Retired Cop Kills Man for Texting (1 Viewer)

[[icon]]

I think whats important in this sort of scenario is to look at it like an 80/20 rule... where you can either expend 80% of your effort to get 20% results... or expend 20% of the effort to get 80% of the results by going after low hanging fruit that will have the greatest impact on the "bad guys" while minimizing the impact on law abiding citizens. Ideally that should be our goal with this, IMO.

There is no way to be perfect, but there is certainly room for improvement.

 

[CBusAlex]

Unfortunately our system has become a game of "see how much I can get from the other guy" and not a "lets see what is best for this country and it's citizens.

Sort of ironic that you would type this immediately after agreeing that background checks at gun shows would be best for the country, but rationalize opposing them anyway because it would give the "other guys" a win.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Whatever happened to a fist fight? Two people have a dispute and one beats the snot out of the other. Nobody dies and they both walk away. Very rarely does a fist fight end with death... This retired cop was a big guy who looked like he could still hold his own!

Who saw the video on the Atlantic City bus where the retired vet who was 75 beat the #### out of the young thug?

ETA:

Found the video

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rdLB7tXWJ0k&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DrdLB7tXWJ0k

 

[[icon]]

Unfortunately our system has become a game of "see how much I can get from the other guy" and not a "lets see what is best for this country and it's citizens.

Sort of ironic that you would type this immediately after agreeing that background checks at gun shows would be best for the country, but rationalize opposing them anyway because it would give the "other guys" a win.

I said I'd be down for them.

The post above was explaining the rationale for why many "gun guys" push back. I understand and share their feelings, but I personally am willing to make those steps (and have stated so repeatedly in this thread) because it IS for the greater good.

 

[culdeus]

I wonder how the movie employee feels that blew this guys complaint off. I mean you can rationalize it away all you want, but that is for sure going to stay with him/her forever.

 

[glock]

Whatever happened to a fist fight? Two people have a dispute and one beats the snot out of the other. Nobody dies and they both walk away. Very rarely does a fist fight end with death... This retired cop was a big guy who looked like he could still hold his own!

Who saw the video on the Atlantic City bus where the retired vet who was 75 beat the #### out of the young thug?

ETA:

Found the video

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rdLB7tXWJ0k&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DrdLB7tXWJ0k

Agreed- see mine...

Maybe he reached and pushed the older man.
.

Well then SHOOT HIM! Obviously. Right?

I'd like to know when pushing/punching became grounds for FFL defenses? Talk about the wussification of America.

I remember when a good ### kicking settled things. Black eyes, bloodied noses, cauliflowered ears, no(minimal) broken bones. No life threatening bullet wounds or death to contend with.

I'm thinking it began with the whole "can't disrespect me" movement. Pride over common sense.

:(

 

[Politician Spock]

Whatever happened to a fist fight? Two people have a dispute and one beats the snot out of the other. Nobody dies and they both walk away. Very rarely does a fist fight end with death.

Great question! I can't believe no one has yet to suggest in this thread that one of them just should have ended up with their ### kicked instead of shot and killed.

 

[massraider]

Awful thread, wish I hadn't read it.

"Well yeah, he shouldn't have done it, but maybe the other guy was, you know, being a jerk" is a children's argument.

 

[cstu]

The bottom line (and as a father of two daughters) a little girl is without her dad tonight because of a senseless act of violence and that's the tragedy.

Also the senseless act of texting during a movie and refusing to turn it off when asked.

People usually get killed for that. It's the only way to teach them a lesson.

He obviously deserved it according to some lol

Obviously he didn't deserve to die over it but he was being an #######. Sometimes when you do that you run into a bigger ####### and sometimes they have a gun.

 

[jwb]

What would be great is for gun owners who are like-minded to get together and spearhead an effort to change these few areas. Part of the reason that reasonable reforms get shouted down so easily is they always come from anti-gun groups or the left which is perceived as anti-gun. Just like in this forum, the weight of you, a known GunGuy, saying you would favor these reforms has a much greater impact than the exact same message coming from me, Tim, or AppleJack.

I hear that. I do.

The problem is there is the concern (at least speaking for myself) that if we give an inch, the idiots in washington and in the media will try to take a mile with this ignorant mindset. If we agree to background checks at gun shows, they will view that as momentum and fight more aggressively for more legislation. Unfortunately our system has become a game of "see how much I can get from the other guy" and not a "lets see what is best for this country and it's citizens.

It's less a paranoid "OMG THEY R COMING FOR MY GUNZ" and more a "Until those idiots know what the hell they're talking about, I refuse to deal with them". Is that the healthiest mindset. Is that the right mindset, maybe not. But it's kinda where I'm personally at.

But the gun lobby controls the game. Agreeing to closing loopholes wouldn't put you one step closer to anything because the gun lobby still pays both sides a lot more handsomely than anyone else.

