What's new
By:
Filters

Is your first instinct gun owner or parent?

Harambe said:
Why is it a matter of scale to say that there isn't a point/problem with the children, as well as the dad, in the approach?
Click to expand...
And why stop there? A wife that didn't step in and stop the Dad from buying the 6yr old a dirt bike. A paternal grandma that didn't teach her boy well enough so he wouldn't even think of buying a bike for his kid. She clearly didn't teach him to deal with his feelings in a positive manner, why would his first instinct be to beat up some adult that just pounded on his 6 year old? Where was his Ghandi lessons? There is plenty of blame to go around. Why does the city not have a law that 6 year olds can't drive dirt bikes near other humans? Why didn't the cops come stop the kid? Why did the stupid developer not put more miles between houses so this kid could ride a bike in peace without fear of being assaulted by adults? Why did the city not put in noise cancelling roads and walls so it wouldn't annoy the neighbor so much? Why does the federal government not step in and force States, Counties, and Cities to outlaw small dirt bikes that cause anger and violence? Why didn't one of the other neighbors step in and help? Didn't they break the good samaritan law or something? I see your point. Why stop the blame at the biggest offender? There is plenty of blame to go around so that we can point out all at fault parties that may have played a role in this no matter how small.
 
LogGrad98 said:
That's the way the legal system works. See, if I threaten to punch you I get a different possible penalty than if I shot a gun at you.
Click to expand...

Why would you be happy with that?

Better question, why would you want to deny the kids and the dad empowerment to feel in control of their lives?
 
Jazz Spazz said:
And why stop there? A wife that didn't step in and stop the Dad from buying the 6yr old a dirt bike. A paternal grandma that didn't teach her boy well enough so he wouldn't even think of buying a bike for his kid. She clearly didn't teach him to deal with his feelings in a positive manner, why would his first instinct be to beat up some adult that just pounded on his 6 year old? Where was his Ghandi lessons? There is plenty of blame to go around. Why does the city not have a law that 6 year olds can't drive dirt bikes near other humans? Why didn't the cops come stop the kid? Why did the stupid developer not put more miles between houses so this kid could ride a bike in peace without fear of being assaulted by adults? Why did the city not put in noise cancelling roads and walls so it wouldn't annoy the neighbor so much? Why does the federal government not step in and force States, Counties, and Cities to outlaw small dirt bikes that cause anger and violence? Why didn't one of the other neighbors step in and help? Didn't they break the good samaritan law or something? I see your point. Why stop the blame at the biggest offender? There is plenty of blame to go around so that we can point out all at fault parties that may have played a role in this no matter how small.
Click to expand...

Great question, JazzSpazz! I'm only stopping where I did for visibility; these are the only things we know with the data presented.
 
Harambe said:
Why would you be happy with that?

Better question, why would you want to deny the kids and the dad empowerment to feel in control of their lives?
Click to expand...
Wow, what lines were you pretending to read between. I didn't say anything remotely related to what you just posted.

So to read between your lines, you are saying that threatening to punch someone is exactly the same severity as shooting at someone.
 
Harambe said:
Great question, JazzSpazz! I'm only stopping where I did for visibility; these are the only things we know with the data presented.
Click to expand...
And by data presented is it fair to say that it is very little data with plenty of gaps between points, so most of the conclusions we come to are probably conjecture.
What we seem to know 100% is that some kids were riding a dirt bike before 3pm, then some dude(61 yrs old) punched a 6 year old multiple times in the head. 6 year olds dad came at dude, who pulled a gun on dad, shot at him but did not hit, then barricaded himself in his house around 3pm.

Out of all of this you seem to be most worried about internet hacks judging the wrongs committed by the kid and the dad that caused the dude to do all of that?
Strange. Sounds a little like victim blaming if you ask me.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Wow, what lines were you pretending to read between. I didn't say anything remotely related to what you just posted.

So to read between your lines, you are saying that threatening to punch someone is exactly the same severity as shooting at someone.
Click to expand...

I could dissect for you, but I feel like that's what you expect.

That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying there's truth to everyone was wrong, and that starting with the kids, any one of them could have made a different outcome. Instead of conceding that there's a point to be made(of value), you were happy with "Yes, the cosmos is full of wrongs that even out", and "It's a matter of scale".

IIDSSM, it feels like you're being obtuse to be obtuse. Something I've been accused of, and perhaps even guilty of sometimes. Maybe you were under the impression that my thread was a trap to **** on X/Y. But it wasn't, and isn't. I'm not skirting around that old kantakerous bastard needing a change in attitude. That is pretty obvious, but the article does address his charges.

