Who thinks the shooting of the 11-year-old prankster was a good shoot?

[PeacefulWarrior]

What if your house is a target because the teens don't like your kid or you or someone who used to live there? Or just a convenient target on their way to their hangout?

Still not OK to shoot anyone in the back.

 

[RF667799]

Awesome!

Now do the one about swimming pools!!!

View attachment 67587187

Why? Our NZ friend will just say that is because of the guns too.

 

[Pyrite]

Still not OK to shoot anyone in the back.

Of course, it's not okay to leave the "safety" of one's home to go outside to shoot in the back a person who is running away. A person who did not enter the home, did not shoot at the home, did not pose a threat.

 

[Lursa]

Perhaps a more interesting thread question would be what's a good response after repeated harassment if there is no (realistic) help from police.

"Not" the death penalty. Pretty sure there's a large range of options aside from that.

 

[holbritter]

Exactly... so, what's a good response? Warning shots in the air? Yelling? Waving a finger? What's your favorite way of confronting a bunch of ahole teenagers at night?

Electrical shock from the doorbell

 

[JMB1911A1]

Third thread on this topic. Second in this sub forum.

OP is fishing from a slow boat trying to get a rise out of people.

 

[Daisy]

The shooter has been arrested and charged with murder. IMHO, repeated harassment doesn’t justify the shooting.

Man charged with murder in deadly "ding-dong ditch" shooting in Houston

Gonzalo Leon Jr. was charged with murder in the deadly shooting of 11-year-old Julian Guzman, who was playing "ding-dong ditch" Saturday in east Houston.

www.cbsnews.com

Don't cha know, some don't seek justice but seek revenge...2 different animals...

 

[soylentgreen]

How is being arrested and charged with a felony (murder) enabling that criminal act?

The act was committed by a person who thought he had a right to kill. That he got arrested does not change that fact.

 

[RF667799]

The act was committed by a person who thought he had a right to kill. That he got arrested does not change that fact.

He thought wrong, didn't he.

 

[soylentgreen]

What do you want him to say? That we should torture the shooter to death while his family watches?

How about trying preventative measures such as putting controls on guns and the owners instead of as you suggest wait until the tragedy happens before giving something as useless as your thought and prayers

 

[JMB1911A1]

Here is a response from the gun rights community. I think the gun banners are going to be disappointed since it doesn’t line up with what they think the gun rights community would say.

Prank Leads to Shooting We All Need to Learn From

A tragic prank leads to a shooting, raising questions about safety and parental control.

bearingarms.com

Lethal force has its place, but it's in response to threats to human life. Nothing about this appears to be a threat to anything other than a good night's sleep.

Armed citizens: Someone ringing your doorbell late at night and running away isn't grounds to open fire.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The act was committed by a person who thought he had a right to kill. That he got arrested does not change that fact.

As did the perp who used a vehicle as a weapon to kill those who had (allegedly) harassed him, but that perp also found himself on the wrong side of the law. Homicide laws are fairly clear as to what circumstances justify the use of deadly force (regardless of whether a use of a particular weapon is involved).

 

[CLAX1911]

The act was committed by a person who thought he had a right to kill. That he got arrested does not change that fact.

I don't think he thought he had the right to I think he knew it was going to be a criminal act and he would face punishment.

 

[Slavister]

Still not OK to shoot anyone in the back.

Did not say it was. I am asking what would he / you do?

 

[Slavister]

WOW, you don't realize I was addressing Ganondagan

Nope, missed it. Sometimes people respond to multiple others in 1 post, so I did no read what you said to him thinking you were responding to him and to me in 1 post.

Having said that, my question stands.

 

[Slavister]

"Not" the death penalty.

Agreed

Pretty sure there's a large range of options aside from that.

So, what would you do?

 

[Noodlegawd]

How about trying preventative measures such as putting controls on guns and the owners instead of as you suggest wait until the tragedy happens before giving something as useless as your thought and prayers

We could do that for a lot of things, including cars and alcohol. Why do you guys only suggest that when guns are involved?

 

[CLAX1911]

We could do that for a lot of things, including cars and alcohol. Why do you guys only suggest that when guns are involved?

Because it's not about saving lives it's about control.

 

[Lursa]

Agreed



So, what would you do?

I dont have a doorbell. I have a locked gate and a German Shepard. However I would ignore it, and then if that didnt work, disable it for awhile. Ignore any knocking.

It may be convenient to an argument but kids dont do this stuff forever with no incentives.

What would you do?

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

We could do that for a lot of things, including cars and alcohol. Why do you guys only suggest that when guns are involved?

Very true, there are no controls on cars or alcohol. And nobody has suggested any.

LOL. ffs. Somebody make the ST00PID stop. smh

 

[soylentgreen]

As did the perp who used a vehicle as a weapon to kill those who had (allegedly) harassed him, but that perp also found himself on the wrong side of the law. Homicide laws are fairly clear as to what circumstances justify the use of deadly force (regardless of whether a use of a particular weapon is involved).

Your argument is what is called an ambulance at the bottom of a cliff approach to dealing with a problem. You think just because they were arrested then all is good. Send out a few thoughts and prayers to the victims and job done. You give no thought to prevention which can be tried by looking at the causes why some choose to use violence to sort out their problems. And one of those reasons would be that you politics and culture is based on a belief in the right to kill with a gun

 

[MAGAnificent]

I think it was murder. But rather than get into the piddly-shit arguments on the other thread, if you think it was a good shoot, here's your chance to say so. Otherwise, stfu.

It was murder and charged accordingly. End of story. Or are you trying to goad those of us who favor the second amendment into justifying the shooting?

 

[soylentgreen]

I don't think he thought he had the right to I think he knew it was going to be a criminal act and he would face punishment.

Kind of a laughable reply considering one of your posts to me said :

No. Prove to me you can know people's thoughts. Not what they say their thoughts are.

Even so such an arrogant act that allows a person to believe they can do what they want and damn the consequences. The attitude of the right wing libertarians of america. I will do as I please and if it brings harm to others then **** them.

 

[CLAX1911]

Kind of a laughable reply considering one of your posts to me said :

You're not really making a point

Even so such an arrogant act that allows a person to believe they can do what they want and damn the consequences. The attitude of the right wing libertarians of america. I will do as I please and if it brings harm to others then **** them.

That's not what libertarians believe.

Is it possible that you could ever get something right?

 

[soylentgreen]

We could do that for a lot of things, including cars and alcohol. Why do you guys only suggest that when guns are involved?

Who said they do ignore cars or alcohol? You have regulations and bans on the use of cars and alcohol. The question is why is not the same ideas of regulating and control also put on guns.