A father shoots 'drunk' driver moments after his children were killed...

MadsL

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

MadsL, maybe you would answer my hypothetical situation again? Just so we can clarify the suit or shoot bit.

Your wife's got a flat and needs assistance. Young guy spots her and pulls up with the intention of helping but your wife doesn't know that yet. So he jumps out (he didn't get the take your time memo) and walks straight up to her window and asks if she is ok.

What does your wife do?

She behaves the same as any woman in that situation, she makes sure the doors are locked and rolls down the window a crack and speaks to him.

She's a woman with a gun in the car not a homicidal triggerhappy lunatic. You are suggesting she is going to shoot the first thing that moves are you?

FrostyJack

MadsL wrote: »

And that is why we have laws.

I think you missed my point there.

MadsL wrote:

That situation exists regardless of guns.

So adding guns to this makes it better, how?

MadsL wrote:

And it also has the potential to save someone's life.

Yes of course it does, I never argued it couldn't. Had the OP scenario been the gunman had shot the driver in an attempt to stop him hitting his sons, I would have no arguement. Walking up and murdering him in coldblood is the issue here. If he didn't have the gun, he might have been to cowardly to do it. One less death.

MadsL wrote:

You have a strange sense of the likelihood of crime.

Says the man who thinks he needs a gun repel the gangs of rapists and ambushers.

MadsL wrote:

You really think someone who is trying to kill or rape another person deserves some kind of hand-wringing remorse?

I don't believe I said that, I would think she would have been in shock or at least glad she survived an ordeal, unless of course killing comes easy to her.

brownlad

Guns are not the issue . If i had a daughter or a son and this happened , I would do the exact same. Imagine, your wife and infant daughter in the car. You and your two sons pushing the car 50 yards from the house, and some idiot after downing 10 beers, perfectly in your sight plows your boys, Tyre riding over their body, their death was not instant , they are in indescribable pain, but a while later they die. All this before your eyes .

What do you do, you have a gun close by what do you do. Sit and wait, for the police, with your head in your palm?

For me, i will shoot till i have no bullets left. An eye for an eye in this case, is fine!

MadsL

FrostyJack wrote: »

I think you missed my point there.

I didn't. That was exactly my point, we trust citizens to behave properly, if they do not then we punish accordingly.

So adding guns to this makes it better, how?

You gain an effective defence against the ones who do decide to break the laws.

Yes of course it does, I never argued it couldn't. Had the OP scenario been the gunman had shot the driver in an attempt to stop him hitting his sons, I would have no arguement. Walking up and murdering him in coldblood is the issue here. If he didn't have the gun, he might have been to cowardly to do it. One less death.

Pure conjecture. Death by tyre iron would have probably been many people's reaction.

Says the man who thinks he needs a gun repel the gangs of rapists and ambushers.

Mocking gun owners doesn't make you right you know. If you would like to show me that people do not get raped and ambushed then mockery is appropriate, until then gun ownership is a legal course of action, and if legal then non of your judgemental nonsense is relevant.

I don't believe I said that, I would think she would have been in shock or at least glad she survived an ordeal, unless of course killing comes easy to her.

What level of "shock" would be acceptable in your view? If it didn't affect her, that makes her something less than "properly" human in your opinion? Wow.
Here's another shocker for you. She didn't cry when her mother died. Newsflash: people deal with life's events in a different ways.

FrostyJack

brownlad wrote: »

Guns are not the issue . If i had a daughter or a son and this happened , I would do the exact same. Imagine, your wife and infant daughter in the car. You and your two sons pushing the car 50 yards from the house, and some idiot after downing 10 beers, perfectly in your sight plows your boys, Tyre riding over their body, their death was not instant , they are in indescribable pain, but a while later they die. All this before your eyes .

What do you do, you have a gun close by what do you do. Sit and wait, for the police, with your head in your palm?

For me, i will shoot till i have no bullets left. An eye for an eye in this case, is fine!

The problem with what you are saying is 3 fold. One you are determining he was drunk, are you going to check his blood alcohol level? Two, you will be even more cowardly a murderer than he as you will be doing it in cold blood throwing away your life. And three, why would you not be with your dying family, doing everything to help them and or spend the last few minutes with them.

By the logic of the people condoning the murder of the driver, you are also condoning the murder of the murderer by the drivers family (which seems to be the case as the family are gone into hiding). So by killing that guy in an act of revenge, he has (if it was him and not another family member as the article is unsure of) put the remaining family in danger. Logic dictates he should not have taken the law into his own hands. Claiming "temporary insanity", as stated by Tin Foil Hat above, cannot be used as many posters here have expressed they would do, even though now the incident hasn't even happened to them while sitting in front of their computer.

Manic Moran

I have no problem with people defending their property but carrying in public has too much potential to lead to disaster.

