man shoots kid for stepping on lawn

[Flyingdebris]

Why don't we just go ahead and ban the overmaintenace of lawns, cause thats what killed this kid.

No, there's a reason for guns. Guns are a tool of violence meant to assert control and/or death. They are used by good people as well as bad. Just as before the gun there was the sword, and before the sword, the fist/big rock.

Guns have a purpose and a use. They are used for recreation, defense, and utility, and in the case of bad people like Mr. Lawn, to hurt others. If you ban them from regular use, the only remaining use for guns is to hurt others with illegally purchased arms. And due to a ban,those that would use them for defense from such bad people would be defenseless.

This case of freaky mister lawn should not be about gun control, it should be about how some people can be completely and totally out of touch with reality where they can imagine their grass as being more important than somone's life.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

and look where we are now!

don't get into an argument with me when it comes to violence, i'm absolutely appalled that it's considered civilized to waltz up to another country (coughiraq), point a gun at them and say 'surrender or we kill you'. and kill several hundred thousand people. for what? for nothing.

i refuse to listen to reason when my morals tell me reason is bullshit.

My respect for you has easily doubled, if not tripled for you in reading this thread.

 

[15357]

and look where we are now!

don't get into an argument with me when it comes to violence, i'm absolutely appalled that it's considered civilized to waltz up to another country (coughiraq), point a gun at them and say 'surrender or we kill you'. and kill several hundred thousand people. for what? for nothing.

i refuse to listen to reason when my morals tell me reason is bullshit.

Not a gun, but several thousands of them with other various explosive devices.

Its the Art of War.

 

[Llama]

If that's true then he's not a whackjob, if he was he'd hurt/kill the kid in any way he could.

Since when does a whackjob have to see someone right away? I was under the impression violent nuttcases arnt known unitl they're known to be violent.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

the one tiny fact you're all overlooking is that guns, unlike sporks or cars or airplanes, were created and designed for the sole purpose of killing.

which is why i hate them based on principle and i'd rather they didn't exist.

and yes, i also think swords and other things designed for killing are pretty ****ed up and shouldn't exist. they do, though, and i think the only real solution is eradication of guns, period. it's not realistic, i know that, i'm not stupid, but i'm going to push my ****in' opinion on other people if i damn well please, thank you.

on a lighter note, i'm moving this to politics.

Except what you're pushing for is not "eliminating guns from existence" in the LEAST.

Think LOGICALLY. You can't UNDO what's done. You're left with certain options, THAT'S IT.

Gun control will INCREASE the harm that can come from guns at all and from other crime. Do you want THAT to happen? Seems counterproductive.

It's like killing someone to keep them safe. Not logical.

If you were for some machine that could magically make them dissapear, then alright, good on you. But the policy you're pushing is that of disarming good, law abiding owners. And I know I'll NEVER give up my firearms. I will die before that happens, thanks.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I'll note at this point it's far harder to escape from someone shooting at you than from someone who's trying to stab you. So it seems silly to say 'oh, he would have just used a knife' because the kid would have run away and then the guy would have been like 'oh well he's off my lawn now' instead of 'BOOM, headshot!'

 

[kirovman]

I think I deserve the right to use a gun, but I think most of the general populace don't.

Yes, that's right.

 

[15357]

I think I deserve the right to use a gun, but I think most of the general populace don't.

Yes, that's right.

Quoted for Awesomness

 

[VirusType2]

This is why you shouldn't bottle up anger towards someone. If he would have done the right thing like talk to the kid! Tell him in a civilized mature way,"Come here son. Please, please, please don't step on my lawn, it is the only thing I care about. I have no friends, no family, but I love my house and having it look as good as it can is the most important thing to me. I spend most of the rest of my life tending to my lawn and when you step on grass, you damage it, eventually that grass will die. Can you do that for me? thanks kid" Hell, he could have wrote a letter.

