Family calls shooting of car thief ‘senseless’

[Savy]

Ok well when you figure out a way to sort out all the social problems out there let me know. Trust me, I would rather live in Utopia as well.

http://www.skyscanner.net/flights/us...pril-2013.html

[BankItDrew]

How do you suppose a judge would view this incident if instead of pulling out his gun, the shooter pulled out his other keys for his other car, and ran the thief off the road to his death?

I get the impression that Americuh would frown upon the second scenerio more so than the original.

[Lukie]

http://www.skyscanner.net/flights/us...pril-2013.html

well played

[Lukie]

How do you suppose a judge would view this incident if instead of pulling out his gun, the shooter pulled out his other keys for his other car, and ran the thief off the road to his death?

I get the impression that Americuh would frown upon the second scenerio more so than the original.

Well, duh. How could one even remotely consider the second scenario to be personal defense or even defense of property? It obviously entails significant risk of personal injury and ensured destruction of property.

Most 'Muricans, myself included, wouldn't support the shooter's actions in the original scenario.

[Renton]

Most 'Muricans, myself included, wouldn't support the shooter's actions in the original scenario.

You might want to check the comments section on the news article.

[mrhappy333]

Don't steal = Don't get shot

[Lukie]

You might want to check the comments section on the news article.

article/video comments are the dredges of the internet lol. And I hate that freaking format where the most recent comments are at the top and there are various sub-topics underneath. And I do wonder how much of this is a vocal minority vs silent majority thing. Ok, enough excuses

I just skimmed through it real quick, and a lot of comments were basically the robber is scum of the earth and the world is a better place that he is dead. Here is an example of a quote like that:

sure, and its "senseless" to have someone like this roaming the streets. Again, with multiple convictions for car theft, assault with a deadly weapon, drug charges, how was this guy on the street? some as late as 2012?
Not saying a car is worth a life, but yes, people will shoot when you try and steal their stuff.
Look at this way, if the car is stolen, you could be threatening the owner's livelihood. How would they get to work? Can they afford to buy another one? are they insured? can they afford to rent a car for 30 days while insurance companies dick around and try not to pay? Do they need it to run sick family members for medical treatment?
the loss of a car could be a very real threat to someone's ability to continue to work, earn, live, eat, etc.

Might as well add that even if insured, typically you would have to pay a deductible. As I understand it, I personally would have to pay a $1,000 deductible and if not for having comprehensive, would be on the hook for the entire amount.

Like I said before, I don't think protecting property justifies taking a life. It isn't the nonchalant 'no big deal' that many here are making it out to be either. Maybe I underestimated the amount of people who thought this was a clean shot.

[MadMojoMonkey]

What I know (or at least I believe is true):
A huge number of families in rural America hunt for some (if not most) of the meat their family eats in a year. Trying to change a gun culture that is still a part of a family's sustenance is never going to happen. You can never convince that family that their guns are bad. Their guns feed them.

For the weekend target shooters, they do not ever keep their guns unlocked or near ammo except when they're at a regulated shooting range. They're not going to understand how their behavior is in any way a threat to anyone, and will not be swayed into teaching their kids that "guns are bad". They have probably already bought their kids their own guns to go shoot at the range with them.

For the guy who has gone through every required safety course and carries a gun everywhere he goes, changing his mind is laughable. He almost definitely owns a number of illegal weapons, is likely ex-military, and holds his guns with a reverence that will not falter. His guns are a huge part of his identity.

My opinion:
These 3 groups alone are large enough to keep the gun culture in America at a status quo. I can't conceive of a practical way to "changing the gun culture in America by teaching the kids". It could take an outbreak of vigilantism (or outright rebellion) on a national scale and the fallout and resolution of that conflict to change the way American's perceive domestic gun ownership.

[Lukie]

Don't steal = Don't get shot

Yeah, burglary and grand theft auto are very high risk ventures.

Based on the attitude in this thread, it seems like those would be extremely profitable and low risk over in Euroland. Why shouldn't somebody smash into your house and take your money and jewelry if there is no real deterrent? Personally I think doing that is very wrong and wouldn't do it regardless, but there are a great many people in the world who would do much worse things for much less money. So what stops them?

[WillburForce]

Haven't read all the posts above.

But in with regards the burglar who got killed. The homeowner who shot him had been lying in ambush - he had an unlicensed gun and was a nutter. That's murder.

Comes back to gun control....in London when you're burgled its highly unlikely they will have gun. It's even more unlikely that the home owner will (though most farms do I guess - but they're tightly regulated and should be locked away). There is no point in a burglar having a gun as it will just increase their jail time if caught and they're unlikely to ever have to use any force anyway.

I got burgled when I was in a few back, heard the door get jimmied - came downstairs and they legged it. Doesn't bear thinking about if we both had guns.

But fecking hell - if anyone thinks its anyway justified to kill someone over car theft you're an arsehole.

[WillburForce]

Yeah, burglary and grand theft auto are very high risk ventures.