If anything the "oppose any and all reform" stance could have the opposite effect, where the pro-gun crowd is so unreasonable that it sways public opinion to the point that it allows the exact type of over the top reforms you guys are hoping to avoid.

Part of the problem, for me as a gun guy, is the "other side" is all too often off-target with what they see as reform. For example, in response to Newtown, NY passes the "safe act", which is to restrict high capacity magazines. So every handgun that has 10 round magazines (most of them) are now only allowed 7. It's the dumbest, lamest thing imaginable, and does nothing except annoy the legal gun owner. That part of the law literally does ZERO to curb any kind of violence or whatnot. yet it's there, and it's a "victory".

That stuff has to stop. How about making it 30 years for an illegal handgun? Period. THAT would have teeth, but of course, you aren't getting the left to agree to that, because of who a law like that would target. (I'm sorry to bring "right / left" into this, but it's more to illustrate a point - I can't, for the life of me, understand why the anti-gun people won't go super hard at what are clearly illegal guns. Unless, of course, that would erode support of their base)

 

[massraider]

The bottom line (and as a father of two daughters) a little girl is without her dad tonight because of a senseless act of violence and that's the tragedy.

Also the senseless act of texting during a movie and refusing to turn it off when asked.

People usually get killed for that. It's the only way to teach them a lesson.

He obviously deserved it according to some lol

Obviously he didn't deserve to die over it but he was being an #######. Sometimes when you do that you run into a bigger ####### and sometimes they have a gun.

Way to keep perspective.

This is where you respond, "Hey, not justifying the killer, but you know......"

 

[Gr00vus]

I can't, for the life of me, understand why the anti-gun people won't go super hard at what are clearly illegal guns.

I'm guessing it's because to them the distinction between legal and illegal guns is irrelevant - they're just guns.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

What would be great is for gun owners who are like-minded to get together and spearhead an effort to change these few areas. Part of the reason that reasonable reforms get shouted down so easily is they always come from anti-gun groups or the left which is perceived as anti-gun. Just like in this forum, the weight of you, a known GunGuy, saying you would favor these reforms has a much greater impact than the exact same message coming from me, Tim, or AppleJack.

I hear that. I do.

The problem is there is the concern (at least speaking for myself) that if we give an inch, the idiots in washington and in the media will try to take a mile with this ignorant mindset. If we agree to background checks at gun shows, they will view that as momentum and fight more aggressively for more legislation. Unfortunately our system has become a game of "see how much I can get from the other guy" and not a "lets see what is best for this country and it's citizens.

It's less a paranoid "OMG THEY R COMING FOR MY GUNZ" and more a "Until those idiots know what the hell they're talking about, I refuse to deal with them". Is that the healthiest mindset. Is that the right mindset, maybe not. But it's kinda where I'm personally at.

But the gun lobby controls the game. Agreeing to closing loopholes wouldn't put you one step closer to anything because the gun lobby still pays both sides a lot more handsomely than anyone else.

If anything the "oppose any and all reform" stance could have the opposite effect, where the pro-gun crowd is so unreasonable that it sways public opinion to the point that it allows the exact type of over the top reforms you guys are hoping to avoid.

Part of the problem, for me as a gun guy, is the "other side" is all too often off-target with what they see as reform. For example, in response to Newtown, NY passes the "safe act", which is to restrict high capacity magazines. So every handgun that has 10 round magazines (most of them) are now only allowed 7. It's the dumbest, lamest thing imaginable, and does nothing except annoy the legal gun owner. That part of the law literally does ZERO to curb any kind of violence or whatnot. yet it's there, and it's a "victory".

That stuff has to stop. How about making it 30 years for an illegal handgun? Period. THAT would have teeth, but of course, you aren't getting the left to agree to that, because of who a law like that would target. (I'm sorry to bring "right / left" into this, but it's more to illustrate a point - I can't, for the life of me, understand why the anti-gun people won't go super hard at what are clearly illegal guns. Unless, of course, that would erode support of their base)

Felons? Criminals? Pieces of feces?

 

[Politician Spock]

The bottom line (and as a father of two daughters) a little girl is without her dad tonight because of a senseless act of violence and that's the tragedy.

Also the senseless act of texting during a movie and refusing to turn it off when asked.

People usually get killed for that. It's the only way to teach them a lesson.

He obviously deserved it according to some lol

Obviously he didn't deserve to die over it but he was being an #######. Sometimes when you do that you run into a bigger ####### and sometimes they have a gun.

Way to keep perspective.This is where you respond, "Hey, not justifying the killer, but you know......"

In a situation between two #######s, neither are justified. It will end with one of them showing they are the bigger #######.

 

[massraider]

In a situation between two #######s, neither are justified. It will end with one of them showing they are the bigger #######.

One guy was being inconsiderate, to frankly a pretty insignificant degree. Whatever description you are using for the texter, you can't use the same one for the guy that murdered him, OK? You just can't. It really renders the word meaningless.

