So a Missouri man really wanted meat, but the meat counter was not staffed. His reaction was to hold a gun to the neck of an employee. He claimed holding a gun to the employee's neck was meant to communicate, "I need you here to help me to get a couple of these steaks. I’m not going to hurt you."
What holding a gun to someone's neck means
- Thread starter Walt
- Start date
So, Walter, what's the problem?
I do not think threatening people with guns is a good thing.
Did he get the meat, Walter?
Even if he paid for the meat, it is armed robbery. They did not want to sell it to him, and he used a gun to get it.
There needs to be a test before you can own a gun to make sure you understand that a gun is not a magical device to get you all that you want.
The Second Amendment does not include a test, Walter.
Eighty million people did not use a gun to get meat yesterday, Walter.
“They did not want to sell it to him.”
The meat counter was not staffed, Walter. It probably is, now.
Last edited:
Are we missing a link here?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ri-man-grocery-store-gun-arrest-b2324893.html
There you go...
Keep us posted...
Somewhere between 1% and 2% of the people shot with household guns are intruders. The other 98% to 99% are people in the house. So it is not an effective way to keep your family safe.
Tinkerpeach
Member
That’s because only 1 or 2 percent of households experience intruders so of course those numbers will be smaller.
A better way to look at it is 95% of households who own guns will prevent their families from being harmed by an intruder.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
and as soon as you start applying that 'test' to every government agent and do 20 years of study to ensure that those tests work in a 100% success rate, maybe we will consider it for citizens.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Walt, something that most of you leftists don't seem to understand, that the majority of criminals clearly do, is that the threat of deadly force and the means to employ it are necessary in order to survive in a world that has people who look at others as a means to an end. Thieves, Drug dealers, Gangbangers, rapists, murderers, all those people who consider themselves 'worthy' of abusing and controlling others who just want to be left alone to provide for their family.......all of those criminals employ the threat of deadly force and the means to employ it to take what they want from others. The ONLY way to stop them from doing that is having the means to employ deadly force against them.
Given that reality, where is the rationale coming from that makes you believe disarming law abiding people will also disarm criminals who don't care about the law, only taking what they can from others?
It is 1 or 2% of the people shot are intruders. That means that there are 98% or 99% people who belong in the house that are shot. It is like not wearing your seatbelt because there is a 1% chance you will be thrown to safety.
A better way to look at it is 98% to 99% of the people shot with household guns are people who belong in the household. It incredibly increases the chances of harm to the family.
Federal agents who carry a gun must go through safety training, tests, and continual training.
So if there is not 100% success rate, you will reject a 99% success rate, or even a 90% success rate? I would be happy with a 50% success rate. If we could reduce America's huge homicide rate by 50%, I would be overjoyed.
Link, Walter and the next time a loon has a knife to your throat, show him your link...Walter.
They only serve meat in prison on Fridays, as you know from experience.
I have never been in a jail except once to try to get a contract for my son's engineering company.
You?