Young Man Shot After GPS Error

Submitted by: kitteh9lives 4 years ago Misc

He wanted to go ice skating, instead he got a bullet in the head. Wouldn"t you ask questions first before shooting?
There are 114 comments:
Male 14,330
KNOCKOUT!!! DING DING DING!!


Guy in the clips a brit too and deserved the ground pound :-)
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]there`s not even any fun in taunting you any more[/quote]
Is that what you were doing? Dang, I missed it. I read back quite a bit and still don`t see it. Maybe if you try again it`ll be better this time? I could give you some pointers if you`d like - I`m here to help Francois. Is it OK if I call you Francois?

[quote]Congratulations. Go `Murica.[/quote]
Thank you! In the past, many Europeans have simply stormed off in a fit of rage. However, I see that you are much more experienced. You`re so familiar with America winning that you`ve come to not only accept it, but you even congratulate us! Surely this proves the Theory of Evolution!

Francois, I feel like this is truely the beginning of a great friendship. I look forward to your next outburst.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]Well done, you have indeed managed to find *one* paper which supports your viewpoint[/quote]
Five > one... Not sure what you missed.

[quote]I`m not counting the UK one because it`s *40* years old ffs[/quote]
Well shucks, I hadn`t realized that neither statistics nor guns were around 40 years ago. How silly of me.

[quote]But... you still haven`t even attempted to rebut any of my sources.[/quote]
I`ve presented 5, well 6 if you count Lott, articles that back my stance and contradict yours. See: How to Form a Rebuttal.

[quote]actually making me feel a bit sorry for you[/quote]
Aww =). You Euros sure are a mindful bunch.

[quote]but you have totally failed to put forward a case for well, anything.[/quote]
See above.

[quote]but you have successfully won this argument[/quote]
Winner, winner! I accept you admission of defeat. Let me guess, French?
0
Reply
Male 25
Well done, you have indeed managed to find *one* paper which supports your viewpoint (I`m not counting the UK one because it`s *40* years old ffs). But... you still haven`t even attempted to rebut any of my sources.

The fact that you think you`re putting forward a convincing argument has gone past being funny into actually making me feel a bit sorry for you. It`s nice that you`re passionate about your beliefs, but you have totally failed to put forward a case for well, anything.

I`m sorry that the bad man makes you feel sad when he talks about taking away your guns, but you have successfully won this argument by merit of making yourself seem so thick that there`s not even any fun in taunting you any more.

Congratulations. Go `Murica.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
The missing quote from the last link:

"The profound effects of income inequality and social capital, when controlling for other factors such as poverty and firearm availability, on firearm violent crime indicate that policies that address these broader, macro-social forces warrant serious consideration."

I believe that gives me five sources that agree with me: socioeconomic and cultural factors are responsible for violent crime independently of firearm availability.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
Firearms and Crime (UK)
"THE OBVIOUS IMPLICATION IS THAT THE WEAPON CHOSEN IS NO MORE THAN A MIRROR OF PATTERNS OF CULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE PARTICULAR SOCIETY."

Independent Institute of Oakland
"Further, increasing gun control is more likely to keep law-abiding citizens from having guns than to reduce significantly their possession by criminals."

Harvard School of Public Heath
"The profound effects of income inequality and social capital, when controlling for other factors such as poverty and f
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@technophebe

Ohhh... so it`s quantity you were looking for? You should have just said that at the beginning and we could have saved ourselves some time.

Journal of the American Medical Association
"...implementation of the Brady Act appears to have been associated with reductions in the firearm suicide rate for persons aged 55 years or older but not with reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates."

Florida International University
"A supplemental analysis also indicates no evidence of simultaneity between gun availability and violent crime."

