PDA

View Full Version : Protective Dad + p***ed of Rider =


Tim Opiekun
28th February 2008, 14:04
Did this kid go too far?? Did the dad over protect?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,333351,00.html

thatbikerguy
28th February 2008, 14:07
I feel that the father went too far. We all know that no one ever sees the motorcycle...

Horse
28th February 2008, 14:26
Shooting the guy for just riding past twice? Somehow I feel like there has to be more to the story. Father was probably wrong for shooting the guy, but the biker was definitely wrong for taking it as far as he did. Doesn't make getting shot justifiable, but it does make it easily avoidable.

Tim Opiekun
28th February 2008, 14:28
I know several dads and older brothers that are just like this... (i'm an older brother) Seems this guy did what every other dad always says he's going to do. I'm not validating killin, but that guy was serious!!

jharback
28th February 2008, 14:32
There was no justified reason for shooting the biker. He was just riding back and forth past the house. There was no real threat to the father or his daughters. If he had got off the bike and aggresively approached the father and, or daughters, a warning shot might be justified. But shooting at the guy two or three times when there was no immediate threat....not justified!

scott494
28th February 2008, 14:33
Being an have a sister in high school, im pretty ptotective, but thats way to far id rather have a "talk" to "communicate" my intentions. lol

Hot Rod Sporty
28th February 2008, 14:33
Well, that was a bad decision...

Now instead of being around to protect his daughters from real predators, he's gonna be locked up for the next 30 or 40 years. I'll bet he feels like a really big man, now.


...hope he likes bein' a bitch at the Georgia state pen. :frownthre

Horse
28th February 2008, 14:34
I have a daughter, trust me, if I thought for a hot second it wouldn't end with the drive by, I'd have shot him too. Which is what I meant by thinking there was more to it. You don't follow girls home in a threatening manner and not expect trouble. Sorry, but gettin flipped off is no reason to terrorize teenage girls. I'm not condoning the shooting, but I can see how it could happen.

XL883L
28th February 2008, 14:35
There are many things that should have happened. The daughters should have stopped and called the police... the rider should have stopped and written down a tag # when they didnt stop after the collision. Then he could have called the police and reported the hit and run. The dad should have never been outside with a gun waiting for them to get home.

XL883L
28th February 2008, 14:37
I have a daughter, trust me, if I thought for a hot second it wouldn't end with the drive by, I'd have shot him too. Which is what I meant by thinking there was more to it. You don't follow girls home in a threatening manner and not expect trouble. Sorry, but gettin flipped off is no reason to terrorize teenage girls. I'm not condoning the shooting, but I can see how it could happen.

The article states that there was a collision involved. I know alot of us would chase down a hit and runner if we could actually ride afterwards.

celtic
28th February 2008, 14:38
i saw this on another forum.

what a senseless tragedy.



the news report seems to be missing a lot of facts.

looks like the girls were saying that they cut him off so he flipped them off and then ran into them?!?!?!

gimme a break...who the hell would purposely run into a car with their bike?



this is what i think happened:

the girls weren't paying attention and cut the dude off and/or bumped into him:

he got pissed off and followed them and the girls got freaked out and knew THEY were in the wrong so instead of calling the cops they called their father and spun him a tale...

so when the biker got there and drove by the father was waiting with a gun...then the biker realized the dude had a gun so he took off and the father shot him...

that's MY best guess from the little bit of info they gave...

DRAWTOOL
28th February 2008, 14:39
The kid went too far, so do did Dad. What we have here is an overabundance of Stupidity.

loki03xlh
28th February 2008, 14:41
You don't shoot people for driving by your house twice. That's just f'ed up. The Dad is gonna pay for a long time.

Horse
28th February 2008, 14:43
We all know, or have been the guy, that goes off the hook when getting cut off. I knew a guy that chased a car for miles kicking the doors, fenders etc for an honest mistake. Both tried to turn into the same lane at the same time, from opposite sides. No initial contact, but he beat that car senseless and terrified the driver and passengers.

tandk1597
28th February 2008, 14:47
Seems like pieces are missing from this story. Was it a hit & run? If so maybe the biker, was trying to get some insurance info, saw the gun & thought better.? Maybe he really was trying to harm the girls, if so then, I think the dad should have at least called the cops first. There just seems to be a few missing pieces to this.

xena
28th February 2008, 14:50
Well, that was a bad decision...

Now instead of being around to protect his daughters from real predators, he's gonna be locked up for the next 30 or 40 years. I'll bet he feels like a really big man, now.


...hope he likes bein' a bitch at the Georgia state pen. :frownthre

My thoughts exactly!

jamez1965
28th February 2008, 14:55
You don't follow girls home in a threatening manner and not expect trouble. Sorry, but gettin flipped off is no reason to terrorize teenage girls.

There are many things that should have happened. The daughters should have stopped and called the police... the rider should have stopped and written down a tag # when they didnt stop after the collision. Then he could have called the police and reported the hit and run. The dad should have never been outside with a gun waiting for them to get home.

There's nothing I can add that Horse and XL883L haven't already said.

jamez1965
28th February 2008, 14:58
Seems like pieces are missing from this story.

It's FOX NEWS! :p It's like if CNN and Entertainment Tonight had an illegitimate child.

jrossty
28th February 2008, 15:10
Who really knows the whole story... But damn, why in thee fook does someone have to die for this nonsense... This is one reason I opt to not carry a gun... Why didn't the dad just get a damn baseball bat, or stand in the road and try to flag the rider down to approach him about the situation first before f'ing shooting him??!!!??
That could be any one of us on that bike, if someone hit us and we were just trying to get a license plate number... :censor:censor:censor:censor

unfiguroutable
28th February 2008, 15:15
go to prison. over react...? um yeah just a bit. he killed him for riding down the street.

Urrell
28th February 2008, 15:55
"The teens said they made obscene gestures at Mough after he cut them off, adding at one point he ran into their car, the newspaper reported."

Would you just ride off after this - Young girls, boys or older people?

The father was an a$$hole on a short fuse. Who is looking after the girls now?

jrossty
28th February 2008, 15:56
....anyone got their number...? :shhhh:shhhh





j/k ... don't wanna get shot by their caveman uncle or anything... :doh

bigjnsa
28th February 2008, 16:00
Being an have a sister in high school, im pretty ptotective, but thats way to far id rather have a "talk" to "communicate" my intentions. lol

Scott, nice ride! Fellow HET driver here. Do they still have the M911?

milmat1
28th February 2008, 16:08
Theres more to the story for certain. But any MAN would stand his ground in front of his own house. Especially when his children have been threatened for any reason.
If the biker was chasing them because they cut him off then he was dead wrong (no pun intended). If he was pursuing them. When the Dad came out they didn't leave but rather continued to agrivate the situation, And maybe even threatened the dad etc...??