Based on the attitude in this thread, it seems like those would be extremely profitable and low risk over in Euroland. Why shouldn't somebody smash into your house and take your money and jewelry if there is no real deterrent? Personally I think doing that is very wrong and wouldn't do it regardless, but there are a great many people in the world who would do much worse things for much less money. So what stops them?

I would imagine our violent/murder home intrusions are one hell of a lot lower than yours.

[spoonitnow]

No it's about common sense. If three gunmen break into my house, the last thing I want is to start a shooting because my family and I then have very little chance of survival. Besides, it's the night and we're sleeping so if it's after us they are, they'll probably be in our or the kid's room before I even have time to grab the gun.

Best defense imo if you are worried about that is to have a good alarm system linked to a security firm and a strong room with comms where you can lock yourself up while help arrives. That's exactly what companies having offices in high risk countries do. Your strong room doesn't need to be more than say a bathroom with a strong door. That and the alarm system, can't cost much more than a few assault weapons.

OK you can have a shotgun in the strong room as a last resort if you want.

I was cool with what you were saying until you used the term in the bold. It kind of gave away that you don't know shit about guns or gun laws.

[Lukie]

I would imagine our violent/murder home intrusions are one hell of a lot lower than yours.

Standard protocol here is that people who don't like guns compare violent crime stats between European countries (strict gun control) and USA (lax gun control).

People who shoot guns compare stats between Central American countries (strict gun control) vs USA (lax gun control)

Again there are tons of confounding variables which make the stats tell only part of the story at best. I know for a fact that homocide and firearm death is higher in the US than the UK; you don't need to tell me that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate

[spoonitnow]

For the guy who has gone through every required safety course and carries a gun everywhere he goes, changing his mind is laughable. He almost definitely owns a number of illegal weapons, is likely ex-military, and holds his guns with a reverence that will not falter. His guns are a huge part of his identity.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA WHAT?

God I'm getting such a fucking kick out of what these Eurotards think about people who carry guns.

Goddamn man. You people wonder why nobody takes you seriously when it comes to this shit.

[d0zer]

Based on the attitude in this thread, it seems like those would be extremely profitable and low risk over in Euroland. Why shouldn't somebody smash into your house and take your money and jewelry if there is no real deterrent? Personally I think doing that is very wrong and wouldn't do it regardless, but there are a great many people in the world who would do much worse things for much less money. So what stops them?

I didn't gather as much from this thread's attitude as you did...


The fundamental motivations behind home invasion are always more powerful than the deterrents are at dissuading the action. Going into someone's home is always full of risk, regardless of guns. The presence of guns would definitely be a stronger dissuading factor, but the decision is still going to be primarily motivated by whatever shit the f'n assholes want.

The real way to reduce home invasions is to have everyone in a comfortable enough situation that the risk/reward to rob people just isn't there. Stats are incomplete, heavily biased on both sides of the argument and largely inconclusive around gun ownership & safety, but socio-economic stats are pretty clear.

That being said, if I lived in a rough neighborhood in 'merica I just might be convinced to sleep next to a gun...

[d0zer]

I was cool with what you were saying until you used the term in the bold. It kind of gave away that you don't know shit about guns or gun laws.

assault weapons are the most dangerous of all the weapons, because unlike regular weapons: assault weapons can be used to assault people.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Are you calling me a Eurotard?
I've never left the USA except on a canoeing trip while in Boy Scouts where we were technically in Canada for about 1/3 of the 50 mile trek. It wasn't like we met any Canadians or even saw their buildings. Not even a moose.

Seriously, I'm not a part of the gun culture. I'm just trying to explain why I think the "teach dem kids" argument is not going to work. Domestic gun ownership in America is a deeply ingrained tradition, which will be stupendously hard to change.

Personally, I don't want a gun myself, so it would be more convenient for me if no one else had them. I can't see a way to change this, though, and certainly not one that would take advantage of my passion for physics and poker, so I kind of don't care to say if it's good or bad. I'll just sit the ethical fence on whether or not there should be guns and if so who should decide who gets to have them.

assault weapons are the most dangerous of all the weapons, because unlike regular weapons: assault weapons can be used to assault people.

[WillburForce]

Standard protocol here is that people who don't like guns compare violent crime stats between European countries (strict gun control) and USA (lax gun control).

People who shoot guns compare stats between Central American countries (strict gun control) vs USA (lax gun control)

Again there are tons of confounding variables which make the stats tell only part of the story at best. I know for a fact that homocide and firearm death is higher in the US than the UK; you don't need to tell me that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate

I think its hard to compare Central America with Europe. They may ban guns, but I don't think they have the political or police clout to enforce it, just look at Mexico (I think guns are banned???).

Over here if you're caught with a gun you go to prison for a long time.

My uncle is a farmer and his neighbor threatened to shoot him over some farming dispute, very heat of the moment (when I say threatened I mean he said along the lines of "You should get a gun shoved up your arse"). Neighbor got a suspended prison sentence and is banned from ever holding a gun licence.

