Gun laws do they work (1 Viewer)

Does anybody know if this is a joke? Surely it can't be true.
Samuel Cutrufelli, 31, filed a lawsuit in October in Sacramento County, Calif., claiming that Jay Leone, 90, "negligently" shot him. Cutrufelli had burglarized Leone's home in Greenbrae, unaware that Leone was home. When Leone reached for one of his stashed handguns, Cutrufelli shot him in the jaw and then pulled the trigger point-blank at Leone's head, but was out of bullets. Leone then shot Cutrufelli several times, which Cutrufelli apparently felt was entirely unnecessary. [Marin Independent Journal,
 
Leone shooting the felon seveal times was definitely unnecessary. One shot should have been enough to kill him.

Killing him would have been justified as self defence since Cutrufelli had demonstrated his intent to kill. Running out of bullets only limited the available means but he could have easily bashed Leone to death.
 
Leone shooting the felon seveal times was definitely unnecessary. One shot should have been enough to kill him.

Killing him would have been justified as self defence since Cutrufelli had demonstrated his intent to kill. Running out of bullets only limited the available means but he could have easily bashed Leone to death.

Are you saying that Cutrufelli has a case? Maybe I am misunderstanding you.
 
You are misunderstand me. I just wish Leone had taken better aim.
 
Hallelujah
I have had training from 22 years Navy, as a police officer, and riot control from the FBI and the message was the same. Make the first one count, but if he’s still twitching not take any chances.
 
That is something that always amazes me in movies. The victim somehow gets the upper hand for a moment and knocks the perpetrator unconscious.

What do they do? They run away only to be pursued by a really angry perpetrator and face their demise yet again.

If I was in that situation they would never ever get up again.
 
Whilst we are of course not in possession of all of the facts of the situation on the surface it does seem unnecessary, however I would still feel that the cutrufelli has a damn cheek and hope that his case is thrown out.

Brian
 
Whilst we are of course not in possession of all of the facts of the situation on the surface it does seem unnecessary, however I would still feel that the cutrufelli has a damn cheek and hope that his case is thrown out.

Brian

Your so right, we can't trust the media to give us all the facts.
 
http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/blanks/081400.htm
A review of the areas in the U.S. with the most restrictive firearm laws, including such areas as Washington, D.C., Chicago, IL, New York, NY, and the state of California, shows that these areas have some of the highest crime (especially violent) crime rates in the U.S. The crime rates in all of these areas exceeds the national average and they all have enacted in-depth restrictions on firearm ownership that includes licensing and registration schemes, various taxes, testing, and even bans on firearms. In essence, these areas have become a gun control supporters Utopia.
 
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2010/06/25/stossel-argues-gun-control-increases-crime-i-was-once-clueless-senator-schumer

I was once as clueless as Senator Schumer. Now I admit I was wrong about guns laws. Fewer guns don’t necessarily mean less crime. The opposite may be true. About 10 years ago, a mass shooting in the United Kingdom led Britain to pass one of the toughest gun control laws in the world. ... This did not decrease crime. In fact, gun-related crime merely doubled after the ban passed. Crime increased in Britain while it decreased in America. ... Britain just took guns away from the good guys, the people who obey the law. Doing that makes crime easier for the bad guys. The truth is gun control is not crime control.


 
https://gunowners.org/op0746.htm

These studies compared data from a large number of nations around the world. There were no instances of nations with high gun ownership having higher murder rates than nations with low gun ownership. If anything it was the reverse, for reasons discussed below.
 
I suspect that it is difficult to really compare crime rate/reasons across nations, however there has been a massive increase in shootings on merseyside this year, all appear to be gang related rather than guns used during the commiting of a crime, this does not stop innocents being killed, but nor would the innocent having a gun as the he would have been taken completely by surprise.

Brian
 
http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/blanks/081400.htm
A review of the areas in the U.S. with the most restrictive firearm laws, including such areas as Washington, D.C., Chicago, IL, New York, NY, and the state of California, shows that these areas have some of the highest crime (especially violent) crime rates in the U.S. The crime rates in all of these areas exceeds the national average and they all have enacted in-depth restrictions on firearm ownership that includes licensing and registration schemes, various taxes, testing, and even bans on firearms. In essence, these areas have become a gun control supporters Utopia.

It would be more interesting to see the crime rates pre-gun control vs post-gun control to validate if crime rates have actually increased or if they were always high. Proving that they are higher than other cities just because they have gun control doesn't prove that gun control contributed to the higher crime.
 
I suspect that it is difficult to really compare crime rate/reasons across nations, however there has been a massive increase in shootings on merseyside this year, all appear to be gang related rather than guns used during the commiting of a crime, this does not stop innocents being killed, but nor would the innocent having a gun as the he would have been taken completely by surprise.

Brian
Excellent point Brian! If someone were to break into my house right now as I sit at my computer I would not have time to get to my gun. I need to have a few more statically situated to be able to get to them.
 
I need to have a few more statically situated to be able to get to them.

Electric fences and a mote should do the trick. Claymore mines at the doors. Backed up by flamethrowers, and strategically situated remote-controlled machine guns.
 
Whatever new laws are enacted, please enforce them. One problem is the selective enforcement of laws in the United States. The civil liberties groups want to protect the criminal. They twist things around to make the killer the victim. They are also working hard to abolish death penalty (or any penalty).
Additionally, everyone needs to see that their guns do not fall into the hands of another person living in their household. That is what happened in Connecticut school shooting. Who acquired that much ammo (far more than what is needed for self-defense)? Lot of questions??
Again, whatever new laws are enacted, please enforce them. Otherwise, no new laws are needed.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom