The poor little boy ought not to have died. That dude should have turned his lights off and laid low, like one does when you don’t want to hand out candy to kids.
I hope that his brother survives and this utter clown is tossed in prison for the remainder of his useless life.
I hope that’s not the case, because I think if it is, the gun rights advocates will just end up losing out. Gun ownership is diminishing and support for gun control is increasing, and each tragic event like this one creates more gun control supporters.
To the extent that the split really is irreconcilable, I think it’s largely the Second-Amendment rights rhetoric that has done it. If gun-rights advocates couldn’t cling to their bunker-and-barricades mentality based on the idea that gun ownership is a fundamental Constitutionally-guaranteed liberty, they’d have to make a more pragmatic, less defiant case for the value of legal gun ownership, and they wouldn’t scare people so much.
Mind you, I don’t approve of gun-control advocates misrepresenting facts about firearms to play on public fears, but you have to admit that conflating an automatic with a semi-automatic isn’t going to seem like a big deal to most non-gun-owners. Gun-rights advocates who describe such inaccuracy as “poisoning the well” beyond hope of reconciliation are likely to come across as somewhat unreasonable.
I still don’t get why we can’t make murder illegal and put all murderers in prison, regardless of what kind of weapon they used.
The 13th Century called and it wants its post back.
There is nothing in this thread to suggest we do otherwise. In point of fact, the gun-wielding moron in question has been charged with murder.
The print edition of today’s Atlanta Journal-Constitution has a McClatchy News Service piece on the story including the following paragraph:
So I wouldn’t read too much into what charges have been filed, or what charges the news are bothering to report have been filed–it’s possible the local prosecutors will stick Patrick with more charges later, but murder one is certainly sufficient to hold him and is presumably more important than any weapons charge, though they will probably pile on with those later. And it would appear that he was not in fact legally entitled to own a gun of any kind, “assault weapon” or no.
Look, this is the price you pay living in a country where the right to own weapons is constitutionally protected. I realize that this guy had his illegally, but a lot of people, with the backing of the Constitution have a serious hard-on for guns. Now the vast majority of gun owners are clearly not the problem. But then you’re going to have to have some loonies with guns as a mere matter of probability. The question is, do you think that the benefits of having such a gun-infused culture outweigh the little snafus like this that occur? Because our gun culture almost assures that it will happen.
Personally, I’d be all for getting rid of the Second Amendment, but I also realize that it will never happen. There’s no way we’re going to start trimming off the Bill of Rights. The only way we could be rid of that would be to just write a new Constitution from scratch. And then we’d still have a ton of them still lying around illegally. And even then if we got rid of them somehow, you’d still have this ridiculous gun-fetish culture still lying around too. So really I consider it a lost cause. Being a Democrat, I don’t really support any change with regards to gun laws. I completely disagree with the whole thing, but it’s so fucked that we might as well just give up.
You’re going to have nine-year old’s shooting their faces off with uzis and trick-or-treaters getting shot occasionally. I just hope it’s worth it for you guys who like to stroke that cold hard steel penis-enhancer. There’s no way we’re going to get those people to change their minds, so fuck it.
Yes. Thanks for the update.
In prison, he’ll be the Treat.
Now, this I don’t understand. AFAIK, the 2nd amendment (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”) isn’t there for self-defence, it was put in your constitution to prevent the government of the country being created from getting out of hand. Now, I’m pretty sure there isn’t any such thing, and the lack of anyone trying to depose the Bush administration would seem to support that theory. I’m pretty sure if someone went back in a time machine and said that this would never be used to overthrow the government, but would end up with everyone owning a gun as defence from everyone else with a gun, they’d have dropped it like a hot potato.
You know, I just don’t understand why something like this happens and a whole crowd of people rush to bemoan the “gun fetish” culture, drag out the ad homs and the penis metaphors, and start talking about how they wish guns could be banned; but a drunk driver mows down a mother and her 9-year-old son out trick-or-treating on the very same night, and there’s nary a peep. No outrage at the “alcohol culture” in our country. No whinging about the sad alcoholic creeps who oh-so-misguidedly cling to their right to imbibe and facilitate such inevitable tragedies. No sarcastic hopes that the booze fetishists think it’s worth it so they can keep stroking that cold hard bottle that lets them forget how tiny their penises are.
:dubious:
Well, one possible reason is that the sole purpose of a gun is to shoot things, whereas the sole purpose of a vehicle is not to mow down people.
While not treated exactly the same as “gun culture”, I think the presence of dry counties, and other such things, is a good representation of a similar outrage against “alcohol culture”.
That’s irrelevant. I wasn’t talking about cars, I was talking about booze. And how is the “sole purpose” of anything relevant anyway? Guns aren’t made to shoot children. Alcohol isn’t produced with the intent of causing fatal automobile accidents. But both things happen. Also, a few counties with outdated religious laws aren’t really a match for the venom often directed at gun owners. Not treated “exactly” the same as gun culture, eh? I don’t think I’ve ever seen a “why can’t we just ban the booze already” thread started in response to a drunk driving accident, but shooting deaths seem to produce such responses routinely. I think the blatant double standard should be pretty clear to anyone.
In case you couldn’t tell, though, I was being ironic. I don’t advocate restrictions on alcohol any more than I advocate restrictions on guns.
Maybe the kid was dressed as the Land Shark?
I was in the store today and looked through gun magazines. Lots of ads showing women drawing a gun on intruders, articles on what kind of gun is best for a “fire fight”, ads for expanding bullets that cause greater flesh wounds, and on and on. I didn’t see a single magazine for drunk drivers. I don’t remember seeing cardboard human silouettes at car shows for people to practice hitting or special accessories you can add to your car to make it more lethal.
Dan?
Where’s my gun?
Thanks for the update. So that invalidates my earlier assessment that nobody but the shooter is to blame here. This guy was in fact not legally entitled to possess a gun, and it’s a breakdown of law enforcement that he was able to obtain one.
That problem needs to be addressed first, before we start analyzing the pros and cons of legal gun ownership. The first priority is keeping guns out of the hands of persons who have been legally tagged as unfit to own them. Background check, background check, background check.
Guns = cars.
Appears in every gun thread.
Must be in the NRA manual…
To be honest, I’ve felt for a long time that gun ownership should be treated like car ownership. There should be paperwork and Gun Identification Numbers and registration before you can buy one. Don’t like the idea that the government knows who owns guns? Tough. Another part of the right to keep and bear arms, in addition to helping to make sure people could defend themselves against the government, was so that people who were called up to duty would already have guns that they knew how to use, because the government couldn’t afford to buy the guns at the time. So, I’m okay with the government knowing who owns all the legally-purchased guns.
Similarly to cars, if you want to actually use your gun, you should be required to take training and pass a test.
And finally, any misuse of guns or use of guns in the performance of a crime should be punished as heavily as possible.
re: the OP… Fuck. That guy better bargain hard to get thrown into solitary, or he’s not gonna last long in the slam.