 

[[icon]]

I can't, for the life of me, understand why the anti-gun people won't go super hard at what are clearly illegal guns.

I'm guessing it's because to them the distinction between legal and illegal guns is irrelevant - they're just guns.

it's an imperfect analogy, but this is akin to seeing drunk driving deaths and outlawing vehicles / drivers licenses. There are more efficient ways to target the problem while minimizing impact on the rights of law abiding citizens.

I understand the desire to "do something", but kneejerk reactionary legislation generally does more harm than good. Focus on the real problem, focus on what can realistically be fixed and enforced to patch that problem as realistically as possible while minimizing the impact on the rights of law abiding citizens and adjust as necessary, IMO.

 

[lod01]

Whatever happened to a fist fight? Two people have a dispute and one beats the snot out of the other. Nobody dies and they both walk away. Very rarely does a fist fight end with death... This retired cop was a big guy who looked like he could still hold his own!

Who saw the video on the Atlantic City bus where the retired vet who was 75 beat the #### out of the young thug?

ETA:

Found the video

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rdLB7tXWJ0k&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DrdLB7tXWJ0k

An all-time great.

 

[fatness]

I live in Florida. If I'm in a restaurant and armed robbers crash through the doors suddenly, I feel better knowing that several people in that restaurant eating are probably packing.

And no, I'm not suggesting that I want to sit and witness a gun fight but these good people having guns is much better than them not having guns.

Here's another side of it to think about. If you're in a restaurant, no armed robbers crash through the doors, and 2 different patrons get in an argument that gets increasingly heated, do you feel better if they each have a gun?

 

[fatness]

Years later, a 1979 evaluation cited problems with his temperament. "His demeanor is generally very professional. He has, however, occasionally allowed his temper to detrimentally affect his manner of dealing with his supervisors," the evaluation states.

After his retirement, Reeves served as director of security for Busch Gardens Tampa until 2005, said spokesman Travis Claytor, who would not comment on why Reeves' employment came to an end.

A hunter who has held licenses in Georgia and Ohio, Reeves moved in 2005 to Brooksville, Florida -- in Hernando County, adjacent to the county where the theater is located -- and WFLA reports he served as president of the county Crime Stoppers program from 2006 to 2007.

With regard to his temper, I've noticed certain people seem to have instantaneous, violent, non-thinking reaction to a perceived attack, do a search on "scare prank punch" on youtube and you'll see what I mean. It's not really an anger issue, and it goes beyond a bad temper, maybe having a bad day or argument will make it more likely it will happen. Some small fright sets off a violent response and they usually attack the head. Perhaps the popcorn throwing set this guy off. Since the response is so quick as to be non-thinking these people should not own guns but I don't know how you screen them out other than through a past history of such violence.

On second thought this is probably just the "fright or flight"response, somehow people need to be able to control the instantaneous fight response to make an accurate threat assessment.

I'm not sure that one applies to this shooting. The shooter had already left the situation once (to try to talk to management). He came back to the situation, angrier. He had plenty of time to choose what he was doing.

 

[glock]

That stuff has to stop. How about making it 30 years for an illegal handgun? Period. THAT would have teeth, but of course, you aren't getting the left to agree to that, because of who a law like that would target. (I'm sorry to bring "right / left" into this, but it's more to illustrate a point - I can't, for the life of me, understand why the anti-gun people won't go super hard at what are clearly illegal guns. Unless, of course, that would erode support of their base)

Say what??

 

[Clifford]

I think whats important in this sort of scenario is to look at it like an 80/20 rule... where you can either expend 80% of your effort to get 20% results... or expend 20% of the effort to get 80% of the results by going after low hanging fruit that will have the greatest impact on the "bad guys" while minimizing the impact on law abiding citizens. Ideally that should be our goal with this, IMO.

There is no way to be perfect, but there is certainly room for improvement.

Pareto principle rules all. You are speaking my language.

 

[The Commish]

I live in Florida. If I'm in a restaurant and armed robbers crash through the doors suddenly, I feel better knowing that several people in that restaurant eating are probably packing.

And no, I'm not suggesting that I want to sit and witness a gun fight but these good people having guns is much better than them not having guns.

Only real problem here is you assuming they are "good".

 

[[icon]]

I think whats important in this sort of scenario is to look at it like an 80/20 rule... where you can either expend 80% of your effort to get 20% results... or expend 20% of the effort to get 80% of the results by going after low hanging fruit that will have the greatest impact on the "bad guys" while minimizing the impact on law abiding citizens. Ideally that should be our goal with this, IMO.

There is no way to be perfect, but there is certainly room for improvement.

Pareto principle rules all. You are speaking my language.

see...the two sides aren't THAT far apart after all... just gotta find that common ground.

 

[Clifford]

The bottom line (and as a father of two daughters) a little girl is without her dad tonight because of a senseless act of violence and that's the tragedy.

