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

[Bird222]

No, it would never be considered a case of self-defense because she and her husband pursued and provoked the fight. You can't start a fight, use a gun and claim it was self-defense. With weapon in tow, they went looking for a fight.

George Zimmerman says wrong.

 

[Paladin3]

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.

Very few people believe everyone should be able to own a gun, and that certainly isn't the case as the laws stand now.

 

[Paladin3]

George Zimmerman says wrong.

Good for him. But, again, you are repeating a lie. Zimmerman didn't attack anyone. The evidence has shown that Martin was the attacker.

Good try, though. If you repeat a lie long enough people will believe it.

 

[Bird222]

Good for him. But, again, you are repeating a lie. Zimmerman didn't attack anyone. The evidence has shown that Martin was the attacker.

Good try, though. If you repeat a lie long enough people will believe it.

Some would say that he instigated the event, but Martin is dead so we can't get his version.

 

[Paladin3]

Then people should stop comparing guns to cars, agree?

You will need to define what you mean by substantially.

I only compare guns to cars when folks bring up how statistically you are more likely to use a gun to hurt yourself rather than defend yourself from attack. That is a statistical fact, but ignores that many things we do every day are statistically dangerous, and it assumes the only reason to ever own a gun is for self-defense. It also ignores that with safe practices many dangers can be mitigates.

Too many folks arguing against guns just keep repeating the same circular arguments over and over again. It's like a lot of folks have half a dozen macros programmed and all we are doing is wasting our time.

 

[Paladin3]

Some would say that he instigated the event, but Martin is dead so we can't get his version.

Fuck you. We have ample evidence proving Martin was the aggressor. Following someone is not justification for attacking them. There is a lengthy thread here with much evidence linked. I'm sure you read it.

But that's twice you've repeated the lie. Two points for your side. Keep it up and some might say you are an asshole, but I don't put much stock in what people say.

 

[dank69]

I only compare guns to cars when folks bring up how statistically you are more likely to use a gun to hurt yourself rather than defend yourself from attack. That is a statistical fact, but ignores that many things we do every day are statistically dangerous, and it assumes the only reason to ever own a gun is for self-defense. It also ignores that with safe practices many dangers can be mitigates.

Too many folks arguing against guns just keep repeating the same circular arguments over and over again. It's like a lot of folks have half a dozen macros programmed and all we are doing is wasting our time.

It doesn't ignore anything. Those other things you claim are being ignored in no way invalidate the central point, that owning a gun makes you and those around you less safe, no matter how much you do to mitigate the risks.

 

[Paladin3]

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.

Somebody get this boy a fucking thesaurus. If the government doesn't have the right to infringe on a citizen's right to bear arms, then what does the 2A protect exactly?

 

[ch33zw1z]

I only compare guns to cars when folks bring up how statistically you are more likely to use a gun to hurt yourself rather than defend yourself from attack. That is a statistical fact, but ignores that many things we do every day are statistically dangerous, and it assumes the only reason to ever own a gun is for self-defense. It also ignores that with safe practices many dangers can be mitigates.

Too many folks arguing against guns just keep repeating the same circular arguments over and over again. It's like a lot of folks have half a dozen macros programmed and all we are doing is wasting our time.

But, guns are the unsafe item protected under the Constitution, which was my point. And it's why it's more difficult to restrict access.

 

[Veliko]

Somebody get this boy a fucking thesaurus. If the government doesn't have the right to infringe on a citizen's right to bear arms, then what does it protect exactly?

As you have repeatedly demonstrated, your enthusiasm for this topic vastly outstrips your ability to actually discuss it.

 

[Paladin3]

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.

I don't give a shit what the NRA does. And I've agreed with what you just said many, many times. Lots of daily activities carry with them a degree of danger. You'll never, ever stab yourself with scissors if you don't own a pair.