What does the article not address is what I'm really after. Getting your squeaky brakes fixed doesn't mean your wipers work.
 
Jazz Spazz said:
And by data presented is it fair to say that it is very little data with plenty of gaps between points, so most of the conclusions we come to are probably conjecture.
What we seem to know 100% is that some kids were riding a dirt bike before 3pm, then some dude(61 yrs old) punched a 6 year old multiple times in the head. 6 year olds dad came at dude, who pulled a gun on dad, shot at him but did not hit, then barricaded himself in his house around 3pm.

Out of all of this you seem to be most worried about internet hacks judging the wrongs committed by the kid and the dad that caused the dude to do all of that?
Strange. Sounds a little like victim blaming if you ask me.
Click to expand...

You're almost a little bit correct there. Write it out a bit differently

"Out of all of this you seem to be most worried about internet hacks NOT judging ANY OTHER WRONG"
 
I’m willing to allow the 6 year old a pass. They kid is 6! It’s not like they sit down and think things through.
Nothing this child did, if he did something big like stabbing someone it would be in the story, deserved getting hit on the face multiple times.

One deserves a “hey, can you stop?” And the other deserves jail time.
 
There's a video of the entire encounter from a neighbor security camera, but I can't find it.

Sent from my moto z3 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Harambe said:
You're almost a little bit correct there. Write it out a bit differently

"Out of all of this you seem to be most worried about internet hacks NOT judging ANY OTHER WRONG"
Click to expand...
I say we judge the other wrongs and dismiss them because they are not material when compared to the guy punching down on that kid, then pulling a gun and firing it in the vicinity of a human.
 
Harambe said:
IIDSSM, it feels like you're being obtuse to be obtuse. Something I've been accused of, and perhaps even guilty of sometimes. Maybe you were under the impression that my thread was a trap to **** on X/Y. But it wasn't, and isn't. I'm not skirting around that old kantakerous bastard needing a change in attitude. That is pretty obvious, but the article does address his charges.

What does the article not address is what I'm really after. Getting your squeaky brakes fixed doesn't mean your wipers work.
Click to expand...

Yeah-- you're being obtuse with this thread, man. What is it you think the article does not address, exactly? It's like you're implying there were important facts or details left out that would change how we all regard the story, and you want us to speculate wildly about what those might be. Do you know something we don't, or is this just a vague commentary on how we shouldn't take news reporting at face value? I'm really hoping you don't esteem the 'multiple wrongs' committed as equal in their level of wrong-ness, making Mr. Lindem some sort of victim. That's not what you're saying, right?
 
There is a problem with our current interpretation of stand your ground. It is very possible that had the guy who punched a 6 year old actually connected with his gunshots he'd be found innocent of murder/manslaughter whatever, because he WAS defending himself.

There are no rules of the road. There are no rules of engagement. The way it works right now is like this, you have a right to keep and bear arms (you can own a gun and you can have it on you and you can let it be clearly known that you do). You also have the right to "stand your ground." If you feel threatened (not if you ARE threatened) then you can draw and fire at the threat. Period. That's our current situation.

You don't need to do any real evaluation of the threat (****, you might be killed in the split second you're deciding if you're in mortal danger or if your kid is springing out of the closet for a surprise birthday party), you don't need to consider what is behind your potential target, you don't need to be sure that the threat is real. The current standard is that you should have a gun and you should fire it as fast as you can at anything you feel is threatening. That's legal right now. That's our current law.

That is why I am no longer a vocal advocate for firearms rights, because the groups that currently lead the firearms rights cause are 100% cool with where we're at right now. I'm not.
 
Gameface said:
There is a problem with our current interpretation of stand your ground. It is very possible that had the guy who punched a 6 year old actually connected with his gunshots he'd be found innocent of murder/manslaughter whatever, because he WAS defending himself.

There are no rules of the road. There are no rules of engagement. The way it works right now is like this, you have a right to keep and bear arms (you can own a gun and you can have it on you and you can let it be clearly known that you do). You also have the right to "stand your ground." If you feel threatened (not if you ARE threatened) then you can draw and fire at the threat. Period. That's our current situation.

You don't need to do any real evaluation of the threat (****, you might be killed in the split second you're deciding if you're in mortal danger or if your kid is springing out of the closet for a surprise birthday party), you don't need to consider what is behind your potential target, you don't need to be sure that the threat is real. The current standard is that you should have a gun and you should fire it as fast as you can at anything you feel is threatening. That's legal right now. That's our current law.

That is why I am no longer a vocal advocate for firearms rights, because the groups that currently lead the firearms rights cause are 100% cool with where we're at right now. I'm not.
Click to expand...
Good post @Gameface . Agreed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top