General Music Chat

http://wap.myfoxdfw.com/w/main/story/89479681/

Yeah, and how many other people would he have killed? Maybe granny, or a first responder, such as a fireman or some young cop planning to go home to his wife and 2 young babies...

It happened here.

Good shooting... most people loose their cool when when that first lead wizzes by... That includes cops.

Yeah, and how many other people would he have killed? Maybe granny, or a first responder, such as a fireman or some young cop planning to go home to his wife and 2 young babies...

It happened here.

Good shooting... most people loose their cool when when that first lead wizzes by... That includes cops.

Doesn't that just say that the CHL
was abetter and more composed shooter.Seems to me he got the upper hand.

Yeah, and how many other people would he have killed? Maybe granny, or a first responder, such as a fireman or some young cop planning to go home to his wife and 2 young babies...

It happened here.

Good shooting... most people loose their cool when when that first lead wizzes by... That includes cops.

Doesn't that just say that the CHL
was abetter and more composed shooter.Seems to me he got the upper hand.

Yep...its called the element of surprise... Imagine the look on the perp's face when he suddenly realized what a muzzle flash looks like from the business end... He got to view that from a vertical angle, and I'm guessing he got the grand tour from the horizontal angle, right before his lights went out...

Live by the sword, die by the sword... He's lucky that Vlad the Impaler wasn't in the lot.

Well you are right:Live by the sword...Die by the sword.He rode A top a grey horse and hell rode with him,Does God send delivers and messengers in the
When something like that happens.Oh,Oh I went a little off there,Hey what can I say I'm a talker.

O come on. Read between the lines. The "story" is so vague and abstract it's laughable. The "victim" fails to give an even remotely detailed account of the incident, and for all we know the "perp" had no intention of killing him, but just robbing him.

Who even knows? Maybe the victim intended to rob the perp? We only have the account of the guy who won a gunfight. Maybe he just got lucky that the other guy was on parole.

I don't honestly believe that, but just wanted to point out that without needed facts, anything is really possible. What I'm most curious about is whether or not the victim defending himself became a necessity, or is this just another example of gung-ho gun carriers who shoot first and ask questions later.

O come on. Read between the lines. The "story" is so vague and abstract it's laughable. The "victim" fails to give an even remotely detailed account of the incident, and for all we know the "perp" had no intention of killing him, but just robbing him.

Who even knows? Maybe the victim intended to rob the perp? We only have the account of the guy who won a gunfight. Maybe he just got lucky that the other guy was on parole.

I don't honestly believe that, but just wanted to point out that without needed facts, anything is really possible. What I'm most curious about is whether or not the victim defending himself became a necessity, or is this just another example of gung-ho gun carriers who shoot first and ask questions later.

That is your right when defending yourself, shoot first and ask questions later. If you are armed and someone is threatening to do you harm you don't wait for them to take the gun away from you. You shoot first and ask questions later. Now lets see Which scenario is more likely. Armed law abiding citizen robs parole, or parole is threatening an armed law abiding citizen who exorsizes his God given right to defend himself? Geez the way libs think just boggles the mind!

What I'm most curious about is whether or not the victim defending himself became a necessity, or is this just another example of gung-ho gun carriers who shoot first and ask questions later.

What difference does that make? Try to rob someone and you're risking your life where there is concealed carry. That is enough deterrent to find an unarmed victim.

But don't mess with Texans....

The stars at night are big and bright"clap,clap,clap,clap.....

The stars at night are big and bright"clap,clap,clap,clap.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=So23SFwBVvI

What I'm most curious about is whether or not the victim defending himself became a necessity, or is this just another example of gung-ho gun carriers who shoot first and ask questions later.

What difference does that make? Try to rob someone and you're risking your life where there is concealed carry. That is enough deterrent to find an unarmed victim.

But don't mess with Texans....

Because right now, all I know is one man shot another to death. The one who did the shooting claims he was being robbed. His ACCOUNT of that robbery is vague and suspect. The fact that the dead guy is a convicted felon lends credibility to the story, but shouldn't close the door all together... I would at least hope some level of investigation was done to confirm the shooters "story". Witnesses would have been nice... and why aren't there any? If this guy was so suspicious, and made it a point to meet in public, why not somewhere POPULATED?

O come on. Read between the lines. The "story" is so vague and abstract it's laughable. The "victim" fails to give an even remotely detailed account of the incident, and for all we know the "perp" had no intention of killing him, but just robbing him.

Who even knows? Maybe the victim intended to rob the perp? We only have the account of the guy who won a gunfight. Maybe he just got lucky that the other guy was on parole.

I don't honestly believe that, but just wanted to point out that without needed facts, anything is really possible. What I'm most curious about is whether or not the victim defending himself became a necessity, or is this just another example of gung-ho gun carriers who shoot first and ask questions later.

Tell your self what ever makes you feel secure inside. Its a 'hard news" story...Such stories do not embellish outside of incident/fact. There was substantial witness to the 'robbery' and the facts are, a gunman, intent on robbing another person, got capped by that person. ( coincidence that he carried a concealed handgun and had the wits to use it.) Make out of it what ever you wish , but the the facts are the facts...there's nothing more to be said...
If you dont believe it, well then you should have been there...

The stars at night are big and bright"clap,clap,clap,clap.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=So23SFwBVvI

That was great,Thanks

Last year I went with a pal who wanted to buy a Strat like mine from a guy he didn't know. My job was to supply guitar expertise.

We met the seller at an industrial park in a non descript office. I asked my friend if he was packed. Yep. He asked me if I was. Well...yeah.

The deal went down cleanly and nobody ever had to know we were being 'careful.' The guitar was not bad. Money changed hands. We shook on it and everybody was satisfied.

The trick in our case was never to let the other guy know we were carrying. That would have been bullying. Personal protection is one thing - intimidating folks is another case all together which I find intolerable.

There are a lot of very bad people out there. I've found my way which is to be respectful and indeed, friendly , to everyone I meet. But I can size up a situation and take reasonable precautions.

Talbot

O come on. Read between the lines. The "story" is so vague and abstract it's laughable. The "victim" fails to give an even remotely detailed account of the incident, and for all we know the "perp" had no intention of killing him, but just robbing him.

Who even knows? Maybe the victim intended to rob the perp? We only have the account of the guy who won a gunfight. Maybe he just got lucky that the other guy was on parole.

I don't honestly believe that, but just wanted to point out that without needed facts, anything is really possible. What I'm most curious about is whether or not the victim defending himself became a necessity, or is this just another example of gung-ho gun carriers who shoot first and ask questions later.

Gun carriers have a responsibility to protect the POLICE. Come on dude, give it up.