Second-degree manslaughter is not enough. He should be charged with murder. He chose to drink and to wave a gun around. There's a simple way to remove his gun rights: Put him in prison for a long time.
Do I know any such person? No. I don't associate with stupid people. I treat drinking and guns the same as I do drinking and driving. Each is good by itself, but doing the pair of them together is foolish, and whoever does it deserves to be punished for any harm done.
The only problem is, when you park the car in the garage you cease to be a driver. You never cease to be a gun owner. That means any drinking at all is verboten, at least if you want to consider yourself responsible.
The bullshit is strong with you this morning. A gun or a car is an inanimate object. Both require a person to make them function. I don't cease to be a car owner when I park my vehicle. I could stumble out and go for a drive after drinking. But I don't. The same is true about guns. I don't handle them when I'm drinking. I also don't drink so much that I couldn't defend myself in my home if necessary--not that I'm paranoid; I just don't drink to get drunk.
You know that 50% of gun owners who are really unfit that we've been talking about? Well, a big part of it is the drinking. I'm glad to know you're not one of them, but I doubt very much you'd pass any kind of objective test for sober gun handling.
You mean the forty to fifty million gun owners whom you accuse of being unfit? You mean the absurd standards that have nothing to do with genuine responsibility? This is the problem with many on the left. You claim to believe in the common citizen, but you doubt all of us and feel superior to us.
The young man was a Marine, I know his family. The lesson here is to lock your guns up. People make mistakes all the time. I'm sure Mike is the one in a million who has never ever made a mistake.
Mark, Making "mistakes" with guns, especially the kind that cost lives, should result in the loss of gun rights in the very least. Does expressing that opinion mean I've never made a mistake myself?
So does that rationale apply to other things? Should making a mistake that kills someone with a car lead to the loss of being able to drive? Or a construction accident that kills someone render the individual unable to use tools for the rest of their lives? Or a medical mistake, which kill far more than guns render someone unable to practice medicine? Or should the mistakes be used to justify denying others the ability to do these things? And these are all logical questions to ask. Mike Z
What I am getting at is why you fear an armed populace so much while ignoring the fact that in the most violent cities that you cite it is nearly impossible for law abiding citizens to legally carry a weapon to defend themselves. Even ignoring that many of the shooting occur in either legally defined gun free zones or in areas that due to their clientele are gun free zones. You ignore the evidence that gun bans don't work and acknowledge that you are more afraid of the law abiding citizen than acutal criminals. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/robert-farago/mikeb302000-were-not-worried-about-the-criminals/ I am getting at the fact that you have an emotional pet issue that relies on fallacy and emotion and that despite the denial whose roots are in racism. Why is that? Mike Z
"I am getting at the fact that you have an emotional pet issue that relies on fallacy and emotion and that despite the denial whose roots are in racism. Why is that?"
Well, it could be because you're wrong. Your powers of reading my mind and determining my motivations are weak.
Second-degree manslaughter is not enough. He should be charged with murder. He chose to drink and to wave a gun around. There's a simple way to remove his gun rights: Put him in prison for a long time.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you don't know anyone who drinks and does stupid shit with guns, huh Greg? They're so rare.
DeleteDo I know any such person? No. I don't associate with stupid people. I treat drinking and guns the same as I do drinking and driving. Each is good by itself, but doing the pair of them together is foolish, and whoever does it deserves to be punished for any harm done.
DeleteThe only problem is, when you park the car in the garage you cease to be a driver. You never cease to be a gun owner. That means any drinking at all is verboten, at least if you want to consider yourself responsible.
DeleteThe bullshit is strong with you this morning. A gun or a car is an inanimate object. Both require a person to make them function. I don't cease to be a car owner when I park my vehicle. I could stumble out and go for a drive after drinking. But I don't. The same is true about guns. I don't handle them when I'm drinking. I also don't drink so much that I couldn't defend myself in my home if necessary--not that I'm paranoid; I just don't drink to get drunk.
DeleteYou know that 50% of gun owners who are really unfit that we've been talking about? Well, a big part of it is the drinking. I'm glad to know you're not one of them, but I doubt very much you'd pass any kind of objective test for sober gun handling.
DeleteYou mean the forty to fifty million gun owners whom you accuse of being unfit? You mean the absurd standards that have nothing to do with genuine responsibility? This is the problem with many on the left. You claim to believe in the common citizen, but you doubt all of us and feel superior to us.
DeleteThe young man was a Marine, I know his family. The lesson here is to lock your guns up. People make mistakes all the time. I'm sure Mike is the one in a million who has never ever made a mistake.
ReplyDeleteDrinking and shooting someone is no more an accident than drinking and killing someone with a car.
DeleteMark, Making "mistakes" with guns, especially the kind that cost lives, should result in the loss of gun rights in the very least. Does expressing that opinion mean I've never made a mistake myself?
DeleteSo does that rationale apply to other things? Should making a mistake that kills someone with a car lead to the loss of being able to drive? Or a construction accident that kills someone render the individual unable to use tools for the rest of their lives? Or a medical mistake, which kill far more than guns render someone unable to practice medicine? Or should the mistakes be used to justify denying others the ability to do these things? And these are all logical questions to ask. Mike Z
DeleteMaybe it should, but this blog is concerned with gun control not cars and construction.
DeleteSo do you believe that your standards should only apply to firearms as opposed to things that are proven to take far greater numbers of lives? Mike Z
DeleteMike, I thought I just answered that. What are you getting at?
DeleteWhat I am getting at is why you fear an armed populace so much while ignoring the fact that in the most violent cities that you cite it is nearly impossible for law abiding citizens to legally carry a weapon to defend themselves. Even ignoring that many of the shooting occur in either legally defined gun free zones or in areas that due to their clientele are gun free zones. You ignore the evidence that gun bans don't work and acknowledge that you are more afraid of the law abiding citizen than acutal criminals. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/robert-farago/mikeb302000-were-not-worried-about-the-criminals/ I am getting at the fact that you have an emotional pet issue that relies on fallacy and emotion and that despite the denial whose roots are in racism. Why is that? Mike Z
ReplyDelete"I am getting at the fact that you have an emotional pet issue that relies on fallacy and emotion and that despite the denial whose roots are in racism. Why is that?"
DeleteWell, it could be because you're wrong. Your powers of reading my mind and determining my motivations are weak.