Armed homeowner who defended family in driveway shoot-out says he's been stripped of gun permit

Okey doke.

"Can't have people defending themselves. Other people might realize how incompetent Democrats are at their jobs."

What does defending myself have to do with Democrats doing their jobs? Which Democrats? What jobs?

That makes no sense at all. It's nothing but hate.

 

No but I guaranty you if someone is pulling a weapon on me and I have one I'm not going to sit there and try to think "outside the box" or wait for them to fire first.

 

Well that's easy.

Are democrats pushing for emptying prisons and reducing police forces?

Who was defending BLM/Antifa while they were burning down cities, murdering people, and committing "insurrections" by taking over parts of democrat voting cities and setting up "autonomous zones"?

Where are the most criminals running around shooting people in places with the most restrictive gun laws?

Which DA's belonging to which world views in places like LA refuse to prosecute criminals, let alone jail them?

What defending yourself has to do with Democrats should be very evident under this thread.

You have a law abiding man, in a state with extremely restrictive gun laws, who was forced to defend himself and his family from multiple armed attackers. Do you doubt that the men involved in this attempted home invasion have long criminal records? How did they get guns? Are criminals running around with guns a focus of democrats in CA to put them in prison? Do states like CA allow the law abiding people to obtain and keep/carry firearms to defend themselves?

If crime, especially repeat crimes in places like CA is ridiculously bad, are the politicians in that place doing their jobs or are they incompetent (or worse, permissive) at stopping crime?

When people who use firearms to defend themselves, which world view wants to go after the person who defended themselves? The answer is obvious in this case, in Rittenhouse's case, in the McCloskey's case, and in every case where a person in a democrat led state is forced to defend themselves from the criminals democrats keep putting back on the street.

You can couch this as "hate" if you want, but what it really is is a deep concern for the people, like this man and his family, traumatized by living under democrat policies. Policies that subject people to misery and the constant threat to their lives.

If democrats in CA wanted to get violent criminals off the streets, they could do so. There are plenty of laws to get crime under control in these cities, yet they are either unable, or unwilling to do so. This is, at best, incompetence. At worst....it's a strategy.

The only thing you might be right about is me hating crime, criminals, and the policies and people that enable it.

Hating crime, criminals and the policies and people that enable it has been a minimum standard for higher civilization since Hammurabi.

So if hating these things are bad, I'd have to ask why you don't hate them.

 

1. Prisons are overcrowded with minor non-violent offenders. Some are serving long sentences for bullshit like possession of marijuana. I'm with the Dems on that ... thousands of these offenders are being housed and fed at our expense when they could be productively contributing to local economies.

2. No one was defending the violence or looting, just the BLM marchers who remained peaceful, yet were arrested anyway. Hundreds of the violent offenders from those marches were caught, tried, convicted, and sentenced.

3. "Running around shooting people" tends to happen more in cities than rural areas. It might have something to do with population density, don't ya think?

4. Judges are refusing to prosecute? You mean, like these?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...will-refuse-prosecute-abortion-care-rcna35305

Again, I'm with them.

5. As far as I know, Democrats have no problem with me keeping a gun in my house for protection. That's uninformed extreme bias on your part.

6. The bad guys were not identified in the OP's link, so I have no idea of their criminal records, and neither do you. The defender is not being punished and will likely have his CC permit restored. You do get that Mr. Ricci's anger is more about the lack of police work in the neighborhood in spite of increasing burlaries, right? You should read my other posts on this thread. Again, nothing to do with Democrats.

In fact, this incident was not, in any way, political, and had only become so at the insistence of those here who hate "the other side" and feel a need to place blame.

 

Not really.

I am not saying we should not have concealed firearm laws, but when it comes to mass shootings and someone is having a high powered, semiautomatic rifle, that pistola is not going to do you much good unless you were well-trained in the military for close combat quarters with someone shooting back at you.

 

How do you figure a semi auto pistol is useless against a person because they have a semi auto rifle?
If you're within knife fighting distances, like a classroom, its pretty even.
Additionally: An Ar15 is not 'high powered'. It shoots a ****ing varmint round for Christ's sake. Further: Let's assume it WAS the biggest gun on the planet. No guns bigger. None more potent.
It doesn't stop a high velocity piece of lead entering your body.
Gun = offense. Armor = defense.
Still further: You can get frankly dumb lucky and tag them. Even further: They can suck diseased moose wang and it can not matter at all how gucci their gear is.

If you can remain calm, keep your wits about you, and shoot straight, you have a better chance than a person who cannot do those things or who is unarmed vs ANY assailant.

 

1. I'm not talking about non-violent offenders so why are you.
2. Yes they were. How many people were killed, injured, lost jobs, lost everything they had in those riots? They were absolutely defended.
3. Yes it happens in cities because that is where democrats are light on crime.
4. We're not talking about abortion. Second time you've tried to de-rail.
5. Yes democrats do. Democrats are always putting roadblocks up for people to lawfully obtain firearms and to carry them to defend yourself.
6. Of course the "bad guys" have a criminal history. Three guys don't wake up one morning and decide to either follow a guy home or wait for him to commit a home invasion. People who do these kinds of things start a life of crime at a very early age. Find me a home invasion where 3 guys didn't have criminal histories.

Taking his CCW away, of which only 0.31% of CA residents can get in the first place, is of course a punishment. There is no logical basis to take his CCW away. What's stopping these criminals from returning for revenge now that it's been published he's been disarmed? CA has no logical, or legal, basis for infringing on the right to carry a firearm for lawful purposes AT ALL. Yet they do.

Lawful possession and ownership of firearms is one of the top political "incidents" in this country. It's one of the major defining characteristics of world view between the left and the right.

