An 18-year-old was shot and wounded during a possible domestic-related confrontation with a sibling in a Melbourne home today, officials reported.
Here's the interesting part, the part which shows that if they'd only had the one-strike-you're-out rule, this incident wouldn't have happened.
“The victim remains in surgery,” said Cmdr. Ron Bell, spokesman for the Melbourne Police Department before 1:30 p.m..
“We’ve been there in the past. In July, we were called out to a report of shots fired at the home,” but no injuries were reported, Bell added.
What's your opinion? Do you think there could be a bit too much tolerance for gun misuse in Florida?
Please leave a comment.
Here's the interesting part, the part which shows that if they'd only had the one-strike-you're-out rule, this incident wouldn't have happened.
ReplyDelete[ . . . ]
“We’ve been there in the past. In July, we were called out to a report of shots fired at the home,” but no injuries were reported, Bell added.
So this one-strike-and-your-rights-are-gone-forever idea of yours would apply to buildings, too? After all, the article gives no clue about who allegedly fired the shots in July--there's certainly nothing about it being either of the people in the most recent incident. Apparently, though, after an alleged "gun crime" at a given building, no guns (except those carried by "Only Ones," of course) would ever be allowed there again?
Besides, "this incident wouldn't have happened"? Aren't we optimistic about our little decrees being followed? Even if your rule does mean that neither of the brothers could legally have guns, what makes you think that means anything?
Like every other gun law, the one you propose would exist only for the breaking.
Remember, MikeB violated gun laws for his own convenience.
ReplyDeleteBut it was okay, because MikeB didn't hurt anyone--as far as we know. So, he's a criminal, but not a violent criminal--as far as we know.
ReplyDeleteSo, he's a criminal, but not a violent criminal--as far as we know.
ReplyDeleteGiven his secretive nature surrounding the incident, I feel we should err on the side of caution, however.
"as far as we know, as far as we know"
ReplyDeleteWE know nothing.
Zorro, Yes indeed entire buildings should be subject to the one-strike-you're-out rule.
Mikeb:
ReplyDeleteWE know nothing.
That's funny, coming from the guy who can determine innocence or guilt simply by reading a news article or two (which might contradict each other).
Zorro, Yes indeed entire buildings should be subject to the one-strike-you're-out rule.
Anything else, Mikeb? If the building is knocked down, and a new one built on the same site, are all visitors to that building to be forcibly disarmed, too, or does the Constitution-free-zone end on that piece of real estate when the "convicted" building goes down?
By "the building" I meant the family. I know that wasn't clear, but I was trying to do that sarcastic repeating thing I know you like so much.
ReplyDeleteIf there are shots fired in a family residence, you know I don't care if they were accidental or not, the whole family loses their guns, unless it's one of those meteorite-like rarities, a legitimate DGU.
This is my fantasy ideal world, you understand.
How the hell does being related to someone who acts evilly, irresponsibly (or even just clumsily, in your brutally unforgiving world) with a gun make one unfit for gun ownership?
ReplyDeleteYou do realize that some extraordinarily good, responsible, competent people are related to some total shitsacks, don't you?
Yes, I realize that. Don't you realize that keeping guns in homes occupied by "shitsacks" is a problem?
ReplyDeleteMikeb:
ReplyDeleteDon't you realize that keeping guns in homes occupied by "shitsacks" is a problem?
Being unarmed in a home occupied by shitsacks is also a problem. The root of the problem, you see (or, apparently, you don't see), is the shitsacks, rather than the guns.
I see the problem quite well. Guns in homes causes more problems than it solves, far more.
ReplyDeleteapparently, you don't see
ReplyDelete