A Rock Hill man who got mad that someone drank all his beer faces attempted murder charges after trying to shoot and cut two men inside his house, police say.Henry Neal Barnes, Jr., 66, was charged with two counts of attempted murder Saturday.
One victim told officers Barnes woke up to find his beer had been consumed and he got mad, the report states. He ordered the people hanging out to leave.
After some people left, Barnes is accused of grabbing his .22-caliber rifle from his bedroom and trying to shoot one man with it, but it failed to fire, the report states.
Then Barnes pulled out a large knife and started coming after another man, swinging it back and forth, the report states.
No injuries were reported.
Isn't that a wonderful story to illustrate the difference between gun violence and knife violence? Doesn't that shoot all to hell the old argument that "if someone is determined they can kill with anything?" Doesn't this story show clearly what happens when no gun is available, or no gun that works?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
"Doesn't that shoot all to hell the old argument that "if someone is determined they can kill with anything?" "
ReplyDeleteNo, not really. In fact, it proves it. The guy wasn't really determined to kill anyone, was he? If he had been, the knife would have been plenty effective.
Huh? So neither of them worked, but in your mind the knife didn’t work more. And I thought I heard it all.
ReplyDeleteThe gunloon "substitution" theory simply is ludicrous.
ReplyDeleteThere's a very good reason why we send troops into combat with firearms instead of just with knives.
Further, there's no question a firearm greatly enhances the ability and feasibility of killing over such things as a knife or a bat or a car.
"There's a very good reason why we send troops into combat with firearms instead of just with knives."
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly correct, Jade. We send our troops out with comparable (or hopefully, better) arms because the enemy is already armed with such.
Taken back down to a civilian comparison, we citizens choose to be armed with the latest and most capable arms (guns) because the enemy (muggers, murderers, rapists) are already armed with such.
If we were to disarm our soldiers, it would have no effect on what the enemy soldiers have in the way of arms.
Similarly, passing laws to disarm us does nothing to prevent the bad guys from having their arms, because they don't work within the laws. That's why they are criminals.
I'm glad to see that you are finally catching on. I had begun to lose hope that you might ever get it.
That's exactly correct, Jade. We send our troops out with comparable (or hopefully, better) arms because the enemy is already armed with such.
ReplyDeleteIncorrect. This demonstrates a lack of understanding about military tactics. We don't want our combat troops to support a defensive capability--it is solely offensive. That's why we don't particularly worry about ensuring our troops are marksmen--the idea is to bring massive amounts of firepower against an enemy.
In the civilian world, the 'bad guys' get their weapons the same way as the 'good guys.' in fact, even when 'bad guys' steal guns--it is largely because 'good guys' fail to safeguard their weapons.
Your argument fails.
My argument fails?? You come back with that, and my argument fails?
ReplyDeleteJade, does it hurt to be so stupid? Because it should.
Seriously, you argue that we arm our troops with guns, then turn around and argue defensive vs offensive arms, as though I had suggested that, or that it was relevant.
Then you further argue that our troops bring massive firepower (from something other than arms??) and that this proves your point?
You have a dizzying intellect. I can't wait for you to get started.
"in fact, even when 'bad guys' steal guns--it is largely because 'good guys' fail to safeguard their weapons."
That's completely irrelevant. The fact is, bad guys get their arms largely through illegal means, and rarely through legal means. Even if it were okay to blame the victim for the criminal's actions, cutting off the legal supply will hurt the law-abiding population far more than it could ever harm the criminal population.
Jade: “Further, there's no question a firearm greatly enhances the ability and feasibility of killing over such things as a knife or a bat or a car.”
ReplyDeleteYou are correct.
Watch out, TS. Agreeing with Jadegold can make you a traitor to the cause. Anonymous knows this which is why he'll never make that mistake.
ReplyDeleteNo, even Anonymous noted that Jadegold was correct. Whether Anon was being sarcastic, we don't know.
ReplyDeleteEven a broken clock is right twice a day. That seems to be Jadegold's daily average as well. It's just a shame he used it all up in the same comment.
No, anonymous agreed with Jade that guns are the best tool for killing as well as self-defense. We don't want to have to defend ourselves with a knife, bat or automobile.
ReplyDelete