Depending on the situation and we don't really know what happened here, I could see myself blasting the dude as well..

jrossty
28th February 2008, 16:12
I could see myself blasting the dude as well..
Really?? Dang, I guess I'm way off base to believe that the rider shouldn't have been killed...

collinsb
28th February 2008, 16:19
A screwball biker meets a screwball father!
Tragedy!

grindbastard
28th February 2008, 16:21
You know, as much as I'd like to stand in my front yard and shoot people for WHATEVER reason, I think it would be obvious to anyone that spending a considerable amount of time in jail is going to result. The guy was a complete moron and perfect example of how not to handle a confrontation.

Gone
28th February 2008, 16:54
I'm for protecting family and all but you don't just shoot people. Call the police. Did he think of that? Nooo, just took his cracker behind out to the end of the driveway and shot someone. As Paul Harvey would say " And now for the rest of the story" Maybe the girls caused the collision and wouldn't stop for trading insurance, maybe the 21yo was a jerk, maybe all day long but he's still dead. Let's keep track of that story and see what really happened before we jump on the maybe bandwagon.

CT1200
28th February 2008, 17:11
Anyone for tougher gun laws yet?
I'm not...
What if the "biker" had a gun too?
The "biker" could have shot the girls when the accident happened.
Thats what I'm guessing the father thought the "biker" was going to do when he showed up at the house...
But who knows?
All I know is you better be damn sure your life IS in jeopardy before you pull that finger.

Did the "biker" have a family?
I'm sorry for them...

Gone
28th February 2008, 17:16
Theres more to the story for certain. But any MAN would stand his ground in front of his own house. Especially when his children have been threatened for any reason.

True. Absolutely true. But, actually shooting the guy on the bike went a little past 'standing his ground'. The father's gonna go to prison, maybe for life. Who's gonna protect those teenage daughters of his now?

Sorry, but I think that the father deserves a long sentence. He might be a protective father, and he might have been defending his home (though I'm unclear exactly what kind of threat a kid on a motorcycle was to his home), but he's still an asshole who killed someone for no good reason.

Mohntonite
28th February 2008, 17:18
The article states that there was a collision involved. I know alot of us would chase down a hit and runner if we could actually ride afterwards.

Ditto that, and perhaps thats what he was doing to get an address or location of the house. It does not say any where that he even stopped at the house. Let alone dismounted his bike. The father shot him in the back. I relize that some of you have daughters and sisters but imagine someone shooting your son in the back. He did not deserve to be shot for his actions. I hope the father is prosocuted.

Takingabreak
28th February 2008, 17:19
It is amazing to me that no one reads the whole story.
1) The Motorcyclist started it.
2) He then RAMMED there car.
3) He followed them all the way home and saw there Dad with as gun at the end on the driveway.
4) He then turned around and made a pass AT HIM!

DUMBASS!! I would have shot him too.

We as motorcyclist must do more to not be the cause of road rage, yes, I know how we are vulnerable out there, I just have to remember least April, but I have been cut off before, but we can't go ramming cars, and threatening people without running the risk of get run over.......or shot by a protective daddy.

Scooter_Trash
28th February 2008, 17:21
The father is an idiot for shooting the guy, the guy is an idiot for intimidating the two girls. Then again, who know? Maybe he was following them home so he could talk to the dad and tell him what dumb asses they were being in the car. Probably not, but it's an option.

edit: I thought I did read the whole story. Where did you find that info?

Gone
28th February 2008, 17:23
It is amazing to me that no one reads the whole story.
1) The Motorcyclist started it.
2) He then RAMMED there car.
3) He followed them all the way home and saw there Dad with as gun at the end on the driveway.
4) He then turned around and made a pass AT HIM!

Umm, I read the whole story. I didn't read that.

jrossty
28th February 2008, 17:32
Well... now it won't matter what really happened. Unless a witness comes forth (of the accident), its the motorcyclists word against the girls. And we know what happened to the motorcyclist... just a sad case all around.

lets all just pass around the :smoke for a bit...

:wonderlan:wonderlan j/k j/k...

Takingabreak
28th February 2008, 17:33
Use the link on the bottom of the page to the full story.

CT1200
28th February 2008, 17:36
Use the link on the bottom of the page to the full story.
Heres what I found Jeff...

"There is evidence of a collision between Mough's motorcycle and the vehicle operated by Gear's daughters," Berry said, adding authorities do not yet know who initiated contact.
"We've got questions about how it happened," he said.
Investigators went to Target for witnesses and looked at surveillance videos but found nothing to indicate Mough met the girls inside the store or in the parking lot, Berry said.


I don't think anyone will ever really know what exactly happened.
The 2 girls more than likely don't even know...

Mohntonite
28th February 2008, 17:36
Sheriff: Man killed motorcyclist who followed daughters


Published on: 02/27/08

Bogart — A man is facing a murder charge after authorities say he shot and killed a motorcyclist who followed his daughters home from a department store.

Richard Harold Gear, 45, claimed he was acting in self-defense when he shot Bryan Joseph Mough around 6:45 p.m. Monday as Mough drove his motorcycle past Gear's house, Oconee County Sheriff Scott Berry said.

• More metro and state news



The daughters, ages 17 and 19, had called their father on a cell phone to tell him they were being followed, Berry said. As they arrived home, Gear was waiting at the end of his driveway with a pistol, Berry said.

Mough, 21, drove past the house, turned around and made another pass. Gear fired his .40-caliber semiautomatic gun two or three times, hitting Mough once in the back, Berry said.

Gear called 911 after the shooting, as did neighbors, and sheriff's deputies arrested Gear on a murder charge, Berry said.

"He made an unspecified claim of self-defense," Berry said.

Mough was pronounced dead at a hospital.

Gear's daughters and Mough apparently left the parking lot of a Target in nearby Athens around the same time Monday evening, Berry said. Tempers flared as the drivers headed west toward Bogart.

Gear's daughters told investigators Mough cut them off, they made obscene gestures at him and Mough ran into their car at one point, Sheriff Berry said.

"There is evidence of a collision between Mough's motorcycle and the vehicle operated by Gear's daughters," Berry said, adding authorities do not yet know who initiated contact.

"We've got questions about how it happened," he said.