Out of interest Lukie where do you stand on guns? Do you own one? You seem like a v intelligent and measured guy, so I'd be interested.

On a side note, I think we in Britain think of US as having the same sort of views as us because you speak the Engrish, but I think culturally and politically we're miles apart!

[BennyLaRue]

Poor + illegal economic opportunities = guns

Europe ≠ Central America

[WillburForce]

Poor + illegal economic opportunities = guns

Europe ≠ Central America

Benny makes a serious post. The world has officially ended.

[BennyLaRue]

I make lots of serious posts. I'm probably the smartest person on this board after Renton and Bankitdrew.

[surviva316]

The more people who do this the better. I want the thieves to have more risk, I'm just not willing to kill anyone myself. But other people, that's fine.

Do you think that when a judge convicts anyone of any crime, he should flip a 100-sided coin, and if it comes up 100, shoot the defendant?

[WillburForce]

I make lots of serious posts. I'm probably the smartest person on this board after Renton and Bankitdrew.

After a heroin addict and a bot. I rest my case.

[d0zer]

Do you think that when a judge convicts anyone of any crime, he should flip a 100-sided coin, and if it comes up 100, shoot the defendant?

Another great reality show idea!

[Lukie]

I think its hard to compare Central America with Europe. They may ban guns, but I don't think they have the political or police clout to enforce it, just look at Mexico (I think guns are banned???).

Over here if you're caught with a gun you go to prison for a long time.

My uncle is a farmer and his neighbor threatened to shoot him over some farming dispute, very heat of the moment (when I say threatened I mean he said along the lines of "You should get a gun shoved up your arse"). Neighbor got a suspended prison sentence and is banned from ever holding a gun licence.

Out of interest Lukie where do you stand on guns? Do you own one? You seem like a v intelligent and measured guy, so I'd be interested.

On a side note, I think we in Britain think of US as having the same sort of views as us because you speak the Engrish, but I think culturally and politically we're miles apart!

Thanks for the compliment.

If you can't compare crime stats between Central America and Europe, then you shouldn't be able to compare crime stats between Europe and the US, or US and Central America. Each has its own unique demographics, socioeconomics, and other considerations. As a generality it seems like the US is in the middle both in wealth disparity and crime, so directly comparing violent crime rates vs gun ownership seems unfair. Also it's one thing to start from a position where there guns are very heavily regulated and not accessible. Compare that to a scenario where there is already roughly 1 gun per person floating around.

I don't think what if anything I own really matters, but I don't live or work in a rough neighborhood, don't make myself a target or leave much valuable stuff laying around, and just generally live a low risk lifestyle. We'll say that my defense needs are not very high. I would feel a lot differently if I worked in the jewelry business or had a wife and kids to protect.

I consider myself to be fairly pro-gun. In any other country I would definitely be pro-gun, but the paradigm has shifted so much in this country and there are some types out there that I just can't support. I could go into more detail if you want but I went over some of the topics earlier in the thread.

[d0zer]

If you can't compare crime stats between Central America and Europe, then you shouldn't be able to compare crime stats between Europe and the US, or US and Central America. Each has its own unique demographics, socioeconomics, and other considerations

The difference is that western europe and america are both considered industrialized, "first-world" nations, and central/south america is either third-world or newly industrialized.

America is interesting because it's more 'capitalist' and less 'socialist' than the rest of the first-world, and one of the apparent byproducts of that is more socio-economic variability. More extreme rich, and more extreme poor, which will inevitably pad the crime stats.

[daviddem]

These 3 groups alone are large enough to keep the gun culture in America at a status quo. I can't conceive of a practical way to "changing the gun culture in America by teaching the kids". It could take an outbreak of vigilantism (or outright rebellion) on a national scale and the fallout and resolution of that conflict to change the way American's perceive domestic gun ownership.

When I was a kid, it was not mandatory to wear a seat belt while driving and nobody did. Then they made a law making it mandatory, campaigns to promote its use and started fining violators to spread the word. Nowadays I know hardly anyone who doesn't buckle up in their car and it has certainly become almost completely automatic for the younger generation.

When Bush wanted to go to war in Irak, the vast majority of the American people were not initially supporting his idea. He only had to use good ole' propaganda and spread a few lies to sway the opinion in his favor in a matter of months.

The point is, if you have the political will and power to change something -anything-, you can. You can make people believe hard as rock in their imaginary-friend-in-the-sky if you brainwash them properly when they are kids. You can get them to prostrate and talk to Him five times a day every single day of their life. You can even make a nation believe that Jews are bad and they should be marked, discriminated, deported, locked up in camps and exterminated. Anything.

You could start by not teaching kids that guns are "cool" or the standard mean of protecting oneself, but rather that using one against somebody should be a last resort necessary evil in totally extreme situations. And also teach them that deciding to use one in defense puts them at increased risk of getting shot themselves. And that their approach should be to be reluctant to owe one, but they can make that very serious choice after reviewing and balancing the risks and benefits of ownership. And that it is perfectly normal for someone making that choice to have to be carefully scrutinized and investigated and attend intensive training not only in gun handling but also in situation/people handling.

