Thread: Ultimate Test of Civility ~ 2nd Amendment

Originally Posted by urleebird

Josh...

I really liked that movie scene, myself. He sure made it look easy, didn't he?

See, you can be a nice guy 'til somebody threatens you. Nothing wrong with being a nice guy, but sometimes those very actions are what it takes to end the evil.

I get the impression that some of the discussion here endorses a different outcome with the two other guys coming out on top. That we are the bad guys... not them.

I don't think anyone favors those low lifes. I saw that movie, and that nice guy is no Charles Bronson, but a cold blooded murderer, a hit man, and the guys he shot were characatures of hoodlums. At the end of the scene one of the hoods is wounded and lying there disabled. As he walks away, he shoots him in the head without even looking. At that point, it's no longer self-defense, but murder. I think the director is giving us a message.

If you're serious and you identify with that murderer, you're one sick puppy. You shouldn't be allowed within 100 feet of a gun.

Originally Posted by urleebird

Josh...

I really liked that movie scene, myself. He sure made it look easy, didn't he?

Yes he did, its funny how blanks cut down on the recoil lol

Originally Posted by Joe Lerch

I don't think so, but I saw that movie, and the shooter was no Charles Bronson but a cold blooded murderer, and the guys he shot were just hoodlums.

If you're serious and you identify with that murderer, you're one sick puppy, and maybe I do despise your kind of people. You shouldn't be allowed within 100 feet of a gun.

Wait a minute Joe, one groups like that are hard to shoot without some serious training and recoil control! That takes a lot of training with a .40 or higher which I believe was what he was using in that scene, and the speed at which he shot was just perfect, people train professionaly for years and cant accomplish that.

Secondly, they may just have been street thugs, but they were street thugs pointing a gun at him, which makes them now dead almost murderers. Now, even though I really like the movie scene, taking out the guy with the gun (minus head shot) would have been the real life answer, then giving his buddy the chance to run, which it looks like he would have. If you honestly think that the guy with the gun was just just a harmless thug and that stopping him by shooting was cold blooded murder (minus the head shot) than I pray you never encounter a situation anything like this, because your values would surely be the death of you and those with you.

Well, that final shot was a bit much and would have qualified as murder under Canadian law. The guy wasn't a threat to him any more but he still opted to end his life.

Originally Posted by FiReSTaRT

Well, that final shot was a bit much and would have qualified as murder under Canadian law. The guy wasn't a threat to him any more but he still opted to end his life.

Under american law the final head shot would have been murder and in most states so would killing the unarmed accomplis unless he attempted to retaliate, which I doubt he would have. Nonetheless, the shooting and stopping of the armed robber was completely justified in my book. And regardless of right and wrong, that movie scene is one of my all time favorites, not to mention it would cut down on crime quite a bit lol!!

Originally Posted by JLStorm

Yes he did, its funny how blanks cut down on the recoil lol





Wait a minute Joe, one groups like that are hard to shoot without some serious training and recoil control! That takes a lot of training with a .40 or higher which I believe was what he was using in that scene, and the speed at which he shot was just perfect, people train professionaly for years and cant accomplish that.

Secondly, they may just have been street thugs, but they were street thugs pointing a gun at him, which makes them now dead almost murderers. Now, even though I really like the movie scene, taking out the guy with the gun (minus head shot) would have been the real life answer, then giving his buddy the chance to run, which it looks like he would have. If you honestly think that the guy with the gun was just just a harmless thug and that stopping him by shooting was cold blooded murder (minus the head shot) than I pray you never encounter a situation anything like this, because your values would surely be the death of you and those with you.

Well, Josh, I missed most of all that has been said of late. Probably because I put lerch on my ignore list and all I see is that he said something. Since I am not the slightestest bit interested in his pompous drivel, I cut him out of the loop and only see what he says if someone else quotes him.

But just to clarify, I said I liked the movie SCENE. I have not watched the movie and have no clue what kind of person the character who did the shooting was like. And the SCENE... the SCENE... the SCENE showed a guy asking about his briefcase when the thug comes back with a gun and puts it in his face. What I saw was self defense, and that's what I was responding to... an act of self defense. I'm really not surprised too much that lord lerch would find something else stupid to say.

See... now if you guys will quit quoting him, I won't have to be so crusty...

I tried to tell you in a previous thread that talking about the second amendment and politics gets ugly quick! Can I say I told you so now?

Originally Posted by JLStorm

Under american law the final head shot would have been murder and in most states so would killing the unarmed accomplis unless he attempted to retaliate, which I doubt he would have. Nonetheless, the shooting and stopping of the armed robber was completely justified in my book. And regardless of right and wrong, that movie scene is one of my all time favorites, not to mention it would cut down on crime quite a bit lol!!

I guess we have a tendency to see things that are only the most obvious. The very first thing I looked at was the second guy because I had a pretty good idea what the one with the briefcase would do. Notice the first thing that the second guy did was run his hand to his beltline? Notice anything about that move?

See, I would have shot both of them without giving the second one a free pass to run because I would have made the assumption that gun in his belt was coming out. I would not have given the head shot unless he still had the gun in his hand and was moving it in my direction.

Originally Posted by urleebird

I guess we have a tendency to see things that are only the most obvious. The very first thing I looked at was the second guy because I had a pretty good idea what the one with the briefcase would do. Notice the first thing that the second guy did was run his hand to his beltline? Notice anything about that move?

See, I would have shot both of them without giving the second one a free pass to run because I would have made the assumption that gun in his belt was coming out. I would not have given the head shot unless he still had the gun in his hand and was moving it in my direction.

Holey crap, I just watched that on my 55" because all I ever saw was him getting gittery, shaken, and looking like a flee reaction, even with the hand on in the jacket or in near the pants, however when he drops he has a gun in his hand! You are good bill, I have watched that movie twice and never noticed that, how embarrasing lol

In that case I change my original opinion and believe that both double taps in the chest would have been legal, and even the shot to the head MAY have been accepted by the jury if the DA pressed charges, if one could say he was attempting to reaching for his gun....but that one would be a big stretch.