Argument made by Illinois in a recent 7th Circuit Court of Appeals case. The court basically pointed out that Illinois had no statistical proof of that coming to pass (despite 41 States allowing concealed carry permits to anyone who passes basic requirements, and another 8 on a discrentionary basis), and that because of that lack of proof, the State couldn't go and just outright ban people from carrying in public.

7 7 12

brownlad wrote: »

Guns are not the issue . If i had a daughter or a son and this happened , I would do the exact same. Imagine, your wife and infant daughter in the car. You and your two sons pushing the car 50 yards from the house, and some idiot after downing 10 beers, perfectly in your sight plows your boys, Tyre riding over their body, their death was not instant , they are in indescribable pain, but a while later they die. All this before your eyes .

What do you do, you have a gun close by what do you do. Sit and wait, for the police, with your head in your palm?

For me, i will shoot till i have no bullets left. An eye for an eye in this case, is fine!

Would you shoot me dead if I mowed down your children while completely sober?

"10 beers" also, you should probably share your evidence with the jury of this mans trial.

FrostyJack

MadsL wrote: »

I didn't. That was exactly my point, we trust citizens to behave properly, if they do not then we punish accordingly.

If you trust them why is crime such a problem (especially gun crime), "punish accordingly" as in shoot them?

MadsL wrote:

Pure conjecture. Death by tyre iron would have probably been many people's reaction.

This is also pure conjecture, where does it say you have to beat someones head in if they kill members of your family? If it was a tyre iron someone could have stepped in and stopped him or the driver might have been able to defend himself. Against a shotgun, he had no chance.

MadsL wrote:

If you would like to show me that people do not get raped and ambushed then mockery is appropriate, until then gun ownership is a legal course of action, and if legal then non of your judgemental nonsense is relevant.

I never said it doesn't, you said that I was deluded to think I could not be shot for someones imagined slight, having lived in America for several months, the nightly gun murders say different.

MadsL wrote:

What level of "shock" would be acceptable in your view?

Not Hollywood hysterical shock, but a realisation of the events that just happened, not "oh funny story, I just shot someone today".

MadsL wrote:

She didn't cry when her mother died.

You are not putting her across that well, I would stop referencing her if I was you, remember she carries a gun and has no qualms about using it

Bruthal

wolfpawnat wrote: »

It definitely adds something extra to the trial. If the young man got out of the car and was showing signs of drunkenness, speech slurring and the like a grieving parent would go into an uncontrollable rage IMO. Think about it, your two beautiful children dead in front of you, and then you realise they would not be dead if this man had not been drinking. Hand on my heart, I cannot guarantee there would be enough of him left to ID. I can honestly say I would be in no right mind to be responsible for my actions.

Ìt is possible the parent would have shot the other driver anyway, without them having or showing any signs of having been drinking.

And it is possible the accident would have happened with no drink involved too. Accidents dont only happen to intoxicated drivers.

FrostyJack

Manic Moran wrote: »

Argument made by Illinois in a recent 7th Circuit Court of Appeals case. The court basically pointed out that Illinois had no statistical proof of that coming to pass (despite 41 States allowing concealed carry permits to anyone who passes basic requirements, and another 8 on a discrentionary basis), and that because of that lack of proof, the State couldn't go and just outright ban people from carrying in public.

Point taken, but if that wasn't a factor then who is doing all the shootings? Poor people who can't afford a permit? On a side note, why do you think gun crime is so high in the States compared to the likes of Canada which has a similar gun/hunting culture?

Weathering

I like turtles

Weathering

and fish

7 7 12

FrostyJack wrote: »

Point taken, but if that wasn't a factor then who is doing all the shootings? Poor people who can't afford a permit? On a side note, why do you think gun crime is so high in the States compared to the likes of Canada which has a similar gun/hunting culture?

Canadians are mostly descended from French, British

Americans are mostly descended from British, Irish, Italian, Polish, German, Mexican, African, Chinese, Indian

Where was I going with this, forget now..

MadsL

FrostyJack wrote: »

If you trust them why is crime such a problem (especially gun crime), "punish accordingly" as in shoot them?

Where did I say that?

This is also pure conjecture, where does it say you have to beat someones head in if they kill members of your family? If it was a tyre iron someone could have stepped in and stopped him or the driver might have been able to defend himself. Against a shotgun, he had no chance.

Have a read of some of the reactions here - Am I that far off judging many people's reactions?

I never said it doesn't, you said that I was deluded to think I could not be shot for someones imagined slight, having lived in America for several months, the nightly gun murders say different.

I'd say it is rare to be shot for some imagined slight about the cut of your jib, even in Texas.

Not Hollywood hysterical shock, but a realisation of the events that just happened, not "oh funny story, I just shot someone today".

You are asking for an emotional reaction in order to somehow "justify" the experience. I'm being straightforward, some people put themselves in a position where they almost ask to be shot, don't make me have to feel sorry for those people in order to validate some perceived 'oh, but that's a human life' sensibility. Remember I do actually know someone who has had to shoot someone on top of her at point blank range.

