Shoot First, Ask Questions Never
A 20 year old woman was shot and killed in a rural area of upstate NY Saturday night. Her crime against humanity? Pulling in to the wrong driveway while looking for a friends house.
The lawyer for the accused killer says that the 65 year old man had reason for fear. According to the lawyer the car, along with two others that were looking for the same party, entered the driveway at "high speed" and did not leave after the homeowner "turned the floodlight on". The woman , who was a passenger in one of the vehicles, was shot before anyone even got out of their cars. So, lets just say the lawyer is full of shit. The turning on of a light might just as easily have been their friend welcoming them.
No, this was shoot first and ask questions never. "Stand your ground" filtered through the imaginations of gun nuts who have been frightened by media to believe that their lives are in danger from every stranger they see.
Just another facet of America's disastrous affliction concerning guns.
-
related
A 20-year-old woman was shot and killed Saturday after she and three others accidentally turned into the wrong driveway while looking for a friend’s house in rural upstate New York, authorities said.
The woman, identified as Kaylin Gillis, was a passenger in a vehicle when a man, 65-year-old Kevin Monahan, fired two shots from his front porch, Washington County Sheriff Jeffrey Murphy said in a news conference Monday. One of the shots hit the vehicle and struck Gillis, the sheriff said.
“It’s a very rural area with dirt roads. It’s easy to get lost. They drove up this driveway for a very short time, realized their mistake and were leaving, when Mr. Monahan came out and fired two shots,” the sheriff said, adding that the area has poor cell phone service.
Monahan has been charged with second-degree murder in connection with her death, Murphy said. He was arraigned Sunday on the murder charge, his attorney told CNN. A bail hearing is pending for Tuesday or Wednesday, the district attorney and defense attorney both said.
The shooting happened just days after a Black teenager in Kansas City was shot twice by a White homeowner after going to the wrong address to pick up his siblings.
In the New York shooting, both Monahan and Gillis are White. No one is believed to have exited the car, and there was no interaction between Monahan and anyone in the vehicle before shots were fired, Murphy said.
“There was clearly no threat from anyone in the vehicle. There was no reason for Mr. Monahan to feel threatened,” Murphy said.
After the shots were fired, Gillis and the rest of the group drove away from the house in the town of Hebron looking for cell phone service and then called 911.
They were found around 5 miles away from the home in the nearby town of Salem. First responders began administering CPR but Gillis was pronounced dead at the scene, Murphy said.
“This is a very sad case of some young adults that were looking for a friend’s house and ended up at this man’s house who decided to come out with a firearm and discharge it,” the sheriff said.
Shooting suspect’s attorney offers different version of shooting
Kevin Monahan, 65, has been charged with second-degree murder. - Washington County Sheriff's Office
Monahan’s attorney, Kurt Mauser, disagreed with the sheriff’s description of events.
“This was not a simple case of coming up a driveway and turning around,” he told CNN. “The description I was given by my client is there were multiple vehicles, including a motorcycle, revving engines, coming up the driveway at a high rate of speed.”
Mauser said Monahan felt that “created an atmosphere and a fear that there was menace going on.”
The sheriff confirmed there were several vehicles traveling together – a car with two passengers; a car with four passengers, including Gillis and her boyfriend; and a motorcycle – driving up and down the street looking for an address.
He said witness accounts from inside the cars and forensics prove the shots were fired as the group exited the driveway. The car in which Gillis was a passenger was the last vehicle to turn around and leave, he said.
“I don’t know how they could menace anyone with those type of actions, but they were clearly leaving the residence when the shots were fired,” Murphy told CNN. He also said no 911 calls regarding loud noises coming from vehicles were reported by Monahan or neighbors.
After the shooting, police officers responded to Monahan’s home and found him to be uncooperative, Murphy said, adding he “refused to exit his residence to speak with police.”
He was taken into custody hours later with help from the New York State Police Special Operations Response Team, according to a press release from the Washington County Sheriff’s office.