Based on the attitude in this thread, it seems like those would be extremely profitable and low risk over in Euroland. Why shouldn't somebody smash into your house and take your money and jewelry if there is no real deterrent? Personally I think doing that is very wrong and wouldn't do it regardless, but there are a great many people in the world who would do much worse things for much less money. So what stops them?

We do have home burglaries and car theft, but I'd bet proportionally many less end up in a bloodbath. We probably have less home burglaries and car theft than America because we have less people who get to the point they have no other choice than stealing for a living. The reason we have less people getting to that point is because social policies are generally more developed in Europe (what some derisively call communism and welfare US-side). There are countries in the world where nobody is poor and they hardly have any crime at all.

I was cool with what you were saying until you used the term in the bold. It kind of gave away that you don't know shit about guns or gun laws.

I may not be a firearm specialist, but I know enough to figure that an AR15 has no place in the hands of a school teacher mother of a mentally disturbed kid. Hell, it has no place in the hands of almost any civilian whatsoever. If it was not clear, I was referring to the term in the sense "military style rifles that can be (and are) turned into fully automatic rifles pending minor modifications".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

About conceal carry or open carry, if somebody thinks they should carry a gun everywhere they go, I would work from the default assumption that something is not quite right with them and not grant any such permit unless there are truly compelling reasons to.

That is a reasonable viewpoint. There are a lot of people out there who shouldn't own a gun. For example those who are hotheaded, chronic drunks, or who otherwise might make extremely poor decisions in stressful situations probably would be better off keeping their cell phone charged and hoping for the best.

Most people are prone to making extremely poor decisions even in mildly stressful or unusual situations unless properly trained. Just look at the stupid shit fishes do at the poker tables when you raise. Also someone does not need to be chronically drunk/hotheaded to do dumb shit, he only needs to be drunk/hotheaded once.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA WHAT?

God I'm getting such a fucking kick out of what these Eurotards think about people who carry guns.

Goddamn man. You people wonder why nobody takes you seriously when it comes to this shit.

Just take a stroll around the gun nuts forums. Those guys who get a hard on stroking their M16 with laser sight and grenade launcher, or when they look at pictures of special forces, or fantasying on how they would do the bad guys in different hypothetical scenarios are precisely some of the people who should not be let anywhere near a gun.

You may not take us seriously, but from our side we watch in disbelief as you keep hanging on to your unrestricted gun rights as if your life depended on them, while you and your kids keep getting shot over and over again.

If it was not so sad it would be laughable.

[Penneywize]

herp derp bajerp lalerp let's give people guns and let them decide on the morality of killing other people over trivial things like stolen cars and breaking and entering

spoon and renton have expressed pretty sickening opinions imo but they grew up in rougher areas than I so wtf do I know.

[JKDS]

Solid post from deedee up there.

[Savy]

Based on the attitude in this thread, it seems like those would be extremely profitable and low risk over in Euroland. Why shouldn't somebody smash into your house and take your money and jewelry if there is no real deterrent? Personally I think doing that is very wrong and wouldn't do it regardless, but there are a great many people in the world who would do much worse things for much less money. So what stops them?

There are plenty of deterrents. Just because the threat of getting shot isn't there doesn't mean everyone thinks it's a fantastic idea to go and steal shit.

In fact, it'd be interesting to consider similar places in Europe & America where the only real difference is the fact that guns are allowed and see how their crime statistics compare.

It's also interesting to see how where people grew up influences their decisions, however I'd like to point out that the feeling of fear which a lot of Americans seem to have is completely unrealistic. In lots of places it's completely common place to leave your front doors unlocked whilst you are in. And I don't mean in places that you'd consider nice affluent areas, there are some pretty rough places where this happens. Yet crime statistics comparing similar areas in terms of burglaries are no different.

Suppose you can blame your media for pumping fear into you 24/7.

[flomo]

What kind of car was it?

[daviddem]

What kind of car was it?

Interesting question. Depending on the make of the car, the owner may have had to use armor piercing bullets or an RPG to end the life of the thief with a reasonable amount of certainty, so I'd suggest to make these items available at Walmart as well.

[flomo]

Head shot.

HOLY SHIT!
Single shot to the head with 9mm handgun through the back window of a Chevy Suburban. Lee Harvey Oswald was a pussy.

[WillburForce]

Dozer and Davvidem pretty much covered it.

[WillburForce]

Seen the Saudi ruling?

They're threatening to disable a man from the waste down as a punishment for a crime in which he stabbed someone and they ended up disabled.

[daviddem]

Didn't know, I just Googled it. They're nuts. I guess he may consider himself lucky, at least he will not be beheaded with a sword...

Fun fact: there is no penal code in Saudi :/ It basically means that whatever the judge would like to do with the defendant, he can.

