man shoots kid for stepping on lawn

[Raziaar]

And only 250 million or so guns! With bullets enough to probably kill mankind five times over.

 

[Direwolf]

You'd be surprised what a guy of 66 can do. I know more than a few older guys I wouldn't want chasing me with any sort of weapon.

That, and the fact that this guy was nuts enough to have an illegal firearm.

 

[OCybrManO]

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

Most estimates I've seen, even from pro-gun sites, put it at ~65 million.

 

[el Chi]

The old man probably played violent video games.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

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

lol, anarchism.
Down w/ rules; I will sell candy made of lead and the FDA can kiss my kiester, miester. :bonce:


Regulation is plenty good, when it is used to protect freedoms.
The entire point of the whole gun debate is to ascertain whether the freedom to carry a gun, as it stands, is overridden by the freedom of most people to stay alive.

The question then, as I have stated in the other thread, is whether the ratio of misused legal guns to successfully-used legal guns is acceptable.

However, neither side has yet presented me with the first half of that ratio, because apparently no-one is keeping track.


What I do know for certain is that most anti-gun people are doing themselves a great disservice by acting all AH OH NO GUNS ARE THE DEVIL.
Even with the limited scope of the evidence, it's pretty clear that eliminating all guns, or even most guns, is unreasonable as all hell.
The facts, as they stand, are against you guys, so the emotional freakouts come across as pretty freaking lame.
How about instead you think up a proper alternative to guns (other than the total disarmament notion that we all know is magical nonsense), or some research into the missing ratio I noted above?


On the other side, pro-gun folk are damaging their own reputations by acting as all-out creepy as humanly possible with their guns.
Simply put, if you aren't a gun lover, Chuck Heston's "cold dead hands" quote honestly makes it sound like he's starting his own army of the hellish undead.
That is some hell of creepy shit, and the fact that he's like 90 now doesn't help matters much.
At the same time, going all "I have 38 shotguns, twelve pistols and 53 hunting rifles, and you will NEVER take them away from me!!!" is a real brilliant plan.
Convince people that guns aren't dangerous - by threatening to kill them with your crazy-ass doomsday arsenal! Smart move, cowboy!

It's way too easy to gloss over the many, many people injured and killed by fvcked-up idiots holding guns - even the legal ones. The thread topic is just one example.
Pretending that more regulation isn't needed is flat-out irresponsible. If you want your guns, you need to fight for your freedoms - not by threatening to kill us if we don't comply - but by doing your flat-out damndest to prevent as many legal-gun accidents and casualties as humanly possible.

That's the real battle now. Not some war of 1812 bullshit.
Guess what? You are the dominant power now.
If you want to stop the next rebellion, you had damn well better start self-regulating way more, because what's happening now is simply not enough.

KAZAAM

 

[Direwolf]

I always ruminated that marketing some of the new taser weapons aggressively might push down the "I'm protecting my family" purchases, as the bad results from those are usually the most tragic. Not a replacement for firearms, but they're relatively effective.

 

[Nat Turner]

Regulation is plenty good, when it is used to protect freedoms.

By definition regulation restricts freedoms.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

lol no.

Freedoms are those concerning life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

The current laws of north america, largely, are based on maximizing the number of freedoms for everyone while removing freedoms only when they conflict with others.


Your third-grade version of freedom is one where you are free to do whatever you want.
Even if it means stealing other's freedoms in the process, and even if it means you aren't protected from losing your freedoms either.

In your ideal, you're not "free" unless you're allowed to slaughter children, rape your grandma and whatever other freedom-killing activities laws normally punish.

Hint: Rape and murder destroy the three basic freedoms of life, liberty and happiness. That is why we arrest rapists and murderers.
Having named yourself after a mass-murderer, you may not understand this.

 

[kirovman]

In your ideal, you're not "free" unless you're allowed to slaughter children, rape your grandma and whatever other freedom-killing activities laws normally punish.

you forgot beastiality.

 

[Raziaar]

The old man probably played violent video games.

Probably played that shitty lawnmower man game.

 

[OCybrManO]

Probably played that shitty lawnmower man game.

Games do cause violence. The makers of that game make me want to kill... the makers of that game.

 

[dream431ca]

I hear a lot of protection Bullshit going on here. Protection from what? Your neighbour? Your wife? Your government? I can see how guns "protect" you. It's more of a deterant than a thing you actually use. Ya I get the "Everyone has a right to own a gun" thing, but right below that, it should also say, "Everyone has a right to kill a person with a gun as long as they are protecting themselves". Wouldn't that make more sense, instead of just a right to own a gun? Sure it tells you, you can own a gun, but it doesn't tell you, you can use the gun on someone. I see a loophole here.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I hear a lot of protection Bullshit going on here. Protection from what? Your neighbour? Your wife? Your government? I can see how guns "protect" you. It's more of a deterant than a thing you actually use. Ya I get the "Everyone has a right to own a gun" thing, but right below that, it should also say, "Everyone has a right to kill a person with a gun as long as they are protecting themselves". Wouldn't that make more sense, instead of just a right to own a gun? Sure it tells you, you can own a gun, but it doesn't tell you, you can use the gun on someone. I see a loophole here.

Actually justified homicide ruled in self defense the police generally tell you you're lucky and you the state doesn't press charges.

In fact Florida law specifically states the case for using deadly force when facing an agressor.

So in essence it does, it's at the state level.

 

[dream431ca]

Actually justified homicide ruled in self defense the police generally tell you you're lucky and you the state doesn't press charges.

In fact Florida law specifically states the case for using deadly force when facing an agressor.

So in essence it does, it's at the state level.

Wow. Those laws must be really, really old. Surely, humanity has progressed a little farther than this. Not to say that it isn't your right, but one day something might happen to change the law.

 

[AzzMan]

Actually the law is pretty recent here. If you are attacked you are allowed to use whatever force necessary to defend yourself. What else are you gonna do, just sit there like a retard and take a beating, and possibly die? No thanks

 

[B_MAN]

He had a shotgun.. and he shot some kid to death for screwin up his lawn..
I think by definition that makes him a whackjob

Not to mention, he's been having disputes on the subject for almost 3 years
I'd imagine it wasn't a spur of the moment type thing...
Especially since he had the gun there...

agreed.
absolutely disgusting.

 

[SIGbastard]

Actually the law is pretty recent here. If you are attacked you are allowed to use whatever force necessary to defend yourself. What else are you gonna do, just sit there like a retard and take a beating, and possibly die? No thanks

You've always been able to do that in Florida. They just expanded it so there is no obligation to try and escape if you can. So basically even if you could easily get away you don't have to. For instance if someone started busting in your windshield with a club while you are at a stop sign. Before if you could easily drive off you would get in trouble for shooting the guy with the club, but now you can just shoot the bastard. I personally like the law because it protects the would be victims from liability for simply defending themselves.

They are about to pass a similar law here in Oklahoma. I am all for it. Personally though if I was in a circumstance like I just described above I would try to get away if it was clear it would be easy to do so without being harmed. I don't have a problem with it though because if someone gets shot for using deadly force (the situation I described legally fits this definition) they put thereselves in that situation to begin with by assaulting someone.

The guy that shot the kid sounds like a nutjob to me. I'm sure he'll get what he deserves.