A former GOP donor, who once made headlines after calling former president Barack Obama the N-word, fatally shot himself after attempting to kill his wife, according to reports.
A former GOP donor, who once made headlines after calling former president Barack Obama the N-word, fatally shot himself after attempting to kill his wife, according to reports.
Just legal gun owner things
There were good people on both sides
I am a lefty and I own guns. This comment is dumb
edit, i get the point you were trying to make now, by reading other posts of yours.
Was he not a legal gun owner?
Reading your other comments, i get the point you were trying to make now. I like it, just the first post being so vague, it was easy to miss, but it makes sense now.
Thanks for making the effort.
Okay this comment is actually stupid.
Saying this is a legal gun owner moment is as stupid as saying it’s an Antifa moment when someone tries to loot a store during a protest or counter protest.
He was a legal gun owner who used his legal gun to try and execute his wife – something that seldom happens in countries that don’t hand guns out like candy.
The vast majority of gun owners have never used a gun in an illegal activity and enthusiast communities exemplify safe gun use so highly that pointing the barrel of even an unloaded firearm close to the general direction of another person for any reason other than self-defense is such a highly offensive act it will often get a person forcibly disarmed or assaulted to even negligently put another person down the line of the barrel.
The issue at hand isn’t that gun ownership is legal, the issue is that a (possibly undiagnosed) sociopath or potential psychopath was able to get a firearm, or more likely a wealthy individual was able to use that wealth to circumvent safeguards and laws that would have prevented a person of his questionable mental health from owning one to begin with.
Completely irrelevant. The vast majority of drivers don’t drive when they’re drunk, but we still have DUI laws that apply to everybody.
The reason we have them is because there was a clear pattern where impaired drivers were involved in more accidents that were more fatal, just like legal gun owners and unjustifiable murders.
And of course because the alcohol lobby didn’t think to start a death cult to fight DUI laws to maintain their profits.
Entirely optional. The pro-gun community might go online to tut about poor trigger discipline or unsafe storage but they (or the people representing them) staunchly oppose any laws that actually make these things a requirement.
At a range or in your imagination. They don’t rush out from behind a couch to scold a domestic abuser for sweeping his wife.
Congratulations, welcome to gun control. Preventing that is 100% the goal of gun control, has always been the goal of gun control and has been hugely effective outside of America.
Generally, this is through gun licensing* with applicants needing to demonstrate they know how to safely store* and operate*, undergo a background check* and often be a member in good standing at a range for at least 6 months*.
These laws also take into consideration the risk of different guns* with semi-automatic weapons involving increased scrutiny* given that they’re the weapon of choice for impulse killings, mass murder and armed robbery.
And of course, this comes with actual punishments* for anyone caught endangering others with their firearms, rather than just getting the frowning of the lifetime from the people who enabled them.
Unfortunately, everything marked with a * is opposed by the pro-gun community who would rather just keep selling guns to criminals, abusers, extremists and 80% of mass shooters instead of making the “responsible” part of “responsible gun owner” mandatory.
But we all know the talking point you’re working towards – the “it’s a mental health problem” bullshit excuse.
Of course the goal of that excuse is to demand something impossible is done before you will even consider gun control – in this case, accessible mental healthcare for every man, woman and child in America that can instantly cure them of complex problems far beyond even the most cutting edge medical science, so completely that they will never relapse for even a minute, delivered within a budget of $0.
But do you know what you’re actually doing? Admitting that the American public are simply not healthy enough for such permissive gun laws to be safe.
So how about we just fix the gun laws without the gun lobby’s stamp of approval and when the pro-gun crowd has finished building their impossible mental health system, they can have them back.
After all, they’ve insisted that they (and they alone) have had the solutions for 25 years now and the only thing they’ve done is dug the country a deeper hole in the name of profit.
I’m all in on banning guns, but nobody would say “Just driver’s license things” when someone drives off the cliff in a murder suicide.
They would if America’s requirements for holding a driver’s license were just turning up and a DMV and saying “I pinkie promise I know how to drive and will not drive off a cliff in a murder suicide”.
If you don’t want people who commit murder with legal guns called “legal gun owners”, stop selling them legal guns.
So what part of the license does cover this?
The part where they make sure you can actually drive and revoke your license if you’re a danger to others on the road.
But why try and torture your analogy further? People aren’t driving off cliffs and if they were, we could stop it with stronger barriers and no lobby groups or death cults would fight to stop it.
On the other hand looting goes hand-in-hand with protests and riots. You always have opportunists finding unsupervised shops. Besides, during those situations they are probably right that nobody cares about the supermarket chain’s losses when human lives lose a significant part of their value.
So yes, anybody would equate gun ownership with increased risk of homicide/suicide and protests with looting. The false equivalency here is looting is exclusive to Antifa.
You’re missing the point. The vast majority of Antifa members and demonstrators do not go out of their way to damage public or private property and generally do not act in a manner that will harm bystanders and locals.
The far right talking points, however, would try to make people believe that Antifa is just an anarchist organization seeking to undermine and overthrow all law enforcement agencies and entities to allow them to loot and pillage to their hearts content without any concern for bystanders. The truth couldn’t be further as there has been numerous examples of Antifa members identify people there to instigate violence and quite often doing what they can to aid law enforcement present to apprehend and arrest them before the situation becomes violent.
The same can largely be said about gun owners. The vast majority have never used a firearm to commit a crime, nor intend to. And spend any amount of time at a firing range or other organizations for gun owners, and you find a group so conscious about safe use of firearms that to even accidentally point an unloaded and known safe firearm at any other living person for any reason other than self defense can often result in that person being immediately disarmed and lectured.
Where as posts in this comment thread seem to assume owning a gun means you want to shoot and kill someone for no other reason than you owned a gun, which couldn’t be any further from the truth.
So in other words, gun safety is entirely optional and the worse you’ll face is some embarrassment if someone calls you on it.
Even in this person’s fantasy, they’ll still hand the gun straight back to the person.
Not even kind of close. Legal gun owners can be responsible and law abiding citizens, but you know the ones everyone hears about are not that kind of person. Why don’t the good and wholesome law abiding gun owners root these people out? Is it because a significant segment of that population shouldn’t own guns, even if they say THEY aren’t the problem?
To put it simply… If you had a Gatling gun on your vehicle, would you have used it by now? Most of us would admittedly say yes. Most of us, given unfettered access and anonymity, would have at least thought about doing something really stupid and illegal if everyone had Gatling guns mounted on their vehicles.
Most of us would have killed someone if the likelihood of being caught was minimal… Which is why unfettered and semi anonymous access to firearms is an awful idea
While I agree with the sentiment, I wouldn’t have killed anybody.
Good people find the idea of ending someone’s life innately abhorrent and will hesitate to do it even if their lives are in danger.
It’s why militaries (arguably) make sure to train it out of people and why abused women and targeted minorities aren’t actually levelling the playing field by carrying a gun with them everywhere.
That said, what you’re describing is one of the major issues with permissive gun laws – it only takes a split second to kill someone (or yourself) with a loaded handgun in arms reach.