Man kills burglars during 9/11 call

[skid9832004]

ok, the guys did commit a crime.. but to go outside and shoot them dead? come on now!!?? that was uncalled for, i can see if they were trying to hurt or sexually abuse someone and you warn them with the gun and then do what you gotta do, but this guy goes outside and says "boom your dead!" wtf is that..?

he did not say boom your dead he said move ... ur dead so he gave them a chance but i mean these are different times now were natural justice is frounded upon in this country like if someone was to rape or murder someone it is years in jail i belive and i think many belive these crimes are unforgivable and death should be automatic after they are found guilty if that was the case you would see a big decline in those types of crimes i already explained my view on the video im my other posts but im just talkin about natural justice in this post

 

[Ironslave]

Bump...


Joe Horn: Wanted man … and a hero


Posted: July 04, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

© 2008

Joe Horn of Pasadena, Texas, is a wanted man – wanted in almost every other neighborhood across the U.S. I suspect Horn would even be welcomed in liberal enclaves. Secretly, every liberal hopes to have a Joe Horn around when his possessions or the people he loves are threatened.

Mr. Horn is admired by many because he blew away two career criminals who'd burglarized his next-door neighbor's home. The two illegal aliens were slinking away from the scene of the crime, crowbar and loot in hand, when Horn stopped them dead in their tracks with his 12-gauge shotgun.

Hernando Riascos Torres, alias Miguel Antonio DeJesus, was one of the dangerous offenders Horn dispatched. An illegal alien from Colombia, he'd already "been deported to Colombia in 1999 after serving time for possession with intent to distribute cocaine," reported the Houston Chronicle.

Horn also hastened the descent into hell of one Diego Ortiz. Ortiz had also broken into the country before breaking and entering at the home adjacent to Horn's.

Very many Americans saw in Joe Horn a man who practiced the biblical injunction to "love thy neighbor as thyself":

"Joe, you did the right thing, you stood up against evil," wrote a Houston Chronicle reader. "If there is ever anything you need … I will write the first check."

"You didn't know if they hurt anybody, or if they were armed, and they were getting away," sympathized another correspondent. "I am sorry that you have been through this ordeal. If I saw you on the street, I would shake your hand. God Bless You. You Are A Hero!"

"Corps1775" added the following:

"Mr. Horn, what you did that dark November evening was the right action to take. I wish I had a neighbor of your caliber with your integrity and concern for others. You may have saved lives by your brave actions, maybe not that night, but during break-ins in the future. It's over now, so go relax as you should, considering you earned your retirement. God bless you."

But there were the detractors, who commented, quite correctly, that "all shots fired were in the back," and demanded to know whether Horn's actions did not amount to premeditated murder.

As the adage goes, hard cases make bad law. And Horn's is a hard case. Here's the Associated Press's account of how Horn reacted in the course of the conversation with the 911 operator:

"Uh, I've got a shotgun," he tells the dispatcher. "Uh, do you want me to stop them?"

"Nope, don't do that," the dispatcher responded. "Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?"

Then, quite suddenly, when it appears the home invaders are getting away, and the cops are nowhere in sight, Horn becomes terribly agitated. It is as though a natural instinct to defend home and hearth overpowers him.

The AP's account confirms this:

"When the men crawled back out the window carrying a bag, Horn began to sound increasingly frantic.

"Well, here it goes, buddy," Horn said as a shell clicked into the chamber. "You hear the shotgun clicking, and I'm going."

A few seconds passed.

"Move," Horn can be heard saying on the tape. "You're dead."

Fire and cocking sounds follow in quick succession.

Horn in action was how men sounded and acted BE: Before Emasculation. One of those young, hip, effeminate men with a fussy falsetto would not have needed to be convinced of the wisdom of hunkering down. But not old Horn. There was no holding him back.

As for the 911 dispatcher's fatuous, "Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over": A man's home is not mere property – it is his castle; a safe haven for his most cherished belongings: his person and his beloved. Someone eager to violate another's inner sanctum will be more than willing to violate the occupant.

Among mindless media, a murder following a break-in is often minimized. A "robbery gone wrong" is how cherubic, CNN anchor Don Lemon called the murder of Washington Redskins star Sean Taylor.

But murder is an organic extension of the invasion of a home. (And breaking into a country signals quite reliably a willingness to break yet more of the invaded country's laws.)