Also the senseless act of texting during a movie and refusing to turn it off when asked.

People usually get killed for that. It's the only way to teach them a lesson.

He obviously deserved it according to some lol

Obviously he didn't deserve to die over it but he was being an #######. Sometimes when you do that you run into a bigger ####### and sometimes they have a gun.

No, he was texting and got called out by an old kook who followed a woman to the bathroom cause she was texting. Texting is a fact of modern life. I'm not willing to call someone an ####### just because they are texting during previews. Sounds a lot more like this was an old coot who had lots of mental problems and went off for no reason.

 

[fatness]

I wonder how the movie employee feels that blew this guys complaint off. I mean you can rationalize it away all you want, but that is for sure going to stay with him/her forever.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/15/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/index.html?iref=allsearch

The two men began to argue and Reeves walked out of the auditorium. Police said Reeves was going to complain to a theater employee.

But Pasco County Sheriff Chris Nocco told CNN Tuesday night that the manager was busy with another customer and Reeves never addressed his complaint with a supervisor.

 

[[icon]]

No, he was texting and got called out by an old kook who followed a woman to the bathroom cause she was texting. Texting is a fact of modern life. I'm not willing to call someone an ####### just because they are texting during previews. Sounds a lot more like this was an old coot who had lots of mental problems and went off for no reason.

Texting during previews = inconsiderate but not a huge deal

Texting during the movie = ####### worthy of telling to knock it off

Neither of which warrants getting the guy shot.

 

[massraider]

I live in Florida. If I'm in a restaurant and armed robbers crash through the doors suddenly, I feel better knowing that several people in that restaurant eating are probably packing.

And no, I'm not suggesting that I want to sit and witness a gun fight but these good people having guns is much better than them not having guns.

Only real problem here is you assuming they are "good".

Oh, they're good people.

You're chewing your food too loudly. IT'S GO TIME!!!!!!!!!

 

[fatness]

During Reeves' first court appearance on Tuesday, prosecutors said they had heard from another theater patron who said the 71-year-old former Tampa cop saw her texting and "glared at her the entire time throughout the movie" during a screening about three weeks ago.

When the woman got up to use the restroom, Reeves followed her and "made her very uncomfortable," prosecutors said.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/15/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/index.html?iref=allsearch

 

[massraider]

I wonder how the movie employee feels that blew this guys complaint off. I mean you can rationalize it away all you want, but that is for sure going to stay with him/her forever.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/15/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/index.html?iref=allsearch

The two men began to argue and Reeves walked out of the auditorium. Police said Reeves was going to complain to a theater employee.

But Pasco County Sheriff Chris Nocco told CNN Tuesday night that the manager was busy with another customer and Reeves never addressed his complaint with a supervisor.

"Get in line, buddy. This lady with a flamethrower has to deal with some kids that keep crinkling their Skittles wrapper over in Theater 6."

 

[[icon]]

During Reeves' first court appearance on Tuesday, prosecutors said they had heard from another theater patron who said the 71-year-old former Tampa cop saw her texting and "glared at her the entire time throughout the movie" during a screening about three weeks ago.

When the woman got up to use the restroom, Reeves followed her and "made her very uncomfortable," prosecutors said.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/15/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/index.html?iref=allsearch

Yeah this sounds like this dude might have had a little PTSD from his time on the job and finally the shell started cracking in his old age.

 

[Two Deep]

Lets say the old guy didn't shoot the young guy and instead fought him and the young guy got killed during the course of the fight. Would everybody be alright with that?

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Lets say the old guy didn't shoot the young guy and instead fought him and the young guy got killed during the course of the fight. Would everybody be alright with that?

No

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

The bottom line (and as a father of two daughters) a little girl is without her dad tonight because of a senseless act of violence and that's the tragedy.

Also the senseless act of texting during a movie and refusing to turn it off when asked.

People usually get killed for that. It's the only way to teach them a lesson.

He obviously deserved it according to some lol

Obviously he didn't deserve to die over it but he was being an #######. Sometimes when you do that you run into a bigger ####### and sometimes they have a gun.

No, he was texting and got called out by an old kook who followed a woman to the bathroom cause she was texting. Texting is a fact of modern life. I'm not willing to call someone an ####### just because they are texting during previews. Sounds a lot more like this was an old coot who had lots of mental problems and went off for no reason.

I like how people say this and ignore the other circumstances. If it wasn't an old seemingly defenseless guy with his wife, but maybe a group of younger stronger guys, would he still throw his popcorn at them? Hell no, he provoked the old guy. Of course shooting him was not a justified response but you act like the old guy disapproved of this guy texting, drew his weapon and shot him.

 

[Politician Spock]

In a situation between two #######s, neither are justified. It will end with one of them showing they are the bigger #######.

One guy was being inconsiderate, to frankly a pretty insignificant degree. Whatever description you are using for the texter, you can't use the same one for the guy that murdered him, OK? You just can't. It really renders the word meaningless.