Speaking to CNN on Tuesday, Murphy said Monahan had not made any statement about the shooting and obtained a lawyer before he came out of the house.
“(He), quite frankly, has not shown any remorse in this case,” he said.
A 20-year-old woman was shot and killed after her friend turned into the wrong driveway in upstate New York, officials say (msn.com)
Right wing media is feeding this warped belief people have that menacing strangers are about to attack them.
You need to tell that to the loved ones of innocent adults and the parents of numerous black kids killed in the crossfire and drive by shootings by black gang bangers...in Chicago and practically every other city and town controlled by Democrat elitists.
I assume you are terrified of black people. Do you have a gun you keep by your front door?
Nope to both. Just the expressing the reality that you refuse to recognize and accept..
But it seems like it has got a lot more dangerous to go into downtown Chicago recently.
A far cry from the days long ago when we rode the South Shore up to the Loop or took the El out to Wrigley Field.
Even remember when Meigs Field was a working airport
What makes you think that I dont understand that inner city shootings are also a manifestation of America's mad love of guns?
Your comment is basically a deflection. I'd be just as afraid of walking or driving up to some gun nuts front door as I would be walking down the street in a "bad neighborhood".
There is no mad love of guns in the US. I suspect just as many of the gun owners are of a liberal persuasion that a right wing one.
And of course all the gang bangers and criminals of all races most likely don't have any allegiance to either political party.
This particularly seems to be true in your city. Instead of whining on a message board, what are you actively doing to help alleviate the problem?
I dont generally say this to people who are not nasty, but fuck off.
Chicago and black people have nothing to do with this story.
“There is no mad love of guns in the US.”
Laughable…if it were not for the daily, if not hourly tragic examples confirming the opposite…ignoring the obvious.
You know this happened out in the country, right? Urban gang crime has nothing whatsoever to do with this story.
For real? If not in the US, then where? Where else are you going to find this?
How can you look at this and not see a unique obsession with guns that far surpasses what you might find anywhere else in the world besides the United States?
good job
The same way I look at pictures of a golf show and don't think we have an obsession with 7irons.
I agree that a Christmas card full of guns is cringeworthy. But the idea that John Wayne movies or trade shows are indicative of an "obsession" is a bit dramatic.
Not a good example. Golf is actually very popular in many countries.
Here’s a golf show in Japan:
‘Here’s one in China:
Ireland:
But you have ignored the totality of my comment. I posted a lot more pictures than a gun show. America’s love of guns permeates our entire culture in a way that is utterly unique. So I said we have a unique obsession. And we do. In addition to the multiple examples in the photos I posted, name another country with more guns than people. (That’s rhetorical, of course. No such place exists.)
People all over the world like to live next to a golf course. How many people like to live next to a gun firing range? I owned a golf condo in Florida, and there is no way I would want to be within shooting distance of a gun firing range.
The word was "obsession", and that's what I would push back on.
Yes, the place of guns in American society is unique, largely because constitutional protections keep them legal and they're fun to shoot. But my son keeps three in our house and I haven't seen them since duck season ended.
For the overwhelming majority of Americans, it's not remotely an obsession. That's just melodrama.
We don't call people who travel the country to play golf "obsessed". We don't get our knickers in a wad when 1000 rednecks descend on the bass fishing show. But if somebody wants to freeze their ass off in the woods for hours waiting for a deer to walk by, suddenly that's an "obsession". C'mon. It's just not.
We're ignoring the noise issues? And the manicured landscapes on the course?
Why did you own the condo? I doubt you chose it based on proximity to the clubhouse. No, golf courses are beautiful and people like to look out their windows at them. If you knew what you were doing you bought one near a tee box instead of a green, and God help you if you bought one on the right (slice) side of a fairway. You'll be replacing windows and siding for the rest of your days.
Lots of people have hunting cabins. But the nature of hunting means those places are out in the middle of nowhere, so you don't have the option of buying one close to anything else.
None of that speaks to the idea that there are waaaaay more very avid golfers in the US than there are very avid shooters in the US... but we don't seem to worry about it being some sort of "obsession".
