Retired Cop Kills Man for Texting (3 Viewers)

[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

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?!?"

seems pretty clear

when you say up until someone did something horrific they had not yet done anything wrong i respond with a resounding, WTF? Who cares? the point is they did something horrific. I don't much care if he was giving the texter a hand job and offering to do his taxes for free up until that point, it becomes pretty irrelevant when you kill the guy

 

[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?!?"

seems pretty clearwhen you say up until someone did something horrific they had not yet done anything wrong i respond with a resounding, WTF? Who cares? the point is they did something horrific. I don't much care if he was giving the texter a hand job and offering to do his taxes for free up until that point, it becomes pretty irrelevant when you kill the guy

I see two #######s, where one eventually showed he was the bigger #######. People have different perspectives on things. Imagine that.

 

[SWC]

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.

sure he did a lot of things wrong and take it from an old guy if you sit down behind someone who is sending a text and you do not like it you can just move to another seat or hey you could decide you know what i am not going to make an issue and start a fight and then you could also decide i am not going to keep on going at this guy over the text over and over how about that take that to the bank brohans

 

[[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 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.

This sat night I'm hitting the range with the GF and folks for an hour where we're going to "kill" some paper.

Dude, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Cheers to your death and destruction campaign.

 

[Statorama]

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)

I've been a long time advocate of tacking on a mandatory 10 years in prison if you use a gun in the commission of a crime.

Gun crime would drop dramatically. Either the 10 years was a successful deterrent or you're locking up all the gun toting criminals for that length of time. One way or the other, gun crime goes down.

Again, the demographics of who would be most penalized by this means it'll never 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.

sure he did a lot of things wrong and take it from an old guy if you sit down behind someone who is sending a text and you do not like it you can just move to another seat or hey you could decide you know what i am not going to make an issue and start a fight and then you could also decide i am not going to keep on going at this guy over the text over and over how about that take that to the bank brohans

There are a lot of different things he could of done, but nothing he did up until pulling the trigger was wrong.

 

[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)

I've been a long time advocate of tacking on a mandatory 10 years in prison if you use a gun in the commission of a crime.

Gun crime would drop dramatically. Either the 10 years was a successful deterrent or you're locking up all the gun toting criminals for that length of time. One way or the other, gun crime goes down.

Again, the demographics of who would be most penalized by this means it'll never happen.

Who? People that commit crimes with guns?

 

[Statorama]

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)

I've been a long time advocate of tacking on a mandatory 10 years in prison if you use a gun in the commission of a crime.

Gun crime would drop dramatically. Either the 10 years was a successful deterrent or you're locking up all the gun toting criminals for that length of time. One way or the other, gun crime goes down.Again, the demographics of who would be most penalized by this means it'll never happen.

Who? People that commit crimes with guns?

Yeah sure, whatever.

 

[SWC]

spock you said something to a guy texting in a theater and he was mean to you in response right that has to the only reason you would take the crazy position you are

 

[James Daulton]

How will a claim of self defense work? Because the guy threw popcorn or because he'll say the guy was about to jump him. If you think you're about to get attacked, is that a legal reason to be able to shoot someone?

 

[Politician Spock]

spock you said something to a guy texting in a theater and he was mean to you in response right that has to the only reason you would take the crazy position you are

Never have. But there's nothing wrong with asking a texter in a theater to stop. Nor is there anything wrong with telling management about it when they refuse to stop. Labeling this position as crazy is ironic.

 

[[icon]]

How will a claim of self defense work? Because the guy threw popcorn or because he'll say the guy was about to jump him. If you think you're about to get attacked, is that a legal reason to be able to shoot someone?

Not most places, unless they've shown the capacity and intent to do significant/lethal harm. Capacity is possibly/barely there as a 70yo man vs a much bigger younger man (could possibly be proven though it's a grey area)....but hardly think throwing popcorn and yelling satisfies intent to do lethal harm

 

[SWC]

spockman i am not sure how it is ironic but who created the interaction between the old guy and the young guy it was the old guy he had a choice just go sit somewhere else in an empty theater with only 25 people total in it heck if the old guy and his wife moved back 1 or 2 rows even or ahead a couple of rows or just move down 5 or 6 seats they cannot even see the light and bam there is no problem but instead he chose a route that had the potential to create a fight that is a wrong choice i would think to just about everyone take that to the bank brohan

 

[Clifford]

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?