Poll: You are condemned to death. You have a choice between:

a) be beheaded by Ned Stark with a Valyrian sword (or someone equally good at the job with an equally good blade)

b) be electrocuted to death

Fun fact 2: the USA is the only first world country to still apply the death penalty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital...l_distribution

[WillburForce]

Chop my head off baby

[Pascal]

Do you guys also shoot the kids who steal candies in the shops? Good for them imo, why give them a chance to grow up and steal your car later?

If you start assuming that any petty thief should get shot on sight because he potentially could be a murderer or a rapist, where do you stop? Hell everybody I come across with in the street could potentially be a murderer or a rapist.

Two 5* posts from daviddem there.

[rong]

I think Israel and Switzerland have similarly high levels of gun ownership as american, yet much less crime and murder. The obvious conclusion; guns don't kill people, 'muricans do.

[kiwiMark]

they've got guns not to use on their countrymen but just in case the arabs or germans come a calling ldo

[rong]

This:



"You may not take us seriously, but from our side we watch in disbelief as you keep hanging on to your unrestricted gun rights as if your life depended on them, while you and your kids keep getting shot over and over again.

If it was not so sad it would be laughable."

[daviddem]

they've got guns not to use on their countrymen but just in case the arabs or germans come a calling ldo

gold

[eugmac]

Head shot.

HOLY SHIT!
Single shot to the head with 9mm handgun through the back window of a Chevy Suburban. Lee Harvey Oswald was a pussy.

Yeah, seems highly improbable. I smell an inside job.

[Lukie]

You could start by not teaching kids that guns are "cool" or the standard mean of protecting oneself, but rather that using one against somebody should be a last resort necessary evil in totally extreme situations. And also teach them that deciding to use one in defense puts them at increased risk of getting shot themselves. And that their approach should be to be reluctant to owe one, but they can make that very serious choice after reviewing and balancing the risks and benefits of ownership. And that it is perfectly normal for someone making that choice to have to be carefully scrutinized and investigated and attend intensive training not only in gun handling but also in situation/people handling.

We do have home burglaries and car theft, but I'd bet proportionally many less end up in a bloodbath. We probably have less home burglaries and car theft than America because we have less people who get to the point they have no other choice than stealing for a living. The reason we have less people getting to that point is because social policies are generally more developed in Europe (what some derisively call communism and welfare US-side). There are countries in the world where nobody is poor and they hardly have any crime at all.

Here's the thing though. U.S. politics are rather draconian at times. Whether or not gays should be able to get married is actually a hot topic right now.

I can say with a high level of confidence that social welfare and gun rights laws are not going to significantly swing towards the European model for a very long time, if ever. Indeed, they are going in the other direction.

I am personally more concerned with finding the optimal play within a relatively more violent culture, where criminals are much much much more likely to have guns, than I am about comparing cultures. That is probably the best way to put it.

I may not be a firearm specialist, but I know enough to figure that an AR15 has no place in the hands of a school teacher mother of a mentally disturbed kid. Hell, it has no place in the hands of almost any civilian whatsoever. If it was not clear, I was referring to the term in the sense "military style rifles that can be (and are) turned into fully automatic rifles pending minor modifications".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

Many gun enthusiasts only consider a firearm with full auto or burst capability to be an assault weapon. Personally I don't like to scoff at or degrade people for arguable misuse over a very ambiguous term. Just be aware of it.

About conceal carry or open carry, if somebody thinks they should carry a gun everywhere they go, I would work from the default assumption that something is not quite right with them and not grant any such permit unless there are truly compelling reasons to.

just providing this for informational purposes only: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceal..._United_States

cliffs notes: in at least 40 out of 50 U.S. states civilians can concealed carry a handgun in public (typically with classes/training), estimated 8,000,000 active permits in the country, which comes out to less than 3% of the population.

Most people are prone to making extremely poor decisions even in mildly stressful or unusual situations unless properly trained. Just look at the stupid shit fishes do at the poker tables when you raise. Also someone does not need to be chronically drunk/hotheaded to do dumb shit, he only needs to be drunk/hotheaded once.

Just take a stroll around the gun nuts forums. Those guys who get a hard on stroking their M16 with laser sight and grenade launcher, or when they look at pictures of special forces, or fantasying on how they would do the bad guys in different hypothetical scenarios are precisely some of the people who should not be let anywhere near a gun.

I've alluded to this a few times here but there are definitely people out there who take the 'right to bear arms way too far. You mentioned a [m203] grenade launcher. I might be wrong about some of this but the launchers themselves are very tightly regulated (NFA), and as I understand it, explosive grenades themselves are even harder to get a hold of. This is a good thing. There is obviously no need for a civilian to be launching grenades around. I only make that seemingly obvious point because there are some people out there who think that anything the military owns, civilians should be able to own too. Think grenade launchers and full auto machine guns on the low end but don't restrict your thought process to small arms only. Keep in mind that this is only a tiny minority and in no way reflects on us somewhat reasonable types.