Investigators went to Target for witnesses and looked at surveillance videos but found nothing to indicate Mough met the girls inside the store or in the parking lot, Berry said.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff I didnt find what you had posted

It does not say he took a swipe at the Dad.
How can we say who hit who, The boy is dead, Dead men tell no tales
We dont know if he saw the gun, Dead men tell no tales
Why not call 911 and have the police arrive at the same time instead of afterwards.

CosmicCharlie
28th February 2008, 17:49
It is amazing to me that no one reads the whole story.
1) The Motorcyclist started it.
2) He then RAMMED there car.
3) He followed them all the way home and saw there Dad with as gun at the end on the driveway.
4) He then turned around and made a pass AT HIM!


It seems you didn't read the story either. You have made wild assumptions and put a big spin on the hearsay evidence.

Have you never cut someone off? Were you starting something?

He RAN into them. No where does it say he RAMMED them.

He made another pass(probably to get out of the neighborhood). No where does it say he made a pass AT HIM.

Only the two girls and the murderer are alive to "state the facts", the biker is now dead and from what I understand, he was riding by so obviously, he did not draw a gun to challenge the idiot father.

celtic
28th February 2008, 17:51
It is amazing to me that no one reads the whole story.
1) The two girls allege that The Motorcyclist started it.
2) The two girls allege that He then RAMMED there car.
3) He followed them all the way home and saw there Dad with as gun at the end on the driveway.
4) The motorcycle rider drove past the house, turned around, and then drove past again, (which to me means that when he was shot he was heading the way he came, most likely to LEAVE after seeing the gun.
DUMBASS!! I would have shot him too.

We as motorcyclist must do more to not be the cause of road rage, yes, I know how we are vulnerable out there, I just have to remember least April, but I have been cut off before, but we can't go ramming cars, and threatening people without running the risk of get run over.......or shot by a protective daddy.

there, fixed it for you.

Horse
28th February 2008, 18:07
It's pretty clear to me that nobody was thinking at all during the whole mess. Tragic really, I can put myself in the place of the biker and the father very easily, while I would think that I'd handle myself differently, it doesn't change the fact that I've been close to the situation on both sides in my life. What should have happened is everyone involved should have contacted the police immediately, this wouldn't have escalated the way it did if they'd just taken 10 seconds to think it through.

Gone
28th February 2008, 18:32
A lot of people are seeming to read what they want to read into the story. Just as saying the 21 y.o. was a "biker". Was he on a Harley? Was he wearing colors? Was he on a sportbike? Most 21 y.o.'s are. Was he on a dirt bike? In the words of Sgt.Joe Friday; The facts ma'am, just the facts.

Scooter_Trash
28th February 2008, 18:47
It's going to be kind of hard to make that self defense claim stick, after shooting the guy in the back.

SportyJoe
28th February 2008, 18:53
I think the girls are lying.... how many here have cut off a car on your bike? how many here are stupid enought to try it? ( lets see..im going to tangle with a 6000 lb car on my 500lb motorcycle)(ive been mad before, but Im not stupid enough to think Im gonna do any damage or even scare a cage on my bike) how many here have actually run into a car on purpose on your bike? (ya, maybe ill throw this base ball at an elephant...that will really do some Damage!!) too many things dont add up...

my guess is the teenage girls cut him off, ( we all know how teenagers pay so much attention to what they are doing when they drive) and he "may" have hit them when they cut him off, he shot them the finger because he was pissed (any here ever done that?), IMHO he was following them to get a licence number or some insurance info...

too many things dont add up.. and now stupid trigger happy dad is gonna be Big Bucks b#$&h in the pen... he deserves at least that... IMHO there is no reason he should have been out there with a gun... a bat, a golf club, a german shepard maybe... but a gun...this guy is an idiot and his daughters are liers. Its a shame someone had to die for those facts to be revealed.

Hot Rod Sporty
28th February 2008, 19:10
It is amazing to me that no one reads the whole story.
1) The Motorcyclist started it.
2) He then RAMMED there car.
3) He followed them all the way home and saw there Dad with as gun at the end on the driveway.
4) He then turned around and made a pass AT HIM!

DUMBASS!! I would have shot him too.

We as motorcyclist must do more to not be the cause of road rage, yes, I know how we are vulnerable out there, I just have to remember least April, but I have been cut off before, but we can't go ramming cars, and threatening people without running the risk of get run over.......or shot by a protective daddy.



WTF, Jeff?

I read the article. You've made assumptions that there is no evidence of, and are assuming that two teenage girls are going to tell the truth, even if the consequence might be their daddy going to jail. :rolleyes: Ya....right...

The only evidence they have is the girls word and a scratch on the car...

No witnesses saw what happened...



The 'biker' was shot in the back....I'm sure he's really menacing riding away...:frownthre

He was never on the mans property. He rode past on a public street.

Sorry, dude, I think you're flat wrong...

...that daddy needs to sit in prison for a loooong time...

Crush
28th February 2008, 19:17
I say death penalty. Give him a shot or a shock and move on.

DAB1955
28th February 2008, 19:31
I don't think the details matter. SHOOTING someone is WRONG. :doh
I guess the father had the mentality of "shoot first and ask questions later". I guess he'll have a long time in jail to rethink that saying. I don't buy his self-defense claim.:frownthre

absarider
28th February 2008, 19:32
any one think of this that maybe the girls tried runn him off the road so followed them to get there plate and see where they stopped so police could arrest them for trying to kill him with their car they called daddy after they realiized they messed up and hit the dude now all three are lieing to save their asses

rickrider
28th February 2008, 19:37
While all the facts are not known, (and at least one witness won't be able to talk), pretty hard to claim self defense when the guy appears to have never gotten off his bike and the dad shot him in the back.

rickrider
28th February 2008, 20:01
Another thought, from much experience raising teenagers as a parent and former foster parent, if the girls knew the other guy was wrong they would call the cops themselves, however, if they thought they were wrong they would call daddy.

Don't know all the story, but just saying what my experience tells me.

celtic
28th February 2008, 20:08
any one think of this that maybe the girls tried runn him off the road so followed them to get there plate and see where they stopped so police could arrest them for trying to kill him with their car they called daddy after they realiized they messed up and hit the dude now all three are lieing to save their asses

yep, i thought it and posted it earlier. :)

snowman
28th February 2008, 20:25
Another thought, from much experience raising teenagers as a parent and former foster parent, if the girls knew the other guy was wrong they would call the cops themselves, however, if they thought they were wrong they would call daddy.

Don't know all the story, but just saying what my experience tells me.

