# Woman shoots at shoplifter in parking lot



## Ameriscot (Oct 9, 2015)

Go ahead gun lovers.  Defend this one.  

How is shoplifting a life threatening crime?  The guy was escaping, not threatening anyone's life.  I'm sick to death of reading about this crap.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...eing-shoplifter-could-face-charges/?tid=sm_fb

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34469295


----------



## boozercruiser (Oct 9, 2015)

I could't get the Video to play Ameriscot, but blimey.
Talk about OTT! 

'As a Home Depot loss prevention officer came running after him, the  shoplifter shoved the stolen goods into a waiting black SUV and  jumped in.

 That’s when a female bystander pulled out a concealed  pistol and fired several shots at the fleeing shoplifters, possibly  striking one of the SUV’s rear tires.
 The shoplifters nonetheless escaped, according to a press release from the Auburn Hills Police Department.
 The  female shooter stayed at the scene and is cooperating fully with the  investigation, according to police. Cops have not identified her but  have said she is 46 years old, from the nearby city of Clarkston and  holds a valid concealed pistol license.'


----------



## SeaBreeze (Oct 9, 2015)

I'm not a gun "lover" Ameriscot, but we do own guns.  There's no defense for this crazy woman's actions, people like her give guns (and gun owners) a bad name.


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 9, 2015)

My God!


----------



## Ameriscot (Oct 9, 2015)

And this was in the state where my family lives and I was just visiting.  I'm really beginning to worry about my granddaughters.


----------



## Ameriscot (Oct 9, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> I'm not a gun "lover" Ameriscot, but we do own guns.  There's no defense for this crazy woman's actions, people like her give guns (and gun owners) a bad name.



I know you're not one of the people I'm talking about who I would put in the category of gun lover of gun nut.  When I looked this story up after seeing it on FB I see that it is in newspapers around the world.


----------



## RadishRose (Oct 9, 2015)

Wondering if this woman was shooting at the vehicle, maybe the tires, to prevent the thief's escape? I didn't see where she shot at the man. Have I missed that?


----------



## Ameriscot (Oct 9, 2015)

RadishRose said:


> Wondering if this woman was shooting at the vehicle, maybe the tires, to prevent the thief's escape? I didn't see where she shot at the man. Have I missed that?



She fired several shots at the vehicle and might have hit a tire.  Doesn't matter what she was shooting at, she could have hit a bystander.  Or the shoplifter.  Or a child. Or the gas tank and it could have blown up.


----------



## tnthomas (Oct 9, 2015)

boozercruiser said:


> Cops have not identified her but  have said she is 46 years old, from the nearby city of Clarkston and  holds a valid concealed pistol license.'



Well, she can kiss that conceal carry license "goodbye".    She may face criminal charges....


----------



## Debby (Oct 9, 2015)

I think the point that deserves outrage is that no ones life was being threatened by the shoplifter, the woman who was not an authorized police(person?) used her firearm against the non-threatening thief, used it in a retail parking lot where she could just as easily shot a bystander and endangered the lives of people driving by on the street.  Bullets that don't hit the intended target don't just disappear into thin air.  They wind up hitting something (or someone).

It doesn't matter what she was shooting at does it?  She shouldn't have been shooting at all I would think.


----------



## Davey Jones (Oct 9, 2015)

RadishRose said:


> Wondering if this woman was shooting at the vehicle, maybe the tires, to prevent the thief's escape? I didn't see where she shot at the man. Have I missed that?



I don't think anybody knows what she was shooting at, in a panic situation you're most likely to shoot at anything to save yourself or try to be an retarded  hero to the media which
 loves these type of stories.


----------



## RadishRose (Oct 9, 2015)

I didn't say it was ok, I just wondered what the intended target was.


----------



## Ameriscot (Oct 9, 2015)

Davey Jones said:


> I don't think anybody knows what she was shooting at, in a panic situation you're most likely to shoot at anything to save yourself or try to be an retarded  hero to the media which
> loves these type of stories.



A panic situation, yes. But she was not trying to save herself or anybody.  She was shooting at a shoplifter.  None of the articles say what she was shooting at other than the vehicle.


----------



## Ameriscot (Oct 9, 2015)

RadishRose said:


> I didn't say it was ok, I just wondered what the intended target was.



No you didn't imply it was ok.  I wonder if she was aiming at him or the car.  She shot several times.


----------



## hollydolly (Oct 9, 2015)

Absolutely horrifying...I have no words...well actually  I do, but I'm not about to say them on here.

Being a responsible  licensed gun owner myself and a very good shot even if I do say so myself..and I _do_ say so...  I have very strong views about the gun laws in the USA, as well as the UK...but I try not to get involved on forums about the rights and wrongs of gun ownership...but this was WRONG...on soo many levels. I'll say no more than that!!