Bear with me; unlike you, I actually provide a quick, quoted summary of the article so I have less space.
0
Reply
Male 25
Yes, that`s very clever 5cats. Let`s recap what`s happened in this thread:

- I cited 4 sources, from places such as Harvard and Forbes. *No-one has even attempted to rebut any of those sources*

- HumanAction has cited 2. The first he then climbed down and admitted he hadn`t even bothered to check after it was pointed out that it`s non-peer reviewed and fraudulently attempts to associate itself with Harvard. The second is a pop-sociology book (not a real academic study) whose figures and methods in which are *widely* disputed and which HAVE NOT BEEN REPRODUCED by any of his peers. This is a man who makes up fake personas to support himself online, whose *academic* papers on firearms are barely cited, whose professorship is financed in association with one of the largest gun companies in America, who basically is a man with *zero* credibility.

So please, once again, refer to my previous post on pidgeons and chess. Losers.
0
Reply
Male 36,388
The Score:

@HumanAction = 5
@technophebe = 0

The "5 smackdown mercy rule" is now in effect!!! :-)
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@technophebe

[quote]Ooh, it`s the long words treatment now is it?[/quote]
Unfortunately, I was expecting you to catch on much sooner than you did. I have since learned not to overestimate you.

[quote]I`ve "erred logically" have I?[/quote]
Yes... See below.

[quote]Do you think that using pompous language covers up the fact that all your citations are rubbish and that you just grab at names you`ve seen on the telly and assume they`re right?[/quote]
So you consider my language to be "irritatingly grand?" Well, I am flattered. By this point, I expect most of the IAB regulars are familiar with my use of the English language. As I;ve alluded to above, the citiations are only "rubbish" in your mind. In the real world, however, there have been no definitive refutations.

Additionally, I know of John Lott because the book was recommended to me. I don`t know of him being on T.V.
0
Reply
Male 25
Ooh, it`s the long words treatment now is it? I`ve "erred logically" have I? ^^

Do you think that using pompous language covers up the fact that all your citations are rubbish and that you just grab at names you`ve seen on the telly and assume they`re right?

No, no it doesn`t. Sorry man.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@technophebe

[quote]Oh this is actually f*cking awesome, I am wetting myself with laughter here[/quote]
I can`t take you seriously if you can`t even control your bladder. Someone should rub your nose in it.

[quote]Read down to the controversy section and see some of the shenanigans this guy has been up to, brilliant[/quote]
There is nothing, to date, that has been proven that affects the legitimacy of the research. Most criticisms revolve around the man, not the research.

[quote]HumanAction you are an absolute tool.[/quote]
That`s very kind of you to say.

[quote]You are everything that makes pro-gun fanatics so amusing to argue with.[/quote]
I also enjoy showing you the error of your ways. I am rather happy that we have reached this amicable consensus; for a moment, I was concerned you were becoming upset.

0
Reply
Male 2,357
@McGovern

[quote]So what you`re saying is research can be biased.... All except what you cite ROFL!![/quote]
Not quite; he is suggested that all other research is simply inadmissable! Lol... Europeans - what can I say?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@technophebe

I understand your desire to dismiss my evidence rather than refute it; however, there are just as many proponents of John Lotts works as there are opponents. It`s lovely to throw out the old "Fox News" line and all, but it does not discredit the book nor its findings.

Your best bet would be to read some of John Donahue`s criticisms and to reiterate them here - since, apparently, you are incapable of forming your own thoughts.

If you still cannot understand where you`ve erred logically, consider that you are attempting to discredit the author rather than the article.
0
Reply
Male 25
Oh this is actually f*cking awesome, I am wetting myself with laughter here:

John Lott Wikipedia Page

Read down to the controversy section and see some of the shenanigans this guy has been up to, brilliant.

HumanAction you are an absolute tool. Even the guys who site the papers you link are fail. You are everything that makes pro-gun fanatics so amusing to argue with. ^^
0
Reply
Male 14,330
@technophebe

So what you`re saying is research can be biased.... All except what you cite ROFL!!
0
Reply
Male 14,330
"Those who abjure violence can only do so because others commit violence on their behalf." - George Orwell
0
Reply
Male 25
Ah yes, I can see that John Lott has written several pop-sociology books on gun control. However if we have a look at his *peer reviewed* work, we see his two most cited papers (with a massive 55 and 27 citations, not bad) are:

"How Dramatically Did Women`s Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?"