Greg, should attempt to take away a single gun from the gun "junkies" in the United States. There will be 'blood' spilled!
I didn't have a choice for its location because my brother and I inherited it from our parents, and when it was originally purchased it was because it was one that was available and I doubt that any thought was given as to its not being in range of drivers who slice their tee shots. As it happens it was along a fairway. Anyway, happiness isn't a warm 7-iron, happiness is a warm gun.
I'm going to repeat my belief. The reason the gun laws are not going to be tightened is because the gun loves and defenders of gun rights refuse to allow for ANY effective gun control and really don't give a shit about the fact that the next kid that could be shot and killed could be THEIR kid or grandchild because it can happen ANYWHERE ANY TIME TO ANYBODY in case you've not already comprehended the proof of that.
I hope it hasn't been too bad. I'm sure the view is nice.
Speak for yourself. I play golf 50 times for every 1 time I go shooting.
You're missing the real objection.
The real reason you can't get any sort of sensible gun control is that everybody knows that liberals absolutely will not stop at sensible. They never do. This is about emotion for them, and things like reason, practicality or common sense don't enter into it. If you doubt that, look at the pattern.
It's not enough to have a drag show, they want to have one with children. In literally any other instance where a middle-aged man wanted to dress up in a g-string and dance with a little 5 yr old girl, we would (correctly) call that fucker a pervert and put a stop to that shit. But if he wears a g-string AND a feather boa, then it's all magically OK.
It's not enough to provide counseling and support for trans people as they work through figuring out their identity. No no, we're going to put a 6'4" guy with a dick in the women's locker room to change in front of all of the actual women and let him go out and win the women's national championship. Any woman who complains about that is a transphobe or TERF whore, BTW.
It's not enough to teach kids that all races are equal. No no. If you agree with the idea that schools should "not teach that one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex", you're a disgusting bigot.
These patterns go on and on and have done so for a long time. So there is zero trust that any discussion about sensible gun regulation will remain sensible for more than 30 seconds. And they're not wrong. Look at this seed. If you don't support a vague ban on certain types of guns that shall be defined later based on how scared liberals are at that time, you're a "gun nut" or you have "an obsession" or "you don't care about dead kids".
And then those same people somehow wonder why the gun owners they insulted during their tantrums don't want to talk about gun control.
That's your biggest problem? The word? I feel like you're deliberately deflecting from the point.
So here are some more words. Guns in America are celebrated, idolized, and romanticized to a degree not found anywhere else in the world. Their status is elevated beyond concern for the damage they do. They are held in an almost holy esteem without regard for the training, responsibility and temperament of the people who wield them.
Well there's a great example of the problem. The responsible adult in the house has no idea where three firearms are. Perfect.
We actually do, but the difference is they aren't killing people with their obsession, so it's a harmless one.
Again, we don't have a fishing pole murder problem.
No, I actually didn't use hunting as an example, so you're arguing a straw man.
Face the problem.
That is very true
If that were a real objection, then conservatives would be proposing "sensible gun control" all the time. We'd have piles of bills penned by conservative legislators aimed at sensibly controlling who gets a gun, what kind of gun it is, and how they behave with it.
But they don't, so they clearly don't believe there is any such thing as "sensible gun control."
All of that could be - and should be - legislated.
where do they teach that?
Knew a guy who lived next to a dogleg on a golf course and was constantly experiencing broken windows due to folk trying to cut the corner and slicing into his house and yard.
It got to the point where he and his family were afraid to even go out into their back yard during daylight hours.
The course eventually sprung to put up a huge net.
At least he never had to buy another golf ball. He had buckets full.
Have never seen a house anywhere near an outdoor gun range.
As far as happiness is a warm gun goes, that was just a sarcastic statement because guns mean as much to me as they did to the Beatles who wrote that song.
As far as "trans" goes, that's something that isn't at all on my mind and it's something I'll leave up to those who are concerned about it.