Thinking the same thing myself....:geek:geek:geek

If Daddy had a brain, he would have called the cops and let them know to be at his house when the girls get there or it's gonna get ugly...:gun

Takingabreak
28th February 2008, 22:42
Here is morte Info from another local paper...

Seems this dude is a bit trigger happy.


Story updated at 12:09 AM on Thursday, February 28, 2008

Oconee County investigators are taking a fresh look at 2-year-old allegations a Bogart man fired a gun at a group of teens, after he shot and killed a motorcyclist in front of his house this week.

Authorities didn't charge Richard "Ricky" Harold Gear at the time because they couldn't prove he fired a gun, and witnesses were "less than truthful" about what happened, Oconee County Sheriff Scott Berry said Wednesday.

The sheriff's office will reinvestigate that shooting in light of Gear's claim that he acted in self-defense when he shot 21-year-old Bryan Andrew "B.J." Mough on Monday after Mough argued with Gear's daughters in traffic and followed them home.

After deputies charged Gear with murder, residents called the sheriff's office to report other times Gear may have drawn a gun, Berry said.

"This case, like most cases, generates a lot of comments from the public," the sheriff said. "We're still working hard on it, and we're going to follow all leads to their logical conclusion."

Gear's daughters, 17 and 19, called their father Monday night to tell him that someone was following them; when they arrived home, Gear was waiting at the end of the driveway with a .40-caliber semiautomatic pistol, Berry said.

Mough drove by the house, turned around, and Gear shot two or three times as the motorcycle made a second pass, according to Berry.

Mough was shot once in the back, the sheriff said.
MULTIMEDIA
PDF: See a copy of a police report filed following the alleged shooting in 2006. (Note: Witness names and narrative were redacted by the Oconee County Sheriff's Office):

View document (148k)

But Gear may have shot at people outside his house before, in 2006, according to Berry.

"Deputies responded to the incident (in 2006), but they could not substantiate that shots were fired at anyone or if any shots were fired at all," the sheriff said.

Gear denied he fired a gun, Berry said.

Investigators are tracking down witnesses to the earlier shooting, according to Berry, who said he wasn't sure whether proving Gear had fired a gun two years ago would impact the murder investigation.

"We're revisiting (Gear's) whole past history," Berry said. "That's our responsibility and obligation. (Mough's death) encouraged us to go back and interview people who may have had contact with the suspect in this case."

Berry wouldn't say more, and a deputy's report gave vague details.

Gear, who turned 46 Wednesday, called the sheriff's office the night of Feb. 25, 2006, to complain that trespassers were on his property at 155 Gear Road. The trespassers backed over a mailbox when Gear told them to leave, according to the report.

A deputy found the car nearby in Bogart, and one of the people inside said they left when someone shot at them, according to the report.

The deputy barred the teens from Gear's property, according to the report, and one of the teens promised to replace the damaged mailbox and post.

But the mother of one of the teens who lives nearby said she called the sheriff's office to report she heard gunshots and that her daughter and friends said Gear shot at them.

The woman, who asked not to be identified, said five teens were arguing outside the Gear home when Gear came out with a gun.

"They were saying, 'Oh my God, oh my God, he shot at us,'" the woman said.

She told a deputy what had happened, but the deputy didn't take a statement because the information was secondhand.

An Oconee sheriff's investigator told the woman Thursday that he needed to interview her daughter about the 2006 shooting, the woman said.

Authorities charged Gear with murder Monday and did not find evidence he acted in self-defense, Berry said.

"The physical evidence we recovered from the scene and elsewhere doesn't reflect that Mough was the primary aggressor," Berry said. "There is no evidence he tried to hit Gear, and his motorcycle never went on Gear's property."

Investigators still don't know exactly what happened in the minutes leading up to Mough's death.

Gear's daughters and Mough apparently left the parking lot of Target, 3065 Atlanta Highway, about the same time Monday night, Berry said.

Tempers flared as they drove west toward Bogart.

Gear's daughters told investigators they made obscene gestures when Mough cut them off, and that Mough intentionally ran into their car after they crossed the Oconee County line. They called their father to say someone was following them, the sheriff said.

The motorcycle apparently did collide with the driver's side of the Gear sisters' car, Berry said, but investigators don't know which vehicle caused that contact.

Mough, who lived in the Lincoln Park subdivision north of Winder, worked at a Target store in Buford, according to a former girlfriend. He was hoping to transfer to the Athens Target and went to the store for an interview Monday, Brittany Williams said.

Published in the Athens Banner-Herald on 022808

skratch
28th February 2008, 23:07
i find it funny to hear all you guys who talk big about what you would do if someone cut you off in traffic backing the dad when mough did what many of you said you would do (and much less than what others said)

yes, there are pieces missing from this story, but common sense (which we all know is sorely lacking in society today) would tell you that he probably did not purposely run his bike into their car. someone earlier said it best 'throwing a stick at an elephant'. i believe the same as some others-they cut him off because of inattention/inexperience, he got pissed, followed them home, probably to get insurance info/yell at them, saw the guy with a gun, tried to leave, and got killed for it.

he needs to rot in jail. and the 'kids' can take care of themselves now. one's an adult (maybe not mentally) and the other is close enough. my sympathy is with the biker, not them.

bud095
28th February 2008, 23:23
i saw this on another forum.

what a senseless tragedy.



the news report seems to be missing a lot of facts.

looks like the girls were saying that they cut him off so he flipped them off and then ran into them?!?!?!

gimme a break...who the hell would purposely run into a car with their bike?



this is what i think happened:

the girls weren't paying attention and cut the dude off and/or bumped into him:

he got pissed off and followed them and the girls got freaked out and knew THEY were in the wrong so instead of calling the cops they called their father and spun him a tale...

so when the biker got there and drove by the father was waiting with a gun...then the biker realized the dude had a gun so he took off and the father shot him...

that's MY best guess from the little bit of info they gave...
i couldnt have said it any better my self

bdbecker
28th February 2008, 23:28
Just a sad situation. Too bad our society is coming to this. We'd rather pull a trigger than talk. We'd rather give someone the finger than just let it slide. We follow people to their homes instead of calling the cops. Just a sad situation.

Donz5oh
29th February 2008, 00:00
I don't think the details matter. SHOOTING someone is WRONG.

This isn't a very smart statement either. It is accurate in this instance but not all instances. This individual fired without cause or warning. The claim of self-defence isn't going to fly as there was no emminent threat of harm or death to either him or any other individuals involved.

I think, and so does the law - at least in Arizona, that someone is more than justified in shooting, and killing, someone if they are being threatened with harm. I know some states vary on that but thats just because of all of the communists in charge there.:shhhh Oh, by the by, never fire a warning shot, if you have a weapon drawn, be prepared to use it with lethal force or don't even carry.