You may not take us seriously, but from our side we watch in disbelief as you keep hanging on to your unrestricted gun rights as if your life depended on them, while you and your kids keep getting shot over and over again.

If it was not so sad it would be laughable.

I can understand that. If I lived in a much more peaceful society I would have much less of a desire to own a firearm. As you have astutely noted, there are a lot of other factors at play including the overall politics and standing of people in the country.

[Lukie]

Interesting question. Depending on the make of the car, the owner may have had to use armor piercing bullets or an RPG to end the life of the thief with a reasonable amount of certainty, so I'd suggest to make these items available at Walmart as well.

The way the story is written in the original post it just seems to have went through rear window glass and maybe a head rest of some sort. Pretty much any centerfire ammo would do that. That is more being a ridiculously good shot, probably with a little luck to boot.

[spoonitnow]

I may not be a firearm specialist, but I know enough to figure that an AR15 has no place in the hands of a school teacher mother of a mentally disturbed kid. Hell, it has no place in the hands of almost any civilian whatsoever. If it was not clear, I was referring to the term in the sense "military style rifles that can be (and are) turned into fully automatic rifles pending minor modifications".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

Why pick on an AR-15? Why not pick on other semi-automatic rifles?

"In discussions about gun laws and gun politics in the United States, an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain cosmetic, ergonomic, or construction features similar to those of military firearms."

Serious use of the phrase "assault weapon" means that people will not take you seriously because it outs you as not knowing what you're talking about.

Example: http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...-the-gullible/

[Lukie]

Here's the thing though. U.S. politics are rather draconian at times. Whether or not gays should be able to get married is actually a hot topic right now.

I can say with a high level of confidence that social welfare and gun rights laws are not going to significantly swing towards the European model for a very long time, if ever. Indeed, they are going in the other direction.

Just briefly reading through this thread I wanted to clarify this point, just in case the political correctness police roll in.

By the 'whether or not gays should be able to get married' comment I just meant that it's pretty obvious that they should be able to, and our European friends might be surprised or just deeply perplexed why anybody really would care whether or not they are able to be.

The point was that all the other social considerations that apply to some advanced European countries are a longshot at best here, which makes some of those comparisons rather pointless.

[Pascal]

Gay marriage is a big topic here in the UK too, highly controversial given the influence the Church has had for hundreds of years (well, longer than the US has existed at least )

[Lukie]

Gay marriage is a big topic here in the UK too, highly controversial given the influence the Church has had for hundreds of years (well, longer than the US has existed at least )

Maybe US and UK isn't so different after all, except on the gun thing. You crazy fucks just like to stab people

[daviddem]

By the 'whether or not gays should be able to get married' comment I just meant that it's pretty obvious that they should be able to, and our European friends might be surprised or just deeply perplexed why anybody really would care whether or not they are able to be.

Not really, gays have only recently been able to marry in several prominent Euro countries. It has been a debate for years before that and we also have those people who are against it and voice their opinion.

I love this picture (France) of one of the anti-gay marriage demonstrations (happened only last year): http://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.ne...65683763_n.jpg

The girls later declared that they are not lesbians at all but that they were just pissed off with the demonstrators so they decided to pull this little stunt...

The point is, this debate is happening at about the same time in the US and Europe. Same story for the de-penalization of cannabis. However, weirdly, for major stuff like gun laws and the death penalty (I say major because we are talking about life and death), the US has remained stubbornly in its position.

[Lukie]

Interesting... I learned something new today.

[daviddem]

The way the story is written in the original post it just seems to have went through rear window glass and maybe a head rest of some sort. Pretty much any centerfire ammo would do that. That is more being an unjustifiable shot, probably with a little bad luck to boot.

FYP

[rong]

Maybe US and UK isn't so different after all, except on the gun thing. You crazy fucks just like to stab people

That reminds me of a friend of mine who was making a documentary about the London air ambulance and he told me that if a call comes in about a stabbing the code over the radio is "stab stab stab", which means the doctor who will fly out to the scene knows to put on a stab vest. I just like the "stab stab stab" bit.

[Lukie]

FYP

I just meant from the aiming logistics of the shot. It's not so easy to hit a small moving target with a hand gun, despite what you see in the movies.

[daviddem]

I know I was just kidding.

I've shot a few handguns myself and even static targets are not so easy especially with big caliber guns. That's why I was talking of possible bad luck, nothing says that the shooter really intended a head shot (and that's probably what he will say when investigated).

[kiwiMark]

I must be misunderstanding but from reading americans' responses ITT, it seems bizarrely like if he says it was intentional he could get away with it for defending his shit (at least in lots of states?) whereas if he claims he was aiming for the tyres and missed or whatever, then involuntary manslaughter?

[spoonitnow]

I must be misunderstanding but from reading americans' responses ITT, it seems bizarrely like if he says it was intentional he could get away with it for defending his shit (at least in lots of states?) whereas if he claims he was aiming for the tyres and missed or whatever, then involuntary manslaughter?