I wouldn't be ok with it if the guy sustained no real injuries at all.

 

[SWC]

How will a claim of self defense work? Because the guy threw popcorn or because he'll say the guy was about to jump him. If you think you're about to get attacked, is that a legal reason to be able to shoot someone?

Not most places, unless they've shown the capacity and intent to do significant/lethal harm. Capacity is possibly/barely there as a 70yo man vs a much bigger younger man (could possibly be proven though it's a grey area)....but hardly think throwing popcorn and yelling satisfies intent to do lethal harm

i do not think that works if you are the guy that started the fight to my knowledge brohans

 

[Joe T]

I think we can all agree that if you need to send a text while at the movies, you should step out of the theatre to make that text. This point really can't be debated.

 

[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)

I've been a long time advocate of tacking on a mandatory 10 years in prison if you use a gun in the commission of a crime.

Gun crime would drop dramatically. Either the 10 years was a successful deterrent or you're locking up all the gun toting criminals for that length of time. One way or the other, gun crime goes down.Again, the demographics of who would be most penalized by this means it'll never happen.

Who? People that commit crimes with guns?

Yeah sure, whatever.

Well what demographics are you talking about?

 

[Politician Spock]

spockman i am not sure how it is ironic but who created the interaction between the old guy and the young guy it was the old guy he had a choice just go sit somewhere else in an empty theater with only 25 people total in it heck if the old guy and his wife moved back 1 or 2 rows even or ahead a couple of rows or just move down 5 or 6 seats they cannot even see the light and bam there is no problem but instead he chose a route that had the potential to create a fight that is a wrong choice i would think to just about everyone take that to the bank brohan

Again, there are a lot of things he could have done differently, but asking him to stop texting is not wrong. Nor is telling management when he refused. It's a sad reflection of how much our civility has regressed in our society when it's considered wrong to ask someone to stop doing something that is annoying.

 

[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)

I've been a long time advocate of tacking on a mandatory 10 years in prison if you use a gun in the commission of a crime.

Gun crime would drop dramatically. Either the 10 years was a successful deterrent or you're locking up all the gun toting criminals for that length of time. One way or the other, gun crime goes down.

Again, the demographics of who would be most penalized by this means it'll never happen.

Who? People that commit crimes with guns?

I'll bite, because maybe you aren't understanding what we are saying here.

Yes, people who commit crimes with guns will be targeted. Now let's take it one level deeper: statistically, what demographic is likely doing that the most? Just guess.

There's your answer.

That's why "illegal gun" laws have no real teeth. IMHO anyway.

 

[[icon]]

Who? People that commit crimes with guns?

I'll bite, because maybe you aren't understanding what we are saying here.

Yes, people who commit crimes with guns will be targeted. Now let's take it one level deeper: statistically, what demographic is likely doing that the most? Just guess.

There's your answer.

That's why "illegal gun" laws have no real teeth. IMHO anyway.

Not sure why everyone is so afraid to mention race here.

The implication I presume is that black folks would be targeted becuase thye commit the most firearm crimes. On a per capita basis that is certainly true, however on a sheer volume basis the numbers are actually quite close (52% black / 46% white).

 

[T Bell]

One person is killed by a firearm every 17 minutes.

It must really suck to be that person.

 

[T Bell]

I was wondering what took this thread so long to become all about Tim.

They want to make this about me because I'm easier to rip than common sense arguments about guns. So let's just make this a "Tim Thing", and pretend that real people aren't being killed.

It is not tasteless to bring up the question of whether or not concealed carry makes us less safe after this horrible crime. In fact, it is tasteless NOT to bring it up, to pretend once again that guns carried by private citizens in the public had nothing to do with this.

Martyr Card: played

 

[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?

I wouldn't be ok with it if the guy sustained no real injuries at all.

I'm sure you know the reason I threw that out there. Numerous people are saying whatever happened to the fist fight when you have a dispute. The point being someone could still end up dead.