But it's not up to you to decide for the rest of the country if they should own something guaranteed to them by our constitution. There are already plenty of rules and regulations on gun ownership already. There are lots of ways to lose your 2A rights. If you can't legally take it away then fuck off.

 

[Paladin3]

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.

You can't put quotes around something I didn't say. Come back when you want to debate like an adult. If you just want to label me and insult me then think up something more colorful. You have no idea who the fuck I am.

Or am I supposed to call you a "librul commie faget" to complete your fantasies?

 

[Paladin3]

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 feel like that would be a mistake overall. It would be better if the courts specify the intent of the law and the purpose it is designed to achieve, rather than develop lists of actually weapons that are legal or illegal. Just like weapons are being designed that are technically legal in California, but basically defeat the intent of their restrictions.

If you can't have a weapon capable of X, then no mater how you change the design to technically beat the restriction, if it is still capable of doing X then it's illegal. Otherwise you end up with items like the bump stock, which achieved automatic fire without being legally automatic.

 

[Paladin3]

What is the sole purpose of a gun?
What is the sole purpose of a beer?
Totally the same thing, I get it now .....

How many does each kill per year? Isn't that what you are most concerned with? Save lives no mater what we have to surrender to do so? No? Oh, I get it now.

See, I can play these pointless, pseudo-debate games too.

 

[Bird222]

Fuck you. We have ample evidence proving Martin was the aggressor. Following someone is not justification for attacking them. There is a lengthy thread here with much evidence linked. I'm sure you read it.

But that's twice you've repeated the lie. Two points for your side. Keep it up and some might say you are an asshole, but I don't put much stock in what people say.

Wow dude get over yourself. I wasn't even expressing my personal opinion on the matter. Good day!

 

[dank69]

How many does each kill per year? Isn't that what you are most concerned with? Save lives no mater what we have to surrender to do so? No? Oh, I get it now.

See, I can play these pointless, pseudo-debate games too.

No, we are not solely concerned with how many lives are lost each year.We tried making alcohol illegal and it ended up killing more people than it saved. Finding the policies that work best is all that matters. Adding regulations that work is a good thing, and nothing in the Constitution prevents that. Adding regulations that are counterproductive would be a bad thing, and should be avoided.

 

[Paladin3]

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.



Then you don’t understand the argument.



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.



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.

Okay, I'll play 20 questions.

I've never been legally drunk in my life. It should be or is already illegal to consume alcohol when carrying, or if you're firearm isn't secured assuming you are drinking at home to the point of intoxication.

I don't believe I will ever be angry enough to want to hurt someone unless it is in self-defense and I have no other option, or if I am in defense of a loved-one. If you think so little of yourself then how do you control your fists when you are angry? You can't lock up your fists, can you? Aren't we all just a irresponsible moment away from shooting our husbands? (the answer is actually NO.)

Delirious? What? Does that happen to you often?

Groggy? Like when I wake up? Like if I woke up with the house on fire, say, I would be unable to make a rational decision? I would be unable to decide to leave the house or run into the flames? Really?

Frightened? As if when there is a real and genuine fear I will suddenly lose the ability to think and reason?

You must think very little of yourself if you believe simple emotions will suddenly turn you into an unthinking killer. Do you not have any moral sense of personal responsibility? Do you not believe your average fellow human being has such?

I guess I just have a bit more faith than you do in my fellow human being. Most of them are good people. That's why incidences like the one we are discussing are so very rare that they make the news and we create threads to discuss them. You insult us all by lying things are otherwise.

 

[Paladin3]

Wow dude get over yourself. I wasn't even expressing my personal opinion on the matter. Good day!

Then don't type lies to try and win a debate. It's nothing personal, but I'll call you out on it every time I can. You have a good day, too.

 

[Paladin3]

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.

So, is this an admission that your argument is simple sarcasm? Until now you seem to have been serious.

 

[Paladin3]

Since its legal to effectively ban automatic weapons I would argue SCOTUS already has. Just because one can "bear" a weapon doesn't mean there is a right to own it.