----------



## imp (Oct 9, 2015)

Debby said:


> I think the point that deserves outrage is that no ones life was being threatened by the shoplifter, *the woman who was not an authorized police(person?) used her firearm against the non-threatening thief*, used it in a retail parking lot where she could just as easily shot a bystander and endangered the lives of people driving by on the street.  Bullets that don't hit the intended target don't just disappear into thin air.  They wind up hitting something (or someone).
> 
> It doesn't matter what she was shooting at does it?  *She shouldn't have been shooting at all I would think*.



Firing at a fleeing human being is almost always treated as a criminal offense, even if the person pursued had just previously posed a lethal threat. IOW, the self-defense theme only applies when there exists an immediate, discernible, potentially lethal threat.

What eludes the consideration here is that holders of CC permits are supposedly _trained _in all aspects of the potential use of their weapon. This woman either was inadequately trained, or forgot what should have been impressed upon her regarding use of the weapon.    imp


----------



## imp (Oct 9, 2015)

Davey Jones said:


> I don't think anybody knows what she was shooting at,* in a panic situation you're most likely to shoot at anything *to save yourself or try to be an retarded  hero to the media which
> loves these type of stories.



There should have been no panic situation at all. A fleeing thief constitutes no threat to those behind him. One does not "save himself" from a fleeing  thief, does one?     imp


----------



## imp (Oct 9, 2015)

*No Defending This*



Ameriscot said:


> Go ahead gun lovers.  *Defend this one*.
> 
> How is shoplifting a life threatening crime?  The guy was escaping, not threatening anyone's life.  *I'm sick to death of reading about this crap.*



What could possibly lead you to think responsible gun-owners would even_ think _about defending this person's action? IMO, you are letting your reading of news events affect you excessively, to little avail. 

On the other side of the coin, unknown to folks disbelieving firearms valid usefulness, guns are legally and successfully used thousands of times annually to thwart criminal activity, and SAVE lives. That's the main reason we still have them.     imp


----------



## Ameriscot (Oct 9, 2015)

imp said:


> What could possibly lead you to think responsible gun-owners would even_ think _about defending this person's action? IMO, you are letting your reading of news events affect you excessively, to little avail.
> 
> On the other side of the coin, unknown to folks disbelieving firearms valid usefulness, guns are legally and successfully used thousands of times annually to thwart criminal activity, and SAVE lives. That's the main reason we still have them.     imp



Responsible and intelligent gun owners would not support this, but I've read enough idiotic arguments all over the internet about guns that I have no doubt that some will defend it.  I wouldn't be surprised if Ben Carson defended it.  He blames victims for getting shot.


----------



## imp (Oct 9, 2015)

*"wouldn't be surprised if Ben Carson defended it.  He blames victims for getting shot"

*I gather, then, he would not be amongst your choices for candidates in our upcoming election?   imp


----------



## Ameriscot (Oct 9, 2015)

imp said:


> *"wouldn't be surprised if Ben Carson defended it.  He blames victims for getting shot"
> 
> *I gather, then, he would not be amongst your choices for candidates in our upcoming election?   imp



:lofl:


----------



## Ameriscot (Oct 9, 2015)

imp said:


> *"wouldn't be surprised if Ben Carson defended it.  He blames victims for getting shot"
> 
> *I gather, then, he would not be amongst your choices for candidates in our upcoming election?   imp



Good assumption.  I have never seen such a collection of idiots as those who are now running for the GOP nomination.  Oh wait, forgot about G Bush Jr.  I'm quite sure I will die having never voted for a republican.  Or a Tory.


----------



## 911 (Oct 9, 2015)

imp said:


> What could possibly lead you to think responsible gun-owners would even_ think _about defending this person's action? IMO, you are letting your reading of news events affect you excessively, to little avail.
> 
> On the other side of the coin, unknown to folks disbelieving firearms valid usefulness, guns are legally and successfully used thousands of times annually to thwart criminal activity, and SAVE lives. That's the main reason we still have them.     imp



You may not believe what all a Trooper here in PA is required to do even if he only draws his/her weapon.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Oct 9, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> A panic situation, yes. But she was not trying to save herself or anybody.  She was shooting at a shoplifter.  None of the articles say what she was shooting at other than the vehicle.



If she wanted to be helpful, she should have just called 911 and given the description of the thief and the vehicle.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 9, 2015)

This woman needs a good talking to but she isn't the main news story.
There has been another shooting at a university in Texas

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-two-shot-texas-southern-20151009-story.html

Second shooting at this campus in 12 hours.


----------



## Ameriscot (Oct 9, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> If she wanted to be helpful, she should have just called 911 and given the description of the thief and the vehicle.



I hope she gets charged.  She did break the law.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Oct 9, 2015)

Me too, she should be for sure!


----------



## rt3 (Oct 9, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> Go ahead gun lovers.  Defend this one.
> 
> How is shoplifting a life threatening crime?  The guy was escaping, not threatening anyone's life.  I'm sick to death of reading about this crap.
> 
> ...