However, I'll never stop believing that it's the gun lovers who are preventing effective gun control legislation from ever happening.
I just think you're being overly dramatic.
Better, but still dramatic.
I don't think you know many gun owners and you get your impressions from the media.
Conservatives are not the ones with their knickers in a twist because they're afraid of guns.
What qualifications do you propose?
How many would you allow?
I agree with that.
What training do you propose?
How are you going to police that?
It makes zero sense to force guys who have owned guns for 50 years without incident to prove to you they know what they're doing.
How are you going to define and police that? Let's keep in mind, you're talking about an enumerated Constitutional right. If you have to "be trained on how to manage your emotions" for gun ownership, what else will you need that training for? How long before people get the bright idea that you can't vote without "emotional stability training"?
You're talking an awful lot about training. We've got everything from training about controlling your feelings to gun safety to threat assessment to accuracy. What branch of government would you have overseeing all that? How do you keep some aggressive leftist appointee from making the training so difficult nobody can pass it?
No Jack, back here in realty it is your conservatives who are the ones who not only oppose all sensible gun laws, but rather they are the ones forever loosening gun laws. Conservatives are who are making it ever easier for ever more, ever younger and ever less well trained individuals to get ever more ever larger guns with ever higher capacity magazines. Who are making it legal to carry guns into ever more inappropriate places.
With irrational fears of liberals as excuse.
Before a single new gun law is passed; all gun laws on the books must be enforced first. (Like our immigration laws need to be enforced.)
AG's and DA's drop gun charges all the time; especially to get plea deals.
The only purpose of new gun laws is taking rights away from law abiding citizens. Criminals will never obey the law, period. Especially when they know they will not be held accountable.
So to sum up, because it might be hard, I haven’t fed you every conceivable detail, or you don’t know specifically how my suggestions might be enforced, none of it is worth trying?
Thank you. That is the do-nothing response I expected.
Tell that to the DMV. They test old people - because they’re old. Tell that to police departments around the country who still require veteran officers to be tested with their weapon. We require many other people in various industries to undergo periodic review of skills, practices, and procedures. There is no reason we shouldn’t do the same for guns.
All we know about a civilian who has had a gun for 50 years is that they’re old. Lack of an incident could be dumb luck. If you’re a responsible and knowledgeable gun owner, you should have no problem with the occasional review.
Yeah well, there’s a lot to cover. If that’s too much responsibility for you, you probably shouldn’t have a gun.
Who cares? Is that seriously a big road block for you? Don’t deflect with garbage. Assign it to the department of your choice. Or make a new one. Least important detail? Maybe.
The same ways we manage a million other regulations. Debate, conversation, compromise, precedent, etc. Claiming a fear of over-regulation - when we already regulate so many things - smacks of an excuse to do nothing.
Tell me honestly that you’ve never met someone that you thought shouldn’t be anywhere near a gun. Or that you’ve never met someone - or heard of someone - with such mental health or emotional issues that you wouldn’t want them to have a gun. Tell me you’ve never met someone who is so irresponsible that you‘re certain they’d have some horrible accident with a gun.
If you honestly believe that every single citizen of the United States is naturally gifted with firearms, emotionally stable, and responsible such that we need never worry they might accidentally shoot someone, or irrationally shoot someone out of anger or depression, then you can honestly say we don’t need any of the controls I have suggested.
But if you can’t honestly say all that, then you have to agree that we need to try to do something about it because the cost is human lives.
I haven’t proposed bullshit regulations that target the color of the gun or the shape of attachments. I’m going after the people and holding them accountable. The right to keep and bear arms should carry with it a mighty responsibility, and right now, it doesn’t.
He gave you their basic reason earlier. They think "liberals" will take all their guns away. I think that was a John Birch Society theme decades ago. "The commies are coming for your guns".
So, why is the gop passing new laws now making it easier to get gun, carry guns and cutting the requirements for getting guns and age restrictions? Answer me that?
So, it is not liberal fears of guns, but rather the gop's irrational fears of liberalism?