"The Reputational Penalties for Environmental Violations: Empirical Evidence"

And a couple of other interesting titbits:

In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences conducted a review of current research and data on firearms and violent crime, including Lott`s work, and found "no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime."

Oh, and he was a weekly columnist for Fox News.

Yes, clearly Mr Lott is an academic of unimpeachable standing.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
@technophebe

How many of those "experts" own guns? I own five want to take a bet who knows more about guns?
0
Reply
Male 14,330
@HumanAction

[quote]Do you know anything about this subject at all?[/quote]

No, he just thinks he knows all like the "experts" in his studies.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patch

No worries; I jumped all over that article without any sort of research; Call it a "duh" moment - hehe.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@technophebe

It appears you do not know much about the long-standing gun-control debate. That article was written by John Lott in what I assume was a response to criticisms from John Donahue over Lott`s original release of "More Guns, Less Crime." Lott`s study and research tends to be an oft-cited authority on the subject, and Donahue tends to be his biggest and most vocal critic.

If simple date of pulishing or number of citations is what you seek, then here: More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition.

This edition was released in 2010 and likely has been cited many thousands of times. Do you know anything about this subject at all?
0
Reply
Male 5,811
I just re-read my last comment and that last part may have come across as snide, which wasn`t my intention. I was only attempting to be funny, if only attempting.
0
Reply
Male 25
Lol HumanAction did you even bother to read this page before you posted that link?

a) This paper is over a decade old.

b) The author hasn`t even bothered to write a proper abstract for it. In place of an abstract are a series of statements starting with "I believe".

c) In the 13 years since its publishing it`s been cited a massive two times. Both papers were written by one author.

Seriously man, *spectacular* fail. Going looking for titles that seem close enough to your point of view doesn`t quite comprise thorough research :)

And yes McGovern, of course *you* know better than Harvard, that makes perfect sense. See my previous post about pidgeons and chess.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@HA: Oh, I hadn`t seen the retraction. I was, well, working (my current employer does not recognize commenting on I-A-B as legitimate employment ;-) )
0
Reply
Male 14,330
Here`s the problem with these Harvard "experts" it`s a group of know it alls that in reality lack common sense. A common occurance with those that have swollen heads and egos. Example if the "experts" had their way in the UK you wouldn`t be able to own a kitchen knife because you commoners can`t be trusted with anything.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@technophebe

[quote">Oh was my link to the *actual* Harvard university website where they completely disagree with you not enough to debunk your paper by people fraudulently trying to appear to be publishing under Harvard?[/quote">
Read what I wrote to @patchgrabber. You guys seriously didn`t see that I rescinded that claim? All you have to do is read; it`s simple.

[quote">Sorry I didn`t realize your standards were so high.[/quote">
Well now you know.

[quote">I`ll try and find some sources other than one of the most highly reknowned universities in the world to contradict your obscure "Harvard" paper[/quote">
Great! I`ve also included one from Stanford (I think); there are plenty more though. Here`s one from a Vanderbilt professor: Will Rationing Guns Reduce Crime?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patch

[quote]The paper you included wasn`t a Harvard study, but was published in a student journal run by conservatives and libertarians, and none of their submissions are peer-reviewed[/quote]
I know... I agreed that I was incorrect originally when I later (11:51:55) stated the following:

[quote]Additionally, the article appears to have been written to be included in a Harvard paper rather than an article sponsered by Harvard.[/quote]
I had also stated that it appears to have been refuted and then also included another article (yes, John Lott was part of it - and yes, I`m sure Donahue has found something he thinks is wrong with it).
0
Reply
Male 25
Oh was my link to the *actual* Harvard university website where they completely disagree with you not enough to debunk your paper by people fraudulently trying to appear to be publishing under Harvard?