If you have the nerve to be a smart ### you might better know you can wind up dead.... one way or the other. Most people are reasonable, but it only takes one unreasonable person to get yourself killed.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

spockman i am not sure how it is ironic but who created the interaction between the old guy and the young guy it was the old guy he had a choice just go sit somewhere else in an empty theater with only 25 people total in it heck if the old guy and his wife moved back 1 or 2 rows even or ahead a couple of rows or just move down 5 or 6 seats they cannot even see the light and bam there is no problem but instead he chose a route that had the potential to create a fight that is a wrong choice i would think to just about everyone take that to the bank brohan

I bet when the Zimmerman story broke you were on the side that said Martin should have just walked home, AMIRIGHT?

 

[Pipes]

spock you said something to a guy texting in a theater and he was mean to you in response right that has to the only reason you would take the crazy position you are

Never have. But there's nothing wrong with asking a texter in a theater to stop. Nor is there anything wrong with telling management about it when they refuse to stop. Labeling this position as crazy is ironic.

I would say coming back into the theatre without management and confronting the texter was wrong. He could've easily just picked another seat at that point.

 

[jwb]

Who? People that commit crimes with guns?

I'll bite, because maybe you aren't understanding what we are saying here.

Yes, people who commit crimes with guns will be targeted. Now let's take it one level deeper: statistically, what demographic is likely doing that the most? Just guess.

There's your answer.

That's why "illegal gun" laws have no real teeth. IMHO anyway.

Not sure why everyone is so afraid to mention race here.

The implication I presume is that black folks would be targeted becuase thye commit the most firearm crimes. On a per capita basis that is certainly true, however on a sheer volume basis the numbers are actually quite close (52% black / 46% white).

I don't really mention race because it's obvious, and I'm just being polite, I suppose.

But per capita is where it's at, though. That's where the "unfairly targeting" yelling comes in.

 

[jwb]

spock you said something to a guy texting in a theater and he was mean to you in response right that has to the only reason you would take the crazy position you are

Never have. But there's nothing wrong with asking a texter in a theater to stop. Nor is there anything wrong with telling management about it when they refuse to stop. Labeling this position as crazy is ironic.

I would say coming back into the theatre without management and confronting the texter was wrong. He could've easily just picked another seat at that point.

didn't the texter confront him when he came back? That's what I read, anyway.

He still should have picked another seat, though.

 

[Politician Spock]

spock you said something to a guy texting in a theater and he was mean to you in response right that has to the only reason you would take the crazy position you are

Never have. But there's nothing wrong with asking a texter in a theater to stop. Nor is there anything wrong with telling management about it when they refuse to stop. Labeling this position as crazy is ironic.

I would say coming back into the theatre without management and confronting the texter was wrong. He could've easily just picked another seat at that point.

When he came back in, that's where the testimonies get cloudy. One testimony says the father asked the old guy if he told management on him. Why would he care? Another testimony says the old man came back irate. If the theater manager was too busy to hear his issue, I can see why he would be irate. From what i can gather (which I admit isn't crystal clear with the muddy testimony of what occurred at that point of time) the father confronted the old man for tattling on him, and the old man was irate at both the father for being so inconsiderate and at management for being too busy to do anything about it. With the father confronting him upon his return, moving to a different seat probably wasn't a way of bringing an end to the encounter anymore. The father still had a bone to pick with the guy who tattled on him.

 

[Two Deep]

spock you said something to a guy texting in a theater and he was mean to you in response right that has to the only reason you would take the crazy position you are

Never have. But there's nothing wrong with asking a texter in a theater to stop. Nor is there anything wrong with telling management about it when they refuse to stop. Labeling this position as crazy is ironic.

I would say coming back into the theatre without management and confronting the texter was wrong. He could've easily just picked another seat at that point.

Why is all the responsibility on the old guy to do the right thing. Why don't you feel the young guy had any responsibility. He could have moved or said no problem I'll shut my phone off or left the theater. I'm not condoning what the old guy did, but the young guy was elbow deep in this as well.

 

[Johnny Rock]

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.

 

[timschochet]

Icon, you seem quite reasonable in this thread. But there's a problem.

