NC home owner shoots burglar sex offender
Previous Post
Next Post

We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again. YOU are your own first responder. No matter how many police officers cover your neck of the woods or how efficiently the respond, they simply can’t be everywhere they’re needed the moment they’re called.

Our friends in the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex who toil endlessly advocating for more restrictions on gun ownership argue that no one needs a handgun. Which is how you get opinion pieces like this:

Handguns exist for one reason: to kill human beings. People make the argument that a gun is a tool all the time. Yes. Guns are tools. Their function is death. A handgun is a tool for killing people. Your ranch shotgun or hunting rifle? You can reasonably argue those have a purpose that is not killing people. (They’re meant for killing things that aren’t people). An AR-15 or other military-style rifle is also built for killing people, but that’s an argument for another day. You don’t hunt with a handgun. I’m sure people do it, I’ve been at the range and shot one of those big Colt Pythons that someone sticks a scope on or whatever, but you’re an asshole and an idiot if you do that.

We won’t argue with Jack Crosbie and his feelz now, because it’s Monday morning and he barely merits a mention. We’ll simply point out that a handgun is the smallest, easiest, most maneuverable and affordable option for millions of Americans who choose to own a firearm to protect their homes and families.

People like a homeowner in Elizabeth City, North Carolina who woke up to find a stranger in his home.


Elizabeth City police say it happened in the 400 block of Bell Street around 6:30 a.m.

They say Tyrell Johnson came into the home through a back door and was confronted by the homeowner who ended up shooting him twice.

The 38-year-old man drove himself to Albemarle Sentara Hospital, according to police. Johnson was transferred to Sentara Norfolk General Hospital where he’s in fair condition.

Johnson is a registered sex offender and had been convicted of manslaughter.

So the homeowner successfully defended himself and his family. But as noted personal defense expert and amateur psychologist Jack Crosbie advises . . .

If you’re honest with yourself, it’s because handguns make you feel powerful. I get it, I really do. You can kill anything with a handgun, but mostly you can kill people. You can conceal it in your waistband or your pocket or your jacket and walk around with the power to kill anyone you meet almost instantly. This makes you feel strong and in control. But it’s a lie. When people are shooting weapons at one another, no one is in control. You don’t need to tell yourself this lie anymore. You don’t need a handgun.

Somehow we think the unidentified Elizabeth City homeowner would disagree.

Previous Post
Next Post


      • Yep, the thug in this article survived. This is common, Chicago has ER doctors who have patched up more people with gun shot wounds than most US Army doctors have even seen. The vast majority of those people survive, while most of them are thugs who go back to thuggery or to prison, they do survive to continue voting Democrat.

    • What is especially disgusting about the entire we-need-more-gun-control-now argument is its tacit acceptance—even tacit justification based on class differences—of criminal violence committed against private citizens. Gun controllers have to know that the cops may very well arrive too late or not arrive at all. Depending on the police to “save” someone being attacked as opposed to allowing them the right to defend themselves with a firearm is pure idiocy. And yet, because it is so central to their political ideology, gun-controllers have to make the argument that guns are not needed for self- defense.

      • The police response is slow because you’re doing it wrong. You need to hire a dozen retired officers (who you won’t argue to disarm) and let them be your immediate response team. If it’s good enough for Bloomie, it must be good enough for you.

  1. The first time I carried in public (concealed, not openly), I felt the opposite of “powerful,” and certainly very far removed from the cartoonish version of that power articulated in the excerpts above. I felt a sense of responsibility – I was carrying a weapon that could harm others, and I needed to be a careful steward of that responsibility. I also felt a sense of liability – I could easily ruin my own life or the lives of others by misusing the responsibility I had taken upon myself. It was sobering and clarifying. It also made me a more open and friendly person – I knew I could deal with certain kinds of serious problems should they arise, and that made me more welcoming to other kinds of pleasant interactions that I used to greet with shyness.

    • “Be polite, be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet.” That plan also includes having the means readily available to carry it out.

    • Mirrors my experience exactly.

      I’d also add that my wife recently got her CCW and my ‘feelings’ on that are of LESS fear and worry, as she is now capable of defending herself from larger/stronger attackers (she’s 5’1 so that’s like, everybody! Lol!). According to the author of that pile of steaming verbal diarrhea, I should be MORE feardul because she (or I) will now feel empowered to just kill anything that moves, which is just absolute nonsense of the highest order.

