YAGT: Woman was trying to shoot someone in a road rage incident, but shot her husband instead

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
I mean...why assume she didn't have the proper permit to carry a gun? Is this you after-the-fact labeling her an "irresponsible gun owner" because well yeah: "Obviously she is! She should have never had a gun! Neither her husband! It's so plainly obvious!" You must be a Trillionaire with this uncanny ability to predict the past based on the present, and apply it to some known future....

Besides that, what fucking difference would it make if she had the permit or not? Regardless, it would not have magically prevented her from carrying the gun into the car and murdering her husband after attempting to murder someone else for no reason. ...oh wait, I know the answer--it only makes a difference in your mind because you need that to justify your categorizing of individuals after they go and do their murders, because it makes some sense in some sort of policy that you will absolutely never want to see imposed.
And, as I've said before, tell me how you will get guns away from the crazies without violating the 2A and I'm all for it.

This is exactly what I am talking about when I say all we do is argue in circles with these debates. And very few people want to say "total ban" because they know there is no way to actually achieve it. At best, you will get guns away from the majority of the law-abiding who aren't doing the murdering.

And, even that, you have no majority will to achieve in this representative democracy of a country. We have lots and lots of laws already making murder illegal in this country. What possible plan do you have that will actually accomplish a reduction in gun violence without stomping on the constitutional rights of law abiding gun owners?
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
Oh, so you agree that guns should be regulated a decent bit more strictly like alcohol? Age limits, windows of sale (thinking puritanical blue laws in some states, or outright bans)? Things like that? Let's talk!

--btw, no--I'm not arguing about knowing the future. That was your argument. I was hoping that you understood this.
Then promise me you will never bring up the irresponsible vs responsible gun owner argument again.

Guns are already regulated far more than alcohol is. When did you have to take a background check to buy a beer? And if you live in county that has elected to go dry then move. Just like folks have moved to cities or states with more liberal gun laws.

We can talk all you want, but if you support more burdensome laws to stop the law-abiding from enjoying their 2A rights and achieve a defacto ban, all in an effort to somehow stop the murderers, then I'm not going to agree.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,117
14,484
146
That's a suicide blanket outfit she is wearing in her mug shot. It can't be torn up to hang yourself with. Crazy is as crazy does. $30k is far to low a bail amount of murderous crazy.

But let's not forget that in 2018, about 43 percent of U.S. households had at least one gun in possession. We can't judge an entire group for the negative actions of a small minority. It's called ignorance when you do. And it's even worse when you blame the gun for the actions of the crazy who wielded it.
Would you say her decision to carry a weapon made her safer?
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
Would you say her decision to carry a weapon made her safer?
Maybe. But not her husband.

But, seriously, if you are trying to use the tired old argument we should never do anything unless it makes us safer, fuck off. I do lots of things that may be less than 100% safe, but I weight the risks vs reward and do what I can to mitigate them. And that applies to being a gun owner as well.

It's called being a responsible adult. You should try it sometime. Wait, did you drive a car today? There, you did it, too!

**Golf clap**
 

balloonshark

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2008
6,580
3,059
136
Just spend a little time with your average gun owner and you'll change your mind about how everyone should be able to own a gun. Owning a gun (or child) should at least be as challenging as getting your driver's license. Classes with written and practical tests as well mental fitness should be mandatory for everyone. I would say follow up classes and tests should also be necessary as a person ages as a refresher. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with this idea.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,616
4,705
136
That's a suicide blanket outfit she is wearing in her mug shot. It can't be torn up to hang yourself with. Crazy is as crazy does. $30k is far to low a bail amount of murderous crazy.

But let's not forget that in 2018, about 43 percent of U.S. households had at least one gun in possession. We can't judge an entire group for the negative actions of a small minority. It's called ignorance when you do. And it's even worse when you blame the gun for the actions of the crazy who wielded it.



Whose preemptive argument is this preemptive argument?
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,939
7,459
136
So if she had shot "the right guy" it would have then become an arguable case of self-defense?

This along with a previously mentioned idea that "you're considered a responsible gun owner right up until the instant you're not".

Somehow, things have been tilted in the nation's gun owner's favor whereby ease of access is so much more important than the safety of the majority of the nation's citizens who think a gun is out of place unless they are used in the home for self-defense, at a range or in the wilderness for hunting game (exceptions given of course, ie- trained professionals etc.).

