Murder At Index

[EWolfe]

Anyone else hear about this?

 

It seems a irate neighbor killed a woman over property disputes.

 

Apparently she had a restraining order out on him. Lot of good that did.

[DirtyHarry]

I heard a mob of angry free climbers killed an aid soloist for spending all day aiding Godzilla to Slow Children.

[gmoney]

Here a link to the PI article

 

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/217199_neighborshot23.html

 

Sad story. When you need restraining orders against your neighbors, it is probably time to either move or buy fences, dogs, and guns.

[Billygoat]

Another stupid asshole guy with anger management problems and a gun. He belly shot a woman over an argument about rolling some rocks into the river.

 

What a tough guy! Fuckin' John Fucking Wayne. Good 'ole Merican. Prolly votes republican too....

 

Yeah, we need more guns and easy access to guns in case some woman neighbor decides to roll some of our rocks into the river. Gotta protect our property. This is America. Godammit!

 

 

 

ok I went too far on the republican thing. Gun control should be in everybody's interest. I ain't talking no guns. Just a psych test or something before you are allowed to complete a purchase.

 

Anyone from banned camp want to chime in on this? "on ass.com of course"

Edited March 24, 2005 by Billygoat

[whistlepunk]

A man can't have too many guns goddamnit. Seein as how you weren't there, I don't put much stock in your rant. Carry on though. This is America where we can raise hell and shoot whoever we want. 5 for murder less 2 for good behavior.

[Billygoat]

I guess that kid really needed to go to school and kill all those people too. I wasn't there. He was probably provoked. Someone probably made fun of him.

 

In either of these two cases, if the shooter had a knife instead of a gun, I wonder how things would have turned out. Or how about only their fists?!

 

It's a moot point. Cowards wouldn't leave home unless they were packing anyway

[whistlepunk]

The weapon of choice isn't important. It's just the tool. The insane maniac that pulls the trigger or stabs someone is the problem.

[catbirdseat]

The weapon of choice isn't important.

You have got to be out of your cotton-picking mind! The weapon of choice IS important. Go tell the mothers of all those dead children. Get a clue.

[MisterMo]

The weapon of choice isn't important. It's just the tool. The insane maniac that pulls the trigger or stabs someone is the problem.

 

No, it's not nearly that simple. For premeditated killing I agree, any method will work because the intent to harm is present over an extended period of time. But in a case like the recent Index shooting, no way. It only takes one irrational second, actually less, to pull a trigger. To kill someone almost any other way takes a bunch more time and effort....one has to stay that mad or wigged out or ??? for that much longer and that's unlikely when killing was not the original goal. Had the assailant had a knife, a club, or any other murder weapon that comes to mind in his hip pocket I submit it's unlikely that a killing would have taken place. An assualt, maybe, but not a killing.

 

That's my thesis anyhow. Never checked it out and I really hope that never changes.

[whistlepunk]

I won't attempt to argue the gun issue. Some of you hate guns so much you can't look at them rationally. That's cool if you want to be reactionary and one-dimensional. Not my bag though.

 

If trebuchets are outlawed, only outlaws will have trebuchets.

[MisterMo]

I won't attempt to argue the gun issue. Some of you hate guns so much you can't look at them rationally. That's cool if you want to be reactionary and one-dimensional. Not my bag though.

 

Jump back, Jack

 

Open both eyes and read my post again. Maybe focus on what I actually said instead of what you want to respond to.

 

What I'm pretty sure I said was that you only had to be angry for a brief jiffy in order to shoot someone, and, that most other methods of harm would take more time and thus more than a brief instant of anger, therefore, in a conflict where killing was NOT premeditated (nor desired, for that matter) the presence of a gun made a very large difference.

 

I think that's a pretty rational point of view.

I don't think it's, reactionary, or one-dimensional, nor does it go into love, hate, or any other emotional relationships I might have with firearms.

 

You don't agree with what I say; that's all cool; I'm a big boy; I'll get over it.

 

But I'll not be held accountable for what I didn't say, OK?

[whistlepunk]

Don't flatter yourself MrMo. I was commenting on Catbird's hardliner anti-gun rhetoric.

[Billygoat]

Catbird is saying the same thing we all are marmot breath.