      • I have noticed that people who lack familiarity with firearms (especially those who are politically minded) ascribe bizarre and often ugly characteristics to gun owners in the abstract, even though the gun owners they meet in real life tend to be ordinary, normal people. Some of this is the way guns are reported, and the high exposure of the tiny few people who abuse firearms for evil purposes. Some of it is probably political tribalism at work. But even when I’ve pointed out to friends who don’t like guns that I’m far more typical than not, they aren’t convinced:

        “Oh,YOU’RE different,” they say, “but I really don’t believe most gun owners are like you.”

        If it were true, I’d be terrified every time I went to the range… that guy next to me with the slick AR or the awesome M1 Carbine would be a threat, not a potential friend. I’d love to find ways to change more people’s minds about this.

        • “Oh,YOU’RE different,” they say, “but I really don’t believe most gun owners are like you.”

          That’s why Leftists generally don’t have much of a problem with other Leftists owning guns. And there are *lots* of closet Leftist gun owners out there with an inherited gun…

        • Take ’em to the range! Or, even better, a shooting match. Then they will see that gun owners are some of the best people around, likely far better than their best ‘friends’. The proof is in the pudding. I’ve been to hundreds of matches and never met a single person I couldn’t get along with. And they’re competitors. But, in my experience, not too many take the competition too seriously. I’ve never seen anybody try to mess up anybody else to win. They’re more sportsmanlike than most other games.
          I have met a few not so nice, just on the range, including one guy who followed me around to police up my brass! But even that guy quit stealing my brass(and left in a huff) when I informed him that the brass that comes out of my gun belongs to me and I reload it. But it’s like three times over a lifetime of shooting a lot. Not a regular thing at all. More like one in 5,000.

    • Excellent comment! The gun owners they’re referring to are gang-bangers and the like who do nothing worthy of respect so need a gun to feel powerful.

      • That is not always true – I remember going out to Lytle Creek(in L.A.County), and watching people shoot off guns, hearing automatic gunfire, people shooting towards us, people hauling cars and appliances to shoot at, huge fireballs of gasoline and other flammables. All I wanted to do was get out of there. The people that were there were mostly kids 18-25, but they had no safety training. Those I went with now have much more respect for guns. These were not gang bangers, just kids with a little money and less sense.
        I have also heard auto fire in Los Angeles at night, coming home from work and concerts. It always scared me, the gang bangers used to shoot off rounds late at night, strangely, it isn’t heard much now.
        I am speaking about 30 years ago. I am sure there are people that are not safe with guns now. Just look at You Tube videos and you can see for yourself. There is a culture of people that think firearms are toys. That doesn’t mean that they should be outlawed, these idiots need to be taught, so teach your children well and maybe some of it will take.

    • My same response. I had a .22 and a 20 gauge hanging in a gun-rack over my bed since I was 6, but I had never carried, not even off my person in a vehicle. In fact, it was just a few years ago that I got my first pistol. I never saw much use for one until the degradation of our society cam into a sharp, clear focus.

      I presume that I won’t have a chance to respond to the shot that takes me out. The attacker is always in possession of the element of surprise.

      I noted that if somehow that first volley leave me able to respond, I damn well better have a way to respond.

    • Masood Ayoob famously said carrying doesn’t mean you don’t take shit from people, it means you take a lot more. I remember carrying a snub .38 in my bag when I taught night school in a questionable area where 2 women were assaulted and a man was robbed. All I could think of was I hope they don’t single out the well dressed guy with a laptop bag because I’d have to use it.
      I sure didn’t hang out in the shadows hoping for a chance to engage.

  2. Most dont buy a handgun with the intention of killing anyone, but protecting themselves if necessary. Typical propaganda aimed at emotions.

  3. “God made man. Sam Colt made them equal”. That’s all a handgun does. It gives you a chance to defend yourself and the lives of loved ones from mirderous criminals and soy boy tyrants like Jack.

  4. You’d think that “registered sex offender” wouldn’t be as important as “Convicted killer” for the headline but what do I know?

  5. First – the main reason to buy a handgun is, “I want that!”

    Second, there are certain tools for self defense, and home defense, that are better than others. Any handgun is certainly better at both than a hammer, or a knife, or fists, or a cell phone, or even a rifle. I choose a larger caliber pistol (my “home weapon” is .45ACP) with expanding bullets, both to increase damage to intruders and reduce over penetration.

