Local news reports
Not only did she pull the gun, she followed the kids to the park and threatened them there.
If she'd been a little quicker she could have shot one of them and claimed that she'd felt threatened. As it is she's charged with a felony aggravated assault. Of course, a good Texas attorney and a little plea bargaining will allow her to keep the guns. Even the most irascible of gun owners has rights.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
So you're telling us that you sympathize with children who harass their neighbors? I'd have called the police, but likely the cops wouldn't have had time to deal with it. So what's the solution?
ReplyDeleteTalking?
DeleteCalling their parents?
TRYING calling the police instead of making a stupid assumption like yours?
Turning the garden hose on them?
Putting together a neighborhood watch that deals with improving neighborhood problems, including those that address bad kid behavior?
But NOT pulling a gun on kids EVER for something like this, much less following them to a public park. She should face a significant penalty AND lose her firearms, for having demonstrated both poor judgement, bad impulse control, and dangerous behavior. .
Just one more example of your failed thinking processes in action, and the massive failure of our gun culture.
You people are simply insane.
Dog gone you make the stupid assumption that the children care what their parents say ... or that the parents care about their neighbors or what their children are doing.
DeleteThere is a huge problem in our country with people that have no regard for their community and calls to the police are not going to solve it. I don't see any answer or solution.
Dog Gone, why do you always have a knee-jerk reaction to anything that you don't immediately agree with? You say that I'm insane? Fine. I'm not giving up my guns. Next?
DeleteAnonymous, parents are the responsible parties for their children. Period.
DeleteParents are the place to start.
I offered multiple potential solutions -- none of which involved violence.
We don't know from this if the parents DO or DON'T care. A neighborhood watch works with the police, and can provide group support to solve problems, to bring social pressure to bear on people who don't rein in their kids.
Those have been very successful for many problems in communities.
So --- NO, my assumptions were not stupid, nor were my solutions ineffective.
What is NOT appropriate is shooting kids or brandishing a firearm at them for playing, not in any way shape or form, not by any justification.
This woman was not threatened, she was annoyed. She stalked these kids to a park -- where under shoot first laws, parents would have been justified in drawing THEIR weapon and blowing her away.
More evidence of the utterly failed thinking of the pro-gunners.
You guys are nuts -- and that is not a good promotion for your failed gun culture and gun policies.
Greg, you and Anonymous are the ones with the knee-jerk reaction. These were KIDS who were playing around. They weren't a danger, they were barely a nuisance, you you guys take it so seriously you forgot to condemn the actions of the woman.
DeleteDid you read my comment below? I didn't forget anything. I just don't feel the need to throw condemnation around at every occasion. Besides, didn't you do enough for everyone?
DeleteThe government bears responsibility for the actions of this women, as the government has failed to ensure that she was disarmed (and has also failed in it's duty to protect the children). Any legitimate State bears, as it's primary function, the protection of the lives and well-being of it's citizens, and by allowing the armament of the civilian populace, the State fails to perform it's most essential duty.
DeleteSaying it twice in one thread doesn't make it so.
DeleteMy reply was a parody of dog gone. She hears about a few bad apples (people who misuse firearms) and conflates their behavior to nearly all firearm owners. Well I experience a few bad children and bad parents conflated them to be all children and parents ... and that any chance of reaching them is hopeless.
DeleteAnd dog gone's response is priceless. She tells us that we should not generalize and try to talk to the children and parents anyway.
Greg says, " I just don't feel the need to throw condemnation around at every occasion."
DeleteThat's true, even when a lunatic gun owner draws down on a bunch of kids.
Gun rights fanatics like Greg are loyal to fellow gun owners no matter what.
Fortunately she didn't shoot them but she gave the little monsters and their irresponsible parents something to think about for future reference. I doubt they'll be coming back to play their stupid pranks on her again.
DeleteMikeb, you're saying that I'm loyal to the woman when I'm not. You have no evidence for that--not that having no evidence has ever stopped you before.
DeleteThanks for clarifying that, Greg. It sure sounds like Gunluvr supports her though. What do you think? Are you gonna call him out on that?
DeleteI’ll call him out on it, but I want to see you call out E.N. for wanting to ban all civilian guns.
DeleteFor what purpose should Mike "call me out" for?
DeleteI have never expressly stated that I have a desire to "ban all civilian guns". I merely seek the disqualification of small arms "ownership" (possession) for those who cannot demonstrate a legitimate reason for possession such weapons.
I have not advocated the disarmament of civilian lawmakers, security, and police officers, as well as other groups of individuals who are capable of demonstrating a legitimate purpose to engage in the possession or proliferation of weapons.
