I recognize that the incident didn’t “happen to him.” He made a choice to pick up a gun of some kind and shoot up the ex-gf’s car. I don’t choose to do such things, even though I’ve owned guns for over forty years and been employed in jobs where I was armed.
I recognize that I make my own decisions and you make your own. You do make your own decisions, don’t you?
I’m glad you two don’t have firearms and live in the same town.
That’s a Boolean AND there. 
I’ve long suspected that you weren’t allowed around sharp objects, guns or anything that might be considered dangerous. However, I never guessed that the prohibition was self-inflicted.
Slee
Have you ever been really really pissed? And are you human?
I have been extremely and devastatingly pissed a number of times, including at my husband. Never once did it even cross my mind to get one of my guns and shoot anyone or anything.
Okay, if you say so. Did you know how you would react beforehand? And how could anyone else have known how you’d react?
You ask a lot of questions you seem to think are insightful. How about you illustrate your point with examples from yor personal life that will show all of us how dangerously unstable and untrustworthy you are?
The question you’re avoiding is: How can anyone else be sure they can trust *you *with a gun?
How can anyone be sure another person can be trusted at all?
The question you keep avoiding is why your lack of self-control should result in my restriction.
Because, as you’ve just now admitted, there is no way for anyone to be sure you can be trusted with one.
Is this a difficult concept?
By your reasoning, how can anyone be trusted around anyone else, with anything? With a gun? With a knife? With a baseball bat? with a frying pan?
The only sure things are death and taxes. To suggest that firearms ownership should be eliminated because no given individual can be absolutely trusted with one is an absurdly extremist position.
Good thing nobody is asserting that, then.
It sounds like the first bad choice was opening his front door.
At the arraignment - “According to police, 10 shots hit the woman’s car and a rifle, a .22-caliber rifle cleaning kit, three magazines with live rounds and one empty one, were later recovered from the home.” His lawyer is stating that the ex was the aggressor.
I think I’m a little disappointed with finding it was a .22.
Scumpup wrote
And you responded:
You said, right there, that there is no way to be sure he can be trusted with a gun, and therefore he should be restricted from owning one.
Or were you thinking of some other meaning of the word “restriction,” like maybe he should only be allowed to own a gun on alternate Tuesdays?
The Truth About Guns, another anti-Democrat, Pro-gun site has a similar take, and the comments are insightful and thought-provoking. Particularly the first, from stateisevil * which leaves one in no doubt where he is coming from:
I’ve often thought about researching some of the backgrounds of Democrat senators in my state, Florida. Some of them were elected by some of the most feral and ignorant people on the planet and are all rabidly anti gun rights. One black female senator can barely speak, Arthenia Joyner (guess if she’s black or white).
However he did not strip naked in order to shoot her car, he was already naked when she caught him. There is a difference.
- Dunno which state. State of being ? State of Florida ? U.S. State of the Union ? State of the Art ?
Have you ever raped and strangled a toddler? If not, why not?
I found the original article that calls him “anti-gun.”
Here is the relevant bit:
He’s not going door-to-door taking guns away, but it seems fair to characterize him as an opponent of gun rights. One who keeps an assault rifle and spare clips of ammo, apparently within easy reach.
Perhaps he wants to be the only guy carrying.
Maybe he stripped naked because he didn’t want to be accused of concealed carry.
Regards,
Shodan