Instead he just was bent with rage and the kid probably didn't realize it was that big of a deal. maybe the kid was in a big hurry becuase he had injured himself. Doesn't that make it excusable to cut through someone's lawn in an emergency? Or maybe the kid did it just to spite the old man. Becuase the old man was a ****ing dick and didn't show any respect to the kid. Yelling at the kid when he didn't even know him is a good way to get the kid to hate him and go against him.


I understand teh way the old guy feels. I have had a problem with roomates eating my food. I kept asking them to cut it out. These guys make more money than me and it's just ****ing rediculous that they kept eating my food. I would put notes, and talk to them and they still did it. When I come down at night to get something that I planed to have for dinner and it was gone, I can't tell you how ****ing mad that made me. I would sit there for an hour in a rage planning on how I was going to rip their heart out, choke them to death, get in their face yelling, etc. to get my revenge. And so I put 1 more note on the fridge, "The next time I find some food missing, I'm going to beat the ever living shit out of you." It doesn't happen anymore. This old guy should have put a sign on his lawn as well. STAY OFF THE GRASS. BEWARE OF OWNER.

 

[DeusExMachina]

You do not ****ing shoot a kid for walking on your lawn.

That is all I have to say.

 

[The Monkey]

I read somewhere that in the case of a break in, you're 5 times more likely to shoot one of your own family members than the criminal. I will try to find the source.

 

[Ennui]

And I know I'll NEVER give up my firearms. I will die before that happens, thanks.

Well, that speaks for itself.

Anyway, I wasn't trying to make this a gun control debate in connection with the man killing the kid, other than to say that people prone to snapping like that should not be given easy, simple means to take another's life. Make them work for it, at least.

 

[dream431ca]

It's not gun control, it's the people. Guns don't shoot by themselves. Before anyone should own a gun, they should be screened for mental instability....and don't sell them a gun if they have more than one US flag on their front property.

 

[Nat Turner]

It's not gun control, it's the people. Guns don't shoot by themselves. Before anyone should own a gun, they should be screened for mental instability....and don't sell them a gun if they have more than one US flag on their front property.

Screened by who? Your fascist government????

No, the screening process would be ridiculous.

 

[Llama]

Says you, the typical gun wielding nutcase...see how worthless an argument becomes if you use insults like that?

Ridiculous? How so? Any control is better than no control at all.

 

[Nat Turner]

Says you, the typical gun wielding nutcase...see how worthless an argument becomes if you use insults like that?

Ridiculous? How so? Any control is better than no control at all.

Actually, no control is best of all. It's not a worthless argument because people have been oppressed all throughout history. You're so scared of potential harm on the part of gun owners that you're willing to give up all we have - freedom.

 

[Llama]

Am I? You know nothing about me or what I want. Way to go making the assumption of the year.

So, you think that every single person living has an automatic right to a killing machine? Nice, but id prefer slightly less freedom with no chance of having my head blown off.

 

[Nat Turner]

Am I? You know nothing about me or what I want. Way to go making the assumption of the year.

So, you think that every single person living has an automatic right to a killing machine? Nice, but id prefer slightly less freedom with no chance of having my head blown off.

Exactly, you're so scared of harm that you're eager to run around crying to the government, instead of helping yourself, while also giving them more power in the process.

 

[Llama]

I love your clueless perception of me. Rather fun.

I hate the modern goverment and I hate its plans for "security" but gun control is different. A rule on a silly little identity card is ridiculous. Gun control is a far more serious issue, and this country gets along perfectly well without everyone carrying round a .357

Besides, what freedom do I lose? The right to bear something I dont want anyway? Oo, the horror!

(Infact, while we're on the subject of freedom, why are most Airports now impossible to view? Is there a danger from evil plane spotters?)

 

[15357]

Actually, no control is best of all. It's not a worthless argument because people have been oppressed all throughout history. You're so scared of potential harm on the part of gun owners that you're willing to give up all we have - freedom.