E.N., now you're a fucking liar. You've said time and again that we have a right for civilian disarmament. The trouble is that your mealy-mouthed NewSpeak way of talking has so many weeds that we need a bush hog to get through. Speak plainly. You don't want anyone who isn't a government employee to have a gun.
DeleteMikeb, I've said it before. I don't have to condemn or call out everyone on the planet for every bad act or for every position that I disagree with.
Sorry that I have offended you "plain spoken country folk" with my modern lexicon. If you don't understand something, just ask your nurse, and (she) will help you with it.
DeleteE.N., read George Orwell's essay, "Politics and the English Language." He describes your style of writing exactly. Your technique is to use a barrage of verbiage to blank out thought. You would do well in any Ministry of Propaganda. Here in the free world, you're not having much success.
DeleteNo, TS, because wanting to ban all civilian guns is a valid response to a pressing problem. I don't agree with that approach, I'm much more moderate in my gun control stance.
DeleteBut, not calling out someone for supporting what this woman did is wrong.
Ok, but can you stop saying "no one wants to ban all guns"? I am not just talking about E.N. You are saying it is a "valid response to a pressing problem" and not off-the-wall extremists who can be discounted. You must believe that the "ban all guns" movement is real.
DeleteI have never actually argued in favor of a "ban all guns" political or legal situation. I have not (and do not) favor the total prohibition of the possession of small arms by civilians. I have endorsed the concept that the government has a moral and legal responsibility to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of those who are likely to abuse them (the "right to disarmament") and that the constitution does not make any guarantee of a "right to keep and bear arms" applying to the civilian population. Such a right does not properly belong to the mere citizen unless the constitution is amended to provide for such.
DeleteThat being said, in certain situations (depending on the severity of such), extreme measures may be permissible, in order to prevent social upheaval, armed class warfare, and potential insurrection, therefore leading to a ideal situation for communists insurgents, criminals, Australian bartenders, "terrorists", racial instigators, religious fundamentalists, Greg Camp, anarchists, fascists, internet trolls, mafia, and "libertarians" to arm themselves and carry out their nefarious deeds. In a time of national strife and unrest, it would be prudent to reserve the use of lethal small arms to State actors, as opposed to endowing them upon those who mean to do us harm.
E.N., you never argued in favor of "the right to civilian disarmament"? You never said that a "mere person" has no right to a gun? What could those statements possibly mean? You're backing off from your advocacy of tyranny now.
DeleteI'm still keeping my guns.
Let's see.
ReplyDeleteThe gunloons' response to children playing harmless pranks is to threaten them with firearms.
WTF?
This is really what gunloonery is all about--being able to threaten or kill those with whom you disagree or dislike. This is why when a gunloon gets fired--he comes back to the office and shoots people. Or when a gunloon gets rejected by a woman--it's bad news for the woman.
Now the brave gunloons take their battle to children.
All I can say is that if a gunloon ever pointed a gun at my kids, there'd soon be one less NRA member.
Goldilocks, does this mean that you have guns? How else would you carry that out?
DeleteGreggy; Real men don't need guns. Do you believe guns immunize you from harm?
DeleteGoldilocks,
Delete1. Owning or not owning a gun has nothing to do with being a man. Guns are tools. They can be used for self-defense, for hunting, and for having a good time at the range.
2. Being a good human being means giving back to the world more than you take and generally living a moral life.
3. I note that you didn't answer my questions. Are we then to conclude that you own a gun that you will be willing to use?
Guns can and often are misused and abused for bad purposes - which includes threatening children with firearms.
DeleteBeing a good human being means NOT doing what this gun nut did.
There are many more ways to get rid of a person who menaces children with firearms than shooting them, just one more example of your failure to think properly. If having a gun means you can only contemplate firearms for resolving things, that is the best reason in the world why someone like you should NOT have weapons more lethal than the corner of a damp graham cracker.
Dog Gone, you are such a piece of work. You read questions and think you know exactly what I'd do in the situation. Did I say that shooting the children was a good idea? You are blinded by your hatred of gun owners. You can't see anything in us other than what you want to see.
DeleteThat's an illustration of poor thinking skills. You leap to conclusions that aren't warranted by the comment that I made. You can't focus on the specific points in my comments. Do you observe how I address your remarks point by point? That's proper reasoning. Blanket dismissals and sneering? Not so much.
This woman brought out a firearms, and threatened children.
DeleteThere IS NO DEFENSE FOR THAT.
It is inappropriate to pull a gun, to brandish a gun, to threaten someone with a gun. A gun is drawn in a conflict situation only if it going to be used.
Doing so clearly escalates the situation.
If someone HAD called law enforcement, I would find it understandable if to protect the children, law enforcement had blown her away like a scene from a dirty Harry movie.