I don't care what words you use to describe either of them. That just semantics.

Up until the retired cop fired his gun, he did nothing wrong, whereas the father had committed many wrongs. Asking him to stop texting is the right thing to do. Asking him to stop again and again is the right thing to do. Telling the manager (assuming that's' what he did when he left and came back) is the right thing to do.

At the point he pulled the trigger he committed a wrong that was far bigger than anything the father had done up until that point. He could have chosen to be the bigger man and just let it go, but he didn't. He chose to be the bigger (use whatever word you like).

 

[B-Deep]

In a situation between two #######s, neither are justified. It will end with one of them showing they are the bigger #######.

One guy was being inconsiderate, to frankly a pretty insignificant degree. Whatever description you are using for the texter, you can't use the same one for the guy that murdered him, OK? You just can't. It really renders the word meaningless.

I don't care what words you use to describe either of them. That just semantics.

Up until the retired cop fired his gun, he did nothing wrong, whereas the father had committed many wrongs. Asking him to stop texting is the right thing to do. Asking him to stop again and again is the right thing to do. Telling the manager (assuming that's' what he did when he left and came back) is the right thing to do.

At the point he pulled the trigger he committed a wrong that was far bigger than anything the father had done up until that point. He could have chosen to be the bigger man and just let it go, but he didn't. He chose to be the bigger (use whatever word you like).

you realize how silly this is right?

up until he did the horribly wrong thing that no one can possibly defend, he had not done the horribly wrong thing that no one possibly could defend, so we really should cut him some slack

 

[Gr00vus]

I can't, for the life of me, understand why the anti-gun people won't go super hard at what are clearly illegal guns.

I'm guessing it's because to them the distinction between legal and illegal guns is irrelevant - they're just guns.

it's an imperfect analogy, but this is akin to seeing drunk driving deaths and outlawing vehicles / drivers licenses. There are more efficient ways to target the problem while minimizing impact on the rights of law abiding citizens.

I understand the desire to "do something", but kneejerk reactionary legislation generally does more harm than good. Focus on the real problem, focus on what can realistically be fixed and enforced to patch that problem as realistically as possible while minimizing the impact on the rights of law abiding citizens and adjust as necessary, IMO.

It's a terrible analogy, and pro-gun people don't do themselves any favors with these types of analogy. The failure is comparing objects whose primary purpose is something other than destruction and death, yet for which destruction and death are possible side effects of using the given tool/technology (which in truth could be said of an innumerable amount of physical objects), against guns, whose primary purpose is destruction and death.

 

[Politician Spock]

In a situation between two #######s, neither are justified. It will end with one of them showing they are the bigger #######.

One guy was being inconsiderate, to frankly a pretty insignificant degree. Whatever description you are using for the texter, you can't use the same one for the guy that murdered him, OK? You just can't. It really renders the word meaningless.

I don't care what words you use to describe either of them. That just semantics.

Up until the retired cop fired his gun, he did nothing wrong, whereas the father had committed many wrongs. Asking him to stop texting is the right thing to do. Asking him to stop again and again is the right thing to do. Telling the manager (assuming that's' what he did when he left and came back) is the right thing to do.

At the point he pulled the trigger he committed a wrong that was far bigger than anything the father had done up until that point. He could have chosen to be the bigger man and just let it go, but he didn't. He chose to be the bigger (use whatever word you like).

you realize how silly this is right?up until he did the horribly wrong thing that no one can possibly defend, he had not done the horribly wrong thing that no one possibly could defend, so we really should cut him some slack

Where the #### is the bolded coming from? Who is saying that?

 

[fatness]

If it wasn't an old seemingly defenseless guy with his wife, but maybe a group of younger stronger guys, would he still throw his popcorn at them? Hell no, he provoked the old guy. Of course shooting him was not a justified response but you act like the old guy disapproved of this guy texting, drew his weapon and shot him.

Mr. Uninformed has arrived.

6'1", 270 pounds, complaining frequently about the texting, leaving the theater, coming back, resuming the argument, then shooting the guy.

"old seemingly defenseless"

 

[B-Deep]

In a situation between two #######s, neither are justified. It will end with one of them showing they are the bigger #######.

One guy was being inconsiderate, to frankly a pretty insignificant degree. Whatever description you are using for the texter, you can't use the same one for the guy that murdered him, OK? You just can't. It really renders the word meaningless.

I don't care what words you use to describe either of them. That just semantics.

Up until the retired cop fired his gun, he did nothing wrong, whereas the father had committed many wrongs. Asking him to stop texting is the right thing to do. Asking him to stop again and again is the right thing to do. Telling the manager (assuming that's' what he did when he left and came back) is the right thing to do.