I guess it’s easier to assume the worst in a person and make ad hominem attacks than address a complex issue that makes one uncomfortable.
For your information, I have known several gun owners in my life. I also own several guns myself, and have since I was about 8 years old. So, no, I don’t get my impressions from the media.
By that logic, we should have no laws for anything. Because some who guy charged with burglary got to plead to trespassing, we should just get rid of burglary laws. That’s where your logic goes.
The plea bargain process can be very useful for the justice system, or it can be used poorly - but that’s a different conversation. If you want reform on prosecutorial discretion, by all means, seek that out. But don’t use it as an excuse to avoid addressing an important problem.
That is often true, but a lot of people who commit crime - even violent crime - do so for the first time. How many times have seen the story of some guy who shot up the neighborhood, but didn’t have a record? It happens. According to the report I cite below, over a third of mass shooters had no criminal record at all before the shooting. There is value in regulating even so-called “law abiding citizens” so that we might prevent violent crime.
Public Mass Shootings: Database Amasses Details of a Half Century of U.S. Mass Shootings with Firearms, Generating Psychosocial Histories
So regulating only known criminals is not an effective solution.
“…but rather the gop's irrational fears of liberalism?”
And as the latest spate of tragedies demonstrate, living in a perpetual state of fear and/or loathing. No way to live.
That's fair. I'm not sure how much it actually matters, but it's certainly happened.
I'm not sure that's actually true. Which laws are you referring to that govern the size of the gun or the magazine?
Who defines "inappropriate"?
You probably would have no way of knowing, but Texas law enables any business to prohibit firearms. All they have to do is post a notice at the door that no guns are allowed. The overwhelming majority of businesses exercise that right.
It's more about the fear of irrational liberals and the rights they're eager to take away.
[Deleted CoC]
[Deleted, labeling, sweeping generalization.]
We have a gun law A that isn't enforced.
We passed gun law B be that isn't enforced
So we want to pace gun law C
[Deleted CoC again]
Why do you think this will work this time?
Like who? Who doesn’t want existing gun laws enforced? Are you seriously going to claim that liberals are the ones who don’t want gun laws enforced?
It’s a nuanced and complex topic. I’ll tell you one thing, though: I know a lot of prosecutors, and almost all of them are conservatives. Additionally, the vast majority of judges are former prosecutors. There are reasons why charges or sentences (more common in my county) get pled out, but it’s pretty much never because prosecutors are soft on crime.
In rural counties, yes. In urban, umm no.
So, some of the reasons cases get pled is because prosecutors start by overcharging. A defendant commits a single act, but gets charged with five crimes. Or maybe he gets charged with a more serious version of what he actually did. Or the proposed sentence is absurdly severe.
Then he pleads guilty to one or two of the charges, or pleads to what really happened, or agrees to a “lesser” sentence that actually makes some kind of sense. This guarantees the conviction and saves the county a lot of time and money. Meanwhile, casual observers think he got away with something.
Um, ok. I’m sure you’d know best.
Prison is overrated. The worst gangs were born in - and continue to be run from - prisons. It takes minimal offenders and turns them into hard core, lifelong criminals. A lot of times, it’s better for society to seek an alternative disposition.
Death penalty. that way there are no repeat offenders. Rape, child abuse and murder and drug distribution should have mandatory death sentence.
I haven’t complained and I’m honestly not interested in this rabbit hole. Can we get back on topic?
Obviously better than you, if you think Soros is spending tens of millions to elect conservative prosecutors.
Of all people, a lawyer should understand the importance of those specifics. How these regulations would be enforced and by whom will be massively important. There is a vast difference between enforcement done by the locally elected sheriff of Wise County, TX and a militant leftist presidential appointee who's never actually been on a farm and travels everywhere with armed security.
You want to place restrictions on a Constitutionally enumerated right. I think we might want to be very careful about experimentation. I doubt seriously you would ever suggest "trying" laws that control free speech.
Gun owners care. Intently. For blatantly obvious reasons. If you don't understand why, you're really not qualified to talk on the subject.