Freedom....


Freedom is not the only thing we have, and its far from the most valuable.

The 'right' to a firearm is considerably less valuable than your life, the safety of people, and the stability of society.

Of course, it depends on your opinion.

 

[A True Canadian]

Of course the great irony in this shooting is that the man murded the kid in order to protect his lawn. Now facing jail-time, the man's lawn will go unprotected.

Anyway, isn't it true that the government technically owns 5-10 feet of your front lawn (for sidewalks, drain pipes and such)? No? Maybe? I heard that somewhere.

 

[kirovman]

Of course the great irony in this shooting is that the man murded the kid in order to protect his lawn. Now facing jail-time, the man's lawn will go unprotected.

Bwahaha.

 

[DeusExMachina]

Everyone should ruin his lawn while's he gone. When he comes back, BAM, kills himself.

 

[AntiAnto]

Firearms are meant to kill and should never be imo in any citizen hands.

Guns are completely different than any other tools that can be used to potentially perform murder. They give you a great power of destroying lives with only a single pressure of a finger on the trigger. An event can occur so spontaneously that it becomes almost instinctive to use it against a distressing circumstance.

My point is that guns were initially designed to destroy, kill and tear down living things. When prompted by stimuli, firearms offer you an easy approach to bring an end to something/someone that holds back or endangers your liberty. Though the majority of people won't use them for this purpose, some will because they are so accessible and it seems so banal to employ since you possess them.

EDTI1: I mean it seems to me a bit of a societal lateness to allow the ownership of firearms to everyone within the country for it gives the instruments to everyone to perform harm and murder.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Firearms are meant to kill and should never be imo in any citizen hands.

Guns are completely different than any other tools that can be used to potentially perform murder. They give you a great power of destroying lives with only a single pressure of a finger on the trigger. An event can occur so spontaneously that it becomes almost instinctive to use it against a distressing circumstance.

My point is that guns were initially designed to destroy, kill and tear down living things. When prompted by stimuli, firearms offer you an easy approach to bring an end to something/someone that holds back or endangers your liberty. Though the majority of people won't use them for this purpose, some will because they are so accessible and it seems so banal to employ since you possess them.

EDTI1: I mean it seems to me a bit of a societal lateness to allow the ownership of firearms to everyone within the country for it gives the instruments to everyone to perform harm and murder.

The mere fact that they can means they SHOULD be. The moment someone wants me disarmed there is a BIG PROBLEM. That leaves ME unprotected and I will not stand for it. I don't understand how you people can demand the disarming of everyone else.

Don't like to deal with guns yourselves? Then don't get one- that's your right. Don't try to strip OTHERS of THEIR right.

 

[CrazyHarij]

The mere fact that they can means they SHOULD be. The moment someone wants me disarmed there is a BIG PROBLEM. That leaves ME unprotected and I will not stand for it. I don't understand how you people can demand the disarming of everyone else.

Don't like to deal with guns yourselves? Then don't get one- that's your right. Don't try to strip OTHERS of THEIR right.

have you looked at the large scale consequences of your so called birthright?

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

have you looked at the large scale consequences of your so called birthright?

Have you looked at the consequences of taking it away?

I've posted, dozens of times, and literally just a few minutes ago in the Penn and Teller thread, proof that doing so only increases crime and death that will result.

 

[Glirk Dient]

have you looked at the large scale consequences of your so called birthright?

Have you looked at the consequences of taking them away? Guns act as a deterent. Just read below...I took this from the pen and teller thread.

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/jan98b.html

An increasing number of states are allowing people to carry concealed weapons. And states which have passed such laws have seen a decline in murders and assaults.

* Thirty-one states now allow citizens to carry concealed weapons -- up from just nine in 1986.

* While 10 million violent crimes are committed in the U.S. every year, potential victims use handguns about 1.9 million times in self-defense, estimates Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck.