Sorry I didn`t realize your standards were so high. I`ll try and find some sources other than one of the most highly reknowned universities in the world to contradict your obscure "Harvard" paper.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@HA: The paper you included wasn`t a Harvard study, but was published in a student journal run by conservatives and libertarians, and none of their submissions are peer-reviewed, and there isn`t a standard list of editors that would guarantee the legitimacy of the journal. That and I`m pretty sure the murder rate in Luxembourg is overstated by an order of magnitude. So that paper doesn`t really have any credence to it.
0
Reply
Male 213
And why has a 1999 article in the (UK) Daily Mail on violent crime in the UK shot up to third in Google`s searches for "Violent crime stats UK"? When the real figures are so low?
0
Reply
Male 10

0
Reply
Male 213
@CrakrJak Those figures from Warner are over four years out of date. Alan Johnson, mentioned in the source article became UK Home secretary in June 2009.
The latest England and Wales crime stats actually show a fall to the lowest recorded levels.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@technophebe

After doing some searching, it seems that I have found one claim that attempts to refute this article. Additionally, the article appears to have been written to be included in a Harvard paper rather than an article sponsered by Harvard.

However, there are plenty of scholarly articles suggesting that either side is correct. Rather amusingly, they all claim to know better than the "other guys."

For instance, to further our bodies of evidence, I submit: Confirming More Guns, Less Crime. Eventually, this will boil down to whether or not it is appropriate to use econometrics to investigate the relationship between firearms and crime. From my research, if you allow the use of econometrics, then the conclusion is that firearm rates inversely correlate with crime.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@technophebe

It`s on the Harvard Law server - check the domain. I have to assume that this means that it is being sponsored by Harvard, since it`s like, totally on their website and sh*t.

Seriously, you will need to try harder than "it`s so totally debunked."
0
Reply
Male 25
Yes unfortunately HumanAction, that`s a widely debunked study that was published falsely under the Harvard name by right-wingers who in fact have no connection with Harvard.

Below is a link to the *actual* Harvard where you will find a load of articles contradicting and debunking the conclusions of Kates and Mauser.

Harvard School of Public Health
0
Reply
Male 2,357
If anyone has the time, here is a lovely read from a Harvard study that supports my previous claims that violent crime (including murder) rates are widely independent of firearm availability and market saturation. Additionally, this article provides further evidence for my claim that murder rates are primarily determined by socioeconomic and cultural factors.

Harvard Law Study

To quote: "Whether causative or not, the consistent international pattern is that more guns equal less murder and other violent crime."
0
Reply
Male 5,811
And here are the crimes that the U.S. and Canada consider to be violent crime. Even so much as pointing a gun at someone here is violent crime, so stop clinging to data because it supports your distorted world view and get yourself a reality check.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
But since you like charts so much...


Comparison of aggravated assault and robbery.


Comparison of murder. Since these are the only violent crimes that can be compared, it would seem yours is much more violent.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]I`m sorry if the facts and statistics get in the way of your liberal anti-gun rhetoric, but that`s reality.[/quote]
Wow, where to start? First, the "data" says conservatives where it says source, but that wasn`t the point I was making. Second, it was compiled by a newspaper that was trying to make the current UK government look bad. Third, and this is the real point, I don`t care where the data are from, because it`s the METHODOLOGY that`s wrong. You`d apparently like to live in a dream world where you can compare completely different things and say they`re equal. It`s like looking at two people`s criminal records and only counting a few crimes for one person, and counting more crimes for another, and concluding that the latter person has committed more offences. Stop being stubborn, that chart is meaningless. If you think I`m wrong ask one of your conservative buddies to back you up.
0
Reply
Male 37,888

All I know is there ain`t no bobsleds in Havana.

I`m siding with the old guy.
0
Reply
Male 676
I agree with Gerry1of1.
0
Reply
Male 676
Right..... Something doesn`t make sense. I`m sure they were lost and were just the nicest people. They sound legal too.........not.
0
Reply
Male 2,143
Gun people are not in the top ten percent I.Q. groups.
0
Reply
Male 36,388
I wasn`t concerned about them "going skating" but I wondered why they couldn`t find "their friend`s house" even with a GPS...
THAT make me go "hummm..."

