ashw_justin

No man you shoulda just come rock climbing in the first place! We was crackin and slabbin all weekend long, and we found a kickass camping spot to boot.

Seth on "Veins of Glory" at the Pearly Gates

Seth on "Loaves of Fun"

Yeah, I gotta see mr. waterfall in action! I was thinking about bring the split for the traverse and the descent too.

This weekend I found out why it's good to take your harness and rack off before driving to the next crag...

Wow he's soooooo dreamy...

Wow, TWO ropeguns...

to Ebey and the Kettles. The bluff trail is very nice! Fisher Ridge and Forest Run trails are cool too.

And banning people from getting back to nature... strapped. Man, how many times do I have to say it! The dog owner obviously screwed up, and he paid for it, indeed. OK I'm outta crap to say so someone else can play moonbat now...

No way man you can take cougar with your bare hands can't you? Well if you're gonna go out and kill stuff in the woods, sometimes the woods kill you back.

I know, the guy is off the hook unless there is some law we don't know about. I've been talking about ways to avoid having this happen in the future though.

Huh... That might work for you Seattleites, but somepeeople have jobs requiring them to have guns in the wilderness... Yeah I have no problem with that, if it's your job.

I keep saying that there is no proof of this but you keep bringing it up. So fine, hypothetically, if the owner did indeed continue to charge at a man after seeing him fire a gun into the ground, then he was asking to be shot. OK? Are you happy now? I'm just saying that there is no way of knowing if this is what actually went down. I have a hard time believing it myself but yes that is irrelevant. But I don't think the shooter's explanation alone is an acceptable escape from legal responsibility for the death that resulted from his gun use. As for the owner, whatever he was guilty of, he didn't deserve to be shot three times in the chest. The real problem as I see it now is this is just going to make people more gun-crazy. The precedent is you don't even have to be harmed or have any hard evidence of being threatened, if you're just scared that someone is going to hurt you, you kill them, problem solved, you're off the hook. I'm sorry that is some f'd up stone age sh*t. Anyway I'm not surprised at all that it went down in Arizona.

The right to carry a gun (not that I completely agree that it is a "right") does not mean you have to do so.

Cars are a necessary evil, but necessary transportation. Personally, I'd rather see public transit take over the freeways, but that's just my fantasy. I think most knives are against the law in many cities. Survival rates of fist-fights vs. gun-fights... So what is the function of a gun? To injure or kill other living things. No, we do not have the right to injure and kill anyone. But yes, self-defense, if proven, does make it justifiable. But where do you draw the line between just fear, and actual self-defense? Fear is not a legal reason to commit murder. Had the guy actually been physically attacked, I'd say yeah, self-defense. But what proof is there that he had to kill someone to save himself? None.

Yeah I remember hearing something about that... Sounds like an invitation to let guns solve all of the problems one normally encounters in a bar. Just like the Old West! Please tell me you agree, that is a bad idea...

No I am not on crack, nor is my "agenda" "whiny." Again, there was actual proof of justifiability. Was it self-defense? Probably. Could it have been resolved without shooting the owner three times in the chest? Probably. Is there way to know for sure? No. Is there a way to prevent people from being shot while hiking? Yes, ban guns in government-managed wilderness.

There has been no emotional outburst, and I was not the one to bring up the constitution. And Arizona law is subject to change, last time I checked. But you are free to keep trying to flame me if you want. Just don't shoot me in "self-defense."

By the same reason you are admitting that the dog-owner was innocent of any aggression toward the shooter. Which makes it murder. But that's not really debateable anymore. What's debateable is should people be allowed to carry guns around, and should there be a penalty for shooting someone to death.

Again, no proof of a raging maniac, nor dogs attacking.

OK, so you have gun-related credentials... I'm failing to see the point. Other than you are pro-gun. Which I think I already figured out...

Don't get me wrong there would be nothing stopping you from taking your gun hiking, but if you did use it, there would be a consequence, the severity of which depending on the circumstances, of course.

If you're talking about my post, your comment is irrelevant. Me, I'm debating gun control with Fat_Teddy. But thanks for the advice.

You're right, our judicial system doesn't seem to have a penalty for just shooting someone to death. Sure it does. In some cases that penalty is death. Just not when it's self defence. You'll remember that there is no concrete proof that it was self-defense. That's just what the shooter says. And to what degree it was justifiable, we'll never know. But I'd like to see his guns taken away, and if there isn't a legal basis for doing so, I'd like to see one in the future. So you ARE in favor of indiscriminately violating people's constitutional rights. 1) There is nothing indescriminate about my proposal. 2) Nowhere in the constitution does it say you can carry a semi-automatic 10-milimeter whenever, where-ever you want. I don't see any mention of semi-automatic pistols. They didn't even exist. Point being, The 2nd amendment is all about interpretation. "Arms"? So does that mean I can carry around a nuclear warhead and chemical weapons, just in case? That's where the second part comes in, banning taking guns into a government-managed wilderness unless you have a special reason (such as, you are a park ranger, or a contracted cougar-slayer or whatever). That way, there would be a penalty, and a legal burden on the shooter in cases like this. There's no good basis for doing so. Unless you think "because justin wills it" is a good reason. Most won't. Oh I am willing to bet that quite a few people agree with me! Hopefully this case will increase that number.

You're right, our judicial system doesn't seem to have a penalty for just shooting someone to death. Or at least not that we know of (doesn't stop me from crossing my fingers). But I'd like to see his guns taken away, and if there isn't a legal basis for doing so, I'd like to see one in the future. That's where the second part comes in, banning taking guns into a government-managed wilderness unless you have a special reason (such as, you are a park ranger, or a contracted cougar-slayer or whatever). That way, there would be a penalty, and a legal burden on the shooter in cases like this.