There are basically three possible situations:

1. If it was accidental, then that's manslaughter.
2. If it was on purpose when he thought the guy was about to shoot at him, then that's legal.
3. If it was on purpose just because he felt like it, that's second degree murder.

[kiwiMark]

maybe he was worried about the guy carbon monoxide poisoning him to death with the exhaust fumes so that's why he had to shoot him through the back of the car.

[spoonitnow]

maybe he was worried about the guy carbon monoxide poisoning him to death with the exhaust fumes so that's why he had to shoot him through the back of the car.

Yeah that seems to be a rather damning piece of the situation.

[daviddem]

just providing this for informational purposes only: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceal..._United_States

This page lead me to the open carry one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Carry

Now what's the purpose of that? Look at the picture of the cowboy in the Burger King. Why does he not just wear a "SHOOT ME FIRST" t-shirt instead?

[Lukie]

This page lead me to the open carry one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Carry

Now what's the purpose of that? Look at the picture of the cowboy in the Burger King. Why does he not just wear a "SHOOT ME FIRST" t-shirt instead?

Yeah I never really understood it either. I think it is a silly idea.

[spoonitnow]

This page lead me to the open carry one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Carry

Now what's the purpose of that?

What's the purpose of any of our rights? You don't need an explanation to exercise them.

And why would anyone want to shoot the guy?

[kiwiMark]

Don't you feel a little bit like he has a small penis though?

[WillburForce]

That pic is so much lolz.

Cowboy hat, gun, cola in Burger King.....

[daviddem]

What's the purpose of any of our rights? You don't need an explanation to exercise them.

And why would anyone want to shoot the guy?

Do you really think that because something is written into law, it is not wrong, dumb or obsolete? Take a tour of dumblaws.com or http://list25.com/the-25-craziest-laws-ever/3/

Women once did not have the right of vote
Alcohol was once illegal
It was once legal to owe slaves
Women once were not allowed to wear trousers
Human sacrifice used to be legal
Practicing a different religion used to be (and still is in some countries) punishable by death
In some countries women:
- can't drive
- can't go out of their house without a male relative
- have to wear full face and body wear outside their house
- are not allowed to go to school
- ...

If you ask me, that 2nd amendment of yours is largely obsolete and misinterpreted and in general its current interpretation and application does you more harm than good.

As for the Burger King cowboy, how don't you see why a mass murderer or armed robbers would want to get him first? How don't you see how this guy with his gun could make things infinitely worse for himself and the general public in case of an armed robbery in the Burger King where the robbers were hoping to get in and out with the money without firing a shot?

[Renton]

Europeans,

Americans like guns and own hundreds of millions of them. We cannot ban guns, its a ridiculous notion at this point, it can and will never happen. If the government banned assault rifles, or handguns, or any guns for that matter, it would just create an even more harmful black market.

I don't understand how liberals can be for drug legalization and also be for prohibitive gun control. It makes no sense, its like they see how terrible the drug war is going, how it is fostering a thriving black market that leads to mass murder and mass incarceration of non-violent offenders, and they understand that the prohibition isn't working, but then they want to turn around and prohibit guns, not knowing all the exact same problems will emerge.

Again, I believe the only real plan of attack we can have is to apply social pressure to the pinpricks who worship guns.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/043...ith-jim-carrey

When you ridicule something in good fun, that goes a long way in de-legitimizing it. This is already happening with Christianity in America.

[daviddem]

Europeans,

Americans like guns and own hundreds of millions of them. We cannot ban guns, its a ridiculous notion at this point, it can and will never happen. If the government banned assault rifles, or handguns, or any guns for that matter, it would just create an even more harmful black market.

I don't understand how liberals can be for drug legalization and also be for prohibitive gun control. It makes no sense, its like they see how terrible the drug war is going, how it is fostering a thriving black market that leads to mass murder and mass incarceration of non-violent offenders, and they understand that the prohibition isn't working, but then they want to turn around and prohibit guns, not knowing all the exact same problems will emerge.

Again, I believe the only real plan of attack we can have is to apply social pressure to the pinpricks who worship guns.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/043...ith-jim-carrey

When you ridicule something in good fun, that goes a long way in de-legitimizing it. This is already happening with Christianity in America.

Agree. Prohibition and repression alone do not work in these matters. Not for alcohol, not for drugs, not for guns, not for religion, not for (homo)sexuality. Even though all of these things are banned in a country or another, if people want them enough, they will get them regardless of the law.

As you said, education, prevention and changing the mentalities and culture are key. The reason private citizens do not often owe guns in Europe and those who do mostly comply with the requirements to owe one is because most people don't feel a need or desire to owe a firearm in the first case, and because they find it normal that there be some fall guards in place in the second case. Not because the law says so.