As for the ".22 pistol" it may have been a .257 which actually packs a whallop! Or just a (un)lucky shot.

It looks like the old guy was in the wrong, but it wouldn`t shock me if "furter details" tell us otherwise.
Of course the MSM would NEVER cover THAT...
0
Reply
Male 17,512
patchgrabber: That graphic I posted is compiled data from the European Commission and United Nations. Neither would be considered `conservative` sources.

I`m sorry if the facts and statistics get in the way of your liberal anti-gun rhetoric, but that`s reality.
0
Reply
Male 153
Check his immigration status. If he was illegal, then it is a federal crime. Depending on the state it could be a felony. Again, if they were in the act of committing a felony (being here illegally) then it is a justifiable homicide. Not saying it`s right, but I can see a twisted court case coming.
0
Reply
Male 25
As I tried to say in my last post:

No doubt the gun-apologists will completely ignore the fact that I`ve posted some actual figures rather than just insults and vague "sounds like it could be right but no actual support" arguments, but as a wiser man than me said...


0
Reply
Male 14,330
Oh ya those are completely no biased instutions....ROFL!!!

0
Reply
Male 25
Handful of articles from respectable institutions making it clear which side of this argument is in the right:

Forbes

Harvard School of Public Health

BloombergBusinessweek

John Hopkins Centre for Gun Policy and Research

No doubt the gun-
0
Reply
Male 4,283
That`ll learn him for being Cuban.
0
Reply
Male 4,893

This is life people. Sh*t happens, mistakes are made, and people die every day. Do you believe the government will protect you with more laws? Does any really believe that this world will be paradise when everyone disarms and gives more control to the government?
Some see a story like this and think the problem would be solved by taking away weapons. Others see a story like this and are reminded that no one else will protect them from crazy bastards. Both have valid opinions, but one doesn`t strip anyone of their rights.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
His neighbors house was recently robbed I wonder if there`s more to this story than we`re being told.
0
Reply
Male 37,888

65 year old guy never had an incident, the suddenly this. What`s more likely? They were there to rob the place or they wanted to go skating?


Let`s see. A car load of illegal Cubans {that`s why they wouldn`t show their faces} is going skating. Uh huh. Statistically, I`d say it is more likely that they were actually there to rob the place, but have worked a deal to testify for the District Attorney in exchange for residence status.
0
Reply
Male 3,577
@Gerry1of1
"4: Cubans and ice skating...sounds fishy to me. "

thats so wrong and funny
0
Reply
Male 202
Old senile war vet with PTSD gets scared an ends up killing a kid with a target pistol.

Yeah, it`s obviously tragic for the people that knew the kid, but I can`t see how this is a national story.
0
Reply
Male 1,920
Why didn`t we ever hear about Humptulips?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@McGovern

Wait, wait, wait... You mean to tell me that the laws of the 1920`s which mandated citizens obtain local police permission to possess firearms (register and license advocates), later laws outlawing semiautomatic rifles (assault rifle ban advocates), laws restricting magazine capacity (high-capacity magazine restriction advocates), and the 1998 confiscation of pistols worked so well that there is now a stabbing problem???

Dang... if only someone could have seen that coming. But hey, it`ll totally be, like, seriously different and stuff here. Cause like, Obama and sh*t.
0
Reply
Male 382
!Merica. Shoot first, maintain self defence strategy and wait for sympathy.
0
Reply
Male 3,577
he a soldier so that make him a hero. so its okay for him to kill
0
Reply
Male 14,330
Here`s the "experts" solution to everything...


