. They have their place and it is disingenuous to act like they don’t.

 

That was the Capitol building, not an example I'd have ever used! Would you say that building is EXACTLY like an elementary school? the best part of having a right it noever needing to explain yourself. Rosa Parks had no need to sit in the front of the bus, did she?

 

Are you really trying to compare racial inequality to people having devices with the exclusive purpose to kill as effectively as possible?

ROFL!

As to you not having to defend a right, tell that to women that are losing one of the most basic rights one should have, that of bodily autonomy.

I am pro gun but believe these types of weapons should be highly regulated.

 

Texas capital building had a express line at the entrance for armed visitors. Not sure if it's still that way. Been a while.

 

You may be many things but I doubt pro gun is one of them.