I am in agreement with those that say there is more to this story. I have never seen an instance where someone used their motorcycle to purposely cut someone off much less ram the car and then follow them.

I'll bet a dollar to a dime that these girls hit this guy and then refused to stop so he followed them to get a plate or insurance information. I wonder if he even saw that the guy had a gun considering he passed by again. Maybe following them wasn't the smartest thing to do but that doesn't even begin to stack up against what this moron father did.

For all of those who thinks guns are evil and bad please give me a realistic example of another device that can put an 80 yr old women on the same level as a 20 yr old mugger. Its the great equilizer, when used properly of course - which it most definetely was not in this case.

And odds are this isn't the first time he's used his gun against someone else.

1995GM
29th February 2008, 01:40
There is absolutely no reason the biker should have been shot. Complete nonsense!

Someone please tell me why fathers and brothers are so protective of their daughters/ sisters? Especially when they are fully grown! They can make their own decisions and take care of themselves. Let them learn how to deal with problems on their own.

To me, the fathers actions were immature and emotional. Had the father been smarter he would have waited for an approach by the biker and talked the situation out in a mature manner. Instead, he will be spending the remainder of his life in prison.

DRAWTOOL
29th February 2008, 02:44
[QUOTE=1995GM;1130380]Someone please tell me why fathers and brothers are so protective of their daughters/ sisters? QUOTE]

You evidently aren't one yourself. I'll try to protect my children as long as I breathe, viciously and savagely if need be but not stupidly or uselessly.

doxbike
29th February 2008, 02:55
We all know, or have been the guy, that goes off the hook when getting cut off. I knew a guy that chased a car for miles kicking the doors, fenders etc for an honest mistake. Both tried to turn into the same lane at the same time, from opposite sides. No initial contact, but he beat that car senseless and terrified the driver and passengers.

This guy you're talking about should have been shot! The guy with the girls-well, the cops shoulda been called

Hogwylde
29th February 2008, 03:14
It's too late now for the motorcyclist and the girls and hind site is always 20/20 but one thing I always tell me wife and son if they EVER get into a similar situation is this.

1. Getting home doesn't make you safe. He may attack you when you get out or at the least now knows where you live and can come back.

2. Dial 911 and simply stay on the line giving detailed directions as to where you are and keep driving until the police catch up with you.

This way here NOBODY gets hurt

JonnyRtn
29th February 2008, 03:18
Dude needs to spend the rest of his life in the pen.... his daughters need to fess up... later story sheds light on Mr. Trigger Happy.... been forced out of my lane more than a few times... pisses me off, but I know a car will win the fight, he just followed them, girls told the cops that "someones following us"... and if I was hit and the little snot heads ran and I was still upright... just might follow them myself.... but I carry a cell so the second they turned into a drive I would be dialin 911....

Rascal
29th February 2008, 03:54
I think the father was in the wrong for killing him.

Horse
29th February 2008, 05:35
Wouldn't surprise me much if it was an idiot mistake, judging by the earlier incident he couldn't even hit a car in his own driveway. Hitting a guy moving on a bike on purpose is a shot for a pro. Maybe trying to scare him and got unlucky. Either way, it's really looking like this guy should be put away for good. Defending your family is one thing, shooting at anything that moves just because you don't like it is for morons.

glh
29th February 2008, 05:43
It's FOX NEWS! :p It's like if CNN and Entertainment Tonight had an illegitimate child.

+1 Was anything else going on in the world at the time?

It is amazing to me that no one reads the whole story.
1) The Motorcyclist started it.
2) He then RAMMED there car.
3) He followed them all the way home and saw there Dad with as gun at the end on the driveway.
4) He then turned around and made a pass AT HIM!

DUMBASS!! I would have shot him too.

We as motorcyclist must do more to not be the cause of road rage, yes, I know how we are vulnerable out there, I just have to remember least April, but I have been cut off before, but we can't go ramming cars, and threatening people without running the risk of get run over.......or shot by a protective daddy.

Jeffy, are you Fox News worshipper? It sure sounds like it to me. The entire chain of events as reported, and bullet pointed by you with even less nuance, is simply absurd. Ramming a car with a motorcycle? Not unless he had a special car-ramming front bumber installed just in case.

I have followed cages that have cut me off; I simmered but did not boil over, and observed their fear. I am a motorcyclist, not a biker, but I was thankful for the biker mystique that was the root of that fear. The only thing I wanted to happen was for the driver and any passengers to be more aware in the future of bikes on the road.

I don't know who I fear most, teenage girls talking on cell phones while they drive pulling out in front of me, or "solid citizens" like you being fooled and manipulated by the things they see and hear on TV.

You say that you would have shot him too. I would like to think that if it were me riding back by your house you would refrain from shooting me in the back because I am relatively clean cut, but that is probably wishful thinking.

Donz5oh
29th February 2008, 05:57
Jeffy, are you Fox News worshipper? It sure sounds like it to me. The entire chain of events as reported, and bullet pointed by you with even less nuance, is simply absurd. Ramming a car with a motorcycle? Not unless he had a special car-ramming front bumber installed just in case.

I have followed cages that have cut me off; I simmered but did not boil over, and observed their fear. I am a motorcyclist, not a biker, but I was thankful for the biker mystique that was the root of that fear. The only thing I wanted to happen was for the driver and any passengers to be more aware in the future of bikes on the road.

I don't know who I fear most, teenage girls talking on cell phones while they drive pulling out in front of me, or "solid citizens" like you being fooled and manipulated by the things they see and hear on TV.

You say that you would have shot him too. I would like to think that if it were me riding back by your house you would refrain from shooting me in the back because I am relatively clean cut, but that is probably wishful thinking.

Well said except, what the hell does Fox News have to do with this? Did I miss something or are you just taking cheap shots at Fox? Otherwise, well said.

H34TH3N
29th February 2008, 05:59
Me...I hope the girls AND the DAD get f'ed in the azzz ...DRY.....and in whichever order comes around first...And id be happy to take care of the girls now that tough guy daddy is bent over a urinal in cell block "D"....

GrumpyCoyote
29th February 2008, 06:10
A better case for FIDO (Forget It, Drive On) was never made.

The only thing following someone who cuts you off proves is that there are two jackasses on the road. FIDO.

As for the shots fired, any sane gun owner knows that firing the weapon is only done to stop a direct deadly threat to yourself or others. Driving by the house is not a deadly threat. Put the idiot in prison.