I`m waiting for the day the UK mandate all citizens must live in gigantic hampster balls for their own "saftey."
0
Reply
Male 14,330
@patchgrabber

I didn`t say you were. What I`m saying is the control side is just as guilty of that if not more. The supporters just refuse to see it.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@McGovern: To my knowledge I haven`t skewed any data, but comparing violent crime between countries with very different classifications of what constitutes violent crime is not skewing, it`s simply disingenuous and misleading representation. I`m sure some people have presented misleading "facts" on the pro-gun control side as well, but it doesn`t make that image any less deplorable.
0
Reply
Male 4,283
Many people on here have shown through government links how the UK adds more crimes to their statistics than America does. You clearly are trolling CrakrJak.
0
Reply
Female 4,086
why didn`t he just call 911? i have a gun, have lately been threatened at home and at my place of business, but until somebody gets past the dogs at home or the set of locked doors at work, i`ll content myself to call the cops. now, after they get past the dogs or the double set of locked doors, unfortunately FOR ALL CONCERNED, not just them, they`re asses are mine. i`m not at all proud of my attitude, its just how things stand in my life right now.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
[quote]Stop perpetuating your "data" that is devoid of any reputable methodology[/quote]

LOL!! Ya unless it supports gun control then skew away!!
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@Crakr: FFS you keep trolling out that image when it`s been proven to be false and misleading. Stop perpetuating your "data" that is devoid of any reputable methodology.
0
Reply
Male 1,497
Typical gun nut. Lots more of this comming in the future.
Try not having BILLIONS of guns.
0
Reply
Male 5,916
Meh, this is just more proof of why MOST people don`t deserve guns, even Vietnam veterans. This guy was UNABLE to make a clear decision, instead reacted out of fear. With guns there are no reset buttons. I`m not for disarming everyone but we really need to curb how easily it is to attain and maintain guns. It should be like a driver`s licence sadly. Have to go in every couple years to get tested make sure you are still capable and deserving of a gun
0
Reply
Male 14,330
6 people were shot in Chicago last night. I`ll let you put together the pieces why the left media makes no mention of it....
0
Reply
Male 17,512
ruthless1990: We`ve seen Europe`s violent crime rate.



USA is way down the list at #43, Perhaps it`s you Europeans that should `get your sh|t together`.
0
Reply
Male 36,388
@cartoonz: Yeah, you`ve repeated that mantra several times now. If it were true, why do nearly 100 million -legal- gun owners only account for a small % of gun violence? Because it`s -criminals- with ILLEGAL GUNS who are doing the killing. Makeing them "more illegal" won`t solve anything.

@patchy: It`s the gun-grabbers who`re promising to "prevent another tragedy" and to "protect the children" with MOAR LAWS, not the 2-A people. THEY claim a bunch of laws will stop violence, not us!

"Living in fear" is part of the modern world. It`s the same all over. Another law won`t change that either...
0
Reply
Male 2,390
@canoas - If I`m home when someone`s breaking in my home I can rightfully assume they will do harm, and I`m not talking mortal wounding, any bodily harm. News flash. Criminals don`t want to get caught and may go to lengths to hide evidence. I`m sorry if my family is more important than some thug low life breaking into my house at 2am.

@uunxx - rare doesn`t mean it won`t happen just makes the probability and percentage lower. It`s rare that a house in my neighborhood would get broken into, but guess what?
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@5cats: This is what happens in a culture that is told to fear everything. You seem to be of the opinion that gun control laws should be able to stop all gun murder or accidents involving guns; this is a ridiculous position.
0
Reply
Male 182
@Canoas

Documented cases of people being shot multiple times and shrugging it off destroy your argument. Rubber bullets would just piss them off. Same goes with tasers. With enough drugs or the right type of drugs, pain isn`t an issue.
0
Reply
Male 14,330

0
Reply
Male 14,330
.22 cal pistol used. BETER BAN DOEZ ASSUALTZ PIZTOLZ!!!
0
Reply
Male 14,330
Quick everyone hand over your guns because of the poor actions of one man!! You beter get in line or the Europeans and leftists will whine more than ever if that`s possible.
0
Reply
Male 427
@forsquirrel
so you`re saying that whatever he was stealing is worth more than that person`s life?

The way USA allows everyone to use guns is moronic. If you want guns for protection then a handgun with rubber bullets is more than enough.
0
Reply
Male 7,775
Just who should we fear in America?
0
Reply
Male 120
@ForSquirel in my gunless country it`s rare for burglars to have guns, also it`s rare for bulglars to break into house in presence of occupants. They would usually rob you when you`re with your family on vacations. Choosing lesser evil I preffer it this way.
0
Reply
Male 273
Guns don`t kill, people do. And people make stupid decisions everyday, so stop giving them guns.

