On 2/19/14, 1:47 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


I think that all the media attention given to firearms in the past few
years (including the Zimmerman trial) has served to embolden some
irresponsible gun nuts who really shouldn't own one. The vast majority
of gun owners would never respond to a teenage prank by shooting at them.

The "vast majority of gun owners" weren't in this man's predicament.
Got nothing to do with the news media.
Guns are made and sold for shooting.
No surprise here.



Predicament? What predicament? That he engaged in a shoot and run?

On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 15:06:41 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 2/19/14, 1:47 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


I think that all the media attention given to firearms in the past few
years (including the Zimmerman trial) has served to embolden some
irresponsible gun nuts who really shouldn't own one. The vast majority
of gun owners would never respond to a teenage prank by shooting at them.

The "vast majority of gun owners" weren't in this man's predicament.
Got nothing to do with the news media.
Guns are made and sold for shooting.
No surprise here.



Predicament? What predicament? That he engaged in a shoot and run?

The predicament that made him go for the gun. That's what most guns
are sold to handle. "Predicaments."
Most gun owners don't care about safety or range practice.

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 15:06:41 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 2/19/14, 1:47 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


I think that all the media attention given to firearms in the past few
years (including the Zimmerman trial) has served to embolden some
irresponsible gun nuts who really shouldn't own one. The vast majority
of gun owners would never respond to a teenage prank by shooting at them.

The "vast majority of gun owners" weren't in this man's predicament.
Got nothing to do with the news media.
Guns are made and sold for shooting.
No surprise here.



Predicament? What predicament? That he engaged in a shoot and run?

The predicament that made him go for the gun. That's what most guns
are sold to handle. "Predicaments."
Most gun owners don't care about safety or range practice.

Yep.

On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 14:07:23 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/19/2014 1:47 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


I think that all the media attention given to firearms in the past few
years (including the Zimmerman trial) has served to embolden some
irresponsible gun nuts who really shouldn't own one. The vast majority
of gun owners would never respond to a teenage prank by shooting at them.

The "vast majority of gun owners" weren't in this man's predicament.
Got nothing to do with the news media.
Guns are made and sold for shooting.
No surprise here.



Guns are made and sold for shooting but the decision to do so is up to
the owner. This guy made the wrong choice and it's very possible it was
influenced by media coverage of SYG laws.


I don't think this guy was thinking SYG. I think he was trying to scare the **** out of the kids.
But, he blew it. I also don't think this idiot represents more than the extreme outliers of gun
owners - that 4th standard deviation bunch.

On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 14:41:12 -0600, Vic Smith wrote:

On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 15:06:41 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 2/19/14, 1:47 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


I think that all the media attention given to firearms in the past few
years (including the Zimmerman trial) has served to embolden some
irresponsible gun nuts who really shouldn't own one. The vast majority
of gun owners would never respond to a teenage prank by shooting at them.

The "vast majority of gun owners" weren't in this man's predicament.
Got nothing to do with the news media.
Guns are made and sold for shooting.
No surprise here.



Predicament? What predicament? That he engaged in a shoot and run?

The predicament that made him go for the gun. That's what most guns
are sold to handle. "Predicaments."
Most gun owners don't care about safety or range practice.

Are you talking about the guy shooting at the teenagers who mayo'ed his car or about Dunn?

In the mayo case, the guy wasn't in a 'predicament' at all. The teenagers were leaving and were no
threat to him.

On 2/19/14, 3:41 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 15:06:41 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 2/19/14, 1:47 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


I think that all the media attention given to firearms in the past few
years (including the Zimmerman trial) has served to embolden some
irresponsible gun nuts who really shouldn't own one. The vast majority
of gun owners would never respond to a teenage prank by shooting at them.

The "vast majority of gun owners" weren't in this man's predicament.
Got nothing to do with the news media.
Guns are made and sold for shooting.
No surprise here.



Predicament? What predicament? That he engaged in a shoot and run?

The predicament that made him go for the gun. That's what most guns
are sold to handle. "Predicaments."
Most gun owners don't care about safety or range practice.


Dunn's predicament was that he was a racist and figured he could act out
on it by firing his gun into a car of unarmed black teenagers.

On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 4:45:34 PM UTC-5, F*O*A*D wrote:

Dunn's predicament was that he was a racist and figured he could act out
on it by firing his gun into a car of unarmed black teenagers.

That's very close to being the most stupid thing you've ever written.

On 2/19/2014 4:51 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 4:45:34 PM UTC-5, F*O*A*D wrote:

Dunn's predicament was that he was a racist and figured he could act out
on it by firing his gun into a car of unarmed black teenagers.

That's very close to being the most stupid thing you've ever written.

Stick around. He's got a bucketful of stupid comments to share with us.

On 2/19/2014 12:23 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/19/14, 12:05 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 11:52:55 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 08:25:16 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 2/19/2014 5:02 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 06:29:53 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

Whatever music the kids were listening to was no threat to his life.

Dunn got away with murder. Another white man who shot and killed a
black
kid for no reason, and the crime was nullified by whites on a jury in
Florida. What a surprise.

Please define 'iota'. Did Dunn not say he was within seconds of
being murdered by someone with a
shotgun? From the jury's perspective, is that not evidence - or at
least an 'iota' thereof?

Do you not see any problem with a legal precedent that justifies and
excuses deadly violence simply by claiming an imagined fear?


To you and Harry, the fear was 'imagined'. To Dunn, it may have been
very real. That's a decision
for the jury.

Harry only cares about black teenagers when they are shot by white
guys. Most are killed by other black teenagers and he doesn't give a
**** about them (3 so far in Ft Myers since New Years plus a white
homeless man). Where is MSNBC on that?


Another of your absurdities, Gregg. The Dunn case was of interest
because of the circumstances and the trial, and more on it is coming.
Its all there in black and white. Plain as the honker on your face.

On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 17:02:12 -0500, HanK wrote:

On 2/19/2014 4:51 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 4:45:34 PM UTC-5, F*O*A*D wrote:

Dunn's predicament was that he was a racist and figured he could act out
on it by firing his gun into a car of unarmed black teenagers.

That's very close to being the most stupid thing you've ever written.

Stick around. He's got a bucketful of stupid comments to share with us.

===

Dayumm, thought I'd heard them all.