The four thugs who forced their way into Sean Taylor's home and shot and killed him were not modern-day Jean Valjeans. Unlike Victor Hugo's protagonist in "Les Misérables," they did not plan on stealing a mere loaf of bread, sating their hunger, and sauntering away.

Confronted with a home invader, there's precious little a homeowner can do to divine the intentions of the intruder. Horn proceeded from that premise – and prevailed. And just in time for Independence Day, a Texas grand jury turned this hard case into good law. Horn will not be indicted.

This is a happy Independence Day for an authentic American hero.

 

[Freakzilla]

I have no problem with what he did.

Give him a badge.

Freak

 

[Pickle]

The right to bare arms is something i never understood. For every few good persons that just wants one for protection there are crazys that have easier access to guns for crime. Getting rid of dangerous firearms was the best thing Australian government did in my lifetime.

 

[Bulkboy]

The right to bare arms is something i never understood. For every few good persons that just wants one for protection there are crazys that have easier access to guns for crime. Getting rid of dangerous firearms was the best thing Australian government did in my lifetime.

 

[Ironslave]

Oh god, here it comes.

Watch and learn nanny state lovers.

 

[Braaq]

Oh god, here it comes.

Watch and learn nanny state lovers.

Awesome post, repped

 

[SRB]

^^ law sucks here in Finland too. Murder = 4 yrs in prison

first timer u get it halfed so its like 1 year + probation :carduforvip

 

[TJ]

Banning guns is just an easy cop-out. Instead of going for the source of the problem it's much easier to blame the guns.

It's like blaming a car manufacture for not building a car to withstand 130mph crashes.

 

[Ironslave]

Banning guns is just an easy cop-out. Instead of going for the source of the problem it's much easier to blame the guns.

It's like blaming a car manufacture for not building a car to withstand 130mph crashes.

Or blaming a car manufacturer for idiots who kill someone for drinking and driving.

It's called freedom to protect yourself, your property, and perhaps most importantly, your liberty.

Which reminds me, I've been meaning to buy a gun for a while....

 

[Pickle]

"it equalises unequals." The exact same philosophy got the world a nuclear arms race...


The Washington data is worth a dime as well. Sure murder rates increased in Washington with the gun laws but nothing was done in the majority of other states. Crazy's still had easy access to guns outside of washington. Its like in Australia Fireworks are banned in every state and territory except the ACT. Every Australian goes and buys fireworks in the ACT and goes and uses them in their home state.






Twelve days after 35 people were shot dead by a single gunman in Tasmania, Australia's state and federal governments agreed to enact wide-ranging new gun control laws to curb firearm-related death and injury. Between July 1996 and August 1998, the new restrictions were brought into force. Since that time, key indicators for gun-related death and crime have shown encouraging results.

Firearm-Related Homicide

"There was a decrease of almost 30% in the number of homicides by firearms from 1997 to 1998."

-- Australian Crime - Facts and Figures 1999. Australian Institute of Criminology. Canberra, Oct 1999

 

[Ironslave]

^

Well, with the nuclear weapon example, look at Iran now. If they had a nuke, do you think America would bully them around nearly as much? Why do you think they haven't even tried to fuck with North Korea? Regardless, this is an extreme example.

Crazies will have access to guns regardless, just like drunks will always have access to cars to drive in. Why should I not be allowed to protect myself? I'm a law abiding citizen, why should I be punished and robbed/killed by criminals who break the law and keep their guns? Look at the school shooters, they would have gotten a gun no matter what.

Have drug laws reduced drug availability? Not one bit. If anything, I believe the second video mentions this but I'm not sure, if guns were banned, this would only ENHANCE gang finances, as they would be the ones selling the guns. They would make gangs more powerful, and probably lead to more crime.

Regardless, the issue is liberty. You should have a right to protect yourself, your family, and so on. It's not the fault of the law abiding citizen that some fuck nut doesn't obey the rule of law also.


^

Edit, I also noticed you mentioned 35 people being shot by a single gunman. Perhaps if some citizens had guns, they would have been able to have stopped these murders, kept it down to 1 or 2, or even given the nut second thoughts about killing people in the first place.

 

[Pickle]

Edit, I also noticed you mentioned 35 people being shot by a single gunman. Perhaps if some citizens had guns, they would have been able to have stopped these murders, kept it down to 1 or 2, or even given the nut second thoughts about killing people in the first place.