What about keeping it? Are we throwing property laws out the windows now in your insane attempt to logic your way to the illogical?

 

[Paladin3]

But, guns are the unsafe item protected under the Constitution, which was my point. And it's why it's more difficult to restrict access.

I would argue that guns have a pretty damn good safety record. Most of them are built very well with multiple, redundant safety features. And there are many, many laws and regulations that restrict access to a gun and where you can possess one. It's very rare that the gun itself is responsible for a dangerous or negligent discharge. Usually it's the fault of the user.

But I do agree that guns have the potential to do vast damage as they are dangerous weapons. But that potential does not mean a lawful gun owner can be deprived of the right to bear arms as our constitution guarantees, no mater how tempted we might be to do so as a hopeful, quick fix to gun violence. A quick fix that I have very little reason or evidence to believe is even possible.

And we are right back where we started.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I would argue that guns have a pretty damn good safety record. Most of them are built very well with multiple, redundant safety features. And there are many, many laws and regulations that restrict access to a gun and where you can possess one. It's very rare that the gun itself is responsible for a dangerous or negligent discharge. Usually it's the fault of the user.

But I do agree that guns have the potential to do vast damage as they are dangerous weapons. But that potential does not mean a lawful gun owner can be deprived of the right to bear arms as our constitution guarantees, no mater how tempted we might be to do so as a hopeful, quick fix to gun violence. A quick fix that I have very little reason or evidence to believe is even possible.

And we are right back where we started.

You may be right back where you started, but I'm still of the opinion that small changes can be useful while people remain the variable. The verbage of the 2nd amendment has not aged well with our society. A person could not single handedly mow down dozens or hundreds in minutes when the 2a was formulated. The question remains how thoroughly will we vet gun owners, while closing loopholes that can allow unchecked transfers, IMO.

 

[Paladin3]

As you have repeatedly demonstrated, your enthusiasm for this topic vastly outstrips your ability to actually discuss it.

Gonna take your ball and go home now? Is that macro #14?

You are the one who said "the right of the people, to keep and bare arms" doesn't give them gun rights. That because the word "gun" isn't in the Constitution that we don't get to have them. You are the one playing word games. Yes, you need a thesaurus. Or you can explain your claim. Or just keep insulting me. Or you can quit playing.

 

[Paladin3]

No, we are not solely concerned with how many lives are lost each year.We tried making alcohol illegal and it ended up killing more people than it saved. Finding the policies that work best is all that matters. Adding regulations that work is a good thing, and nothing in the Constitution prevents that. Adding regulations that are counterproductive would be a bad thing, and should be avoided.

Then we need some evidence that any new regulations or restrictions would do more than just unfairly add new burdens on the law-abiding using legal guns for lawful purposes. We can't just make it harder across the board for everyone to have guns. Everyone hasn't lost their 2A rights. Without legal due process, you can't prohibit folks from their constitutional rights. And you can't make it so burdensome or expensive that it works as a defacto ban.

Can you imagine the outcry if we tried to do the same to voters? Or those wanting to enjoy free speech? Or started taxing religion out of existence without actually banning it?

 

[Veliko]

Gonna take your ball and go home now? Is that macro #14?

You are the one who said "the right of the people, to keep and bare arms" doesn't give them gun rights. That because the word "gun" isn't in the Constitution that we don't get to have them. You are the one playing word games. Yes, you need a thesaurus. Or you can explain your claim. Or just keep insulting me. Or you can quit playing.

Interpreting the meaning behind a 150 year old text, and applying it to how a modern society should function, is by definition a word game.

The 2A gives you the right to bare arms.

So that could be a wooden spoon.
Or it could be a gun.
Or an Apache attack helicopter.
Or an Abrams Tank.
Or a nuclear device.
Etc.

Does the 2A give you the right to own a nuclear device? No, it does not.

So how can it give you the right to own a gun, but not a nuclear device?