    The intellectual midget who wrote the quoted, “Exist for only one reason,” blather is so blind to reality that I won’t even bother to correct him. I will mention how much fun it is to take a few of my handguns to the range for an afternoon of loud disputation of that idiot’s dishonesty.

  6. A fire extinguisher only exists to fight fires. Does that mean that having one means I hope for a kitchen fire?

    Seat belts only exist to protect people from automobile crashes. Does wearing a seat belt mean I’m hoping to get in a crash?

  7. Liberalism is a mental disorder and runs counter to all Darwinian logic. Most “Progressive” ideas are not well thought out and end up failing in the long run unless heavily modified to account for human realities.

    • Ollie,

      Most “Progressive” ideas are not well thought out and end up failing in the long run …

      That is because most “Progressive” ideas are just expressions of feelings, fantasy, and their notion of virtue — which means they are not thought-out at all.

  8. Jack Crosbie, if you’re honest with yourself, you write nonsense because it makes you feel powerful. I get it, I really do. You can say anything when you write, but mostly you can write bvllsh!t.

  9. If the ex-con, parole violating, home invader can drive himself to the hospital, you need a bigger gun. Or more practice.

  10. Mr. Confused-be makes some good points, one presumes by accident.

    You do, indeed walk around with the ability to kill other people all the time. Gun or no gun. Driving is worse. We live together on each other’s sufference.

    Smaller, weaker, or generally non-violent folks arm themselves because some people understand that power, but not that sufference.

    Peaceful, armed folks are looking to help their own odds when a killer comes calling, like through a window at night. A machine for killing people held by a peaceful person is no threat … to anyone else who is peaceful.

    Confused-be, there is quite clear on one thing: he doesn’t think you have the right, the judgment, or the worth to protect yourself, even from immanent murder.

    I wonder what he thinks about life preservers.

    • Jim Bullock,

      Thank you sir. A reasonably fit man or woman could EASILY walk up behind someone and kill them with a sucker punch, club to the head, brick to the head, machete or knife to the neck, or Garrote wire, among other possibilities.

      Whether or not someone carries a handgun (whether openly or concealed) does not change that calculus above.

      • Well, you also have uncommonly good taste, (I beg your pardon for not getting to the “uncommon” puns til now.)

        Kidding aside, I got the most interesting emotional reaction to an intelligent but indoctrinated former exec on exactly that: “We live on sufference.” point. He was a tad wound up about guns, becuase someone with a gun can do dangerous damange. When I pointed out all the other damage potential all around him he was pretty unhappy. When I pointed out the potential of a car, after getting quite upset, he said … but he wasn’t concerned about the people driving cars.

        “So, it isn’t about the potential and power, it’s about what you think of the people who carry guns: their judgment, morals, good sense, or something. You tink they are lesser.”

        I probably shouldn’t have responded quite so pointedly to his exasperated “Yes” with: “So, you want to ban those people from having cars, too, right? What else?”

        I was pretty tired of him at that point. He was neither as clear a thinker, nor as forthright as he thought himself. To his sputtering that “Nobody uses cars to kill people.” I replied with “Wait.” That was before the recent rounds of vehicular killing sprees for terrorism. I wish I was wrong about that one.

        I was actually surprised that this guy — had been a GM / Cxx for several highly-engineered mechanical product companies, holding an undergraduate engineering degree — had such trouble with basic energy calculations for cars, clubs, and gas cans. He just couldn’t entertain derivations that led to uncomfortable conclusions. Engineering and manufacturing train pretty hard in the “ground truth is indifferent to your preference.” If a guy like that can’t reach clear, uncomfortable thinking about guns and risks, what hope for the innumerate.

        We live out civilized lives on mutual sufferance. Republican goverment, meanding citizen self-government for the sake of the governed is largely a mutual protection pact, to secure that same advantage in the face of people who don’t grant that sufferance.

        FWIW, Years post TBI, I’m still terrified of knocking my head, given the differences in results and prognosis after a second brain injury. You may get back function after the first; you don’t recover resiliance.

        The TBI doesn’t care whether it’s from a gun, a car or a rock.

  11. Actually, firearms are designed to launch a projectile at several hundred to several thousand feet-per-second in a repeatable manner.

    Applications for firearms thus include:
    (1) Recreation (plinking and competitions)
    (2) Recreation (hunting)
    (3) Self-defense (against animals and humans)
    (4) Warfare
    (5) Attacking someone unlawfully

    To claim that firearms were designed to kill humans is wrong, see above.