The average citizen is expected to blindly trust their fellow citizens (of whom they have no idea who they are) that their bearing arms is being used responsibly and have been successfully trained to avoid having the willful intent of using such in moments of anger, rage, jealousy, frustration, revenge and vigilante justice.

That's a tall order right there, yet in defense of the 2A, the rest of us are going to have to suck it up and assume that every registered gun owner is a responsible one (see second paragraph) and that we are all safe when in the presence of those who choose to brandish them in public.

From a logical, common sense point of view, this sounds rather silly to me.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Just spend a little time with your average gun owner and you'll change your mind about how everyone should be able to own a gun. Owning a gun (or child) should at least be as challenging as getting your driver's license. Classes with written and practical tests as well mental fitness should be mandatory for everyone. I would say follow up classes and tests should also be necessary as a person ages as a refresher. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with this idea.

Presumably because a right to vehicle ownership and operation, or that of transportation in general, isn't enshrined in the constitution. That's the entire issue. Any honest attempt to substantially restrict gun ownership needs to begin with advocating the repeal of the 2nd amendment.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,202
18,670
146
Presumably because a right to vehicle ownership and operation, or that of transportation in general, isn't enshrined in the constitution. That's the entire issue. Any honest attempt to substantially restrict gun ownership needs to begin with advocating the repeal of the 2nd amendment.

Then people should stop comparing guns to cars, agree?

You will need to define what you mean by substantially.
 

Veliko

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2011
3,597
127
106
Presumably because a right to vehicle ownership and operation, or that of transportation in general, isn't enshrined in the constitution. That's the entire issue. Any honest attempt to substantially restrict gun ownership needs to begin with advocating the repeal of the 2nd amendment.

No it doesn't, any more than restricting nuclear weapon ownership required repealing the 2nd amendment.

The 2A allows you to bear arms; gun ownership isn't even mentioned.
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,635
3,509
136
Maybe. But not her husband.

But, seriously, if you are trying to use the tired old argument we should never do anything unless it makes us safer, fuck off. I do lots of things that may be less than 100% safe, but I weight the risks vs reward and do what I can to mitigate them. And that applies to being a gun owner as well.

It's called being a responsible adult. You should try it sometime. Wait, did you drive a car today? There, you did it, too!

**Golf clap**

Every scientific study says carrying a gun or having one in your home gives you a net reduction in safety. Exactly why the NRA doesn't want the government studying the issue any more.
 

Bird222

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2004
3,641
132
106
No it doesn't, any more than restricting nuclear weapon ownership required repealing the 2nd amendment.

The 2A allows you to bear arms; gun ownership isn't even mentioned.
In this context, what is your definition of arms? BTW, this is something SCOTUS needs to define once and for all in my opinion.
 

Indus

Lifer
May 11, 2002
11,878
8,285
136
In this context, what is your definition of arms? BTW, this is something SCOTUS needs to define once and for all in my opinion.

IMO it's well past time to start a new constitution agreed upon by the states instead of an old one.

Unfortunately with voter suppression, the constitution won't be anything of what we really need - just what a certain group wants!
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,117
14,484
146
Maybe. But not her husband.

Unless she already used it to defend herself from a deadly attack (highly unlikely), she is worse off from carrying. She’ll be going to trial for shooting her husband and attempting to shoot someone else.

But, seriously, if you are trying to use the tired old argument we should never do anything unless it makes us safer, fuck off.

Then you don’t understand the argument.

I do lots of things that may be less than 100% safe, but I weight the risks vs reward and do what I can to mitigate them.

Yes everyone does this. I might go water skiing. The reward is how fun it is, the risk is injury or death by drowning or prop. I mitigate those risks by wearing a life vest, maintaining the boat and gear, etc.

However the point to carrying a loaded gun on your person is ostensibly to protect one and ones loved ones from injury or death from violent attack (a low likelihood catastrophic event). If the risk of causing injury or death to myself or loved ones from carrying (a low likelihood catastrophic event) equals or exceeds the reduction in risk from violent attack after mitigations it doesn’t make sense to carry. The risk is worse than the reward. A responsible adult would chose a different method to reduce the risk of violent attack.

If talking guns is clouding your mind here’s an example from my job. We’re qualifying a portable fire extinguisher to put out a cabin fire (a low likelihood catastrophic event). A fire extinguisher is used to reduce the risk of injury or death from a fire. If the design of the fire extinguisher increases the risk of injury or death to the crew (via asphyxiation or shorting critical equipment), we would select a different design to reduce the risk of injury or death of the crew.