It`s harder to get a driver`s license than a gun`s one in most of the US, explain to me the great logic behind that.
0
Reply
Male 2,390
" a sane person will eventually come to the conclusion that no one really had to die. It was just the little fantasy in the back of your head that made it seem like that was the thing to do at the time."

so what you`re saying is if someone breaks in my house with a gun, a knife, a crowbar, a (pick your implement) with every intent of doing harm to me or my family that I should just lie down and let it happen?
"Guns aren`t really needed for self defense."
What do you propose one should use then? 911 and wait for law enforcement?
Tried that, took the cops to long to get to my house. A Bat? Doesn`t do well if the attacker is using a ranged weapon. I got it, wishful thinking and positive happy thoughts. "I will not get mugged, I will not get mugged"
0
Reply
Female 3,001
America get your sh*t together.
0
Reply
Male 89
Those people who say "Those gun owners are just itching for a chance to kill someone" are the people who really want to kill someone. They`re projecting their insecurities and dark desires upon those with the capacity to carry it out.
0
Reply
Male 840
No, I wasn`t being sarcastic or trolling. I tried trolling last month about being against gay rights and that wasn`t as fun as I thought it would be. I am a liberal and in line with most liberal thinking.

Guns aren`t really needed for self defense. I know a lot of gun owners and I know from talking to them about this subject that they secretly want to be in a situation where they can defend their safety or property and shoot someone legally. And I can also tell you from experience that shooting someone is more of a traumatic experience than you might think. These people I know tell me that they would not feel bad at all shooting an intruder who was in their house illegally. Well, when things are all said and done and the situation is over, a sane person will eventually come to the conclusion that no one really had to die. It was just the little fantasy in the back of your head that made it seem like that was the thing to do at the time.
0
Reply
Male 2,390
@cartunze - "A gun owner`s wet dream - a chance to murder someone."

really? I hope you`re being sarcastic. If you`re not, then you`re just being an ignorant asshat.
I hate to break it to you, but the vast vast majority of gun owners don`t want to fire their gun in defense, and most never would. There are those few that will to protect and then there`s this guy who probably wanted to shoot at someone. If that`s the case then he probably has more issues than we know about.
0
Reply
Male 2,390
This old man was stupid.. If I understand the case correctly he at no point was in his rights to shoot. They never entered the house, his life wasn`t in imminent danger and they were fleeing.

Just a really bad example of a gun owner that made a stupid avoidable mistake.
0
Reply
Male 840
A gun owner`s wet dream - a chance to murder someone. Oh, they never came into the house and tried to rob you? They are still on the property! Close enough!
0
Reply
Male 7,775
It`s ok, he`s American, nothing to see here.
0
Reply
Male 3,842
This man is a murderer. It is not self-defense to shoot in defense of property (ie, if you are being robbed.) It is only self-defense if you shoot in defense of your person (ie, you are being physically threatened.) PS - obviously this guy is a complete racist because the kids spoke Spanish he thought they were criminals.

Fact: If you break into my house, you are not armed, and I shoot you, then I am a murderer.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Everyone, Let`s Ban GPS Now!

Yes, I`m being sarcastic.
0
Reply
Male 1,920
[quote]Seriously, who can complain with that logic?[/quote]
Because your logic is reactionary and ignores the cases where guns are used to legitimately protect people. As has been done many times here before, for every story like this, at least 2 can be posted where someone uses a gun to legitimately protect their lives and the lives of their families.