    Also, to claim that handguns were designed to kill humans goes against the fact that handguns are quite poor at killing humans: about 81% of humans who sustain one or more gunshot wounds from a handgun will survive.

    Finally, with respect to applications against humans, note that firearms are COMPLIANCE tools, not killing tools. And the facts bear that out since humans have used firearms to convince an attacker to stop attacking (or convince a victim to comply) MILLIONS of times WITHOUT FIRING A SHOT.

  12. I know it is too much to ask of the totalitarian left, but I really wish that they’d allow us to live under the constitution of the united states. It really isn’t birdcage liner…..yet

  13. My guns have punched a bunch of holes in paper and ruined lots of alternative targets from soda cans to televisions to tannerite (Does great things to pumpkins!). A thing designed to do something specific can do other things sometimes, as I might explain to a small, confused child. However, when I carry, I am carrying a tool designed to maim or kill. In defense of my self or others, I will put it to use, but only for those causes. The gun I carry is loaded with quality hollow points to enhance the effect. I don’t want to need it, but if I need it I’ll be glad it is available. Same for fire extinguishers, seat belts, or insurance. “But those don’t kill people!” cries the antigunners. No… they protect people from fire, physics, expensive repairs or treatment. A gun may protect from rape, murder, kidnapping… any of this making sense?

  14. “When people are shooting weapons at one another, no one is in control.” –Crosbie

    Here Crosbie is assuming the victim didn’t follow his advice, and he claims a level of parity between armed perp and armed defender. Well, exactly; or almost exactly. Because if the defender has done some training and is in his/her home, he/she’s probably got at least a small edge.

    Crosbie wants you to ignore the circumstance where the defender DID follow his advice: An armed attacker against and un-armed defender. This is better how??

  15. I cannot help but laugh at the unintended consequences that would result if we implemented Mr. Crosbie’s desire to eliminate handguns: all those homeowners who would have used handguns to defend their family would instead use shotguns and rifles WHICH ARE FAR MORE LETHAL THAN HANDGUNS.

    That’s right: eliminating handguns guarantees that even more criminals will die in confrontations with good people.

    • Reminds me I need to pick up a pc9 for the wife and a shockwave for myself and dinner reservations for next week.

  16. Jack is typical of the modern progressive. He so badly wants to control people and he is willing to murder those he can’t control. He can’t believe that normal folks are not as twisted as he is. So he see’d all folks with guns as he see’s himself.

    I’m all for gun control. Folks like jack and shannon and diane and kapo bloomberg should be disarmed immediately.

    For the greater good.

  17. That big bore Colt Python loaded with a heavyweight round is more powerful than an AR-15. It is more than enough to take down a deer.

  18. Mr. Crosbie’s rant to eliminate handguns among good people for self-defense also begs the question: what would he have good people do when heartless, ruthless, violent criminals attack us (good people)?

    Eliminating handguns means good people will almost never have an effective means to defend themselves. And if they cannot defend themselves, they are condemned to whatever actions their heartless, ruthless, violent criminal attacker metes out. NO THANK YOU.

    • Longarms but for some pistols are all they can physically handle so there is an argument for the discrimination against the disabled

  19. I like to play word games like the left does and use the words “eliminate a threat”. Which is exactly what the homeowners did. Anybody getting into your residence that time of the day is a threat.

  20. I carry a handgun to feel less like prey, not to feel powerful.
    Crosbie would be better off to comment on the psychology of the lawless criminal element terrorizing decent people.

  21. Folks who carry a gat(legally) are usually the most law abiding member’s of a given community. Period…

  22. From the comment section –

    “Combine silly male bravado and the killing the bad guy fetish that a lot of men have, and poof there it is.

    Hey, everybody! 50 percent of America are closeted gays!

    Who knew?

  23. I would agree that scopes on handguns are kinda silly, but one doesn’t need a scope to hunt things. Also, lots of things get hunted other than deer. I cut my teeth, back in the 60s, with a Ruger Bearcat on my hip. I killed a lot of varmints with that gun, and since I had to buy my own ammo, it turned me into a good shot as well. My eyes aren’t what they once were, but I can still hit a gopher at 20 yards, and they aren’t very big.
    A rimfire rifle might have been a better choice(handgun’s a lot more convenient tho), but my Dad probly didn’t trust me with something longer ranged at the time. I was only ten yar old. Yes, I grew up in the saddle with a gun on my hip. Yes, I know how weird that seems in today’s world. That’s NE Montana for you.

