Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Accidental Shooting of SC Horse - Shooter Unknown

Obviously, the shooters "have no respect for life."

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.


  1. 12:38 A.M., 15 or so gunshots--according to the horse's owner--now, THAT is a responsible gunzloon. He only stupidently killed one of the horsies instead of all three of them--wottaguy!

  2. To quote the owner of the horse: Even if the law had been in place, it wouldn't have stopped the shooter. And he's not even a gunzloon.

  3. 15 shots, in the middle of the night is not any sort of accident that I'm familiar with. What happened is that some fuckhead gunzloon decided to show off to somebody, or he was just pissed and cut loose 'cuz it soothes his hurt fee-fees. A horse is dead and the shooter is still out there, still armed and still as fucking stupid and irresponsible as he was BEFORE he killed the horse. If the guy or his wife had been "accidentally" shot while looking after their wounded horse, I suppose that would be okay with you, too? You really don't think much beyond the end of the muzzle, do you?

  4. Laws stop some people from doing things, because they don't choose to risk the consequences. There is an entire body of study relating to deterrence theory, which measures and analyzes what works and what does not work. So once again, we have Greg Camp as well as the horse owner making a stupid assumption indicative of a lack of knowledge combined with a failure of critical thinking.

    It should only be legal to discharge a firearm on your own property if you can absolutely, without exception guarantee that what you fire also remains on your property. It could as easily have been a person as a horse that was shot.

    Oh, lookie! One more gun loon - probably another armed while old and white, flabby and crabby gotta-have-a-gun-to-be-a-man jerk living large the fantasy that he is either competent or tough, when he is neither.

    Dumb jerks.

    Shame on the horse owners for being so laid back about it; they should be seeking damages from the property owner for permitting people to be shooting in the dark, when you cannot possibly see if you have a clear line of fire. The property owner of the adjoining property from which the shots were fired clearly was reckless and irresponsible.

    Like the gun loons so often are - example, the moped shooting by a deranged shirtless old fart.

    1. Do let's consider critical thinking, Dog Gone:

      1. Laws restrain rational people. Does the shooter here strike you as rational? I'd say that the owner of the horse and I have assessed the reality well.

      2. You're showing your racism. You have no evidence regarding the shooter, but you've decided that it must have been an old, fat, white man.

      3. You're blaming the owner of the adjoining property, even though there's no evidence that said owner was involved. This shooting happened at night, no? A property owner is at fault if someone tresspasses at night and does something stupid? That could be what happened.

      Shame on you for being such a vindictive and prejudiced prig.