You are not putting her across that well, I would stop referencing her if I was you, remember she carries a gun and has no qualms about using it

You think less of her because she doesn't respond to events the same way as you do? Forgive me if I don't sugarcoat life for you, but there it is.

Manic Moran

FrostyJack wrote: »

Point taken, but if that wasn't a factor then who is doing all the shootings? Poor people who can't afford a permit?

Or people who can't get a permit for other reasons, such as a criminal background, or even those who just don't arse themselves to go through the process. Persons who have taken the trouble to get a permit have been shown to be statistically less likely to commit a crime than the general population. Cities like Chicago and DC are famous for being relatively high gun violence areas, with precisely 0 private citizens authorised to actually carry a gun. Whoever's carrying them, they are not permit holders.

On a side note, why do you think gun crime is so high in the States compared to the likes of Canada which has a similar gun/hunting culture?

I think gang culture has to be the top of the list.

MadsL

Manic Moran wrote: »

I think gang culture has to be the top of the list.

With the "war on drugs" 2nd?

BizzyC

I'd probably do the same in that situation.
Both your children gone in an instance thanks to some idiot that decided to drive while drunk...

It doesn't make murder right, but at that point the man's life is already destroyed.
Going to prison would be the least of his worries.

Ray Palmer

MadsL wrote: »

I've just given you a very real reason.

remote road, broken down, woman alone.

That isn't a real reason because nothing happened! You suggested something that could have happened and somehow a gun would prevent it. Apparently owning a gun increases your chances of being shot and likely by your own gun.
What is dangerous is driving in high heels. You should familiarise your self with any car you drive. Basics like where the spare is.

MadsL

Ray Palmer wrote: »

That isn't a real reason because nothing happened!

1. Do you have a smoke alarm? 2. Has your house ever burnt down?

You suggested something that could have happened and somehow a gun would prevent it.

Could a smoke alarm prevent your death in a fire? Can you prove it?

Apparently owning a gun increases your chances of being shot and likely by your own gun.

Tired old chestnut. based on a flawed data set unreleased for 4 years after the study.

What is dangerous is driving in high heels.

Any evidence for your sexism

You should familiarise your self with any car you drive. Basics like where the spare is.

She did. She also purchased Roadside Assistance. Like thousands of people do in the real world.

FrostyJack

Manic Moran wrote: »

I think gang culture has to be the top of the list.

Possibly, most of the shootings around where I was, were shootings outside strip clubs, fender benders and family fueds, and I was surrounded by poor neighbourhoods. This is slightly anecdotal as I am going by news reports and not actual police data. They have gangs and drug wars in Canada too though so that cannot be the whole story.

FrostyJack

MadsL wrote: »

1
Tired old chestnut. based on a flawed data set unreleased for 4 years after the study.

Oscar Pistorius is in the news today, why is that?

MadsL wrote:

She did. She also purchased Roadside Assistance. Like thousands of people do in the real world.

Roadside assistance for the middle of no where, with no way to contact said assistance. Did she buy magic beans on the way there too?

MadsL

FrostyJack wrote: »

Possibly, most of the shootings around where I was, were shootings outside strip clubs, fender benders and family fueds, and I was surrounded by poor neighbourhoods. This is slightly anecdotal as I am going by news reports and not actual police data. They have gangs and drug wars in Canada too though so that cannot be the whole story.

Not to anything like the extent of the US in fairness.

FrostyJack

BizzyC wrote: »

I'd probably do the same in that situation.
Both your children gone in an instance thanks to some idiot that decided to drive while drunk...

It doesn't make murder right, but at that point the man's life is already destroyed.
Going to prison would be the least of his worries.

He has an 8 year old daughter and a wife, which he will likely never see again, his life was only totally destroyed when he murdered the driver.

MadsL

FrostyJack wrote: »

Roadside assistance for the middle of no where, with no way to contact said assistance. Did she buy magic beans on the way there too?

You know ad hominem attacks on my wife's situation don't invalidate my point, right? They also have these old fashioned things called payphones in the US. But feel free to continue to call my wife an idiot - see if it improves your sense of moral superiority.

MadsL

FrostyJack wrote: »

Oscar Pistorius is in the news today, why is that??

So is this sheriff's deputy, why is that?
http://www.capitalgazette.com/news/region/deputy-fatally-shoots-burglar-in-his-own-home/article_8bbf3c2e-227a-5df5-96b4-ec9f0259b82b.html

What was your point again? Oh, you didn't have one, just extrapolating from single examples. Let's trade those for a while and watch how it gets us nowhere.

FrostyJack

MadsL wrote: »

You know ad hominem attacks on my wife's situation don't invalidate my point, right? They also have these old fashioned things called payphones in the US. But feel free to continue to call my wife an idiot - see if it improves your sense of moral superiority.