    • You bring up another thing city liberals do not understand. A significant portion of the population still lives in the country and in fact raises the food those city folk eat! “No! Alice! Milk does not grow in bottles!” Which is something the city folk mostly forget or ignore. Conditions in rural Montana are very different from those in Los Angeles or NYC! Our founding fathers understood the difference between rural and urban and framed the Constitution accordingly! The ability to understand and use firearms is very important in many parts of the United States. We must never forget that!

    • I would agree that scopes on handguns are kinda silly, but one doesn’t need a scope to hunt things.
      I would agree that guns are kinda silly, but one doesn’t need a gun to hunt things. I’ve been hunting with a bow since….
      Why don’t you do you and STFU? It’s fine to post about you not understanding why people use scopes, or bragging that you don’t need one. But, it’s another to tell people that they don’t need them. I, and I’d posit that many other hunters, appreciate an optic to keep the shot in the vitals of an elk, deer, or antelope at 100-200 yards, or more. A .460 is handgun is capable of making that shot. Jeff Cooper recommended the scout rifle have a scope to make that kind of shot. I guess he was a know nothing. Many competitive handgun shooters in action or silhouette use optics, often with low or no magnification for action, and it’s rare to see an iron sight competitor take overall winner.

      • I didn’t say anyone else shouldn’t have one if they want one. I only said you don’t NEED one to hunt with.
        You’re going to say that you do? That you CANNOT live without a scoped handgun? Ridiculous! Sure you can. A scope( or other optic) might make hits a bit easier, depending upon your eyesight, but it is in no way necessary, as this makes it sound. But you will pay for that extra accuracy with inconvenience as you tote around that thing. If you want to make that choice, then get one. As for me, if I’m going that way it will be with a T/C Contender, and I won’t even try to holster it. In 7 T/CU, I think. Better than the .300BLK overall. Except that you have to create your own ammo from scratch. But wildcats are fine with me, so I’d make that my choice. Others? Get whatever you like.

  24. From what I read about him in his bio, Jack Crosbie is a typical liberal photojournalist who is based in NYC. He’s got an MS in photojournalism, so that indicates he has well and truly drunk the progressive kool-aid. That should tell us something about where he’s coming from as a self-appointed expert on gun control and the human mind. In the comments to the above-quoted article, he claims to be a shooter (only up to 9mm). If that’s so, I’m betting he was once taken to a range and borrowed a gun to gain his overarching knowledge about guns. If he ever gets mugged, he may see the need for gun ownership for self-protection, but only in a “guns for me, but not for thee” way.

  25. There is something far more dangerous to society than a firearm and it’s a direct product of liberalism. Got your attention? Single parent children raised without a father. Liberalism has for decades supported the idea that the father is unnecessary in the family unit. Telling woman they don’t need a man to raise their children. Paying women (Welfare) who lay down and have a kid with every (baby Daddy) that is looking for a good time. A fatherless society has resulted in poverty and high crime rates in areas where children are raised. Simply look to any large metropolitan area in the nation. This also can be found in all cities as well as rural areas. Gun violence is a direct product of these Ideologies and yes they are an Ideology. These policies have been going on since the Sixties. The need for a law abiding citizen to own a firearm is a direct result of Liberal Ideologies. How can I say that you ask. I was raised in a time when owning a firearm for self protection was unthinkable. Firearms were for hunting and occasionally target shooting. Society started going to HELL in the sixties with the birth of Liberalism. Crime rates started exploding all over the nation as the inner cities devolved into slums and gang havens. Due to morality taking a back door to Government being the cure of all your woes. Rules didn’t matter anymore. Doing whatever you wanted regardless of right or wrong. Because of these policies and a myriad of failed Government fix all programs. It has become necessary for society to take up arms for not only self protection but, self preservation. Once and IF society finds it’s moral compass again. The need for having a firearm for protection my return to a foreign concept as in the days of my youth. Until then…Keep Your Powder Dry.

    • The inner city was more violent in the 50s than it is today. You could get cut up with a razor(guns were more expensive). While certain drug markets are more dangerous(particularly for the sellers), overall the cities were more violent. That isn’t to say that we should not be aware of our surroundings, but human nature is the same and there were no “good old days”.