You failed to the do the one thing that was the right thing to do -- condemn this woman's bad behavior with a firearm.
If shooting is NOT the solution, then waving a gun around is ALSO not an acceptable solution.
That you could not come up with any other alternatives is why you are apparently incapable of critical thinking skills.
One of many instances where you have demonstrated that.
Dog Gone, unlike you, I don't feel the need to condemn everyone who does something that I disagree with. I don't see it as my duty to go around correcting everyone else. Your approach to reasoning consists of passing judgement first, then finding verbiage to support what you've concluded.
DeleteI asked Mikeb for what his solution would be. I gave you mine in the first comment. I said that I'd have called the police. I expressed my doubts as to the effectiveness of that, since the cops don't like to deal with trivial matters. I also have to wonder if the parents would do any good here. I've met many bad parents over my years of teaching. You insist on simplistic solutions that fit into your narrative of the world. You can't see that I never called for shooting the children or for waving a gun at them. I just didn't jump in with condemnation.
I know that you won't listen, but in the off chance that you will, here's a piece of advice: Before you rush to judge everyone and everything outside of yourself, get your own life and mind into order first.
Greggy: I did answer your questions. Real men don't need guns. I'm a real man.
ReplyDeleteNo, you dodged and now did it again. I didn't ask you about your manhood. I asked you if you own a gun. But how about giving us your definition of what it means to be a man. Don't define it in the negative. Give me a definition of what a man is, not what a man is not.
DeleteDefining in the negative is perfectly acceptable in a case like this, where what someone does not do is the better definition.
DeleteNot murdering people, not stealing, not lying, not abusing children by threatening them inappropriately with lethal force for something trivial--- those all define an adult human, not just a male adult human.
The tragedy here is that if you have a gun, you stop thinking, apparently-----and it wasn't your strong suit on the best of occasions.
There is NO excuse, no justification, and clearly a distinct lack of problem solving skills when someone behaves this way. This woman is just a nut job, who should lose her firearms for what she did. She clearly demonstrated that she cannot determine when and how and where to properly use them, and proved herself a danger to others - and possibly herself.
Dog gone: “Defining in the negative is perfectly acceptable in a case like this…”
DeleteA Real Man (n) – A real man is not a complex organism composed of a fungus in symbiotic union with alga. Definitely not that.
As for this woman- throw the book at her.
Dog Gone, if you wish to play the via negativa game, fine. I do none of those bad things that you named. Good enough?
DeleteThanks TS.
Delete"As for this woman- throw the book at her."
You were serious, I hope.
Of course.
DeleteNot one gun-rights commenter spoke about the woman. It's about the kids or about Jadegold or anything but blaming the gunowner.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a "gun-rights commenter"?
DeleteBut note that Jadegold didn't blame the gunowner. He blamed all gunloons, which I believe includes all us gun-rights commenters on this site.
I don't blame gun owners.
DeleteI blame the government, for its wanton recklessness and irresponsibility, in allowing an armed society.
The government ALLOWED this women to be armed. If the State would properly perform it's duty to create and maintain a monopoly on the ability to wield deadly force (achieved by the collection of civilian-possessed weapons, and prohibitive firearm and non-explosive weapon laws)
E.N., allowed? When are you going to get it through your thick skull that in America, we allow the government to have a small measure of power, not the other way around? We give the government its power. It does not give us our rights.
DeleteBut why don't you walk down your street trying to put your belief into action. Knock on doors and request that the homeowners turn over their guns to be destroyed by the police. Take a camera crew with you.
About blame, I blame all gun-rights activists. They are responsible along with their masters at the NRA for the deplorable situation of gun availability. The share the blame in every act of gun violence.
DeleteThe NRA leadership are not my masters, but if you insist, I'll accept my share of the responsibility for what you see as a problem. I'm proud of our recognition of gun rights.
DeleteYeah, if we share in the blame, can we share in the credit as well?
DeleteHell of a job on Heller, Greg. That was fantastic work. I hate to toot my own horn, but I had a little something to do with it too.
Don't forget McDonald. And all the states that have gone shall issue or Consitutional carry. Then there's the recent ruling in Maryland about carry laws. Yup, I feel so guilty.
DeleteI am a parent of one of the children. Everyone of the kids except one I personally know well. They are all active in sports and all maintain good grades and are involved in Church. It was around 7pm and they were being young mischievous boys. Besides one 14yr old the others were 9-12. The tallest out of all if them was 5'4 the smallest being about 4'5. They made a childhood mistake. My son asked to call me on his cell phone. She kept them captive and refused to allow them to call us. She told them she would harm us as well. The boys were wrong. She was crazy to do what she did. She now faces a prison term and we will soon see what happens. Heading to court next month.
ReplyDelete