Gone
29th February 2008, 07:38
any one think of this that maybe the girls tried runn him off the road so followed them to get there plate and see where they stopped so police could arrest them for trying to kill him with their car they called daddy after they realiized they messed up and hit the dude now all three are lieing to save their asses

That was kinda how I read the story

unfiguroutable
29th February 2008, 07:42
have made some bad decicisions in my time. thankfully no one has ended my life over one. last year I was rolling down a local back road and a SUV pulled off the dirt shoulder and made an illegal u-turn in front of me. she stopped in my lane due to the on comming traffic. she also cut off a guy pulling out into traffic from the driveway just past her. so the oncoming lane had 4 cars in it, the ecape to the right had a 2 foot gap with a car waiting to fill it and i was going 50 right at her. she saw the terror in my eyes tried to back up leaving me only one course of action. emergency braking. luck fo rme the oncomming car saw this to and stopped so she could proceed. I stopped 3 feet on the other side of were her suv was. She with out meaning to almost killed me. it was the first time somthing like this had happend to me. I laid rubber (controlled burn out) to turn around. rode the double yellow for 1/2 mile in mornign traffic, ran a red light and was about to take her mirror off when I came to my senses and turned around. i used the large median to turn around as I looked in my mirror I saw a car on my tail, an unmarked state trooper. I pulled over without him having to light me up. I got luck and he let me go with the suggestion I have some herbal tea and chill out. the point? I could easily see me being the guy that got shot in this story. Lessson learned.

williamv1203
29th February 2008, 09:28
The way I see it is that whatever happened, the guy on the bike didn't deserve to die. The killer deserves prison for life or at the very least, the remainder of what's left of the average life expectancy of a man in Georgia.

My own memorable experience:
(This is in the U.K. so the side of road I travel is different to U.S.)

I, with passenger on board, was going across a 1 way traffic, 2 lane, 1 mile long bridge, high over a wide river, with signs posted for where each lane goes and 'get in lane' and 'stay in lane' signs posted. 60 mph speed limit. I'm in my lane (right side) that goes where I want to go, doing 60 or so. SUV behind me flashing lights, tailgating. Exit ramp comes up, I use right turn signal to notify my intention to exit. SUV comes around me on my left to pass while I'm in the single lane exit ramp, clips my left mirror and elbow, nearly causes a severe tank slapper wobble. I recover, follow him for miles as he overtakes other cars on hills and bends with me on my quick Sporty right behind him (safely keeping up tho) til he disappeared into the carpark of a famous resort golf center. I memorised his licence plate number, stopped and wrote it down along with the make, model and color of the car, picked off the green paint from my mirror and put it in my wallet with the description of the car. When I returned to the town I live, I went into the police station, gave them the 'evidence', the approximate time and where the incident occurred and what happened along with my details and a statement as above. I was contacted a couple of weeks later and was told that there was CCTV evidence of what happened on the bridge clearly showing what I detailed and was told that he was prosecuted and fined for driving without due care and attention and got 2 penalty points on his driving licence!!! JUSTICE PREVAILS!!!
Luckily there are hand gun laws here. He just might have been fired upon! :wonderlan

steelworker
29th February 2008, 09:29
What we have here is an overabundance of Stupidity.

:clap:clap:clap An overabundance of stupidity and a jerk with a gun that was easily obtainable and lying around the house ready to be picked up whenever someone is feeling a little pissed off with someone else or with the world in general.:frownthre:frownthre

I don't suppose this would be a good time to suggest you reconsider the pros and cons of having the right to bear arms, would it?
:sofa

unfiguroutable
29th February 2008, 09:45
[QUOTE=steelworker;1131299I don't suppose this would be a good time to suggest you reconsider the pros and cons of having the right to bear arms, would it?
:sofa[/QUOTE]

id rather deal with this http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00034/SNN1905q4g_34378a.jpgevery now and then than this http://davidross.info/images/crime.gifevery waking hour of my life

steelworker
29th February 2008, 09:51
than this http://davidross.info/images/crime.gifevery waking hour of my life

When was the last time you had to take up arms against your oppressive government? That doesn't seem to be what guns get used for. As for defending your country against external aggressors - that's what the Armed Forces are for.

unfiguroutable
29th February 2008, 09:57
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

unfiguroutable
29th February 2008, 10:00
When was the last time you had to take up arms against your oppressive government? .

I am sworn to defend the constitution and have not yet had to use it to overthow an oppresive government. those facts however do not mean that I do not identify with my past or am willing to lay down arms and hopes for the best. your ideas sound great on paper but as soon as the human element comes into the equation all bets are off. you will have to take my weapon from my cold dead hand.

AussieGazza
29th February 2008, 10:43
I think the father was in the wrong for killing him.

Ditto.

As an Aussie, I cannot understand the obsession with guns. And I have had a a 22 and a 243W rifles in the past for hunting and shotguns for clay targets.

Going armed results in situations like this.

What I do find interesting are the suppositions in this thread on what happened when there is little evidence.

Let's wait for evidence. The father and girls are not likely to own up (yes... supposition, but you do not need to incriminate yourself your -update - 5th amendment?) but there could be witnesses or physical evidence.

unfiguroutable
29th February 2008, 10:52
your 4th amendment

The Amendment guards against unreasonable search. I belive you are taking about the 5th, due process of law. I do agree as have most others that the killer was way off base. and yes there is much missing from the story. My story was loosely related to the case and my details were provided to show how glad I am that I am still alive.

steelworker
29th February 2008, 11:21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. ó Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

I'd kind of interpreted the first part as meaning that you can vote for someone else when the next series of elections comes around, since you're living in a democracy.

The second part, about throwing us lot out is, I believe, where the right to bear arms comes from (Minutemen, etc?). To my knowledge, the British government has no plans to make the USA a Bitish colony again. In the extremely unlikely event that they did, the US has enough armed might these days to erase our little island from the map! Therefore, there is no real reason for American citizens to wander around like they're still in the wild west.