And that applies to being a gun owner as well.
It's called being a responsible adult. You should try it sometime. Wait, did you drive a car today? There, you did it, too!

**Golf clap**

So how do handle your gun when you aren’t responsible? When you are:
  • Drunk
  • Angry
  • Delirious
  • Groggy
  • Frightened

Responsible gun owners need have plans in place to deal with their weapons before they become irresponsible otherwise you end up like this woman who got angry and shot her husband.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ch33zw1z

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
5,037
2,615
136
Presumably because a right to vehicle ownership and operation, or that of transportation in general, isn't enshrined in the constitution. That's the entire issue. Any honest attempt to substantially restrict gun ownership needs to begin with advocating the repeal of the 2nd amendment.
Repeal and replace?
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,280
5,721
146
Maybe. But not her husband.

But, seriously, if you are trying to use the tired old argument we should never do anything unless it makes us safer, fuck off. I do lots of things that may be less than 100% safe, but I weight the risks vs reward and do what I can to mitigate them. And that applies to being a gun owner as well.

It's called being a responsible adult. You should try it sometime. Wait, did you drive a car today? There, you did it, too!

**Golf clap**

As opposed to your tired old "well if we do anything it'll mean that we will be bound to being raped and murdered by the government for all eternity so we shouldn't do anything at all to address gun violence" argument?

You should too, but then it would require you to stop being stuck in your conservative defense mode where you'll gladly defend real rapists and murderers as long as it keeps the imaginary hordes of non-white ones at bay.
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,280
5,721
146
In this context, what is your definition of arms? BTW, this is something SCOTUS needs to define once and for all in my opinion.

I'm gonna take a page out of right wingers and be a literalist. So that means arms. The government cannot cut off your arms. And they can't prevent you from flexing or force you to wear long sleeve shirts, thereby preventing you from baring those arms.
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,280
5,721
146
Presumably because a right to vehicle ownership and operation, or that of transportation in general, isn't enshrined in the constitution. That's the entire issue. Any honest attempt to substantially restrict gun ownership needs to begin with advocating the repeal of the 2nd amendment.

Neither is personal ownership of guns, yet here you are pretending it does. State guard divisions is what a modern militia is, and the intent of the 2nd Amendment is that the federal government cannot bar the state from arming its militia. Not individual jackasses having the right to own whatever gun they want, which flies in the face of every aspect of that amendment as its neither an actual militia, nor is it "well regulated".

I really don't know how you fucking clowns can keep pointing to the 2nd Amendment for why we can't or shouldn't regulate when literally that's made a focal point in the first 3 words of the Amendment. Its abundantly clear that they absolutely saw a need for regulation of said militias, so even if you intentionally bastardize what a militia is to say it can be a single individual person, it still means you should be well regulated, and that clearly is not the case, as evidenced by the perpetual events where people harm others with their guns.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,993
13,519
136
Are you actually arguing we can't know the future so everyone is guilty of what could happen? We could apply that line of reasoning to anything potentially dangerous. How about alcohol? Alcohol takes far more lives than gun violence does.
What is the sole purpose of a gun?
What is the sole purpose of a beer?
Totally the same thing, I get it now ;).....
 

Bird222

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2004
3,641
132
106
I'm gonna take a page out of right wingers and be a literalist. So that means arms. The government cannot cut off your arms. And they can't prevent you from flexing or force you to wear long sleeve shirts, thereby preventing you from baring those arms.

Well that's helpful.
 

Bird222

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2004
3,641
132
106
Neither is personal ownership of guns, yet here you are pretending it does. State guard divisions is what a modern militia is, and the intent of the 2nd Amendment is that the federal government cannot bar the state from arming its militia. Not individual jackasses having the right to own whatever gun they want, which flies in the face of every aspect of that amendment as its neither an actual militia, nor is it "well regulated".

I really don't know how you fucking clowns can keep pointing to the 2nd Amendment for why we can't or shouldn't regulate when literally that's made a focal point in the first 3 words of the Amendment. Its abundantly clear that they absolutely saw a need for regulation of said militias, so even if you intentionally bastardize what a militia is to say it can be a single individual person, it still means you should be well regulated, and that clearly is not the case, as evidenced by the perpetual events where people harm others with their guns.
Newsflash: SCOTUS has already determined it's an individual right so maybe it doesn't mean what you think it means.