http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/6219604.html STOP THE PRESS! Concealed carry laws allowed the 'victims' to fight back against someone attempting to kill them? Someone goes crazy with a weapon, and the targets aren't sitting ducks because they were armed? This flies in the face of the claims by the anti-gun lobby that concealed carry laws will lead to massive shootouts, with innocent bystanders getting killed in the crossfire.
is there a picture of this particular "bow and arrow" she used? What if she had one of these? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
yes buffalo its so useless people hunt with them. its a damn compound bow. It requires less space than a normal bow to use.
Several + Several = Several Was the bow set to automatic fire? I mean, that must have been one vicious machine-bow. It took three people with guns to bring the archer down. Also, what is the standard of "several"? One witness reported hearing five or six gunshots before the police arrived. And the article says the officer fired several shots. Now, in my corner of the world, "several" means somewhere between four and seven, after which it becomes "many". Five or six shots, for instance—that's several. several shots fired + several shots fired = several gunshot wounds Something doesn't add up. How many of the gunshots fired hit their target? If every shot hit the archer, she should have between nine and thirteen gunshot wounds, not several.
It would be useless to hunt with that Bow genius, that is a target bow, and wouldn't even make a good weapon to try and kill some one with in close quarters, the stabilizer would get you tangled up in a heart beat. I was using compound bows before you were born grasshopper. I have made kills with stick, recurve, and compounds, many times grasshopper, from the time I was 12 and legal to hunt game.
I'm pretty sure getting shot with that bow would hurt, buffalo. Are you going to tell me that a .22 for biathalon won't hurt anyone? But really, I don't see why the employees needed guns. They could have use rocks or sticks, right buffalo?
I am not saying that, what I was replying to was the Target Bow that was pictured and the question ask. Yes, I can kill you with a .22 Short, but it will have to be a very precise shot, and at a very close range. And a Biathlon pistol would definitly be dangerious if the person was given the time to mount the pistol and get a sight picture. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Now just how fast can you get that Pistol into action compaired to these: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! or this: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Look at the grips and you can see just how fast they would be to get into action. The 1873 Colt is still the fasted hand gun to get into action for the first shot, and will hold its own for the rest of the cylinder, but then you hit the reload factor, it is extreamly slow to reload, and get back into action again. But a 255 gr, Bullit, delivering 535 f/lb of energy, one solid hit usually end a fight, it bring deer down no problem. But the fact is most gun fights are over in 2 rounds, 4 at the most, and there is a world of difference between Target Guns or Bows and Fighting and Hunting weapons, and the pace that they can be employed at.
Holy shit, do you mean to tell me that guns aren't the only weapons that can kill people? Perhaps we need tighter regulation on bows and arrows? They forced her to retreat, prevented her from making them pincushions. And then the police arrived with (wait for it...) *guns* and finally put a stop to her little archery contest. And nobody died, either. Maybe she was one tough SOB, or they were using pea shooters. Either way, the employees forced her to retreat, meaning that she couldn't fire on them with impunity. I don't see the relevance. An archer attacked what she probably thought were undefended employees, employees open fire with concealed handguns, she retreats, cops arrive, cops subdue her, happy ending. Quibbling over how many shots were fired is a pointless exercise.
Overstatement and exaggeration Of course you don't. Over the years, one thing I've learned about the gun culture—in the U.S., at least—is that they don't really care about what happens to the shots that miss the target. You miss the point. (1) You claimed, "This flies in the face of the claims by the anti-gun lobby that concealed carry laws will lead to massive shootouts, with innocent bystanders getting killed in the crossfire." (2) See that boldfaced portion? The only shootout was going to come from the people with guns. (3) It is highly unlikely that a mentally-ill woman hunting down her father intended to shoot the rest of the employees with impunity. (4) A couple weeks ago I sat through this godawful movie because it starred Jason Statham. I forget the title, but I can now say I've sat through an entire Uwe Boll film. A question occurred to me then, but I was good and stoned so it was merely amusing. The archers lined up to challenge the advancing Krugs, and the Captain gave the order: "Fire!" I only make the point because I find the notion of "firing" a bow and arrow amusing. Indeed, the evolution of the word creates a certain ambiguity. And you have demonstrated a symptom thereof, expecting a "shootout" with a bow and arrow. A shootout at twelve to fifteen rounds a minute? Generally speaking, you've chosen the wrong occasion to attempt to make your point. Well, let's see: (1) The mentally-ill assailant probably didn't give a damn if anyone was armed. (2) She only shot an arrow at an employee who attempted to stop her. (3) Happy ending? Perhaps a more complicated ending than needs be: Police said Julie Parker showed up to an office complex with a bow and arrow and shot a man. But her family is now saying it's a scenario they've feared for a long time, and they’ve been trying to prevent it .... .... Parker’s stepfather thinks the workers may have overreacted. “They shot a mentally ill woman. Or at least, shot at her," said Jim Oliver, stepfather. Police said they were forced to shoot when Parker wouldn't drop her weapons. Parker's mother and stepfather said she's suffered from mental illness for nearly two decades. Just one month ago, she was released from an Austin Institution. "Texas needs to allocate funds for mental illness. They need to change their policies about the treatment and following the mentally ill after they're out of the hospital. Their law enforcement policies need to be revisited," said Jennifer Oliver. Parker’s parents said they tried to warn authorities, but help didn't come soon enough for a very troubled woman. (Cannon) (4) Parker was hit between ten and twelve times. I'd say I was pretty close. But ... go back to the page you linked to and watch the video footage that accompanies the story. At least two shots missed their mark. The video at the link I provided appears to show a third. Doesn't matter to you, does it? Lucky isn't the same thing as good, sir. In other words, there's a lot wrong with that paragraph you wrote. _____________________ Notes: Cannon, Len. "Family says bow and arrow suspect was mentally ill". KHOU.com. January 21, 2009. http://www.khou.com/news/local/stories/khou090121_mp_bow-and-arrow-woman-ill.18684fb3.html Glenn, Mike and Anita Hassan. "Police shoot woman suspected of wounding man with arrow". Houston Chronicle. January 20, 2009. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/n/6219604.html
Then if everyone was carrying a gun to work and one day was angry at another employee, they could just take out their own gun and kill the other employee just because they got mad at them. This doesn't seem to be a very smart way to think, in mu opinion, for just a simple problem COULD turn into a major murder. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If only the baby had a gun We could just arm everyone. After all, if only the baby had a gun .... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The Lupo Family: All dead. (Photo via Los Angeles Times)
If those stray shots don't kill anyone, why care? Why agonise over a disaster which did not actually occur? Correct. I posted a recent example where concealed carry law did *not* lead to massive shootouts, and did *not* result in innocent bystanders getting killed in the crossfire. What it did result in was a dangerous armed individual being subdued. So you admit that there wasn't a massive shootout? That concealed carry laws do not inevitably lead to massive shootouts? You can predict the actions of an armed, mentally ill individual? And even if she was only hunting down her father, that doesn't mean that those employees weren't entitled to defend against what they considered (and IMHO was) a very real threat. Apparently she did, since she retreated after the employees fired on her. '*Only* shot an arrow'. :bugeye: 'He only stabbed the bouncer who attempted to stop him'.
I'm curious as to how a shooting in the US, is a world event ? Perhaps this should be moved to politics.
I'd think that shooting happen everywhere in the world so it is something that everyone, everuywhere can understand and must deal with. No matter what country you live in violence happens.