I never called your wife an idiot, you stated that it was prudant that she got Road Side assistance and carried a gun, I just pointed out the flaw in the idea and it is guliable to believe Hertz or whatever company can fly out in the middle of no where in no time at all to rescue her. Payphones aren't every mile unless this is a unique stretch of road, so she would have to walk miles to reach one in her high heels and a business suit. It would have been more sensible to pack a pack a bag with supplies and clothing, then a gun. You are the one who alluded to the danger she was in, no one else did.

What was your point again? Oh, you didn't have one, just extrapolating from single examples. Let's trade those for a while and watch how it gets us nowhere.

We don't need to trade examples, as one accidental case is one too many.

Ray Palmer

MadsL wrote: »

1. Do you have a smoke alarm? 2. Has your house ever burnt down?


Could a smoke alarm prevent your death in a fire? Can you prove it?


Tired old chestnut. based on a flawed data set unreleased for 4 years after the study.


Any evidence for your sexism


She did. She also purchased Roadside Assistance. Like thousands of people do in the real world.

Yes I have a smoke alarm. But an example of how it kept me safe would involve it going off and saving my life. Your real world scenario didn't show a gun keeping anyone safe. Understand the logic and the issue with your example.
Unaware of the information on gun owners was in dispute but I did say " apparently"
Men can wear high heels all they like but when driving nobody should. It is both common sense and advised against. Nothing sexist and my wife changes her shoes to drive.
I thought you said she couldn't find the spare as it was under the car. If not sorry.

So real risk versus perceived risk is something you should look up.

Heel slipping or breaking while driving versus the chance a weirdo appearing ready to rape or murder and a gun actually being of use.

MadsL

FrostyJack wrote: »

I never called your wife an idiot,

Snide comments about magic beans are not exactly complimentary.

you stated that it was prudant that she got Road Side assistance and carried a gun, I just pointed out the flaw in the idea and it is guliable to believe Hertz or whatever company can fly out in the middle of no where in no time at all to rescue her.

Fly? You do know how Roadside assistance works? Do I have to explain it to you? The companies use local tow companies under contract - it is supposed to be a national service.

Payphones aren't every mile unless this is a unique stretch of road, so she would have to walk miles to reach one in her high heels and a business suit.

She actually had a change of clothes and shoes in her bag in the trunk. But she was hardly going to strip off there and then.

Calling roadside assistance is always going to be the safest thing to do, while she waits she is vulnerable on her own, wouldn't you say? Therefore the gun is a precaution for a woman waiting alone on a dark rural road, a sensible precaution wouldn't you agree?

It would have been more sensible to pack a pack a bag with supplies and clothing, then a gun. You are the one who alluded to the danger she was in, no one else did.

So a woman waiting alone on a dark rural road is not vulnerable in your view. What world do you live in, if not the real one?

We don't need to trade examples, as one accidental case is one too many.

I see. You recognise it gets us nowhere.
One case is too many? Is that a plea for a ban I hear?
Or are you saying one drunk driving case is too many and we should, ban alcohol perhaps - oh wait, we tried that.

slavetothegrind

this has derailled enough and gotten far too personal about madsl's wife.

If she was a mechanic in the latest nike running shoes with a satchel containing a survival suit and 10 days food and water and a satellite phone i think she would still be found to be at fault!

The nub of it is she is safer with a gun, assuming she can use it effectively.

Why people assume all gun owners are itching to shoot someone is beyond me.

Many parts of america are scary remote, i would prefer my wife was armed in that circumstance too.

i sincerely hope she never has to consider drawing it as i am sure does she and madsl

On the op, very sad. Terrible. Gun irrelevant, if he didn't have one it is likely he would have found another means if that was his intent.

FrostyJack

MadsL wrote: »

Fly? You do know how Roadside assistance works? Do I have to explain it to you? The companies use local tow companies under contract - it is supposed to be a national service.

Yes and they have tow trucks every ten miles on every stretch of road? What if the nearest tow truck is busy? She could be there over an hour? What is she walks for miles to a pay phone, makes the call and returns back to car only for the tow truck company to mess up and forget about her? I would not be putting my life on the line based on someone else like that.

MadsL wrote:

She actually had a change of clothes and shoes in her bag in the trunk. But she was hardly going to strip off there and then.

You do know women can get changed sitting down in a car don't you, it doesn't have to be like a stripper. Takes only a second.

MadsL wrote:

herefore the gun is a precaution for a woman waiting alone on a dark rural road, a sensible precaution wouldn't you agree?

I would conceed there are worse things she could carry, but I don't put the same weight behind it you seem to do as for saving her life/protecting herself. As stated before when will she draw it? Do all criminals go around like they are in an 80's action movie swinging a flick knife. More than likely they will come with smiles. (pun not intended)

MadsL wrote:

So a woman waiting alone on a dark rural road is not vulnerable in your view. What world do you live in, if not the real one?