You see, back in the gun control thread after Newtown, I argued for what I considered to be several reasonable gun control measures. You, Cliff Clavin, and a few others made some very good arguments against what I was in favor of, and I became convinced by several of them. The ONE measure I stuck to, and continue to stand by today, is an end to the private sales loophole. According to your posts here, you have apparently changed your mind on this issue, and you are now in favor of it.

But when that proposal failed to get through Congress. you were among those here celebrating, if I recall correctly.

 

[timschochet]

spock you said something to a guy texting in a theater and he was mean to you in response right that has to the only reason you would take the crazy position you are

Never have. But there's nothing wrong with asking a texter in a theater to stop. Nor is there anything wrong with telling management about it when they refuse to stop. Labeling this position as crazy is ironic.

I would say coming back into the theatre without management and confronting the texter was wrong. He could've easily just picked another seat at that point.

Why is all the responsibility on the old guy to do the right thing. Why don't you feel the young guy had any responsibility. He could have moved or said no problem I'll shut my phone off or left the theater. I'm not condoning what the old guy did, but the young guy was elbow deep in this as well.

Just ####### amazing.

I am 100% confident that if the young guy had been black and dressed in gang colors, some people here would be shouting self-defense.

 

[[icon]]

Icon, you seem quite reasonable in this thread. But there's a problem.

You see, back in the gun control thread after Newtown, I argued for what I considered to be several reasonable gun control measures. You, Cliff Clavin, and a few others made some very good arguments against what I was in favor of, and I became convinced by several of them. The ONE measure I stuck to, and continue to stand by today, is an end to the private sales loophole. According to your posts here, you have apparently changed your mind on this issue, and you are now in favor of it.

But when that proposal failed to get through Congress. you were among those here celebrating, if I recall correctly.

I think I stated earlier in this thread that I was going to dial down the shtick on this one. I also stated I'm fine with utilizing a FFL system for all private sales excluding immediate family / blood relatives here... not a complete deployment as it was written, IIRC.

But the celebrating was shtick designed to rattle folks because, well, this IS the internet.

 

[SWC]

spockman i am not sure how it is ironic but who created the interaction between the old guy and the young guy it was the old guy he had a choice just go sit somewhere else in an empty theater with only 25 people total in it heck if the old guy and his wife moved back 1 or 2 rows even or ahead a couple of rows or just move down 5 or 6 seats they cannot even see the light and bam there is no problem but instead he chose a route that had the potential to create a fight that is a wrong choice i would think to just about everyone take that to the bank brohan

I bet when the Zimmerman story broke you were on the side that said Martin should have just walked home, AMIRIGHT?

no i never really followed that why does it matter brohan

 

[Two Deep]

spock you said something to a guy texting in a theater and he was mean to you in response right that has to the only reason you would take the crazy position you are

Never have. But there's nothing wrong with asking a texter in a theater to stop. Nor is there anything wrong with telling management about it when they refuse to stop. Labeling this position as crazy is ironic.

I would say coming back into the theatre without management and confronting the texter was wrong. He could've easily just picked another seat at that point.

Why is all the responsibility on the old guy to do the right thing. Why don't you feel the young guy had any responsibility. He could have moved or said no problem I'll shut my phone off or left the theater. I'm not condoning what the old guy did, but the young guy was elbow deep in this as well.

Just ####### amazing.

I am 100% confident that if the young guy had been black and dressed in gang colors, some people here would be shouting self-defense.

Boy you are crazy! I can garauntee that if we could turn back the clock and the young guy knew what everybody knows now he would have handled his end of the dispute differently. Don't you think Timmy.

 

[timschochet]

Icon, you seem quite reasonable in this thread. But there's a problem.

You see, back in the gun control thread after Newtown, I argued for what I considered to be several reasonable gun control measures. You, Cliff Clavin, and a few others made some very good arguments against what I was in favor of, and I became convinced by several of them. The ONE measure I stuck to, and continue to stand by today, is an end to the private sales loophole. According to your posts here, you have apparently changed your mind on this issue, and you are now in favor of it.

But when that proposal failed to get through Congress. you were among those here celebrating, if I recall correctly.