Perhaps, Perhaps the armed victims would of joined forces with him as well? Whats with Perhapses. lol


The need to carry a gun for protection is a such a paranoid way of life and is just a tool that almost guarentees in an unfortunate situation that a greater ammount of people will die. Afterall guns are made to make killing easier. Lets all have a bomb for house defense can't have my television stolen!



However, I realise America is a different kettle of fish. In Australia they did a gun buy back scheme they made most firearms illegal and that got rid of a lot of the weapons on the streets. In America if Guns were illegal in all states they would still circulate at a much higher percentage then they do here and you are absolutely right it would give the gangs power to deal in them. I dont think everyone having a gun is the answer to your problems though, the original man in the 911 phone conversation is the perfect example.

Done with this thread

 

[Ironslave]

As far as I'm concerned, Joe Horn (man who called) is a hero. Two thugs got what was coming to them. Maybe other thugs will hear this and think twice about breaking into a home for fear of the owner having a gun.

 

[bambam55]

Thugs will think twice before going into that neighborhood again. The law that allowed him to use that force that is just a state law correct? I would like my state to adapt that law.

 

[Bulkboy]

As far as I'm concerned, Joe Horn (man who called) is a hero. Two thugs got what was coming to them. Maybe other thugs will hear this and think twice about breaking into a home for fear of the owner having a gun.

honestly, i dont think anyone deserve to get killed because of robbery. and the notion that ure so much safer with a gun is highly overrated. i belive in most cases, having a gun wont help u much. imagine u wake up in the middle of the night because someone is breaking in. most likely an average citizen without any gun training whatsoever is more likely to harm himself or someone in his family. i think i read somewhere that in only 2% of the cases where criminals had broken into a gunowners house, did the gunowner manage to stop the criminal.

in the end, for me it comes down to the fact that i dont want every average joe able to suddenly snap because his wife broke up to have a gun in his pocket and being able to go on a rampage. aquiring a gun should be legal for hunting, but i just dont see why u would want to arm the general population with sub machine guns, it wont do any good, and the murder rates in america speak for themselves imo.

no western european country have such gun laws, and it boggles down to the fact that more people are killed by firearms in america every year than in all of europe.

 

[Ironslave]

honestly, i dont think anyone deserve to get killed because of robbery. and the notion that ure so much safer with a gun is highly overrated. i belive in most cases, having a gun wont help u much. imagine u wake up in the middle of the night because someone is breaking in. most likely an average citizen without any gun training whatsoever is more likely to harm himself or someone in his family. i think i read somewhere that in only 2% of the cases where criminals had broken into a gunowners house, did the gunowner manage to stop the criminal.

That's a load of nonsense. They were thugs, they violated someone's personal property, and personally I'm glad that thugs like that are off this side of the turf. If someone was in the house, I'm willing to bet anything that these thugs would have attacked and hurt whoever was in the house. I can only hope that other thugs heard about this case, and think twice before breaking in to someone's house.

Where are you basing the notion that they're more likely to hurt themselves and their family? That's rediculous. You fire a warning shot, and any burglar is going to go running for the hills. You should have a right to protect yourself and your property

in the end, for me it comes down to the fact that i dont want every average joe able to suddenly snap because his wife broke up to have a gun in his pocket and being able to go on a rampage. aquiring a gun should be legal for hunting, but i just dont see why u would want to arm the general population with sub machine guns, it wont do any good, and the murder rates in america speak for themselves imo.

Why do you always paint a picture of someone suddenly "snapping"? No sane person is going to go on a rampant killing spree because they got dumped, give me a break.

Where did I say machine guns? Again, you and your strawman arguments. A licensed handgun/shotgun is far different from an assault rifle.

no western european country have such gun laws, and it boggles down to the fact that more people are killed by firearms in america every year than in all of europe.

Is that due to gun laws, or the general sociology of the country itself? (It's the latter).

Read this, and learn to take care of yourself.

Henry Aubin’s Jan. 18 column repeats urban legends propagated by groups financed by the state to lobby the state, such as the Coalition for Gun Control.

It is true, as Aubin claims, that homicides have decreased in Canada over the past 15 years, although I don’t understand why he chooses 1996 as the starting year to make his point, when the 1995 C-68 law really started to come in force only in 1998. The main point, however, is that homicide rates have decreased more in the U.S., where guns have become more common, than in Canada: in fact, since 1998, the homicide rate has dropped by 33% in the U.S. while it increased 3% in Canada.