No reason to "need to defend anything" it is your machinations 
dont read about it.
entire problem solved by not letting woman carry guns
poor journalism, had to bring in Oregon shooting to gain some sort of relevance 
what ever happened - it's not your call     If it was unlawful discharge, she will be charged, 

also to bring you up to speed,

Utah Supreme Court last week held in flavor of plaintiff against Walmart. Plaintiff who worked for Walmart was dismissed for shooting shop lifter who attacked employee/plaintiff, when employee confronted plaintiff. Court  held for plaintiff  and held Walmart must reinstate worker, etc. this case will act as precedence in future events.


private property owners may prohibit people from carrying on their property, legally. Usually this is to cover liability problems, not from some perceived politics about guns. If you doubt it look up the definition of concealed. (Nobody knows you got a roscoe) how can they block you from something that isn't a fact.


If you have "opted out" (decided not to use lethal force) as self defence., you are certainly welcome to your opinions on what constitutes lethal force, it's appropriate and legal ramifications etc. just don't expect the the users to be listening


----------



## rt3 (Oct 9, 2015)

Lethal force can be used in many instances besides self defense depending on the state. This is the basis of Castle Doctrine., among others, but not restricted to imminent threat in the vicinity, reckless endangerment (which may have been the case here). and if your in Texas "they needed it" sorry ken couldn't resist just joshin.


----------



## rt3 (Oct 9, 2015)

Why don't you start a new thread rather than trying to tie your politics to guns?


----------



## Jackie22 (Oct 9, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> Good assumption.  I have never seen such a collection of idiots as those who are now running for the GOP nomination.  Oh wait, forgot about G Bush Jr.  I'm quite sure I will die having never voted for a republican.  Or a Tory.



LOL...you tell it like it is, Annie!


----------



## Jackie22 (Oct 9, 2015)

Warrigal said:


> This woman needs a good talking to but she isn't the main news story.
> There has been another shooting at a university in Texas
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-two-shot-texas-southern-20151009-story.html
> ...



...oh, there was another one in Arizona, one person killed, others injured.


----------



## fureverywhere (Oct 9, 2015)

Hum, a shoplifter getting shot at, two college shootings in the same day there seems to be a pattern here...
Oh and people protesting Obama in Oregon...I'd be angry too...no we don't have your deepest sympathy, somebody should make it stop instead.


----------



## Ameriscot (Oct 9, 2015)

rt3 said:


> Why don't you start a new thread rather than trying to tie your politics to guns?



If you don't like my thread, start your own.


----------



## rt3 (Oct 9, 2015)

thank you , good idea Ill call it "Why I can't focus very long"  or maybe "mixed metaphors"


----------



## fureverywhere (Oct 9, 2015)

On the other side of the coin, unknown to folks disbelieving firearms valid usefulness, guns are legally and successfully used thousands of times annually to thwart criminal activity, and SAVE lives. That's the main reason we still have them.

Gun Violence Archive		 2014 Toll of Gun Violence  

Total Number of Incidents				 51,742
Number of Deaths[SUP]1[/SUP]				 12,563
Number of Injuries[SUP]1[/SUP]				 23,017
Number of Children (age 0-11) Killed/Injured[SUP]1[/SUP]				 628
Number of Teens (age 12-17) Killed/Injured[SUP]1[/SUP]				 2,373
Mass Shooting[SUP]2[/SUP]				 283
Officer Involved Shooting[SUP]2[/SUP]				 3,213
Home Invasion[SUP]2[/SUP]				 2,604
Defensive Use[SUP]2[/SUP]				 1,584
Accidental Shooting[SUP]2[/SUP]				 1,598
*Gun violence incidents collected/validated from 1200+ sources daily – source links on each incident report.*
1: Actual number of deaths and injuries
 2: Number of INCIDENTS reported and verified
Numbers on this table reflect a subset of all information
 collected and will not add to 100% of incidents.
www.gunviolencearchive.org  www.facebook.com/gunviolencearchive
			Data Validated: October 09, 2015		






Explain some of these numbers...
 "accidental shooting"- 1,598 documented cases of a gun accident?
283 "mass shootings" TWO HUNDRED AND EIGHTY THREE, how can anyone with a working brain stem justify that in any way?
Number of Children (age 0-11) Killed/Injured 628
Number of Teens (age 12-17) Killed/Injured 2,373 	Two THOUSAND in one year...when we lost that many people in the Twin Towers it got attention, gun violence...eh not so much.
Then this list doesn't single out suicides or attempted suicides. You're having a bad time of it, maybe you've been drinking. Having a gun in the house makes you statistically more likely to successfully kill yourself. Unless you're a bad shot, then you end up a scarred veggie for the rest of your life.


----------



## Linda (Oct 9, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> I'm not a gun "lover" Ameriscot, but we do own guns.  There's no defense for this crazy woman's actions, people like her give guns (and gun owners) a bad name.


I agree, that lady was wrong, very wrong.  My husband and I both own guns also, but we don't go around shooting folks.  I would only shoot someone that broke through my locked door and if they were facing me.  Never shoot someone in the back because that means they are leaving.  (At lest that is what a police officer told me.)

 NEVER shot at a shoplifter, not to mention she endangered the lives of who knows how many people.  I hope she does some jail time.