Oh here goes the "hate" nonsense again.

Who am I hating?

 

"Carrying a concealed handgun is the only rational way to deal with mass shooters and other violent criminals. Think it through" Ddy

Please suggest another rational approach.

 

1. You didn't specify.

2. Hundreds were arrested, charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced. If that isn't good enough for ya, nothing will be.

3. It happens in cities because that's where most of us live.

4. Again, you didn't specify. I'm just pointing out conservative hypocrisy on that one.

5. Roadblocks are absolutely necessary if we're to have any chance at keeping innocents safe from nut jobs and partisan ragemongers. I say that as a gun owner.

6. I did not claim that they had no criminal history, just stated that you don't know any more about these would-be burglars than I do. Contrary to your approach to this topic, I try not to make crap up. I recommend it.

7. The logical reason for suspending Mr. Ricci's CC permit was that he was in an uncontrolled rage at the time. Please read my earlier posts so that I needn't repeat myself.

8. The voters in California obviously don't share your views on gun laws in their state.

 

1. Clearly the only thing I mentioned was violent crime.
2. No they're not. They might get arrested, but they're put right back on the streets. This guy got arrested for the 5th or 6th time for violent crime. Out on bail after every one of them. This is the norm.



3. No. The number of people are irrelevant. If it were the same, there would still be examples of robbers getting arrested 5 times and out on bail in rural america. Crime is per capita. I'm assuming you know how per capita works.
4. Sure
5. LoL "roadblocks". Those roadblocks clearly aren't stopping criminals from getting guns. Some of the highest murder rate countries in the WORLD have the ultimate "roadblock" that guns are almost impossible to obtain legally. The only "roadblock" that works is what you saw in that video where the homeowner shot back. The only thing your leftist desire to control guns does is make victims more of a target.
6. I do know. People who are out committing home invasions didn't start committing crimes yesterday.
7. LoL "uncontrolled rage". What did he do while he was out of control? Did he try to hurt someone? The only thing he's guilty of is making a leftist police force look even more stupid than they already are. Notice how they haven't made any progress in finding the human trash that did this. At least to my knowledge there are zero updates.
8. That's why they lost 500K in out-migration in 2 years. Hopefully the leftists that made the stupid voting decisions that turned their state into a complete **** hole will stay there and enjoy what they created.

I can't find your response to who I was hating in there. Any updates?

 

I knew I was wasting my time. You like to make crap up instead of waiting for facts, and ALWAYS with vitriol aimed at "the other side."

I was already done with you. Apologies for wasting your time with logic and reason.

 

You're definitely wasting your time trying to get your nonsense over on me.

Oh look, you've moved up to "making up crap" in addition to "hating people".

Funny how you can't come up with any actual examples of that. I mean I know you can't so if you'd like to knock the chess pieces over and strut around the board be my guest.

 

Oh No, looks like a white man dared to defend himself against THUGS in liberal LA. They ONLY took his permit away? He's lucky he didn't get locked up for life! Shame on him for exercising his white privilege.

 

Just another example of how the the anti-gun left hates guns, especially when they are used in self-defense.

 

The obvious question of "so?" aside...
The - vast - majority of "mass shootings" are committed with handguns.

 

Because your people have been pacified.

 

Velocity of the bullet, fear factor, and the amount of amunition carried by a semiautomatic rifle compared to a semiautomatic pistol A pistol will have, generally, a maximum of 15 rounds. A semiautomatic can have anywere from 30 rounds to over a 100. The other problem is you, the defender, where there are other people. You have one person committing a crime by shooting at everyone, but if you start shooting, and miss, or hit an innocent bystander, then you are just as guilty as the person who initiated the shooting. This includes Texas and yes, Texas will charge you because the person you shot was not the one shooting AT YOU.

 

that wasn't the point I was making and the person to whom I responded specifically mentioned high-powered rifles. A mass killing simply means four or more people have been killed by said firearm. If you look at the latest stats for 2022, you will find we had 50 mass shootings in 2022 and 63 in 2021. Second, although 29 were handguns, a majority were modified to act and look like a rifle. There are amenities that one can purchase to make that type of pistol act much like a rifle in design. But the main point is that if you are in a public area and someone starts shooting, you won't be much help at all unless you want to get more innocents killed unless you are dead sure, pun intended, of your shot. That does not happen in reality given the chaos, everyone screaming, running, and so forth. Look at Las Vegas and see some of the videos of how people were reacting then.

 

How does one modify a pistol to "act" like a rifle?

You can't transgender the ammunition it uses.

 

According to the mainstream medis, it means 4+ people shot.
That's how hey get their >600 mass hootings in 2023 number.

Quantify this.

Your main point was about rifles and the uselessness of handguns against them due oi their overwhelming firewpower
Most mass shootings involve a handgun, and so your point does not apply.

A, literally, unique situation where it was impossible to fight back, and thus, a useless representation of the whole.
And then, there's Elisjsha Dicken:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/indiana-mall-shooting-elisjsha-dicken-neutralized-gunman-15-seconds/

 

Their bullet goes a bit faster: That doesn't mean mine doesn't go fast enough to kill.
Fear factor: Always a factor when you're being assaulted. Calm is always the key to life.
My pistol with an extended mag is 30 rds. The standard is 17. Rifles are 30 rds or 20rds. Each type has absurd size drums that fit. Specious.

Wow: You have to hit what you're aiming at and that makes the shooters invincible somehow?
Because that's what you've said: A pistol would be USELESS.
I never said or implied that Texas wouldn't charge you for tagging an innocent bystander (unless you're a cop). You've got to stop tilting at windmills.