We'll just cut to the chase right here. This is clearly your desired outcome.
You are actively looking for ways to deny US citizens a right specifically guaranteed in the Constitution. You obviously don't respect them, you don't respect their rights, you show disdain for them personally... and then you're somehow confused and indignant when they don't want to cooperate with your ideas and they tell you to go fuck yourself.
Of course. But I've met 10 times as many people who should never be allowed behind the wheel of a moving vehicle, and we don't make them retest every 2 years.
You're operating under the idea that we can somehow screen the crazy people and keep them from getting access to guns, and you have zero care for the inconvenience you would inflict on regular, law-abiding, completely safe gun owners.
What the gun owners and conservatives know... because they've seen it play out hundreds of times... is when these ideas don't work and crazy people still get their hands on guns, you will undoubtedly say "it didn't work because we didn't do enough of this thing that isn't working", and we'll be back here trying to restrict their rights further.
No, but you are ignoring massively important issues because they happen to be inconvenient.
The fuck? No you're not. You're simply creating a pain in the ass for people you don't need to worry about.
In your mind, my 56 year old friend (partner at a law firm) who has been hunting with his family since he was 6 years old without a single incident should be required periodically to prove to the government he knows WTF he's doing before he can exercise a right guaranteed to him by the US Constitution. That's somehow going to reduce the number of drug dealers who kill each other or the number of people who kill themselves. You've been a bit fuzzy on the details of how all that works, but I'm sure you think it will.
The one idea you've had that isn't hugely problematic is a competency and safety test for first-time shooters. That said, I guarantee you're not going to agree with the minimum age most people think is appropriate for that.
Yeah, so I didn’t say anything about Soros. I spoke to my own experience. If you just want to argue stuff nobody is talking about, maybe you’d be happier talking to yourself.
I have already made clear that is not my immediate concern and I feel like you are deflecting from my list of “sensible” gun control laws. I will not discuss enforcement at this time. Period.
YES. So? Just because a thing is in the Constitution, that doesn’t make it the best way we could be handling things. Even the Founders knew that, which is why they made it possible to amend the document.
We have been experimenting and modifying laws like this ever since the Constitution was written. Stop approaching this like it’s the Holy Scriptures. Defamation isn’t in the Constitution but we have no problem punishing people for that speech.
For this to be a productive conversation, there needs to be a concern for what is right, not just what is currently legal.
This is false. You are wrong. I have already made clear (@1.1.36) that I, myself, am a gun owner, and you are deliberately ignoring it. I speak for me. You do not. That should be the end of that absurd allegation.
Drivers are more regulated than gun owners. They are required to go through training and testing. That testing includes knowledge of the rules of the road, safety practices, and actual operation of the vehicle in traffic. Tests for operating more complicated vehicles are more extensive, and may even include a periodic medical exam.
Many get their licenses renewed automatically, but if they get a ticket or have an accident, they may be required to retest. In some jurisdictions, as drivers get older, automatic renewal ceases and they must retest every time. Younger drivers may have restrictions on the time of day they can be driving, or on who can or cannot be in the car with them. Furthermore, drivers are required to carry insurance, so they are at least financially responsible for negligent behavior.
We should be doing at least that much with gun ownership.
Well, you should doubt it because I made a clear and specific list of things that we should be doing, and none of it includes shit we are currently doing that isn’t working. It’s pretty dishonest to pretend otherwise.
Reading through these comments it is clear that Jack will go to any lengths to disagree with you. There is no end to it, and no bottom to it. We should thank him for bringing the true nature of the gun rights advocates out in the open though.
That doesn't mean it's not important. You are never, ever going to get any traction without addressing that elephant in the room.
By which you mean I am "pointing out inconvenient problems with them".
Riiiiight. So we're only going to discuss what you want to discuss. Are you starting to see why we never get anywhere on gun regulations? No... I suppose not.
So you need to know WTF you're doing and not experiment.