No offence intended, Unfiguroutable - this is just just an opinion from an outsider looking in, but to European eyes, the failure / unwillingness of your government to tackle the gun issue seems insane. Each high school shooting seems to be greeted with a loud silence from legislators. And each time the gun lobby trot out the same old "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument, but it's a lot easier to kill (a lot of) people if you have easy access to a gun.

unfiguroutable
29th February 2008, 11:38
I'd kind of interpreted the first part as meaning that you can vote for someone else when the next series of elections comes around, since you're living in a democracy.


no. you totally missed the context. this was a declaration of war. the colonies were not a democracy. and the document states that it is an americans responsibility to remove despotic(non representational) governments from power. I fail to see how this would happen if we had no guns. the malitias you speak of were self armed. in other words when the malitia formed the citizens were expected to bring thier own arms. thew were not issued a rifle they brought it with them. Again Id rather deal with the occational tragedy then be left with no means to fight off future tyrants. so agian I state you can come take my HK from my cold dead hand. I am confident. I am arrogant. I am proud

williamv1203
29th February 2008, 11:47
Let's not get political now... (see above) :frownthre :shhhh

Before someone misquotes any more, have a look here; :wonderlan

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

http://www.house.gov/paul/constitution.html

This started as a discussion and has almost turned into an argument. :frownthre

Before this is said, I will say it first before someone gets the religious factor into it;

Leviticus 24:17
"And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death."

Leviticus 19:18
"VENGEANCE IS MINE, SAYETH THE LORD."

It is there plain and simple!
Now let's try to keep the religious part out. :shhhh

unfiguroutable
29th February 2008, 11:54
This started as a discussion and has almost turned into an argument.

7 days of 00-08 watch standing what else am i gonna do? and its not the US constitution its The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America that was quoted

steelworker
29th February 2008, 11:56
Before this is said, I will say it first before someone gets the religious factor into it;
Leviticus 24:17
"And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death."
Leviticus 19:18
"VENGEANCE IS MINE, SAYETH THE LORD."
It is there plain and simple!
Now let's try to keep the religious part out. :shhhh

There, you just went and did it, didn't you? :frownthre:D

williamv1203
29th February 2008, 12:01
Just to get it in, said and over before it went full bore Bible on us... :wonderlan :D

unfiguroutable
29th February 2008, 12:03
and it was not a misquote, it was verbatim

unfiguroutable
29th February 2008, 12:04
Just to get it in, said and over before it went full bore Bible on us... :wonderlan :D

I am actually an atheist

williamv1203
29th February 2008, 12:23
I wasn't making any direct reference to anyone's post. Just an overall statement as to what is being posted.

I don't claim to be any religious type person. I was brought up in a semi to moderately religious household. Later in life as education and experience began to have an influence on me, doubts began to arise and are still with me. :rolleyes:
Within the last few years, Humanism seemed to be the one for me... :wonderlan

unfiguroutable
29th February 2008, 12:28
a libertarian and subscribe to Objectivism

ShadenGheist
29th February 2008, 12:33
After reading the story, my thought was that maybe the guy followed them home because they were being typical stupid teenagers and smacked into his bike, then left the scene. He followed them to I.D. them saw the Dad with a Gun in the driveway, tried to leave and was shot in the back. The girls, being the teenagers the are, concocted a lie to hide the fact that they were Hit and Run drivers, called Daddy when they discovered the Rider wasn't going to go away... This was a Murder, and the girls hired Daddy to do the Hit. They'll Burn in Hell for it.

unfiguroutable
29th February 2008, 12:37
.. This was a Murder.

this much of your post is not in dispute. the OP question was did he over react? I say of course he did. There was no threat to his life. He was jsut angry.

Danny3nose
29th February 2008, 12:44
What the girls SHOULD have done was drive to the police station and let the guys follow them there...

Now their father is gonna be a punk in prison.

To be fair though, XL883 is right, alot of us would follow a car if they hit us. But then again, we don't know the whole story here...

steelworker
29th February 2008, 12:53
this much of your post is not in dispute. the OP question was did he over react? I say of course he did. There was no threat to his life. He was jsut angry.

Agreed. What I was trying to say earlier was that, if he hadn't had a gun, he would have had to just go back inside and calm down or call the cops. I guess he could have thrown a brick at the passing rider, but without the presence of a gun it's unlikely that anyone would have died.

Any speculation about what caused this is just that at the moment - pure speculation. Let the courts decide.

Horse
29th February 2008, 12:53
When I was younger, you'd hear people say, "I'm gonna kill you" in the heat of the moment, but they didn't come back and kill you. These days, in these times, that's a very real threat. If someone were to tell me they were going to come back and kill my family in my neighborhood today, I'd seriously consider shooting them to end it then and there. I'm not saying this is what happened, far from it. What I'm saying is that we do not know what happened between these people to make it escalate to a killing.

unfiguroutable
29th February 2008, 12:54
What the girls SHOULD have done was drive to the police station..., alot of us would follow a car if they hit us....

well said, but only long enough to get the plate number then call the cops. I, as I said before, learned my lesson.

yorgo
29th February 2008, 13:21
Its just wrong but killing the guy saved a bunch of time and possibly harm to his kids. The old west is making a come-back. We have to take the law into our own hands sometimes otherwise we sit back and watch with frustration when some ahole is set free on some legal BS technicality. Personally I wouldn't have shot the guy, instead I would run his ass down with the car.

shotgun46
29th February 2008, 13:22
the whole thing is just sad !

jrossty
29th February 2008, 13:59
Agreed. What I was trying to say earlier was that, if he hadn't had a gun, he would have had to just go back inside and calm down or call the cops. I guess he could have thrown a brick at the passing rider, but without the presence of a gun it's unlikely that anyone would have died.

Any speculation about what caused this is just that at the moment - pure speculation. Let the courts decide.
Well, if you want to go into what kinds of weapons he could have used... I'm pretty sure a baseball bat or would've knocked the guy cold, or killed him...so, as long as there is deep-seeded hatred for something or someone, people will find ways...

hey, I'm just saying...

inanimate objects are just that... until a person decides, "hey, that could severly hurt, mame, or kill this @$$hole!!!"

unfiguroutable
29th February 2008, 14:01
... people will find ways...

hey, I'm just saying...

inanimate objects are just that... until a person decides, "hey, that could severly hurt, mame, or kill this @$$hole!!!"

you mean murder wasn't invented by the gun? no way. ;)

jrossty
29th February 2008, 14:03
Its just wrong but killing the guy saved a bunch of time and possibly harm to his kids. The old west is making a come-back. We have to take the law into our own hands sometimes otherwise we sit back and watch with frustration when some ahole is set free on some legal BS technicality. Personally I wouldn't have shot the guy, instead I would run his ass down with the car.

Shooting someone because, "OMG Dad! Some crazy motorcycle guy is following us, because we bumped him with the car, but not too hard... I think we broke something on his bike, but he keeps following us!!! Help daddy!?! We're coming home, please just make him go away!!!"