I didn't say that, but I don't think it is as bad as breaking down in Afganistan.

MadsL wrote:

Or are you saying one drunk driving case is too many and we should, ban alcohol perhaps

Same tired argument, it is not like with like. Alcohol has an other purpose other than killing people. The same goes for cars, hammers, tyre irons, golf clubs etc. Guns only have one purpose, unless you change the channel on your tv like the sterotypical pro-gun Texas guy from the Simpsons.

FrostyJack

slavetothegrind wrote: »

On the op, very sad. Terrible. Gun irrelevant, if he didn't have one it is likely he would have found another means if that was his intent.

As I stated before "other means" could have been countered, an angry man with a shotgun cannot, unless you have a gun and the circle of gun violence continues ad nauseum.

MadsL

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Yes I have a smoke alarm. But an example of how it kept me safe would involve it going off and saving my life. Your real world scenario didn't show a gun keeping anyone safe. Understand the logic and the issue with your example.

You genuinely cannot see how a woman parked alone on a remote rural road having a firearm increases her safety? Cannot? Or wilfully refuse to acknowledge it because of your anti-gun stance?

Unaware of the information on gun owners was in dispute but I did say " apparently"

An anti-gun meme trotted out all the time to be honest.

Men can wear high heels all they like but when driving nobody should. It is both common sense and advised against. Nothing sexist and my wife changes her shoes to drive.

Oh for god's sake - she's not a dolly bird - these were not six inch stillettos; I'm talking about short business heels, fine for driving and general walking in an urban environment. Not so good for grubbing about under a car.

I thought you said she couldn't find the spare as it was under the car. If not sorry.

She looked for a spare, could not find it; then checked the pressure 30lbs/45lbs as she had a pressure gauge with her she put in from her own car (she's not that much of an idiot) then rang roadside assistance (was shocked that they could not provide cover - I think the operator was an idiot and though she was in Mexico, not New Mexico and then rang the rental company. Rental company told her to limp it in - stupid advice in my view - but she, as I would have done drove it to them; I'd have happily run it to the rims if they are that noncompetant and rude not to drive out to her and switch cars.

All of which is irrelevant.

My point was simple.
A woman waiting alone on a dark rural road is vulnerable, An armed woman waiting alone on a dark rural road is comparatively less vulnerable, wouldn't you say? That was my point.

So real risk versus perceived risk is something you should look up.

Condescension is something you should look up, while you are there look up manners.

Heel slipping or breaking while driving versus the chance a weirdo appearing ready to rape or murder and a gun actually being of use.

You are an expert on women's heels now, who knew?

MadsL

FrostyJack wrote: »

Yes and they have tow trucks every ten miles on every stretch of road? What if the nearest tow truck is busy? She could be there over an hour? What is she walks for miles to a pay phone, makes the call and returns back to car only for the tow truck company to mess up and forget about her? I would not be putting my life on the line based on someone else like that.

Well I guess it would help in that situation if you had something, I dunno, that could be used in a defensive way whilst you are waiting. Like a, ermm, tip of my tongue...ahh. Gun?

You do know women can get changed sitting down in a car don't you, it doesn't have to be like a stripper. Takes only a second.

Oh dear god..did we get to this level of detail..facepalm.

I would conceed there are worse things she could carry, but I don't put the same weight behind it you seem to do as for saving her life/protecting herself.

I'll remind you of why I gave this example. Someone questioned why anyone would carry a gun in a car. I gave this example, and said it was a valid reason. Which you just conceded.

All this detail about heels and spare tyres is a smokescreen from accepting that this is a valid reason.

As stated before when will she draw it?

When she needs to.

Do all criminals go around like they are in an 80's action movie swinging a flick knife. More than likely they will come with smiles. (pun not intended)

She's not dumb enough to open her door - if and when someone tries to smash their way into the car, she has an effective defence. Someone even tries the door handle without her permission and she shows the gun; likely result is they drive away.

I didn't say that, but I don't think it is as bad as breaking down in Afganistan.

Of course it isn't. But her carrying is legal in this State and many others. You don't get to decide if she should have it, the law does.

Same tired argument, it is not like with like. Alcohol has an other purpose other than killing people. The same goes for cars, hammers, tyre irons, golf clubs etc. Guns only have one purpose, unless you change the channel on your tv like the sterotypical pro-gun Texas guy from the Simpsons.

If you can't find a purpose for a gun other than self-defence, then try thinking extra extra hard. It's really not that much of a problem.

BattleCorp

FrostyJack wrote: »

He has an 8 year old daughter and a wife, which he will likely never see again, his life was only totally destroyed when he murdered the driver.

Good job you are not the judge and jury. You'd have him hanged, drawn and quartered by now. Most of us agree with the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

We don't even know if he did it.

And if he did it, it's up to a court to decide if it was murder, manslaughter, temporary insanity or even justifiable homicide.