Look at total violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants. Their rate is now about twice as high in Canada as in the U.S. The violent crime rate has dropped markedly in the U.S. since the early 1990s, but has remained basically stable here. More data is available in Professor Gary Mauser’s Fraser Forum article, Why a Drop in “Gun Deaths” Cannot Justify the Gun Registry.

In the U. K., after the introduction of tougher gun control and a prohibition of handguns in 1997, as well as the general repression of self-defence (victims who defend themselves against violent criminals often get more severe sentences than their aggressors), violent crimes have shot up. To control exploding crime, the British government is resorting to police-state surveillance and control measures, an astounding development in the cradle of Western liberty, and the cradle of our traditional right to keep and bear arms.

Massive social-science research shows the ineffectiveness of gun control in reducing crime. It is a source of continuous amazement that gun control advocates ignore the results of criminological, historical and econometric studies by reputed scholars like (among others) John Lott, Bill Landes, Gary Kleck, James Wright, Peter Rossi, Taylor Buckner, David Kopel, Don Kates, Gary Mauser, Colin Greenwood, and Joyce Malcolm. Why?

In January 2002, two armed students of Appalachian Law School, in Virginia, stopped a mass killing in progress at the university by arresting the killer. Why don’t gun-control activists wonder why there have been no mass killings at the University of Utah, where students are allowed to carry guns? Could it be that madmen look for places where they can do more damage without being interrupted?

But these are only anecdotes. In a more serious, econometric study, John Lott and Bill Landes estimate that, from 1977 to 1999 in the U.S., deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings fell on average by 78 percent when state governments decriminalized concealed carry of handguns.

Aubin admits that the proportion of homicides committed with handguns has increased. In fact, their actual number also has. He mentions that handguns are controlled “by an earlier law,” but doesn’t say that handgun registration has been on the books since 1934, and was severely strengthened by the 1977 Bill C-51. How are we supposed to square this with rising handgun violence?

Of course, gun control will reb]duce some crimes, because they make guns more expensive and more risky to acquire by criminals on the black market. [The problem is that gun control leads to an increase in other crimes, because it imposes on honest citizens who want guns greater costs and risks than it imposes on criminals – who generally already have criminal records and don’t bother with the time and humiliation required to get a license. Gun control transmits to thugs the signal that people are defenceless – until the police arrive, after the crime. The historical and empirical evidence is that, in the net, gun control increases crime.[/b]

Emotions, anecdotes, selective and poorly analyzed data, ignorance of social-science research: this is what gun-control activists have to offer. Or perhaps they have another agenda. The way things have been going, we will soon have a Coalition for the Control of Everything.

 

[Bulkboy]

That's a load of nonsense. They were thugs, they violated someone's personal property, and personally I'm glad that thugs like that are off this side of the turf. If someone was in the house, I'm willing to bet anything that these thugs would have attacked and hurt whoever was in the house. I can only hope that other thugs heard about this case, and think twice before breaking in to someone's house.

Where are you basing the notion that they're more likely to hurt themselves and their family? That's rediculous. You fire a warning shot, and any burglar is going to go running for the hills. You should have a right to protect yourself and your property

yeah they were thugs, so what? do we have a death penalty for robbery? no, because noone deserves to die because of material property. these guys should be locked up, no doubt about it, but they didnt deserve to die because they broke into a house. and to say that they would probably hurt someone if anyone was in the house, thats kind of a scary assumption to make in order to justify the unreasonable penalty these men got. thats the same as going out on the street and shooting someone who got out of jail, saying that he would probably kill someone. what kind of society is that?

and i base my assumption on people injuring themselves on the fact that if u think about it, how many normal citizens with no military background and no gun experience will be able to act properly in a situation where armed criminals are entering the house? im guessing very few, the chances of injuring one self or ones familiy is defintely there, and i do remember reading sometime that in only 2% of the cases where criminals had entered the house was the inhabitant actually able to scare off or kill the occupant. thing is, not every criminal is gonna be running for the hills, what if the criminal is armed, and decides to take up the fight against a sleepy guy with no experience in a house full of kids?

Why do you always paint a picture of someone suddenly "snapping"? No sane person is going to go on a rampant killing spree because they got dumped, give me a break.