In the last few months the college my oldest granddaughter goes to went under lock down for several hours because some nut with a rifle had come on the campus.  Several hours of terror for the kids and their families, my world totally came to a stop till she was safely escorted to her car by a couple of policeman.  Then just recently, at the college my oldest grandson is attending 3 students were shot and one of them died on the spot.  He was so upset he is finishing out the semester and transferring to a college closer to home.  I know that will not ensure his safety but apparently it made him feel better.


----------



## rt3 (Oct 9, 2015)

Unfortunately many colleges are gun free zones, only the criminals  have the guns. Many have changed and allow on campus carry. Brings to mind the 70 (I think) tower shooting in Texas were no guns were allowed.


----------



## rt3 (Oct 9, 2015)

fureverywhere said:


> On the other side of the coin, unknown to folks disbelieving firearms valid usefulness, guns are legally and successfully used thousands of times annually to thwart criminal activity, and SAVE lives. That's the main reason we still have them.
> 
> Gun Violence Archive         2014 Toll of Gun Violence
> 
> ...



Having a gun doesn't need to be justified under the heading of useful. A person can have one just for the sake of ownership. It suprizes me that law abiding gun owners feel some need to placate the anti gun culture, who somehow feel a child drowning in a swimming pool isnt as serious as a child gun accident. Or that a suicide by heroin overdose is somehow more ok.
most incidents of gun use to stop a crime go unreported.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Oct 9, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if Ben Carson defended it.  He blames victims for getting shot.



That character told of his own real life story, now that a brave fella.......NOT!  You want THAT guy, not me.



> Tuesday, appearing on Fox & Friends, Carson cast himself as a brave would be citizen hero, when he told the cast:
> 
> ​According to Carson, while he was at a Popeye’s chicken restaurant in Baltimore, an armed robber accosted him at gunpoint. In that situation, Carson did not try to heroically disarm the assailant. Instead, he helpfully suggested that the gunman point his weapon at the fellow working behind the counter. Carson retold the story as follows:
> 
> ...


----------



## rt3 (Oct 9, 2015)

It's unfortunate that these events are used for politics. I hope we get started on prescription drug violence and refined sugar violence as these two kill far more than gun violence. Opps forgot inanimate objects don't kill things.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Oct 9, 2015)

rt3 said:


> also to bring you up to speed,
> 
> Utah Supreme Court last week held in flavor of plaintiff against Walmart. Plaintiff who worked for Walmart was dismissed for shooting shop lifter who attacked employee/plaintiff, when employee confronted plaintiff. Court  held for plaintiff  and held Walmart must reinstate worker, etc. this case will act as precedence in future events.



I don't think your example brings anyone "up to speed", unless I'm missing something.  This is a completely different situation, where the shop lifter "attacked" the employee.

The shoplifter in Ameriscot's initial post did NOT attack anyone, and was no threat at all.  That man was not threatening to harm, rape or kill anyone....that is the only thing which would have given this conceal carry woman a valid reason to react as she did.  That shooter wasn't even an employee of the store, just a busybody/hero wannabe, IMO.  They should pull her carry license, she's obviously not able to handle the responsibility.

BTW rt3, I can't believe any pro gun person here is defending this crazy shooter.


----------



## rt3 (Oct 9, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> I don't think your example brings anyone "up to speed", unless I'm missing something.  This is a completely different situation, where the shop lifter "attacked" the employee.
> 
> The shoplifter in Ameriscot's initial post did NOT attack anyone, and was no threat at all.  That man was not threatening to harm, rape or kill anyone....that is the only thing which would have given this conceal carry woman a valid reason to react as she did.  That shooter wasn't even an employee of the store, just a busybody/hero wannabe, IMO.  They should pull her carry license, she's obviously not able to handle the responsibility.
> 
> BTW rt3, I can't believe any pro gun person here is defending this crazy shooter.



comment on Walmart was posted as information as to how the law will reflect shoplifters and thus has an effect on all cases regarding them including this one. No one here knows the actual circumstances, so a defense is not possible until discovery, if indeed any charges are filed. Speculation until then. This happened in Detroit so who knows. Not sure about Michigan but some states would allow her shooting as the van's occupants constituted reckless endangerment. Not defending or accusing simply saying positions. You are not correct In your assumption that personnel jeopardy is the only requirement for lethal force. If she did bad, or Detroit/Michigan doesn't recognize this defense they will pull her permit faster than a Chicago shootout. If she is as bad as is being made out, it won't matter as she will carry anyway.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Oct 9, 2015)

rt3 said:


> comment on Walmart was posted as information as to how the law will reflect shoplifters and thus has an effect on all cases regarding them including this one. No one here knows the actual circumstances, so a defense is not possible until discovery, if indeed any charges are filed. Speculation until then. This happened in Detroit so who knows. Not sure about Michigan but some states would allow her shooting as the van's occupants constituted reckless endangerment. Not defending or accusing simply saying positions. You are not correct In your assumption that personnel jeopardy is the only requirement for lethal force. If she did bad, or Detroit/Michigan doesn't recognize this defense they will pull her permit faster than a Chicago shootout. If she is as bad as is being made out, it won't matter as she will carry anyway.