  26. “You don’t need a handgun.”

    That’s right, the Broward County Sheriff’s Department will pretend to protect you.

  27. I carry a handgun on the regular to protect myself and those around from harm from those who don’t respect life. It is my goal to stop the threat, not kill another human being. If the perpetrator dies of gunshot wounds received in the act of attempting to harm another, their blood is on their own head.

  28. As far as this Jack Crosbie bozo, everyone with a pie hole has an opinion.
    Here’s mine: ANYTIME someone prepares to meet and overcome ANY challenge, they feel empowered.
    That’s one of those “well no-sh–” things.

    Anything any of us do where we prepare and educated ourselves, as an example, going a bit overboard for a camping trip and taking more than enough of everything, extra water, two lanterns, extra….everything, you feel prepared and confident. You can succeed in your adventure and have a good time excluding a forest fire. It doesn’t matter what it is. If you are prepared to meet any challenge, you will feel empowered. The more things you can successfully challenge, the more confident a person is.

    So Mr

  29. I routinely carry not only firearms, but other tools in order to have an escalation/de-escalation option. The best thing about being armed is that under many circumstances I have control of my responses to various levels of threat. Shoot/don’t shoot choices are a very small part of Interpersonal confrontations. If all I have is a hammer, all I’ll see is the nails. -30-

  30. In the book of 2nd Timothy chapter 3 the world is and will discend into madness.back when the Bible was helping to keep us on the straight and narrow we allowed the supreme court to throw out prayers in schools and then Bibles in the . only early 60’s we find we are losing our minds.only a return to Jesus Christ will save us and I don’t see that in scripture

  31. Homeowner did a good job of defending himself but a poor job at protecting society. Two shots from any caliber handgun should be enough to stop him forever. Now he will be out on breaking and entering/burglary charges. I read or saw nothing that he had a weapon, hopefully he had burglar tools on him as this is a crime in itself while committing burglary in most locations.
    I hope the homeowner was threatened verbally or with a weapon otherwise this poor man was shot needlessly for simply and mistakenly trying to get into his own house… maybe he had been enjoying “Purple Drank” for those of you who remember…

    • Most people won’t consciously shoot to kill because society tells them only bad people or police do that.
      One of my teachers told us of Vietnam towards the end and how lot of the guys would shoot in the bushes Or at a height nobody would be like the tree tops and how much drugs those guys were using putting all of them at risk.

    • Time served, I’m not sure but I don’t think manslaughter carry’s a very long sentence,7-9 years, not sure might be less

  32. I see the problem. Jack Crosbie and his ilk see every gunn owner as a nut case just itching to kill someone. And the statement”I can kill anything with a handgun” , it would be fun to take that guy to Kodiak island or Africa he might be wishing for a rifle instead of a Nambu stuck in his wsistband

  33. At least you can use a gun to protect yourself at home. In most states. In many circumstances. If the mag isn’t too big. And you’re not prohibited. And the gun is properly registered. And he doesn’t sue you for wounding him. And his friends/relatives don’t get even with you.
    If you are in New York or New Jersey this should sound familiar.

  34. the problem is that the population has been dumbed down by pinko propaganda so much that they do not know the difference between Murder and Killing, Murder is defined as willful premeditated taking of life for a personnel gain without justification, a killing is the taking of life under justification, {Soldiers, Police} usually used as a protective action!

  35. “Handguns exist for one reason: to kill human beings. People make the argument that a gun is a tool all the time. Yes. Guns are tools. Their function is death. A handgun is a tool for killing people.”

    Let me rephrase that idiot’s words, using a similar analogy:
    “Cars exist for one reason: to drive drunk. People make the argument that a car is a tool all the time. Yes. Cars are tools. Their function is death. A car is a tool for driving drunk.”

    Or how about this:
    “Cars exist for one reason: as getaway vehicles for bank robbers. People make the argument that a car is a tool all the time. Yes. Cars are tools. Their function is robbing banks. A car is a tool for robbing banks.”

    • P.S.: And I’m sure all the men and women who were saved from animal attacks (from pittbull dogs to grizzly bears) by handguns will be surprised to learn that handguns can only be used to kill humans. Good thing the animals bears didn’t know that handguns can only kill humans!

      • Very good reply Derringer Dave, I have used a handgun for that very reason. I have also read that there is numerous people each year that defend their lives against 4 legged critters that bite


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here