Every killing isn't necessarily murder.

ITS_A_BADGER

jesus i dunno how you would call this, his two kids killed, talk about grief! Duno what to make of him shooting the guy, you can't really justify anyone talking someone else's life, was the driver drunk in the first place, no one knows that only the father that shot him before he could be arrested and tested. hearts will rule the head in this case i think

MadsL

BattleCorp wrote: »

Good job you are not the judge and jury. You'd have him hanged, drawn and quartered by now. Most of us agree with the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

We don't even know if he did it.

And if he did it, it's up to a court to decide if it was murder, manslaughter, temporary insanity or even justifiable homicide.

Every killing isn't necessarily murder.

According to the slain boys’ parents, someone wrote a message on Facebook accusing Cindy Barajas of shooting Banda.

Guy could actually have gone to the house - got his gun before witnesses - and then back to the scene - in order to protect his wife from being charged.

Bruthal

BattleCorp wrote: »

Good job you are not the judge and jury. You'd have him hanged, drawn and quartered by now. Most of us agree with the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

This case already seems to have had a judge jury and executioner in it, without any trial.

BattleCorp

FrostyJack wrote: »

Same tired argument, it is not like with like. Alcohol has an other purpose other than killing people. The same goes for cars, hammers, tyre irons, golf clubs etc. Guns only have one purpose, unless you change the channel on your tv like the sterotypical pro-gun Texas guy from the Simpsons.

Ah here, I have to take issue with this comment.

I do target shooting. My guns aren't used for killing. They are just used to put holes in pieces of paper. Just because something was originally designed for killing, it doesn't mean that it is it's only purpose.

Viagra was originally supposed to be a heart medication but they found a better use for it.

FrostyJack

BattleCorp wrote: »

Ah here, I have to take issue with this comment.

I do target shooting. My guns aren't used for killing. They are just used to put holes in pieces of paper. Just because something was originally designed for killing, it doesn't mean that it is it's only purpose.

Viagra was originally supposed to be a heart medication but they found a better use for it.

Buy an air rifle I would grant you that if you were willing to leave gun at range or gun club. As I have stated before I love shooting but if it is a choice of lunatics having them as well as me, I would prefere no one has them.

BattleCorp wrote:

We don't even know if he did it.

Everyone is summising he did it, I was saying "if he did it", he is a murderer. The wife and other family members are under investigation too. I don't believe in the death penalty for the very reason judges and jury's can be wrong or corrupted. This isn't a straightforward case by any means even if it is proven beyond doubt he was the shooter. Whatever the outcome it will not be good.

MadsL

FrostyJack wrote: »

Buy an air rifle I would grant you that if you were willing to leave gun at range or gun club. As I have stated before I love shooting but if it is a choice of lunatics having them as well as me, I would prefere no one has them.

Except the 'choice' you are asking for is for the lunatics to have them, and the law-abiding to be prevented from having them. Not quite the same.

BattleCorp

FrostyJack wrote: »

Buy an air rifle I would grant you that if you were willing to leave gun at range or gun club. As I have stated before I love shooting but if it is a choice of lunatics having them as well as me, I would prefere no one has them.

I'm not in agreement with you. I don't believe in punishing well behaved licence holders by removing their firearms from them just because there are lunatics out there.

Lunatics will get their hands on guns if they want them. It's the same with criminals. They get their hands on guns illegally and don't give a fcuk about whatever laws are in place.

And as for leaving a gun at a range. Even the Gardai think that leaving guns at remote shooting ranges is a very very bad idea.

BattleCorp

FrostyJack wrote: »

As I have stated before I love shooting but if it is a choice of lunatics having them as well as me, I would prefere no one has them.

Just another thing, how would you giving up your gun/s stop a lunatic from getting one?

FrostyJack

MadsL wrote: »

Except the 'choice' you are asking for is for the lunatics to have them, and the law-abiding to be prevented from having them. Not quite the same.

How about prevent everyone from havomg them? America maybe considered a lost cause because of the number of guns already out there, but surely to do nothing or to add more guns is not the solution.

BattleCorp wrote:

Lunatics will get their hands on guns if they want them. It's the same with criminals. They get their hands on guns illegally and don't give a fcuk about whatever laws are in place.

This is the situation in Ireland and dispite the media sensationalising it, gun crime isn't rampant here. If someone really wants a gun they could probably get one legally or illegally, but the vast majority don't. Most road rage incidents don't result in a gun being produced, where in the US it is a real possibilty as it is at hand, legally held or not. You could be disqualified for whatever reason from owning a legally held firearm and then just walk over to your brother/mother/girlfriends house and pick up theirs as in the Sandy Hook case.

BattleCorp wrote:

Lunatics will get their hands on guns if they want them. It's the same with criminals. They get their hands on guns illegally and don't give a fcuk about whatever laws are in place.

