A 7-year-old boy who was allegedly shot in the head by a couple who thought he and three other people were trespassing on their property died Saturday, authorities said.The Gun Guys describe the incident like this:Donald Coffey Jr. died Saturday morning at a Houston hospital, less than two days after the boy was struck in the head by shotgun pellets, Sheriff's Cpl. Hugh Bishop said.
Sheila Muhs and her husband, Gayle Muhs, both 45, were charged with second-degree felony counts of aggravated assault in the shootings Thursday. They were being held at Liberty County Jail with bail set at $25,000 each and had not yet retained an attorney, Bishop said.
There are some gun owners who have a blood lust, ready and willing to shoot and kill other people, including children, for seemingly mindless reasons and just to prove that they can decide who lives and dies.
I've described this very phenomenon as being "trigger happy." I like "blood lust" too. I'm not convinced the Gun Guys have identified the true motives though. I don't know it it's "for seemingly mindless reasons and just to prove that they can decide who lives and dies." At least I don't think that's all of it.
Recently we had lengthy discussions about Ladon Jones, whom I described as "trigger happy" for the simple reason I didn't believe his story that his life was in lethal danger. I figured his motive was one of meting out the just punishment to criminal scum that dared to attempt stealing from him. Not everyone saw it that way, granted, including the authorities.
This case is different, at least it's a little different. The Muhs couple is being held on second-degree aggrivated assaault. The authorities were quick to add that the charges could be increased to murder, but being Texas, I suppose they could be lowered to, what, disorderly conduct?
These people are trigger happy and blood lusting and they shot a kid in the head because he failed to heed their warning, not a verbal warning prior to firing, but a posted one on their property.
"Trespassers will be shot. Survivers will be reshot!! Smile I will."
Any long time readers of this blog might recognize the wording of that sign. Our former commenter, Tom, boasted of having one very similar on his property, also in Texas. He and about half-a-dozen other commenters, who always supported his sentiments, are the first to support these despicable attitudes, which to me seem better adapted to our troglodyte ancestors.
Lawful gun owners, who are secure in the fact that they're responsible people, need not react badly to my assertions. But they often do just that - react badly. Maybe they're not as responsible as they claim to be or not as secure in the fact that they ought to be. I don't know.
I assert there are too many trigger happy and blood lusting gun owners out there. I don't think it 50%, but I don't think it's one-tenth of 1% either. I assert that the lawful gun owners who defensively protect people like this, by denying they exist or by defending their actions, are part of the problem. That's another way the law-abiding gun owner shares in the guilt.
What's your opinion? Did you see the photos of the Muhs couple? What do you think is wrong with them? Do you think the second-degree assault charge was just a formality in order to effectively give them a slap on the wrist?
Please leave a comment.
Hmmm, meth heads, perhaps?
ReplyDeleteInteresting that a posted written warning could be construed as a "fair" warning... what about at night?
Shoot first, ask questions later.
True critical thinking at its finest.
Like you, MikeB, I cannot understand an over-the-top reaction to anyone who might shine a light on *some* people's lack of responsibility in owning and operating deadly weapons.
I know the comments to your post and to my comment already:
But cars....
But drunk-drivers....
But drug-dealers/users...
But crazy people...
But [insert inane comparison here]
I admire you, MikeB, for keeping up your posts on these types of issues. It seems "crazy" and "gun owner" are not allowed to be in the same sentence. Nope.
By comparison, I don't get pissy and take it way personally because someone writes about drunk drivers or posts about domestic violence. I have a car and live in a home. I just cannot understand the gunnies mentality. Tear down, belittle, sh*t talk, and attack.
Yeah, those are *precisely* the kind of people I want having a gun when I am seeing a movie or eating at a restaurant. One wrong look and you too could find yourself on the wrong end of that barrel.
But if everyone had a gun...
Shoot first; ask questions later.
"I assert that the lawful gun owners who defensively protect people like this, by denying they exist or by defending their actions, are part of the problem."
ReplyDeleteWhere have you seen any lawful gun owner defend people like the Muhs or deny that they exist?
Aztec Red asked, "Where have you seen any lawful gun owner defend people like the Muhs or deny that they exist?"In the comments of this blog. What are you saying, gun owners would never do such a thing? "Protect their own" is one of the things they do best. And I say it compounds the damage.
ReplyDeleteThis is one of those rare instances where I'm inclined to agree with you Mike.
ReplyDeleteIn Delaware deadly force laws do not allow you to shoot someone who's simply trespassing on your property, nor should they allow it.
But [insert inane comparison here]And yet you will not and cannot logically refute any such comparison. Your inability to do so speaks volumes as to the validity of your position.
One wrong look and you too could find yourself on the wrong end of that barrel.Hmm, and yet we're the paranoid ones....
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry that you live in fear of the very folks that reality and facts prove you should be LEAST afraid of.
I don't recall anyone here denying that these people exist. What has been denied is that they are as common as is portrayed by the media and anti-gun groups, or that restricting the rights of people that didn't do it will solve the problem.
ReplyDeleteMike W., You lost me on this one. "But [insert inane comparison here]And yet you will not and cannot logically refute any such comparison. Your inability to do so speaks volumes as to the validity of your position."Sevesteen, Denial of their existence has probably been more by inference than literal. I agree with you that it's once again a question of "how many." And in the unlikely event that we all agreed that the amount is significant, the next question would be would "restricting the rights of people that didn't do it" solve the problem?
ReplyDeleteMike W., You lost me on this one. "But [insert inane comparison here]And yet you will not and cannot logically refute any such comparison. Your inability to do so speaks volumes as to the validity of your position.Sorry Mike, Blogger is weird when you italicize quotes. The "But [insert inane comparison here]" were Skye's words. The rest was my comment.
ReplyDeleteI was simply poking fun at her portrayal of my valid comparisons as "inane" when she's simultaneously unable to offer any counterpoints that call those comparisons into question on their merits.
She's effectively saying "you're wrong, your comparisons suck" without offering anything to back up her assertions.