As you may have noticed, in none of the examples I gave in my post #102 above is there any law or repression involved to sway the way people think one way or the other.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Citing Muslim social roles as "dumb" or "oppressive to women" is a failure to understand the culture in its own terms. I have met many Muslim men and women, and every time I've brought up the notion of women being oppressed, they have patiently explained to me how I was misinformed, and missing the big picture.

Specifically, none of the Muslim women I have spoken with feel like they're oppressed. I spoke with them in America, so they could definitely compare women's roles in my culture to women's roles in their own culture. They are quick to cite that there are pros and cons to both systems.

The general opinion of Muslim men I've met is that it's their holy duty to protect all women's safety. They love their families dearly and the notion of real oppression toward women is a surefire way to get them quite agitated.

I'm sure there are better (dumber?) laws you can cite to make your case without such implicit ethnocentrism.

... ...

I wonder if anyone here actually thinks that one culture telling another culture what it is doing wrong is going to help or change anything.

[spoonitnow]

(Some laws are bad.)

As for the Burger King cowboy, how don't you see why a mass murderer or armed robbers would want to get him first? How don't you see how this guy with his gun could make things infinitely worse for himself and the general public in case of an armed robbery in the Burger King where the robbers were hoping to get in and out with the money without firing a shot?

Yes, how silly of us to have rights. Owning guns is really up there with slavery. Your argument is solid.

Of course we should take away peoples rights to make it easier to commit crimes. Why would anyone think otherwise?

And God knows the world needs more feminism.

[spoonitnow]

I wonder if anyone here actually thinks that one culture telling another culture what it is doing wrong is going to help or change anything.

Smartest thing I've ever seen you say.

[Savy]

Citing Muslim social roles as "dumb" or "oppressive to women" is a failure to understand the culture in its own terms. I have met many Muslim men and women, and every time I've brought up the notion of women being oppressed, they have patiently explained to me how I was misinformed, and missing the big picture.

Did you tell them they are the ones missing the bigger picture because THERE IS NO GOD!!!

As tbf there isn't.

[daviddem]

Citing Muslim social roles as "dumb" or "oppressive to women" is a failure to understand the culture in its own terms. I have met many Muslim men and women, and every time I've brought up the notion of women being oppressed, they have patiently explained to me how I was misinformed, and missing the big picture.

Don't you think Saudi women would like to be able to drive or go out of their house without a chaperon? I didn't get it firsthand from them of course, because they are not allowed to talk to me. However it is well known that yes, they are fighting for these rights.

Do you think Pakistani girls are happy not having access to education?

Do you think Iranian girls are happy with the Islamic laws in their country? (I actually got this one first hand from an Iranian girl I know)

I was not trying to pick on the muslims in particular, but fact is they are the only countries nowadays who base their laws on religion. But I certainly could have come up with similar examples in Europe from 500 to 1500 years ago (and even not that far back, I am sure).

Now don't get me wrong, not all muslims are the same, but I spend half of my life in the Middle-East, which is the cradle of the more fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, and it's not pretty.

Fun fact: women have only had the right of vote for 50 or 60 years in many Euro countries

[daviddem]

Yes, how silly of us to have rights. Owning guns is really up there with slavery. Your argument is solid.

Of course we should take away peoples rights to make it easier to commit crimes. Why would anyone think otherwise?

And God knows the world needs more feminism.

Yeah, yeah all these gun owners prevent crime and make everyone safer, for sure.

And abolishing slavery totally ruined the US/Euro economies, right?

[Renton]

Citing Muslim social roles as "dumb" or "oppressive to women" is a failure to understand the culture in its own terms. I have met many Muslim men and women, and every time I've brought up the notion of women being oppressed, they have patiently explained to me how I was misinformed, and missing the big picture.

Specifically, none of the Muslim women I have spoken with feel like they're oppressed. I spoke with them in America, so they could definitely compare women's roles in my culture to women's roles in their own culture. They are quick to cite that there are pros and cons to both systems.

The general opinion of Muslim men I've met is that it's their holy duty to protect all women's safety. They love their families dearly and the notion of real oppression toward women is a surefire way to get them quite agitated.

I'm sure there are better (dumber?) laws you can cite to make your case without such implicit ethnocentrism.

... ...

I wonder if anyone here actually thinks that one culture telling another culture what it is doing wrong is going to help or change anything.

Absurd absurd absurd. It's Stockholm syndrome. And the concept of Muslim men having a holy duty to defend all women is patronizing and oppressing in itself. Also, semi-civilized Muslims are gonna paint a different picture to an outsider of what their culture actually is, and you'd be a fool to trust it at face value. I'm all for tolerance of other cultures but you have to have bounds of reason, and Muslim culture is about as indefensible as any culture on the planet.

[spoonitnow]

Yeah, yeah all these gun owners prevent crime and make everyone safer, for sure.

And abolishing slavery totally ruined the US/Euro economies, right?

Their purpose is not to prevent crime or make people safer. People have a fundamental right to protect themselves and an obligation to resist the government when necessary.

Also, women should not be allowed to vote, but that's a topic for another time.