Didn't think of that angle, I was assuming the place would be secure. Maybe leave half the gun there or something would be a way around that.

BattleCorp wrote:

Just another thing, how would you giving up your gun/s stop a lunatic from getting one?

Everyone gives them up not just you, obviously if only legally held firearms in America are given up that still leaves probably a million, if not more out there. They could start by stopping selling them or at least reduce who they are selling them to. There is no quick fix or correct answer for the moment. Panic buying and arming yourself to the teeth is not the answer.

Manic Moran

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You suggested something that could have happened and somehow a gun would prevent it. Apparently owning a gun increases your chances of being shot and likely by your own gun.

Owning a gun also increases your chances of using one to defend yourself, however. It's a judgement call for the prospective owner. Personally, I'm confident enough of my firearm safety and skill that I'll take that balance as being in my favour.

FrostyJack wrote: »

How about prevent everyone from havomg them? America maybe considered a lost cause because of the number of guns already out there, but surely to do nothing or to add more guns is not the solution.

How do you set about preventing everyone from having one? Even if you could actually pass a ban, which isn't going to happen. Doing nothing isn't a solution. Removing all guns is impossible. Where does that leave you?

Most road rage incidents don't result in a gun being produced, where in the US it is a real possibilty as it is at hand, legally held or not.

Most don't in the US either, though I agree it is a greater possibility. Still, the phrase "an armed society is a polite society" probably came around for a reason.

Everyone gives them up not just you, obviously if only legally held firearms in America are given up that still leaves probably a million, if not more out there.

On past experience, that's a little wishful. Attempts at simple registration, let alone relinquishment have failed repeatedly in both the US and Canada.

Panic buying and arming yourself to the teeth is not the answer.

Agreed on panic buying. I don't see a problem with being armed to the teeth, however.

Ray Palmer

MadsL wrote: »

You genuinely cannot see how a woman parked alone on a remote rural road having a firearm increases her safety? Cannot? Or wilfully refuse to acknowledge it because of your anti-gun stance?

Want to point out my anti-gun stance. I have a problem with your logic as you haven't given an example of a gun actually giving protection.
I could wear a helmet while walking the streets and increase my safety. The problem is that the risk is not that great. By being alone in a rural area you aren't suddenly in danger.

MadsL wrote: »

An anti-gun meme trotted out all the time to be honest.

Looked it up and it is not just one study but I'll agree to disagree.

MadsL wrote: »

Oh for god's sake - she's not a dolly bird - these were not six inch stillettos; I'm talking about short business heels, fine for driving and general walking in an urban environment. Not so good for grubbing about under a car.

Nothing wrong with heels they just aren't suitible to drive in. Not sure how they prevent anybody from getting a spare out but if you say they are then more reason not to wear the driving. A flat is more likely than a murder/rapist appearing.

MadsL wrote: »

She looked for a spare, could not find it; then checked the pressure 30lbs/45lbs as she had a pressure gauge with her she put in from her own car (she's not that much of an idiot) then rang roadside assistance (was shocked that they could not provide cover - I think the operator was an idiot and though she was in Mexico, not New Mexico and then rang the rental company. Rental company told her to limp it in - stupid advice in my view - but she, as I would have done drove it to them; I'd have happily run it to the rims if they are that noncompetant and rude not to drive out to her and switch cars.

So when I said she should familiarise herself with a car and you said she did you were wrong. She didn't know where the spare was.

MadsL wrote: »

My point was simple.
A woman waiting alone on a dark rural road is vulnerable, An armed woman waiting alone on a dark rural road is comparatively less vulnerable, wouldn't you say? That was my point.

No I don't think so as the risk would be negligible anyway. Driving with unsuitible shoes is more dangerous I would say.

MadsL wrote: »

Condescension is something you should look up, while you are there look up manners.


You are an expert on women's heels now, who knew?

LOL manners, hello kettle.
Not an expert on heels but the understand physics and mechanics.
Lot os people percieve dangers incorrectly such as driving their kids to school rather than let them walk. It is more dangerous to have them in the car but people percive dangers like abductions which are extremely rare as a higher risk. You want to belive she is safer with a gun and it is your right but you have been unamble to give an actual real world example where having a gun has actually been of use. That is and remains my point. You assumed I have an anti-gun stance and have either ignore or misunderstood my point. I get your point but it isn't an example of the gun protecting anybody just how it makes you feel it is safer. Not the same thing.

shampoosuicide

we don't even know the guy was drunk. situation like that it may even be technically more the father's fault than anyone else's. if the truck broke down he should have indicated to cars behind in some way. if it's a 'dark rural road' this could have easily happened whether drink driving was involved or not.

shampoosuicide

also half this thread seems to be about something else.

Bruthal

shampoosuicide wrote: »

we don't even know the guy was drunk. situation like that it may even be technically more the father's fault than anyone else's. if the truck broke down he should have indicated to cars behind in some way. if it's a 'dark rural road' this could have easily happened whether drink driving was involved or not.