If the shoplifter is not attacking or threatening anyone, then this case is different than the Walmart case.  I thought the police confirmed that the shooter was not threatened at all, isn't that enough circumstance to show that she was dangerous and reckless as described in this article?  We agree that they should and likely will pull her permit for this.




> Police confirmed on Wednesday that a concealed pistol license (CPL) holder was not being threatened by a fleeing shoplifter when she decided to fire multiple shots at him in a Home Depot parking lot.





> But when the SUV began to pull away, the CPL holder, a 48-year-old woman from Clarkston, suddenly began firing shots at the fleeing vehicle.
> 
> The shooter remained on the scene, cooperated with police, and was released pending an investigation. But gun safety experts say the shooting details that have been released so far don’t look great for the shooter.
> 
> ...


----------



## applecruncher (Oct 9, 2015)

Having her permit pulled should be the least of her problems. I hope she gets charged with felony firearm and reckless use of a firearm and gets smacked with a fat fine and maybe jail time.


----------



## Ameriscot (Oct 10, 2015)

This didn't take place in Detroit. It was in a suburb of Detroit. My granddaughters live in a suburb of Detroit. Thinking bullet proof vests for them for xmas gifts.


----------



## Ameriscot (Oct 10, 2015)

Question for those of you who have a gun in your home for protection: would you shoot someone that broke into your house and didn't have a weapon and wasn't threatening anyone's life and was clearly only there to steal your 'stuff'?


----------



## Ameriscot (Oct 10, 2015)

rt3 said:


> thank you , good idea Ill call it "Why I can't focus very long"  or maybe "mixed metaphors"



Is this supposed to be clever?  Reread some of your own posts.  Many of your sentences are not decipherable.


----------



## applecruncher (Oct 10, 2015)

rt3 said:


> Unfortunately many colleges are gun free zones, only the criminals have the guns. Many have changed and allow on campus carry. Brings to mind the 70 (I think) tower shooting in Texas were no guns were allowed.



August 1966.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 10, 2015)

Like mother, like daughter.

My daughter just shared this Facebook post.



> *Steve Elliott*
> 
> October 5 at 12:49pm · Avery, CA, United States ·
> 
> ...



I'm assuming that the hash tag #ONELESSGUN will reveal a lot of other people with the same opinion.


----------



## Ameriscot (Oct 10, 2015)

Good post Warrigal!


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 10, 2015)

I don't think that this is likely to be the start of a new movement though.


----------



## Ameriscot (Oct 10, 2015)

Warrigal said:


> I don't think that this is likely to be the start of a new movement though.



Unfortunately, you are right.


----------



## rt3 (Oct 10, 2015)

When self defense is used as a defense in court, with the elements present, impending danger etc. it's called a perfect defense. No legal arguement can supersede it. If this is present the judge must direct the jury to return a not guilty. Permit owners are instructed just to this level of the law. There are many nuances of the situation. When you approach someone in an auto and restricting their movement you are committing assault, one of the reason the cop makes you sit in your car when you get pulled over. When you pull a gun on someone it can be assault with a deadly weapon and one of the reasons many cases of use of deadly force for defense are not reported. This would be one of the elements present if a ccw pulled a gun to help in a movie theatre. 
The lady may be in one of the gray area, but the instructor who said these where the only conditions is wrong, sorry.
the article was written by the Wpost and got someone or worded it out of context for their already stated anti gun agenda. They then connected with a whacko in Oregan under the typical media straw man technique to lead the reader. That should be obvious. I can produce gun instructors lawyers to tell you that.


----------



## rt3 (Oct 10, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> Unfortunately, you are right.



Fortunetly the FBI reported Sept. As the all time high for gun purchases in the U.S. Looks like abunch of somebodys read this guys letter and took up the slack.

the anti gun culture cannot define responsible gun laws. They have been trying since the Clinton era. None of those laws worked and they still can't give a specific law to stop a specific event. More laws aren't going to help.
Criminals don't follow the laws by definition.


----------



## rt3 (Oct 10, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> Question for those of you who have a gun in your home for protection: would you shoot someone that broke into your house and didn't have a weapon and wasn't threatening anyone's life and was clearly only there to steal your 'stuff'?



Again you bring up the question of the use of lethal force except in this case you have removed the threat component and expect some rational answer. If you or anyone chooses to opt out that's your choice. And again don't expect the folks who haven't to be listening.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Oct 10, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> Question for those of you who have a gun in your home for protection: would you shoot someone that broke into your house and didn't have a weapon and wasn't threatening anyone's life and was clearly only there to steal your 'stuff'?



That would depend on the situation at the time.  Just breaking into my home would be threat enough for me.  Even if he didn't come in with a weapon, he can pick up one of my knives, hammers, ropes for strangling, break a bottle for cutting, or hit me over the head with a fry pan and light me on fire. He could be a fighter or martial artist, head butt me and knock me unconscious. I imagine if he was completely submissive (lying face down on floor), I would contain him until the cops arrived.  But he would have to be very calm and non-threatening at all for me to consider it.  I certainly wouldn't risk my life in any way with guessing games in a moment of home invasion like that which could end my life or the life of my family members.


