|
No, this isn't an attempt to start a debate on gun control. A fan of The Walking Dead shot[^] his girlfriend for saying it was unrealistic. Honestly, if he didn't have a gun, he'd just have looked for some other weapon. Stupid is as stupid does - unfortunately, in this case, stupid watches TV.
|
|
|
|
|
Extreme rage is only momentary. May be, if he had not a gun, his anger would have come down in few minutes and that poor girl might not have been killed shot at and injured.
And no, I'm not an advocate of gun control, it's just that we have so many stupid people than sensible ones.
modified 7-Dec-12 9:36am.
|
|
|
|
|
Shameel wrote: that poor girl might not have been killed.
She wasn't killed. She's in stable condition but with serious injuries.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Reading the story, this was not momentary rage. This was an argument that brewed over several hours, first in person, then in text messages, and so on. This guy got so worked up over the disagreement that he sat with a gun and waited for her to check on him.
Less stupid, more anger management issues with this one. If he hadn't had a gun, he would have struck her with something else.
|
|
|
|
|
But if he'd had to look for another weapon he'd have forgotten what he wanted it for by the time he found it.
When Jerry Sadowitz got punched on stage at the Just For Laughs festival in Montreal (before he outed Jimmy Savile and was no longer allowed on TV) I remember the American comedians mocking the Canadians for their lack of guns and having to walk all the way to the stage just to punch someone. Said more people would get punched, but by the time the angry person had made their way to the stage they'd forgotten what they were angry about or calmed down. In the US all you'd have to do was stand up, shoot, sit down and wait for the next guy.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
Shed Petition[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisElston wrote: In the US all you'd have to do was stand up, shoot, sit down and wait for the
next guy.
Is that why the comedy around here is so dead. No wait I blame Saturday Night Live and Letterman. 
It was broke, so I fixed it.
|
|
|
|
|
S Houghtelin wrote: No wait I blame Saturday Night Live and Letterman Jay Leno.
FTFY 
The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative. -Winston Churchill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. -Oscar Wilde
Wow, even the French showed a little more spine than that before they got their sh*t pushed in.[^] -Colin Mullikin
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisElston wrote: But if he'd had to look for another weapon he'd have forgotten what he wanted it for by the time he found it.
Once your in a murdering mood everything becomes a weapon. The time two kids tried to mug me, I was holding an mp3-player.
|
|
|
|
|
It takes a lot longer to beat someone to death with an mp3-player than it does to shoot them dead though.
I'm fairly certain I'd get tired and give up long before death occurred.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
Shed Petition[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisElston wrote: It takes a lot longer to beat someone to death with an mp3-player than it does to shoot them dead though.
You'd be surprised. As though as the human body is, it's still a fragile system.
ChrisElston wrote: I'm fairly certain I'd get tired and give up long before death occurred.
Adrenaline makes sure you don't get tired before you're "out of danger". Rage and anger might have a similar effect, blocking logical reasoning.
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisElston wrote: But if he'd had to look for another weapon he'd have forgotten what he wanted it for by the time he found it.
Or not since the story basically said otherwise...
"...and became so heated that she returned to his house to check on him — and found him waiting for her with a gun."
|
|
|
|
|
Is it possible to beat someone to death with a bottle of Prozac? That was probably the nearest thing to this idiot when he committed the crime. If not the Prozac he probably had a bottle of some kind of liquor that he was washing the pills down with and that would have done it.
Just saying, you just can't fix stoopid!
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Hankey wrote: Just saying, you just can't fix stoopid!
Yes you can. With a gun. 
|
|
|
|
|
Chris C-B wrote: Yes you can. With a gun.
I suppose that's true, but you can make them a lot less harmful if you heavily sedate them.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: Honestly, if he didn't have a gun, he'd just have looked for some other weapon.
I've always hated that argument. In this situation it may be true, but when I heard it being made about the Aurora shootings, for example, I just thought, if he didn't have guns, would he have killed those twelve people by throwing f***ing potatoes at them?
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't make the argument any less valid by trivialising it and using potatoes in it's place. How about if you'd substituted bricks in there instead?
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: It doesn't make the argument any less valid by trivialising it and using potatoes in it's place.
I'm genuinely curious. What could he have used that would even approach a firearm?
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: How about if you'd substituted bricks in there instead?
OK. Let's suppose he took bricks in there. Would twelve people have been killed and fifty-eight injured? Would he have used a wheelbarrow, or just carried three or four in his arms?
|
|
|
|
|
Whether one or twelve doesn't matter - any loss of life is unconscionable. And you only need one heavy object to injure or kill.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: Whether one or twelve doesn't matter - any loss of life is unconscionable. And you only need one heavy object to injure or kill.
I agree that any loss of life is unconscionable, but I certainly don't agree that it doesn't matter whether one person is murdered or twelve.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: Whether one or twelve doesn't matter - any loss of life is unconscionable.
Sorry but that's rubbish. There is certainly a difference between killing 12 people and killing 1, and if you can change a 12 into a 1 then that's certainly worthwhile.
|
|
|
|
|
So if I go out and kill 1 it's less reprehensible than killing 12? I'm sorry, but you are talking complete bollocks there and unfortunately this thread has gone completely off the track of saying how stupid it is to get that worked up over a piece of prime time schlock TV.
|
|
|
|
|
So if I go out and kill 1 it's less reprehensible than killing 12?
Uh, yes. I don't understand how you don't see that 
That's why we've all heard of Anders Breivik and not the thousands of people who kill one other person.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: So if I go out and kill 1 it's less reprehensible than killing 12?
Certainly that is true in most of the US based on the law. Multiple deaths are more likely to result in a death penalty or more severe penalty.
Certainly true in the press. Single deaths are unlikely to lead to national coverage.
Certainly true to some extent in the international community. I don't recall any calls for international war crime trials because someone killed a single person.
|
|
|
|
|
Ravel H. Joyce wrote: What could he have used that would even approach a firearm?
How about some of the homemade grenades he booby-trapped his apartment with? He had over 30 of them in his apartment wired up to traps. What if he walked in and lobbed a half dozen grenades into the crowd. More than 12 people would have died. What's your argument now? How about we ban all of the items that could possibly be used to make explosive devices. There goes all modern technology, cleaning supplies, gardening supplies, gasoline/diesel. If people want to kill, they will find a way, regardless of how well regulated anything is.
Don't blame me. I voted for Chuck Norris.
|
|
|
|
|
FyreWyrm wrote: How about some of the homemade grenades he booby-trapped his apartment with? He had over 30 of them in his apartment wired up to traps. What if he walked in and lobbed a half dozen grenades into the crowd. More than 12 people would have died. What's your argument now? How about we ban all of the items that could possibly be used to make explosive devices.
Very few people can successfully make explosives. Moreover, explosives require preparation, more often than not. Consider Anders Breivik - he killed eight people with his car-bomb and sixty-nine with his guns.
FyreWyrm wrote: There goes all modern technology, cleaning supplies, gardening supplies, gasoline/diesel. If people want to kill, they will find a way, regardless of how well regulated anything is.
If people are determined, they will. Most shootings are not so premeditated; nobody mixes up some fertilizer explosive immediately after he catches his wife cheating on him.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