Don`t get me wrong, this man needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I have even seen one news report that states he fired in the air before shooting the victim as he was driving away. There is just no excuse for his actions if this is true.
0
Reply
Male 1,920
@DinVen
Please don`t preach to us.
Here is your civilized world.
0
Reply
Male 1,920
[quote]The point of gun restrictions isn`t to keep determined people from owning guns. Nothing will ever be able to stop those people.[/quote]

That is the whole point of gun restrictions.
0
Reply
Male 1,745
Old man shot too soon even if he believed he was getting attacked, not a responsible gun owner in my book and as the saying goes... if you don`t wield power responsibly, it will destroy you.
0
Reply
Male 390
Good thing that the dismantling of Americans "right" to bear arms has already begun. I hope they keep it up until it is illegal to own any kind of gun like in the civilized world.
0
Reply
Male 13
sad situation, but if the guy was actually shot while driving away then they will probably have a case. also, how has no one pointed out gerry saying "cubans and ice skating... sounds fishy to me." ?????? what does them being cuban have to do with some kids wanting to go ice skating?
0
Reply
Male 20
Yet another example of why more guns is dumb. No gun laws won`t stop this type of thing, but having more guns opens this type of tragedy. The point of gun restrictions isn`t to keep determined people from owning guns. Nothing will ever be able to stop those people. It is to keep irresponsible, stupid people from having easy access to guns. Seriously, who can complain with that logic?
0
Reply
Male 1,737
If they were trying to leave, doesn`t matter their intentions, they were no longer a threat. Not saying they ever were one, but the old guy thought so. Sucks all around.
0
Reply
Male 36,388
The old fellow is clearly in the wrong, unless some amazing circumstances come to light later.

He was a legal gun owner, never in trouble, so what "gun laws" would have prevented this? NONE!

All the laws in the world would not have stopped this from happening, except for 100% confiscation, just admit it gun-grabbers!
0
Reply
Female 6,381
This could have happened with a completely legal shotgun in Canada, too. Some scared old man who fears every young person sees a threat and blasts away. They take away drivers licenses from incompetent elders, but to do this with guns you`d have to register every type of gun. We tried in Canada and it was a complete flop.
0
Reply
Male 2,543
[quote]There must be something more to the story[/quote]

the old man had a sign saying something about shooting survivors. the foreigners couldnt read it. the old man shot some kids thinking his sign would legally protect him....well, thats my guess anyways
0
Reply
Male 1,196
There must be something more to the story. Maybe the kids thought they were ding dong ditching their friend`s house or something. You don`t shoot someone for just pulling up to a house. Either that old man is nuts or those kids were pulling some kind of prank.
0
Reply
Male 2,384
`MERICA
0
Reply
Male 459
This is a clear example of why I don`t want a gun in my house. I`ve heard some argue in the last few months, that they would defend their property to death from a home invasion, fine. but how often is something like this the case? regardless of what the Cuban kid`s intent was, if he was driving away at the time he was shot, it is murder. Two lives destroyed. stupid.
0
Reply
Male 3,412
If everything said was true, then sad...
This doesn`t change my stance on guns, however, the old man should still be held accountable.
Most castle doctrines say that the to-be-shot needs to actually break and enter before legally being able to be shot at, and that the shooter may not shoot a fleeing person, e.g. in the back.

The old man really has no excuse.
0
Reply
Male 327
Guess he wanted those damn kids off his lawn.
0
Reply
Male 642
clearly there should have been an armed guard at the house to prevent this...
0
Reply
Male 2,629
Maybe the old man didn`t have a handydandy interpreter.
0
Reply
Male 7,908
Guns for everyone!
0
Reply
Male 37,888

1: He`s not a "Teen", he was 23, a grown man.
2: Maybe they were robbing them, but one got shot so their story changed.
3: Confused old man tragiclly kills innocent man...this is "Malice Murder" ? Who the hell came up with that charge?
4: Cubans and ice skating...sounds fishy to me.

&

5: Half of what I just typed is pure speculation, just like half the content of that "News" report.
0
Reply
Female 695
WTF, is it a teen that was shot,a 22 year old, or a 23 year old?
0
Reply
Female 8,044
Link: Young Man Shot After GPS Error [Rate Link] - He wanted to go ice skating, instead he got a bullet in the head. Wouldn`t you ask questions first before shooting?
0
Reply