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 10, 2015)

Opt out? How can anyone expect anti gun people to respect responsible gun owners although, not agreeing with their stance, when choosing not to be armed is seen as a weakness/cop out? This is the twenty first century, not everyone, including many gun aficionados want to live in a "High Noon" environment.


----------



## Ameriscot (Oct 10, 2015)

rt3 said:


> Again you bring up the question of the use of lethal force except in this case you have removed the threat component and expect some rational answer. If you or anyone chooses to opt out that's your choice. And again don't expect the folks who haven't to be listening.



Choose to opt out?  If you haven't noticed I don't live in the US.  I don't need one, nor could I even obtain a gun.  Hunting rifle maybe, but that's it.  In my area there is NO crime.  None of my neighbours, some who have lived here 40 years can remember a crime in my village.  And even if there was and I was allowed to buy one, I wouldn't own a gun.  

Your last sentence makes no sense so I can't address it.


----------



## rt3 (Oct 10, 2015)

please don't pretend to speak for gun owners. sheeple yes.  Yes it is the Modern ages what ever that means, let's look at Syria, rest of world and thank something that you live in a great country where ever that may be. Now what was your point?


----------



## mitchezz (Oct 10, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> This didn't take place in Detroit. It was in a suburb of Detroit. My granddaughters live in a suburb of Detroit. Thinking bullet proof vests for them for xmas gifts.



Or maybe Barbie Rifles????


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 10, 2015)

Wow, says the therapist in me. Projection/transference? Sheeple? What an inappropriate, arrogant remark. Since when is one person the arbiter of what constitutes true strength? What happened to choice?   All persons who do not own guns are not wimps. I have 

never owned a firearm in my life. Most people in UK, Australia, and my beloved Canada don't. Somehow, we manage to have a much lower incidence of gun homicide than America. Yet, we avoid personally  calling you derogatory  names. I immensely

prefer courtesy to the tedious presumption that packing guns equals  some great moral imperative. I thought an armed society was supposedly a polite society? Apparently there are exceptions. As for the point of Annie's post, were it any sharper, it would cut.


----------



## rt3 (Oct 10, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> Choose to opt out?  If you haven't noticed I don't live in the US.  I don't need one, nor could I even obtain a gun.  Hunting rifle maybe, but that's it.  In my area there is NO crime.  None of my neighbours, some who have lived here 40 years can remember a crime in my village.  And even if there was and I was allowed to buy one, I wouldn't own a gun.
> 
> Your last sentence makes no sense so I can't address it.



it makes no sense because your not listening

i can hear you. Your anti gun ok . It is not going to change what I do or the things going on here. Folks in the U.S. Have the 2nd Amd. So they at least have the option of not carrying or owning a gun. You don't even have that so it is understandable. Opt. Short for option.


----------



## rt3 (Oct 10, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> Wow, says the therapist in me. Projection/transference? Sheeple? What an inappropriate, arrogant remark. Since when is one person the arbiter of what constitutes true strength? What happened to choice?   All persons who do not own guns are not wimps. I have
> 
> never owned a firearm in my life. Most people in UK, Australia, and my beloved Canada don't. Somehow, we manage to have a much lower incidence of gun homicide than America. Yet, we avoid personally  calling you derogatory  names. I immensely
> 
> prefer courtesy to the tedious presumption that packing guns equals  some great moral imperative. I thought an armed society was supposedly a polite society? Apparently there are exceptions. As for the point of Annie's post, were it any sharper, it would cut.



please stop with the therapist as if something in it Instills great insight. If you want to to do a point by point blow from one therapist to another let's take it to s new post. I'll match point for point.


----------



## rt3 (Oct 10, 2015)

mitchezz said:


> Or maybe Barbie Rifles????



could get matching and color coordinated lunch boxes.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Oct 10, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> This is the twenty first century, not everyone, including many gun aficionados want to live in a "High Noon" environment.



You're right Shalimar, I don't want to live in a high noon environment at all, and I don't want to see crazy shooters like this woman pull a Zimmerman and want to play hero in a situation that is none of her business.  The security people from the store were already on alert, and in the Zimmerman case, the cops told him to let them do their jobs and keep his nose out of it.  If he'd listened, the innocent young man he shot and killed for no valid reason would still be alive today.


----------



## rt3 (Oct 10, 2015)

As far as a polite society, you were part of a previous post here, and you know this comment is a straw man arguement.


----------



## rt3 (Oct 10, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> You're right Shalimar, I don't want to live in a high noon environment at all, and I don't want to see crazy shooters like this woman pull a Zimmerman and want to play hero in a situation that is none of her business.  The security people from the store were already on alert, and in the Zimmerman case, the cops told him to let them do their jobs and keep his nose out of it.  If he'd listened, the innocent young man he shot and killed for no valid reason would still be alive today.




so much for due process and day in court. Boy that anti gun fever sure is tricky.