 

I own seven guns and I still think that there should be an "actual" waiting period, like how about 14 days. Not just some bullshit background check. I also believe that a buyer should be finger printed and pass a psych screening. All ammo sales should have a waiting period as well and identification be presented, processed and cleared. All guns should be registered. I will happily register mine.

 

I have been in a lot of dicey situations and never needed a gun. My guns are locked up right now. It would take awhile for me to get them and load them.

 

I lived a Hong Kong. A very crowded city. There were never any shootings. I got into street fights there. Nobody got killed, or even knifed for that matter. The murders that did occur were few. It takes a lot of courage, and real rage, to kill someone with your bare hands.

 

I hunt and enjoy target shooting. I never carry out of fear.

 

Bottom Line: Carrying guns is for cowards.

[whistlepunk]

Goat, interesting post, although your "bottom line" reinforces your ignorance and meatballism. Bone up and get back with us when you have a concrete thought worthy to share.

[Billygoat]

There is a time and place to carry arms, I'm sure. Going to talk to your neighbor isn't one of them.

 

In fact, if you think you need a gun, in this country, you don't have to go at all; the police can handle it. If one is not emotionally smart and controlled enough to avoid or de-fuse a situation that has the potential for voilence, then they a) shouldn't be allowed to have guns or access to ammunition, and b) get what they deserve because they will always be victims of themselves.

 

Bottom Line.

[whistlepunk]

You say the police can "handle it"... ha, that's a major stretch. You're obviously living in a dream world lad. We live in troubled times and only a fool would put is life in the hands of the police. Those of us that live in the country can expect the police to arrive anywhere from 30 to 45 minutes from the 911 call.

 

Just the other day a motorist was murdered and dumped from his "jacked" car in Seattle. If he'd of had a gun and the skills to address the car jacker, he'd no doubt be alive today.

 

Bottom Line - You are a victim waiting to happen.

[Billygoat]

What's so troubled? Where do you hang out or live? Do you need help?

 

Even when I felt threatened in NYC or LA or a roadside bar in Nevada, I was able to avoid it. The shit that you can't see coming is unavoidable. If you have a gun you'll use it and fall victim to the consequences.

 

The Norse said "only a fool leaves his house with fear in his heart, for his death was determined on the day of his birth"

 

My life is in my hands.

[whistlepunk]

Suit yourself. The brutal truth is that you are ultimately responsible for your own protection. The reality that self-protection is primarily the responsibility of the individual is one of the reasons that the founding fathers of this country included in the Bill of Rights an amendment that reaffirms the inalienable right of the people to "keep and bear arms." I hope you'll never be a victim, tough guy.

[Billygoat]

Just the other day a motorist was murdered and dumped from his "jacked" car in Seattle. If he'd of had a gun and the skills to address the car jacker, he'd no doubt be alive today.

 

There's a corollary to every story: This guy, living in the same mountain community (Nederland) in Colorado as me (back in the late '80's), picked up some hitch-hikers along the Peak to Peak highway. Their car was broken down. He tried to help them fix their car. While he was doing that, one of the guys found his gun under the front seat of his car and shot him with it.

 

If he had not had that gun, the outcome would likely have been different.

 

Guns make it too easy to inflict violence. They are the "Great Equalizer". They enable people to act out with power greater than their wisdom.

[whistlepunk]

I'm sorry to hear that, but he should not have left his gun unattended, especially around strangers. He was not prepared, and was in fact, negligent. Fools abound.

[Billygoat]

yeah. My point exactly.

 

People have access to power they don't have the knowledge to use. You may have the training and ability, WP, but wouldn't you agree that the current laws make it too easy for untrained and immature individuals to get their hands on lethal force?

[Cobra_Commander]

Come on billygoat, of course the founding fathers had hand cannons wheeling around in cars in mind when they wrote up that shit.

 

Now I'm off for a night of illicit sex with some fine black slave ladies. Don't worry, it's all cool with the founding fathers.

 

And you damn-well know I'm packing cause the second I don't King George is going to break into my yard again

[Billygoat]

That was then. This is now, brother...

[minx]

Fools abound.

 

and that is exactly why there needs to be more limits on who has guns.

[olyclimber]

After that last school shooting, I heard that the NRA is saying something about arming teachers to "protect" the students. So...good...we all know that teachers will never go nuts and shoot anyone. But if they did, we could always then arm the students as well. If we all had guns, we'd be a hell of a lot safer.