Not usually surrounding enumerated rights, and certainly not without details about how you intend to protect those rights against unreasonable government intrusion... that would be the enforcement discussion you don't want to have.
There also needs to be a concern for the views of people with whom you disagree. More importantly, there needs to be a concern for the primary function of the Bill of Rights, which is to protect the rights of American citizens from government overreach.
I think you could get some traction on a similar type of regulation. Specifically, I think you could implement a one-time safety and operation training requirement, administered at the state or local level like driver's licenses. There are reasonable, widely known, objective requirements and anybody who passes the exam gets a license. I passed a written and driving test at 16 years old. I haven't been tested since. I'm not having to go back to the DMV every couple of years to prove to them I still know how to drive.
I don't think that does very much, though. People don't have to pass a psych evaluation or even a background check to get a driver's license. Crazy people drive all the time. So I'm not sure a license requirement does much more than prevent a few accidents.
Well, you should doubt it because I made a clear and specific list of things that we should be doing, and none of it includes shit we are currently doing that isn’t working. It’s pretty dishonest to pretend otherwise.
It includes a lot of shit that isn't going to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people. And as soon as the next maniac shoots the girl turning around in his driveway, people are going to want more regs.
Some conservatives are 'black and white' lettered conservatives on the 2nd amendment. That is, they will not yield ground on one iota and word of the article, because LEGALLY they don't have to and 'sit pretty' and 'pat.' This 'power' some conservatives hold is ONLY as strong as the 'binding' they can keep the 2nd amendment 'cocooned' inside, nevertheless.
This is why a some conservatives wrote that conservatives will not change or 'enable' democrats to change the second amendment because the instance they do - it will break the lock holding their 'arguments' and control over the gun issue in stasis.
One thing to keep in mind regarding the 2nd Amendment, the founders had no intention of writing into the constitution the means to kill U.S. citizens helter-skelter fashion. (There were no mass killings such as they are today at the time).
I’m calling BS on your whole line of conversation. I have asked you multiple times to stick to the topic and address the comment I made about “sensible gun control.” Talk about that or piss off. Everything else from you is an attempt to deflect.
Yes. Because the challenge was laid for sensible gun control ideas and I responded to that. I supplied several ideas and all you want to talk about is deflecting bullshit like what government department is going to enforce the law. Any attempt by you to change the subject, I will continue to ignore. You have been advised of this multiple time. If you don’t like it, there’s the door.
So you’re either interested in ideas for sensible gun control or you’re not. Clearly, you are not.
This is a made up standard that ignores history. America has often been described as an experiment. Laws are modified all the time. You’re either ignorant of that or disingenuous.
And that’s pretty good considering you don’t have a constitutional right to operate a motor vehicle. Even so, a discussion could be had about changing the standards. And they do change.
And yet you wouldn’t do away with it, I bet.
Suggestions and constructive criticism are welcome. That’s why I posted the list. I didn’t post it for all this other nonsense I have endured.
If they’re relevant and address a preventable problem, they should be considered. “Sensible” includes learning from mistakes and trying improve the situation. If you want 100% guarantees, then you’re a fool.
Agreed. And it’s not about constitutionality or principles or anything like that. It’s just a thing they like and they don’t want any restrictions on it all. And not even because they’ve thought about the relative value of any regulation. The fact that guns easily facilitate violent crime is of no concern. There is no possible justification for changing this one paragraph in the Constitution because it’s sacred. Of course, no other constitutional issues are held to this totally made-up but exacting standard.
Ironically, in the military, and law enforcement, there are all sorts of sensible gun regulations that don’t apply to civilians. You’d think these alleged supporters of the military and law enforcement would applaud similar measures for the general populace. The cognitive dissonance on that point should be painful.
Very true. As the Founders expected, we have amended many aspects of the Constitution over the centuries as times and circumstances change. But when you get to the Second Amendment, suddenly, it’s “blah blah blah the Constitution! Nothing can ever be changed!” It’s pretty ridiculous.
This gun owner believes in gun control legislation.