I think I stated earlier in this thread that I was going to dial down the shtick on this one. I also stated I'm fine with utilizing a FFL system for all private sales excluding immediate family / blood relatives here... not a complete deployment as it was written, IIRC.

But the celebrating was shtick designed to rattle folks because, well, this IS the internet.

Fair enough. In any case, I'm glad you changed your mind and that we can meet in the middle.

More to the point to this situation: I realize that YOU carry a gun on your person at all times for self-defense, and that it makes you feel safe, and that YOU are a responsible person- but would you agree that there are at least some people out there with legally owned guns who might lose their temper and use them in a public situation? And that these people actually make us, as a society, less safe than we would be if they didn't have guns on them?

 

[Pipes]

spock you said something to a guy texting in a theater and he was mean to you in response right that has to the only reason you would take the crazy position you are

Never have. But there's nothing wrong with asking a texter in a theater to stop. Nor is there anything wrong with telling management about it when they refuse to stop. Labeling this position as crazy is ironic.

I would say coming back into the theatre without management and confronting the texter was wrong. He could've easily just picked another seat at that point.

Why is all the responsibility on the old guy to do the right thing. Why don't you feel the young guy had any responsibility. He could have moved or said no problem I'll shut my phone off or left the theater. I'm not condoning what the old guy did, but the young guy was elbow deep in this as well.

Where did I say that? I'm just responding to the silly post that the shooter did nothing wrong up to the point where the shot was fired.

 

[timschochet]

spock you said something to a guy texting in a theater and he was mean to you in response right that has to the only reason you would take the crazy position you are

Never have. But there's nothing wrong with asking a texter in a theater to stop. Nor is there anything wrong with telling management about it when they refuse to stop. Labeling this position as crazy is ironic.

I would say coming back into the theatre without management and confronting the texter was wrong. He could've easily just picked another seat at that point.

Why is all the responsibility on the old guy to do the right thing. Why don't you feel the young guy had any responsibility. He could have moved or said no problem I'll shut my phone off or left the theater. I'm not condoning what the old guy did, but the young guy was elbow deep in this as well.

Just ####### amazing.

I am 100% confident that if the young guy had been black and dressed in gang colors, some people here would be shouting self-defense.

Boy you are crazy! I can garauntee that if we could turn back the clock and the young guy knew what everybody knows now he would have handled his end of the dispute differently. Don't you think Timmy.

Do you find him (the victim) morally culpable in some way?

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

spock you said something to a guy texting in a theater and he was mean to you in response right that has to the only reason you would take the crazy position you are

Never have. But there's nothing wrong with asking a texter in a theater to stop. Nor is there anything wrong with telling management about it when they refuse to stop. Labeling this position as crazy is ironic.

I would say coming back into the theatre without management and confronting the texter was wrong. He could've easily just picked another seat at that point.

Why is all the responsibility on the old guy to do the right thing. Why don't you feel the young guy had any responsibility. He could have moved or said no problem I'll shut my phone off or left the theater. I'm not condoning what the old guy did, but the young guy was elbow deep in this as well.

Just ####### amazing.I am 100% confident that if the young guy had been black and dressed in gang colors, some people here would be shouting self-defense.

What if instead of an old 71 year old white guy it was a group of black guys in gang colors, would Oulson have been so aggressive with him? These hypotheticals are fun and totally irrelevant to the topic.

 

[LinusMarr]

spockman i am not sure how it is ironic but who created the interaction between the old guy and the young guy it was the old guy he had a choice just go sit somewhere else in an empty theater with only 25 people total in it heck if the old guy and his wife moved back 1 or 2 rows even or ahead a couple of rows or just move down 5 or 6 seats they cannot even see the light and bam there is no problem but instead he chose a route that had the potential to create a fight that is a wrong choice i would think to just about everyone take that to the bank brohan

I bet when the Zimmerman story broke you were on the side that said Martin should have just walked home, AMIRIGHT?

no i never really followed that why does it matter brohan

My first thought was the kid shouldnt be wandering around at night in a neighborhood he doesnt live in jimmy-jackin around.

 

[Clifford]

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.