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 10, 2015)

No thanks, Rt. I am not competitive. Great or not, I certainly hope my being a therapist instills some insight, or I am doing my clients a huge disservice. I did not realise you were a therapist. Interesting.


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 10, 2015)

Hmm. It would seem that reality truly is perception. Solid arguments perceived as straw. Who could find a hole in that? Lol.


----------



## rt3 (Oct 10, 2015)

Yes, I get the keys  (sometime wonder if it's the only difference between the workers and the needy) do the therapies and control the drugs. ( please no comments about taking them it would show your lack of knowledge on how they are controlled and inventoried)


----------



## rt3 (Oct 10, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> Hmm. It would seem that reality truly is perception. Solid arguments perceived as straw. Who could find a hole in that? Lol.



Sorry slippery slope arguement won't work either


----------



## rt3 (Oct 10, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> No thanks, Rt. I am not competitive. Great or not, I certainly hope my being a therapist instills some insight, or I am doing my clients a huge disservice. I did not realise you were a therapist. Interesting.



so is passive/aggressive behavior


----------



## Ameriscot (Oct 10, 2015)

rt3 said:


> it makes no sense because your not listening
> 
> i can hear you. Your anti gun ok . It is not going to change what I do or the things going on here. Folks in the U.S. Have the 2nd Amd. So they at least have the option of not carrying or owning a gun. You don't even have that so it is understandable. Opt. Short for option.



Do you really think your posts make sense?  Try proofreading before you post.  

Thanks, but I know was opt means.  I'm quite happy to live in a country where everyone isn't armed to the teeth, even the cops.  If you bothered to look in the right corner you'll see that I'm from the US and live in Scotland.  

Shali, don't know about you but this is just getting to be too much work.  I'm outta here.  Talk to yourself rt3. nthego:


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 10, 2015)

Hmm. How predictably condescending. How rude of a woman to assert herself. Lol. Perhaps I should calm down? Lol. Have a nice day.


----------



## Ameriscot (Oct 10, 2015)

mitchezz said:


> Or maybe Barbie Rifles????



Ack!  Just knowing my 5 and 10 year old granddaughters have to do lockdown drills in school makes my toes curl.  Kindergartners having to worry about getting shot!!  FFS.  Wish they lived over here.


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 10, 2015)

I wonder if the craziness continues, whether Canada will experience an influx of American immigrants?


----------



## Ameriscot (Oct 10, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> I wonder if the craziness continues, whether Canada will experience an influx of American immigrants?



I wouldn't be surprised.  How strict are your immigration laws?  In the UK they are getting stricter all the time.

On our recent visit my 10 year old granddaughter asked why I couldn't live in Michigan.  Her 19 year old brother piped up and said because Scotland is better and also winters are terrible in Michigan.  I won't tell her the real reasons until she is much older.


----------



## Linda (Oct 10, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> Ack!  Just knowing my 5 and 10 year old granddaughters have to do lockdown drills in school makes my toes curl.  Kindergartners having to worry about getting shot!!  FFS.  Wish they lived over here.


 I fear for my grandkids too Annie.  Sometimes I'm glad the youngest lives in Europe as sometimes I think she is safer over there.  As far as lock down drills, remember when we were in grade school and had to hide under our desks for those bomb attack drills?  I forget exactly what they called them.  Those were scary.  My husband said when he was a little boy he used to lay awake at night worrying about bomb attacks and things like that.    Kids shouldn't have it so rough.


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 10, 2015)

Annie, our immigration laws are stricter than they used to be. However, Canada always needs skilled workers.


----------



## Ameriscot (Oct 10, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> Annie, our immigration laws are stricter than they used to be. However, Canada always needs skilled workers.



Do you know if there has been an increase of Americans emigrating to Canada?


----------



## Ameriscot (Oct 10, 2015)

Linda said:


> I fear for my grandkids too Annie.  Sometimes I'm glad the youngest lives in Europe as sometimes I think she is safer over there.  As far as lock down drills, remember when we were in grade school and had to hide under our desks for those bomb attack drills?  I forget exactly what they called them.  Those were scary.  My husband said when he was a little boy he used to lay awake at night worrying about bomb attacks and things like that.    Kids shouldn't have it so rough.



I remember doing duck and cover but not being afraid.  It just seemed to be some far away possiblity of a bomb, not the very real life stuff that hits you in the face in the US.  Kids can't possibly escape hearing about the mass murders, or murders of young kids in schools.  So to many they will live in fear and wonder if their school is next.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Oct 10, 2015)

Linda said:


> .  As far as lock down drills, remember when we were in grade school and had to hide under our desks for those bomb attack drills?  I forget exactly what they called them.  Those were scary.  My husband said when he was a little boy he used to lay awake at night worrying about bomb attacks and things like that.    Kids shouldn't have it so rough.