At the point he pulled the trigger he committed a wrong that was far bigger than anything the father had done up until that point. He could have chosen to be the bigger man and just let it go, but he didn't. He chose to be the bigger (use whatever word you like).

you realize how silly this is right?up until he did the horribly wrong thing that no one can possibly defend, he had not done the horribly wrong thing that no one possibly could defend, so we really should cut him some slack

Where the #### is the bolded coming from? Who is saying that?

ok

"the other guy was just as wrong as him up until he DID THE HORRIBLY INEXCUSABLE THING!!!"

well yeah

if i am sipping a beer I am just as wrong as a drunk driver until he gets in the car and drives drunk

it is just a silly concept

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

I can't, for the life of me, understand why the anti-gun people won't go super hard at what are clearly illegal guns.

I'm guessing it's because to them the distinction between legal and illegal guns is irrelevant - they're just guns.

it's an imperfect analogy, but this is akin to seeing drunk driving deaths and outlawing vehicles / drivers licenses. There are more efficient ways to target the problem while minimizing impact on the rights of law abiding citizens.

I understand the desire to "do something", but kneejerk reactionary legislation generally does more harm than good. Focus on the real problem, focus on what can realistically be fixed and enforced to patch that problem as realistically as possible while minimizing the impact on the rights of law abiding citizens and adjust as necessary, IMO.

It's a terrible analogy, and pro-gun people don't do themselves any favors with these types of analogy. The failure is comparing objects whose primary purpose is something other than destruction and death, yet for which destruction and death are possible side effects of using the given tool/technology (which in truth could be said of an innumerable amount of physical objects), against guns, whose primary purpose is destruction and death.

"Destruction and death" did you just make that up?

If you polled the millions of gun owners in the U.S. Is that the reason they give when purchasing their firearm? How about protection? Home defense? Hunting? Competitive shooting?

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

If it wasn't an old seemingly defenseless guy with his wife, but maybe a group of younger stronger guys, would he still throw his popcorn at them? Hell no, he provoked the old guy. Of course shooting him was not a justified response but you act like the old guy disapproved of this guy texting, drew his weapon and shot him.

Mr. Uninformed has arrived.

6'1", 270 pounds, complaining frequently about the texting, leaving the theater, coming back, resuming the argument, then shooting the guy.

"old seemingly defenseless"

Was the young guy throwing the popcorn intimidated by him? How old was old guy? How young was the victim?

 

[Politician Spock]

In a situation between two #######s, neither are justified. It will end with one of them showing they are the bigger #######.

One guy was being inconsiderate, to frankly a pretty insignificant degree. Whatever description you are using for the texter, you can't use the same one for the guy that murdered him, OK? You just can't. It really renders the word meaningless.

I don't care what words you use to describe either of them. That just semantics.

Up until the retired cop fired his gun, he did nothing wrong, whereas the father had committed many wrongs. Asking him to stop texting is the right thing to do. Asking him to stop again and again is the right thing to do. Telling the manager (assuming that's' what he did when he left and came back) is the right thing to do.

At the point he pulled the trigger he committed a wrong that was far bigger than anything the father had done up until that point. He could have chosen to be the bigger man and just let it go, but he didn't. He chose to be the bigger (use whatever word you like).

you realize how silly this is right?up until he did the horribly wrong thing that no one can possibly defend, he had not done the horribly wrong thing that no one possibly could defend, so we really should cut him some slack

Where the #### is the bolded coming from? Who is saying that?

ok"the other guy was just as wrong as him up until he DID THE HORRIBLY INEXCUSABLE THING!!!"

well yeah

if i am sipping a beer I am just as wrong as a drunk driver until he gets in the car and drives drunk

it is just a silly concept

There is no "just as wrong as him". The old guy did NOTHiNG wrong until he pulled the trigger.

 

[Gr00vus]

I can't, for the life of me, understand why the anti-gun people won't go super hard at what are clearly illegal guns.

I'm guessing it's because to them the distinction between legal and illegal guns is irrelevant - they're just guns.

it's an imperfect analogy, but this is akin to seeing drunk driving deaths and outlawing vehicles / drivers licenses. There are more efficient ways to target the problem while minimizing impact on the rights of law abiding citizens.

I understand the desire to "do something", but kneejerk reactionary legislation generally does more harm than good. Focus on the real problem, focus on what can realistically be fixed and enforced to patch that problem as realistically as possible while minimizing the impact on the rights of law abiding citizens and adjust as necessary, IMO.

It's a terrible analogy, and pro-gun people don't do themselves any favors with these types of analogy. The failure is comparing objects whose primary purpose is something other than destruction and death, yet for which destruction and death are possible side effects of using the given tool/technology (which in truth could be said of an innumerable amount of physical objects), against guns, whose primary purpose is destruction and death.

"Destruction and death" did you just make that up?

If you polled the millions of gun owners in the U.S. Is that the reason they give when purchasing their firearm? How about protection? Home defense? Hunting? Competitive shooting?