JoJo showed up? And we're back to the idiotic cars v guns thing?

/thread

 

[Two Deep]

spock you said something to a guy texting in a theater and he was mean to you in response right that has to the only reason you would take the crazy position you are

Never have. But there's nothing wrong with asking a texter in a theater to stop. Nor is there anything wrong with telling management about it when they refuse to stop. Labeling this position as crazy is ironic.

I would say coming back into the theatre without management and confronting the texter was wrong. He could've easily just picked another seat at that point.

Why is all the responsibility on the old guy to do the right thing. Why don't you feel the young guy had any responsibility. He could have moved or said no problem I'll shut my phone off or left the theater. I'm not condoning what the old guy did, but the young guy was elbow deep in this as well.

Just ####### amazing.

I am 100% confident that if the young guy had been black and dressed in gang colors, some people here would be shouting self-defense.

Boy you are crazy! I can garauntee that if we could turn back the clock and the young guy knew what everybody knows now he would have handled his end of the dispute differently. Don't you think Timmy.

Do you find him (the victim) morally culpable in some way?

Like it or not he assumes blame for his part in the confrontation. Did he deserve to get shot..of course not. There are consequences to our actions. Unfortunately sometimes those consequences end up being way out of proportion to the action.

 

[[icon]]

Sweet Serbian AK Pistol (M92PV) on sale right now for $399 if anyone's looking for a fun "spray n pray" shooter for recreational use. Cheap to shoot at .20/round or so as well. Tempting....

NOTE: pistol is a loose term here. Not suitable for concealed carry

 

[Emerson Biggens]

It doesn't matter how big of an ### the guy that got killed was, the worst that should have happened was him getting asked to stop by management or asked to leave. The old guy should have minded his own ####### business or gotten management. It's not his right to tell the guy to stop. Besides, it was during the previews!

Amazing some of the people placing even the slightest blame on the dead guy in this.

 

[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.

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.

JoJo showed up? And we're back to the idiotic cars v guns thing?/thread

You were here way before I was, preaching your anti-gun baloney about an incident where none of your solutions fix unless you want to start taking guns away from cops.

 

[Rove!]

spockman i am not sure how it is ironic but who created the interaction between the old guy and the young guy it was the old guy he had a choice just go sit somewhere else in an empty theater with only 25 people total in it heck if the old guy and his wife moved back 1 or 2 rows even or ahead a couple of rows or just move down 5 or 6 seats they cannot even see the light and bam there is no problem but instead he chose a route that had the potential to create a fight that is a wrong choice i would think to just about everyone take that to the bank brohan

I bet when the Zimmerman story broke you were on the side that said Martin should have just walked home, AMIRIGHT?

I'm not going to say whether Martin should or should not have walked home, but if he did, he'd be alive, and now he's dead. You do the math.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

It doesn't matter how big of an ### the guy that got killed was, the worst that should have happened was him getting asked to stop by management or asked to leave. The old guy should have minded his own ####### business or gotten management. It's not his right to tell the guy to stop. Besides, it was during the previews!

Amazing some of the people placing even the slightest blame on the dead guy in this.

He threw popcorn in the others guys face. He deserved a punch in the teeth.

 

[Clifford]

How will a claim of self defense work? Because the guy threw popcorn or because he'll say the guy was about to jump him. If you think you're about to get attacked, is that a legal reason to be able to shoot someone?

Not most places, unless they've shown the capacity and intent to do significant/lethal harm. Capacity is possibly/barely there as a 70yo man vs a much bigger younger man (could possibly be proven though it's a grey area)....but hardly think throwing popcorn and yelling satisfies intent to do lethal harm

i do not think that works if you are the guy that started the fight to my knowledge brohans

Shooter was large himself.

 

[Clifford]

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.

JoJo showed up? And we're back to the idiotic cars v guns thing?/thread

You were here way before I was, preaching your anti-gun baloney about an incident where none of your solutions fix unless you want to start taking guns away from cops.

Actually icon and I are pretty much the same page on most everything I have suggested, so I guess tell him about his anti-gun baloney as well.

 

[The Commish]

This thread is missing something only 5 digit can provide

How the heck did I forget about JoJo