* University of Chicago researchers John Lott and David Mustard have found that concealed handgun laws reduced murder by 8.5 percent and severe assault by 7 percent from 1977 to 1992.

* Had "right-to-carry" laws been in effect throughout the country, there would have been 1,600 fewer murders and 60,000 fewer assaults every year.

Vermont, which has long had the least restrictive laws, also has among the lowest violent crime numbers in the country.

* In 1980, when murders and robberies had soared to 10 and 251 per 100,000 people, respectively, Vermont's murder rate was only 22 percent of the national average and its robbery rate was just 15 percent.

* In 1996, Vermont's murder rate was just 25 percent of the national average, and its robbery rate was 8 percent of the national average.

Although Dade County, Florida, has 21,000 carry-permit holders, there have been no reported incidents of a permit holder injuring an innocent person in the six years since records have been kept. Data from Virginia paint a similar picture.

Opponents of concealed-carry laws argue accidents will happen. But there are only about 30 mistaken civilian shootings in the U.S. every year, and police commit three times as many mistaken killings as civilians.

In fact, the death rate from firearms has dropped in the last 20 years, even as gun ownership has more than doubled.

Source: Morgan O. Reynolds and H. Sterling Burnett (both of the National Center for Policy Analysis), "No Smoking Gun With Concealed Weapons Laws," Investor's Business Daily, January 8, 1998.

http://www.ncpa.org/bothside/krt/krt050301a.html

DALLAS -- Imagine a crime fighting policy that, by itself, substantially reduces the incidences of murder, rape and assault. A policy that enlists citizens in the fight against violent crime - empowering them to take back the streets and live in less fear.

Now imagine that this policy is cheaper to implement than any other measurably effective crime-fighting tool. Indeed, the citizens who participate in this crime-fighting effort, voluntarily commit substantial amounts of resources and time for equipment and training.

The good news is that you don't have to "imagine" this policy, because it exists in many jurisdictions.

Unfortunately, despite its proven effectiveness, some people are fighting hard against efforts to expand this initiative. This effective, but controversial, crime fighting tool is allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns.

Firearms are used by law-abiding citizens about five times more often to prevent crimes than to commit them. Thus, it should not be surprising that the evidence shows that when a state allows its citizens to exercise their right to carry a concealed firearm, crime rates decline.

More than 30 states have "right-to-carry" laws. Under these laws, the state establishes certain objective criteria that a person must satisfy before he is allowed to carry a concealed handgun.

Most states require training courses for concealed carry permits that take the student through a wide range of issues, including: hours of conflict resolution, a review of and final test covering the laws of self-defense and the consequences of the misuse of deadly force. And a stringent gun safety and shooting accuracy test which applicants must pass each time they renew their permit.

The favorable results of concealed-carry laws have been documented by many experts, including Yale University's Dr. John Lott.

Using data from all 3,054 U.S. counties Lott found that right-to-carry laws reduce murder by 8.5 percent, rape by 5 percent and severe assault by 7 percent. Had right-to-carry prevailed throughout the country, there would have been 1,600 fewer murders, 4,200 fewer rapes and 60,000 fewer severe assaults.

Nor has allowing more law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms resulted in increased accidental shootings or "heat-of-the-moment" killings.

Indeed, while firearm ownership in the U.S. is at an all time high, the firearm accident rate is lower than it has ever been since 1903 when the government first began compiling such data. And FBI data shows that killings as a result of arguments are declining as a share of all homicides.

And concealed carry permittees have proven themselves quite law abiding compared to the general population.

For instance, between 1987 and 1995, Florida had issued nearly 300,000 permits, but only 19 were revoked because the permit holder had committed a crime. That's one crime per 14,000 permit holders during a nine-year period - ten thousand times lower than the criminal arrest rate of one per 14 Americans each year.

And in Texas, where more than 215,000 concealed carry licenses have been issued, licensees were 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public and 14 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the general public.