Where did I say machine guns? Again, you and your strawman arguments. A licensed handgun/shotgun is far different from an assault rifle.

why i paint a picture of someone suddenly snapping? cmon man, its happened time and time again. a father massacring his whole family, what about the dude over in kansas where Tech lives? wasnt that snapping? and yes, some persons are actually able to go on a spree because they got dumped, i dont think u realize how mentally unstable alot of people these days are. and to me arming them makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

about machine guns, they are legal in some states in the US arent they? im pretty sure ive seen guys buy m16 assault rifles. and wasnt it bush who pushed for lifting the ban on assualt weapons back awhile ago? im not totally sure, but atleast i have the impression that semi and automatic weapons are legal.

Is that due to gun laws, or the general sociology of the country itself? (It's the latter).

abit of both i would say, definetely not just sociology. there is no reason why parents shouldnt be just as bad raising their kids over here in norway as in the US. i think its funny how you guys always try to back away from the fact that guns doesent even have the slightest to do with the extreme differences between murder rates in the US and the rest of the western world. its like you just refuse to open your eyes, cuz guns are so interpreted in ur culture.

and explain to me what general sociology in western europe contributes to the lower murder rates than in the US?

is it poverty? in alot of east european countries poverty rates are sky high compared to the US.

is it bad parenting? tell me then, why do u think european parents are that much better than american parents?

i mean, i dont see many options here, other than one, which leaves us at status quo. Gun availability.

and about that report, about canadian murder rates increasing and US murder rates decreasing. u gotta look at the base of the two countries. canada has like what 30 murders a year? while the US has 12000? i mean, cmon, alot of things can be responsible for the US numbers decreasing and canadian increasing. the fact remains that u cant compare the two, because so many more are killed each year in the US.

on a sidenote, in new york under giulliani, isnt it true that at the same time as murder rates went drastically down, gun control went up?:wutyousay: and also the police did a effort to take guns away from criminals too. one thing does not exclude the other. u can work across the board. there is no reason why getting a gun as a criminal should be easy.

 

[Ironslave]

yeah they were thugs, so what? do we have a death penalty for robbery? no, because noone deserves to die because of material property. these guys should be locked up, no doubt about it, but they didnt deserve to die because they broke into a house. and to say that they would probably hurt someone if anyone was in the house, thats kind of a scary assumption to make in order to justify the unreasonable penalty these men got. thats the same as going out on the street and shooting someone who got out of jail, saying that he would probably kill someone. what kind of society is that?

Fair enough, but for the record, the judicial system is such a joke. They'd never get caught, and they got what they deserved. Was it harsh? Yes, but I have no sympathy for drains on society like these.

and i base my assumption on people injuring themselves on the fact that if u think about it, how many normal citizens with no military background and no gun experience will be able to act properly in a situation where armed criminals are entering the house? im guessing very few, the chances of injuring one self or ones familiy is defintely there, and i do remember reading sometime that in only 2% of the cases where criminals had entered the house was the inhabitant actually able to scare off or kill the occupant. thing is, not every criminal is gonna be running for the hills, what if the criminal is armed, and decides to take up the fight against a sleepy guy with no experience in a house full of kids?

So if an armed criminal enters their house, they'd be safer doing nothing, rather than firing a gun?

If the criminal is armed, and he gets startled, he's going to shoot regardless (see Sean Taylor). It's absolutely absurd, and just stupid, to think someone would be LESS safe with a gun if a criminal broke in. You don't need military training, you just need to shoot and point. Truthfully, if a criminal broke into your house, and you had a gun, would you reach for it, or would you think "oh noes, I better just stay here and wait this one out."

why i paint a picture of someone suddenly snapping? cmon man, its happened time and time again. a father massacring his whole family, what about the dude over in kansas where Tech lives? wasnt that snapping? and yes, some persons are actually able to go on a spree because they got dumped, i dont think u realize how mentally unstable alot of people these days are. and to me arming them makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

They will get armed regardless, and that is a fact. It takes a sick sick fuck to do something like this, and it's not something anyone sane could do at the drop of a hat.

Besides, how do you possibly support it? Nobody is saying we should GIVE everyone a gun, but if a sick fuck snaps, and he wants a gun, he's going to get it. If he can't get it legally, he will get it illegally, very easily. Im not opposed to background checks and waiting periods, but its simply futile to think any gun control would work.

Quit wanting to be babied so much. There's no reason why law abiding citizens should be punished because criminals break the law. Why am I not surprised that you completely ignored data showing that gun control increases crime, and the example of a school shooting being STOPPED because people have guns. How about VA Tech/Columbine? If those places had guns, the shooters probably would have thought twice about doing it in the first place, but even if they did, they'd have gotten to kill far far less people.