Yea id say the possibility is that any driver who had hit them with that outcome would have been shot. Did the father have hazards on at least while pushing the car? Pushing a car on a road in the dark would seem a dangerous task.

MadsL

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Want to point out my anti-gun stance. I have a problem with your logic as you haven't given an example of a gun actually giving protection.
I could wear a helmet while walking the streets and increase my safety. The problem is that the risk is not that great. By being alone in a rural area you aren't suddenly in danger.

A problem with my logic you say? By your logic, my choice (in this State I have a choice) to wear or not wear a motorcycle helmet would be a tough one, as by your logic there is no increased protection in wearing a helmet because nothing happened to cause me to lose control and crash. I have to crash the bike to satisfy your test that wearing a helmet is safer.

Your refusal to accept that someone capable of defending themeselves is safer than someone unable to defend themseleves is bizarre to say the least. If it doesn't come from an anti-gun stance, then what possible basis can you have for not accepting something as basic as the difference between being armed and unarmed.

Nothing wrong with heels they just aren't suitible to drive in.

All heels? Even low cuban-style ones? I drive in cowboy boots all the time, never had a problem. Just women's heels is it?

Not sure how they prevent anybody from getting a spare out but if you say they are then more reason not to wear the driving.

How is this even relevant to the main point of the example.

A flat is more likely than a murder/rapist appearing.

Where did I say it wasn't?

So when I said she should familiarise herself with a car and you said she did you were wrong. She didn't know where the spare was.

She can read. It is in the manual. How is this relevant again?

No I don't think so as the risk would be negligible anyway. Driving with unsuitible shoes is more dangerous I would say.

I see. You think the risk is neligible. But you acknowledge the risk - thank you. Now when that unusual event happens, who is less vulnerable? As I asked previously is a unarmed woman waiting alone on a dark rural road is more vulnerable than an armed woman waiting alone on a dark rural road?

Take your time.

LOL manners, hello kettle.
Not an expert on heels but the understand physics and mechanics.
Lot os people percieve dangers incorrectly such as driving their kids to school rather than let them walk. It is more dangerous to have them in the car but people percive dangers like abductions which are extremely rare as a higher risk.

...and nothing to do with the point I made.

You want to belive she is safer with a gun and it is your right but you have been unamble to give an actual real world example where having a gun has actually been of use.

Are you for real? Guns are used in self-defensive situations every day of the week in the US, self-defensive use incidences have been put as high as 2 million events a year (the Kleck study) or around 250,000 to 370,000 according to Hemenway. Either way, guns are used defensively in the US. Each incident is a real world example.

That is and remains my point. You assumed I have an anti-gun stance and have either ignore or misunderstood my point. I get your point but it isn't an example of the gun protecting anybody just how it makes you feel it is safer. Not the same thing.

So a smoke alarm protects without the house burning down? A motorcycle helmet protects even if the bike isn't crashed. But a gun only is a protection if something actually happens? And my logic is faulty?

In fact that's you proving my original point. Someone asked why someone would have a gun in a car. I gave this reason about a woman alone, broken down, on a remote rural road. You have just shown why they would have that gun with a good reason for it, if they fel safer, so be it.

However, everything else, heels, tyres, breakdown assist is a smokescreen because really you do not want to admit that the gun provides some measure of protection (X) against a risk (Y) - now we can argue all day about the relative values of X and Y - but the fact remains they exist. Or do you want to deny the existence of violent crime?

You do not get to decide if X is allowed because the law says here carrying a firearm in your vehicle (as an extension of your property) is perfectly legal. And you do not get to decide if Y is a threat because the assessment of the threat is up to the owner of the vehicle, not you. So frankly, argue against it all you want, at the end of the day it isn't your decision.

Ray Palmer

MadsL
You have a problem understanding.
1) I didn't say a helmet while on a motor bike I said WALKING!
2) Given all the example you say their are you have yet to describe and actual event whereby having a gun actually saved somebody
3) Yes cuban heels are dangerous.
4)You said she couldn't find the wheel. She either didn't read the manual and familiarise herself with the car. You can't have it both ways. If it was so easy then she should have found the wheel.
5)Yes a risk but as I said there is a risk walking down the street that a helemet could make it safer. Doesn't maker it sensible
6)I have said it is up to you to have a gun or not. I am not taking that away
7) AGAIN you thinking it is safer does not double quadruple or multiple the safety in any great measure if the risk is small to start with.

You are not giving an example of a gun actually protecting somebody you are stating it as a fact. Fine if you belive that it ISN'T and example.

Fire alarm example would be. I was in bed and the alarm went off and I got out of bed and the house and I was saved as a result.

NOT I have an fire alarm in my house and therfore I am safer from fire. That is a statement about fire alarms.

That is my logic and how examples work. You can ignore everything else but understand an example and how to give one.