We used to call them "Duck Drills" Linda, I had to do them in my grade school too, and like your hubby, I used to worry about being bombed as a young kid.  It would be nice if the kids these days had less to worry about, but it's not going that way at all.  I don't have any kids, and I think it's a blessing, less to worry about for sure.


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 10, 2015)

Annie in 2010, new skilled worker laws went into effect in  Canada, re immigration. They benefited most those Americans under thirty five. The older you are the more difficult it is to be accepted. Apparently Brits are taking advantage also. it is all on a point system, the higher the points the easier it is. While speaking English is paramount, speaking French no longer as much so. I can't find immigration stats for later than 2010, but apparently it continues to rise.


----------



## rt3 (Oct 10, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> Do you really think your posts make sense?  Try proofreading before you post.
> 
> Thanks, but I know was opt means.  I'm quite happy to live in a country where everyone isn't armed to the teeth, even the cops.  If you bothered to look in the right corner you'll see that I'm from the US and live in Scotland.
> 
> Shali, don't know about you but this is just getting to be too much work.  I'm outta here.  Talk to yourself rt3. nthego:



Ameri (affectionate diminutive)! sorry about that, one of your previous posts says you weren't in the U.S. Took it to mean 
You had given up U.S. Citizenship. Your posts are sometimes difficult to decifer.


----------



## rt3 (Oct 10, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> I wonder if the craziness continues, whether Canada will experience an influx of American immigrants?


Wonder if this craziness continues whether U.S. Will experience an influx of Mexican immigrants? What's your point?


----------



## Ameriscot (Oct 10, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> Annie in 2010, new skilled worker laws went into effect in  Canada, re immigration. They benefited most those Americans under thirty five. The older you are the more difficult it is to be accepted. Apparently Brits are taking advantage also. it is all on a point system, the higher the points the easier it is. While speaking English is paramount, speaking French no longer as much so. I can't find immigration stats for later than 2010, but apparently it continues to rise.



The UK has a points system as well but it's still strict. 

A lot of Brits go to the US for higher pay.  Certain professions are very low paid in comparison to the US.  But healthcare costs have to be considered as well.  I think in Australia their work visa programme is for those under 30.  Both the UK and Australia have stopped their retirement visas.


----------



## Ameriscot (Oct 10, 2015)

rt3 said:


> Ameri (affectionate diminutive)! sorry about that, one of your previous posts says you weren't in the U.S. Took it to mean
> You had given up U.S. Citizenship. Your posts are sometimes difficult to decifer.



Gimme a break.  Don't give me that affectionate cr*p.  

No, I have not given up US citizenship.  I have dual citizenship.


----------



## rt3 (Oct 10, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> I remember doing duck and cover but not being afraid.  It just seemed to be some far away possiblity of a bomb, not the very real life stuff that hits you in the face in the US.  Kids can't possibly escape hearing about the mass murders, or murders of young kids in schools.  So to many they will live in fear and wonder if their school is next.



Bet that in the face stuff is everyday in Syria, Egypt,Ethiopia,most of Iran. Israel lives with it everyday. Could go on. It is not a perfect world.


----------



## rt3 (Oct 10, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> Gimme a break.  Don't give me that affectionate cr*p.
> 
> No, I have not given up US citizenship.  I have dual citizenship.



ameri sometimes it's really hard to decide.


----------



## Ameriscot (Oct 10, 2015)

rt3 said:


> ameri sometimes it's really hard to decide.



Hard to decide what?  Which citizenship to have?  Where to live?  Not a problem for me.


----------



## Ameriscot (Oct 10, 2015)

rt3 said:


> Bet that in the face stuff is everyday in Syria, Egypt,Ethiopia,most of Iran. Israel lives with it everyday. Could go on. It is not a perfect world.



At least those countries aren't always claiming to be the Greatest Country in the World no matter what.


----------



## fureverywhere (Oct 10, 2015)

Basically we're surrounded by urban sprawl. You aren't really worried about being the target of gun violence. A worry is being accidently in the way. You go into public places and just for a moment try to figure out all the exits.


----------



## imp (Oct 10, 2015)

fureverywhere said:


> Basically we're surrounded by urban sprawl. You aren't really worried about being the target of gun violence. A worry is being accidently in the way. You go into public places and just for a moment try to figure out all the exits.



And sit in the back, with one's back to the wall?   imp


----------



## fureverywhere (Oct 10, 2015)

And sit in the back, with one's back to the wall?   imp

Funny you should mention that, when my brother used to have meetings with various union people including the teamsters, yep that was always a wise decision.


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 10, 2015)

Eek!


----------



## tnthomas (Oct 10, 2015)

imp said:


> And sit in the back, with one's back to the wall?   imp



Just a wise security precaution / tactical positioning.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 10, 2015)

I often note the position of the fire exits - in case there is a real fire.
Gunfire doesn't enter into my thinking.


----------



## applecruncher (Oct 10, 2015)

tnthomas said:


> Just a wise security precaution / tactical positioning.


MalcolmX did that in restaurants. Mike Wallace talked about it when he interviewed him.  I think Jimmy Hoffa, too, though I may be mistaken.


----------