How is the result not the destruction and or death (of something) in any of those cases? Why does using accurate terms cause you discomfort? I'm attaching no moral judgement about given utilizations of the weapon, just stating the result of the use of the weapon - the fundamental purpose for which it is designed.

 

[B-Deep]

In a situation between two #######s, neither are justified. It will end with one of them showing they are the bigger #######.

One guy was being inconsiderate, to frankly a pretty insignificant degree. Whatever description you are using for the texter, you can't use the same one for the guy that murdered him, OK? You just can't. It really renders the word meaningless.

I don't care what words you use to describe either of them. That just semantics.

Up until the retired cop fired his gun, he did nothing wrong, whereas the father had committed many wrongs. Asking him to stop texting is the right thing to do. Asking him to stop again and again is the right thing to do. Telling the manager (assuming that's' what he did when he left and came back) is the right thing to do.

At the point he pulled the trigger he committed a wrong that was far bigger than anything the father had done up until that point. He could have chosen to be the bigger man and just let it go, but he didn't. He chose to be the bigger (use whatever word you like).

you realize how silly this is right?up until he did the horribly wrong thing that no one can possibly defend, he had not done the horribly wrong thing that no one possibly could defend, so we really should cut him some slack

Where the #### is the bolded coming from? Who is saying that?

ok"the other guy was just as wrong as him up until he DID THE HORRIBLY INEXCUSABLE THING!!!"

well yeah

if i am sipping a beer I am just as wrong as a drunk driver until he gets in the car and drives drunk

it is just a silly concept

There is no "just as wrong as him". The old guy did NOTHiNG wrong until he pulled the trigger.

jerry sandusky did nothing wrong till he had sex with kids



hooray guy who shot someone for texting, up until you became a murderer you were not a murderer

 

[[icon]]

it's an imperfect analogy, but this is akin to seeing drunk driving deaths and outlawing vehicles / drivers licenses. There are more efficient ways to target the problem while minimizing impact on the rights of law abiding citizens.

I understand the desire to "do something", but kneejerk reactionary legislation generally does more harm than good. Focus on the real problem, focus on what can realistically be fixed and enforced to patch that problem as realistically as possible while minimizing the impact on the rights of law abiding citizens and adjust as necessary, IMO.

It's a terrible analogy, and pro-gun people don't do themselves any favors with these types of analogy. The failure is comparing objects whose primary purpose is something other than destruction and death, yet for which destruction and death are possible side effects of using the given tool/technology (which in truth could be said of an innumerable amount of physical objects), against guns, whose primary purpose is destruction and death.

First off I admitted it's a flawed analogy, but I'll go ahead and disagree strongly with your assessment:

"Firearms are primary purpose is destruction or death"

Your hyperbolic implication here is that thy primary purpose is of a gun is to kill another person. That simply isn't true.

• Hunting: There are 13.7 Million Active US Hunters who utilize firearms recreationally.

• Sport Shooting: Millions of Americans participate in Sport Shooting as a hobby or competitively through over 400 local clubs or several national organizations like USPSA or IDPA.

• Self Defense: Roughly 6 Million Americans are legally licensed concealed carry permit holders and exercise their 2nd Amendment right to carry.

Next, I'll go one further that driving an automobile is not a constitutionally afforded right, whereas the right to bear arms is.

I think I've shown that I am very reasonable in this thread thus far,however If you're going to go with terms like the above I think we have a fundamental disagreement and that's about where discourse will have to end.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

I can't, for the life of me, understand why the anti-gun people won't go super hard at what are clearly illegal guns.

I'm guessing it's because to them the distinction between legal and illegal guns is irrelevant - they're just guns.

it's an imperfect analogy, but this is akin to seeing drunk driving deaths and outlawing vehicles / drivers licenses. There are more efficient ways to target the problem while minimizing impact on the rights of law abiding citizens.

I understand the desire to "do something", but kneejerk reactionary legislation generally does more harm than good. Focus on the real problem, focus on what can realistically be fixed and enforced to patch that problem as realistically as possible while minimizing the impact on the rights of law abiding citizens and adjust as necessary, IMO.

It's a terrible analogy, and pro-gun people don't do themselves any favors with these types of analogy. The failure is comparing objects whose primary purpose is something other than destruction and death, yet for which destruction and death are possible side effects of using the given tool/technology (which in truth could be said of an innumerable amount of physical objects), against guns, whose primary purpose is destruction and death.

"Destruction and death" did you just make that up?If you polled the millions of gun owners in the U.S. Is that the reason they give when purchasing their firearm? How about protection? Home defense? Hunting? Competitive shooting?

How is the result not the destruction and or death (of something) in any of those cases? Why does using accurate terms cause you discomfort?

Ok by your absurd logic cars only purpose is death and destruction. They're just a multi-ton accident waiting to happen!

 

[Politician Spock]

In a situation between two #######s, neither are justified. It will end with one of them showing they are the bigger #######.