Thank you. Let's hope for the kind of thing that a song during the civil rights movement helped happen: "One Man's Hands....."
Don't love guns but do respect highly functional machines.
Filling a five inch group at five hundred yards puts a smile on my face.
Starting one of my hotrods and feeling the rumble makes me hard.
My Rolex Daytona has been my best friend for many years now.
A lot of Chicagoans came away with that "warped belief" following this past weekend's random violence.
None of Chicago's issue with gun, explains why lesser populated (uncongested) rural areas are shooting people out of fear. One could get the impression that rural people should get out more and see just how non-scary city folks are generally.
What per capita stats are you reviewing?
The data you reviewed. Remember the other day?
Please cite your source.
You don't remember. Figures.
[deleted]
Don't worry about it.
What, me worry?
Chicago has been a gun town since the 30s.
Pretty sure it has something to do with lake effect.
Used to live on capital hill in Denver.
Would walk Colfax at night with no fear.
Would drop into Miss Kitty's for a free beer and to joke with the bouncers.
The hookers knew I wasn't a customer so we were friends.
The pimps and hard cases would fist bump with me.
Still wouldn't advise it as a tourist Mecca.
They shut "Ms. Kitty East" down! (To be clear, I pulled this off the web "fresh" to find out what you meant by the name). Personally, I have never been in the state of Colorado.
That said, I will admit I know a thing or two about the adult arcade 'business' from a past life.
This kind of thing isn't that recent a phenomenon. At least a decade ago I read a news report about a Chinese student who was driving in a rural area in America, got lost and went to a farmhouse to ask for directions and got a shotgun blast in the face when he knocked on the door.
I live way out in the sticks and would never answer the door without a gun in my hand.
This morning on TV they're playing High Noon and The Magnificent Seven back to back repeating. Seems they've got the right idea about America these days.
What country did The Magnificent Seven take place in?
The 1960 The Magnificent Seven was mostly filmed in Mexico, but parts of it were also filmed in Louisiana, New Mexico, Colorado and Arizona. The action in the movie starts in Mexico, then the gunfighters are gathered together in the USA (where some shooting took place as well) and the 7 gunfighter characters were all supposed to be Americans except for Chico (Horst Buchholtz) whose character was to be half American and half Mexican. I believe that the Denzell Washington remake was filmed in and was scripted to take place all in the USA, and all the gunfighters' characters were scripted to be Americans.
Thanks Buzz. I learn something new every day here.
I've watched the original 1960 version so many times I could probably say all the lines before the actors do.
Out of control
What the hell is wrong with this asswipe. If all reported is accurate this guy deserves to be charged and convicted of murder.
Totally agree. But why is race even mentioned in this article.
That is the entirety of "race" being mentioned in the article.
The shooters were far right wing Fox watchers.
Fear of the other is what Fox has always taught.
Personally I have no problem with responsible gun ownership, however given the available details this doofus was definately not responsible and I would hope at the very least he spends the rest of his life in jail
The only way to stop a good woman without a gun is by a good man with a gun.
Used to teach "Model Mugging" classes for free in my martial art school.
Felt good to turn victims into confident women.
(One of my male black belts fell in love with one of my female students and opened their own Model Mugging school).
Doesn't get better than that!
I guess there was no time for, “hey get the fuck out of my car.” You have to be quick with the gun because cheerleaders can be dangerous.
All you have to do is say you saw her reaching for her waistband. Cops will totally understand.
No way I would be upset about a girl like that getting in my car.
i was thinking the same thing , at my age i might have a coronary , its been a while since a cheer leader in uniform got in my car ....instant "shwing !!!!!!!!"
But you are not likely a drugged out paranoid low IQ teeny asshole.
Not likely.
If someone can not be trusted to be able to have a gun, they can not be trusted to vote
I remember the days when teens were drafted to fight and die in Nam.
Had a low draft number as a teen but was switched to 1H.
Never much cared for the Canadian winters anyway.
Never burned it and still have my draft card.
Your voter ID should also be your CCW permit.