You're also completely ignoring the increased finance that gangs/drug dealers would get if guns were made illegal, because they would still have guns and they'd be the one selling it. This would increase crime.

about machine guns, they are legal in some states in the US arent they? im pretty sure ive seen guys buy m16 assault rifles. and wasnt it bush who pushed for lifting the ban on assualt weapons back awhile ago? im not totally sure, but atleast i have the impression that semi and automatic weapons are legal.

Im not sure, Im pretty sure semi autos are, but I dont think m16's are.

abit of both i would say, definetely not just sociology. there is no reason why parents shouldnt be just as bad raising their kids over here in norway as in the US. i think its funny how you guys always try to back away from the fact that guns doesent even have the slightest to do with the extreme differences between murder rates in the US and the rest of the western world. its like you just refuse to open your eyes, cuz guns are so interpreted in ur culture.

Show me a statistic that legal registered gun ownership was responsible for homicides, thanx. Or, was it the fact that there was wacko/crime related murders in which people would have got their guns anyways?

Someone refuses to open their eyes, but it's you and your empty rhetoric, cherry picking and ignoring of data.

and explain to me what general sociology in western europe contributes to the lower murder rates than in the US?

is it poverty? in alot of east european countries poverty rates are sky high compared to the US.

is it bad parenting? tell me then, why do u think european parents are that much better than american parents?

i mean, i dont see many options here, other than one, which leaves us at status quo. Gun availability.

Mexico has gun control laws, and they have 3x the amount of murders per capita that the US does. Whats your response to this?

#6 Mexico: 0.130213 per 1,000 people

#24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people

There's so many factors involved, you can't simply say its only because of gun control laws, that's just stupid. I'd be willing to say that a large part of Mexican murder rates are a result of gang related crime. But, wouldn't this also be higher in America if guns were illegal, and people got them through financing gangs for them?

Got this from another site

"The non-firearm murder rate in the US is higher than in those countries people are always comparing the U.S. to (England, Australia, Japan, et cetera). Did the availability of guns in the U.S. somehow cause a rise in murders that are done with matches, poison, knives, baseball bats, ice picks, hammers, shovels, et cetera? Even if every murder that was committed with a gun were erased from history, our murder rate still would be higher than in these countries. "

"Different racial groups commit murder at vastly differing rates in the US. The supply of crime guns (which are primarily stolen from lawful owners) is the same regardless of the race of the criminal seeking the gun. If our rate of crime is a result of gun availability, why does 12.7% of our population commit 55% of the gun murders (this is from US government numbers)?"

and about that report, about canadian murder rates increasing and US murder rates decreasing. u gotta look at the base of the two countries. canada has like what 30 murders a year? while the US has 12000? i mean, cmon, alot of things can be responsible for the US numbers decreasing and canadian increasing. the fact remains that u cant compare the two, because so many more are killed each year in the US.

That's why they report per capita. But regardless, there's just overall more crime and gang activities in America.

on a sidenote, in new york under giulliani, isnt it true that at the same time as murder rates went drastically down, gun control went up?:wutyousay: and also the police did a effort to take guns away from criminals too. one thing does not exclude the other. u can work across the board. there is no reason why getting a gun as a criminal should be easy.

Back on Giuliani's dick are we? How did police take away guns from criminals? Did they issue a press release "calling all criminals, plz give us your guns, thanks. " ?? Sure, if a criminal was caught doing criminal activity, they probably took away their guns. But crime rates were already on a downward spiral before Giuliani, not simply because this piece of shit took office. Perhaps that crime decreased from the hiring of increased police, or policies the police had for monitoring crime? Or, maybe there was no real reason for it, who knows, but to use 1 policy is a major flaw.

Gun control advocates, and flaming liberals in general, think far too simplistically. But regardless, this is also an issue of freedom and liberty to have the right to defend yourself, your family and your property.

 

[Flex]

Great argument, although I strongly believe with the right to bear arms.

Joe is a hero for what he did. Like IS has been repeating the entire thread, these nignogs would of never gotten what they deserved and been able to continue to break in entry if this hadn't happend. Bulkboy, what are people to do if three robbers break into your family house, do you approach them with a baseball bat and try to beat down all three at once taking the chance of one of them having a gun? Not likely, it'd be highly improbable to take down all three. You make it sound as if it'd be best to sit on your knees, tell the robbers to take whatever you want, and pray they don't kill or rape you and your wife/children.



Great job Joe!