One guy was being inconsiderate, to frankly a pretty insignificant degree. Whatever description you are using for the texter, you can't use the same one for the guy that murdered him, OK? You just can't. It really renders the word meaningless.

I don't care what words you use to describe either of them. That just semantics.

Up until the retired cop fired his gun, he did nothing wrong, whereas the father had committed many wrongs. Asking him to stop texting is the right thing to do. Asking him to stop again and again is the right thing to do. Telling the manager (assuming that's' what he did when he left and came back) is the right thing to do.

At the point he pulled the trigger he committed a wrong that was far bigger than anything the father had done up until that point. He could have chosen to be the bigger man and just let it go, but he didn't. He chose to be the bigger (use whatever word you like).

you realize how silly this is right?up until he did the horribly wrong thing that no one can possibly defend, he had not done the horribly wrong thing that no one possibly could defend, so we really should cut him some slack

Where the #### is the bolded coming from? Who is saying that?

ok"the other guy was just as wrong as him up until he DID THE HORRIBLY INEXCUSABLE THING!!!"

well yeah

if i am sipping a beer I am just as wrong as a drunk driver until he gets in the car and drives drunk

it is just a silly concept

There is no "just as wrong as him". The old guy did NOTHiNG wrong until he pulled the trigger.

jerry sandusky did nothing wrong till he had sex with kids

hooray guy who shot someone for texting, up until you became a murderer you were not a murderer

Well maybe if those kids were texting in the shower, then maybe I could somehow understand your point.

Since they weren't, I can only respond "WTF?!?"

 

[[icon]]

How is the result not the destruction and or death (of something) in any of those cases? Why does using accurate terms cause you discomfort?

Ok by your absurd logic cars only purpose is death and destruction. They're just a multi-ton accident waiting to happen!

No need to bite. I think the intelligent folks in the thread can see those sorts of silly statements as the gun-grabber equivalent of guys forming militias to overthrow the government on our side of the argument. Both represent the lunatic fringe and not the sane majority.

 

[jwb]

That stuff has to stop. How about making it 30 years for an illegal handgun? Period. THAT would have teeth, but of course, you aren't getting the left to agree to that, because of who a law like that would target. (I'm sorry to bring "right / left" into this, but it's more to illustrate a point - I can't, for the life of me, understand why the anti-gun people won't go super hard at what are clearly illegal guns. Unless, of course, that would erode support of their base)

Say what??

it's the same rationale to opposing "three strikes and you're out"... if you said "all illegal handguns result in 30 years jail starting tomorrow", Al Sharpton (et al) would scream that it unfairly targets minorities. I can't think of any other reason why illegal gun laws do not have (a lot more) more bite. Can you?

 

[Gr00vus]

I can't, for the life of me, understand why the anti-gun people won't go super hard at what are clearly illegal guns.

I'm guessing it's because to them the distinction between legal and illegal guns is irrelevant - they're just guns.

it's an imperfect analogy, but this is akin to seeing drunk driving deaths and outlawing vehicles / drivers licenses. There are more efficient ways to target the problem while minimizing impact on the rights of law abiding citizens.

I understand the desire to "do something", but kneejerk reactionary legislation generally does more harm than good. Focus on the real problem, focus on what can realistically be fixed and enforced to patch that problem as realistically as possible while minimizing the impact on the rights of law abiding citizens and adjust as necessary, IMO.

It's a terrible analogy, and pro-gun people don't do themselves any favors with these types of analogy. The failure is comparing objects whose primary purpose is something other than destruction and death, yet for which destruction and death are possible side effects of using the given tool/technology (which in truth could be said of an innumerable amount of physical objects), against guns, whose primary purpose is destruction and death.

First off I admitted it's a flawed analogy, but I'll go ahead and disagree strongly with your assessment:

"Firearms are primary purpose is destruction or death"

Your hyperbolic implication here is that thy primary purpose is of a gun is to kill another person. That simply isn't true.

• Hunting: There are 13.7 Million Active US Hunters who utilize firearms recreationally.

• Sport Shooting: Millions of Americans participate in Sport Shooting as a hobby or competitively through over 400 local clubs or several national organizations like USPSA or IDPA.

• Self Defense: Roughly 6 Million Americans are legally licensed concealed carry permit holders and exercise their 2nd Amendment right to carry.

Next, I'll go one further that driving an automobile is not a constitutionally afforded right, whereas the right to bear arms is.

I made absolutely no hyperbolic implication. I'm pointing out to you (and jojo) that the primary functional purpose of a car is to transport people, while the primary functional purpose of a gun (a weapon) is to destroy and/or kill something. As I said above - regardless of why someone uses a gun, the intended functional result of doing so is that the target is destroyed and/or killed. The intended functional result of using a car is that the passengers are delivered from their starting point to their ending point. Can you not see the difference?

Also please note, I never brought the notion of person or rights into the criticism of the car analogy.