Those who argue against right-to-carry laws have none of the facts on their side. As John Russi, director of Florida's licensing division said, "They said there would be gun fights and confrontations in the streets. As far as I can determine, there has been no negative impact." Keeping honest, law-abiding people unarmed and at the mercy of armed and violent criminals was never a good idea.

H. Sterling Burnett is senior policy analyst with the National Center for Policy Analysis (www.ncpa.org), a non-partisan, non-profit research center based in Dallas. Readers may write him at NCPA, 12770 Coit Rd., Suite 800, Dallas, TX 75251-1339.

 

[CrazyHarij]

okay then, never mind. i guess you're ****ed either way. glad to live in europe.

 

[Bob_Marley]

I still stay by my position of guns for recreation and hunting, not self defence.

In the UK one must keep firearms locked up in a secure, with the ammunition locked up in a sperate secure cabinet. To travel with one, one must place it in a bag/gunslip/box/etc, it must be unloaded, and the ammunition must be in a seperate compartment. One may only carry a firearm in public with good reason. This means that anyone even considering using their firearm to harm someone else has a fair old while to think about it. And that also means that they are less likely to carry the act out. To even get a shotgun certificate or firearms certificate one must have a clean criminal record, a good reason to hold the weapon, a signature from a respected person (such as a preist, a lawyer or a police officer) stating that they are suitable to hold the weapon and a secure place to store it.

Whilst I do not agree with all gun laws in the UK, because I still believe that the public should be able to hold handguns and semiautomatic centre fire rifles, but the core of the laws, out lined above, I believe is a fine model. It, by and large, allows for the safe use of guns by resposable people in the correct locations for the right purposes.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

okay then, never mind. i guess you're ****ed either way. glad to live in europe.

Glad to live in the US!

:cheers:

 

[Direwolf]

In this particular case, the guy is flat-out nuts. Totally bonkers. If he didn't do it with a gun it would be a knife. Or a landmine, or punji sticks, etc.

 

[Sainku]

In this particular case, the guy is flat-out nuts. Totally bonkers. If he didn't do it with a gun it would be a knife. Or a landmine, or punji sticks, etc.

I agree, no gun laws would have saved that kid. This guy was pissed and showed no remose as you could tell from the audio. He would have done it with his grass shears if he didn't have his shotgun.

 

[short recoil]

I'm actually suprised a .410 took him down, must have been hit in the head/neck.

 

[OCybrManO]

I agree, no gun laws would have saved that kid. This guy was pissed and showed no remose as you could tell from the audio. He would have done it with his grass shears if he didn't have his shotgun.

So, a 66-year-old man is going to chase down a healthy 15-year-old boy with a head start? Unless he had throwing knives, a bow, or some other projectile weapon with a long enough range... the kid would have almost certainly gotten away. Still, guns can't be removed from society. They're in far too deep. The only thing we can do now is work on gun safety, education, and regulation.

 

[Nat Turner]

So, a 66-year-old man is going to chase down a healthy 15-year-old boy with a head start? Unless he had throwing knives, a bow, or some other projectile weapon with a long enough range... the kid would have almost certainly gotten away. Still, guns can't be removed from society. They're in far too deep. The only thing we can do now is work on gun safety, education, and regulation.

Gun safety and education is good, regulation isn't. Regulation is hardly ever good for anything.

 

[OCybrManO]

Regulation itself isn't bad. Over-regulation is bad... as is under-regulation. Monopolies are the result of under-regulation, whereas state-controlled industry is the result of over-regulation. In the case of guns, I mean regulation in the sense that voting and driving are regulated. It promotes responsibility.

 

[Raziaar]

I wonder if gun bans would work in a way similiar to prohibition. Where the government tries to take peoples guns away and violence ensues.

 

[OCybrManO]

Guns aren't as popular as alcohol... not by a long shot.

Still, I wouldn't try to take their guns.

 

[Glirk Dient]

True..there are only 80 million gun owners in the U.S.