Ok man. If he had indeed harmed or tried to harm his kids, then yeah, beat the shit outta him, or call the cops, then walk out with a bat or other blunt object...

jrossty
29th February 2008, 14:08
you mean murder wasn't invented by the gun? no way. ;)
:D But, it wasn't invented by the bomb either... and as society has taught us in this day and age, terrorists (aka criminals) will make bombs to kill people. Bombs are illegal, just like guns in many countries are, but you still see criminals using them to terrorize innocent people don't you...

Criminals still will find ways to do their crime, (making guns, or bombs), but at least we as law-abiding citizens still have a fighting chance against a burglar with a gun if we can keep one in our homes...


Ok, I'm off my soapbox now...

unfiguroutable
29th February 2008, 14:13
[QUOTE=jrossty;1131483

Ok, I'm off my soapbox now...[/QUOTE]

hey i'am om your side on this one.

jrossty
29th February 2008, 14:16
hey i'am om your side on this one.
This is true. I was just letting my reasoning be known as to why I keep a gun in my home, and hope that I never lose that right, (nor ever have to use it). So, please, if you know anyone who is planning on breaking into my home, know that you will at the very least be shot at, (& more than likely hit) :D

CT1200
29th February 2008, 14:19
This is true. I was just letting my reasoning be known as to why I keep a gun in my home, and hope that I never lose that right, (nor ever have to use it). So, please, if you know anyone who is planning on breaking into my home, know that you will at the very least be shot at, (& more than likely hit) :D

Aim low for the 1st shoot.
Chances are they will run at that point.
Unless they return fire, then at that point break out the minigun.
Remember, short controlled bursts... :smoke

jrossty
29th February 2008, 14:21
Aim low for the 1st shoot.
Chances are they will run at that point.
Unless they return fire, then at that point break out the minigun.
Remember, short controlled bursts... :smoke
ah the minigun.... ooOOoo... :clap:clap:clap


ok, once again, back to your regularly scheduled program...:D

Big Angry
29th February 2008, 14:29
without the presence of a gun it's unlikely that anyone would have died.

So, If the dad ran the biker over with his pickup truck, You would claim...

"without the presence of a pickup truck it's unlikely that anyone would have died." ???

I don't think the dad should have shot the biker, But I wasn't there.

Imagine you are the biker, chasing 2 girls(for whatever reason) and when you got to their house, There was a guy with a gun waiting for you, Would you really turn around and ride back towards the guy with the gun? I think at this point, The dad was probably thinking
"The biker saw me with a gun, Why is he turning around and ridding back at me"
The biker could have flipped him the bird with black leather gloves on and the dad thought he was pointing a gun at him or maybe the dad just shot him because he doesnt like bikers. I don't know, But I do know I will not blame the "gun" the same way I wouldn't blame a pickup truck...

johnnysquire
29th February 2008, 14:45
When was the last time you had to take up arms against your oppressive government? As for defending your country against external aggressors - that's what the Armed Forces are for.

If the Armed Forces are the only ones with guns, how would you suggest overthrowing the government controlling them when it becomes oppressive?

unfiguroutable
29th February 2008, 14:47
... how would you suggest overthrowing the government controlling them when it becomes oppressive?

he (the brit)doesn't get it

yorgo
29th February 2008, 14:54
There must be more to this story. If the biker followed these girls around after they hit him I don't understand why dad went off the deep end. If, for example, this guy had been harassing the girls for some time and put himself in a position to get hit that's another story. Going by what was reported I would have been angry at the kids for hitting the guy and driving away.

Now if this guy had been stalking them for days, driving by the house, and it led to this story then yeah I would have taken a bat to the curb as he drove by.

unfiguroutable
29th February 2008, 15:05
there realy is a lack of info. it does seem likely that the girl did somthing dumb that freaked the rider or damaged his bike. the rider followed . the girl called home probably screaming and crying due to the enraged rider. when the rider showed his face at the family home the dumb dad shot his ass.

steelworker
29th February 2008, 15:18
he (the brit)doesn't get it

I get it, but I think it's highly unlikely that US forces would take up arms against their own people. Likewise in Britain.

We get on ok in Britain and Europe without evryone carrying guns, and gun crime and deaths from gunshot wounds (accidental or deliberate) are a fraction of that experienced in the US. Why is that?

unfiguroutable
29th February 2008, 15:22
I get it, but I think it's highly unlikely that US forces would take up arms against their own people

your not big on western history are you? over 600,000 american died in our own civil war barely a centry ago.

jrossty
29th February 2008, 15:26
I get it, but I think it's highly unlikely that US forces would take up arms against their own people. Likewise in Britain.

We get on ok in Britain and Europe without evryone carrying guns, and gun crime and deaths from gunshot wounds (accidental or deliberate) are a fraction of that experienced in the US. Why is that?

A lot less people. 61 million people in the UK vs. 300 Million people in the US

steelworker
29th February 2008, 15:28
your not big on western history are you? over 600,000 american died in our own civil war barely a centry ago.

Have we not moved on a bit since then? And did an armed populace (as opposed to the troops on either side) have much effect on that war?

jrossty
29th February 2008, 15:30
Have we not moved on a bit since then? And did an armed populace (as opposed to the troops on either side) have much effect on that war?
Well on the Federal side you would be right sir. On the Confederate side of things, well, lets just say, many soldiers had to make their own ammunition & use their own weaponry.

jrossty
29th February 2008, 15:31
I like the debate we're having. Its a good thing. ;)

steelworker
29th February 2008, 15:35
A lot less people. 61 million people in the UK vs. 300 Million people in the US

Yes, but for firearm homicide rates as a percentage of overall homicides, overall homicide rates per head of population and %age of thise homicides involving firearms, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_crime to compare US to England & Wales.

steelworker
29th February 2008, 15:39
I like the debate we're having. Its a good thing. ;)

Me too ;) It's good to see how others see it. I'm not saying you're all mad, but from here it seems like a kind of madness. But then our police don't normally carry guns, and even on trips to mainland Europe it's a bit weird seeing police with side arms or even submachine guns.

jrossty
29th February 2008, 15:44
Yes, but for firearm homicide rates as a percentage of overall homicides, overall homicide rates per head of population and %age of thise homicides involving firearms, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_crime to compare US to England & Wales.
Ok, I'll concede that, but these statistics if you notice are 10 years old...and, there are about 10 other countries whose (with the exception of India) percentage of homicides with firearms are higher or within a few percentage points as the US.

jrossty
29th February 2008, 15:47
Maybe it will eventually come down to our country running similarly to others' who have gun control laws. My hope is that I can still legally keep a firearm in my home, and use it if it gets broken into.

SportyJoe
29th February 2008, 15:54
think about it... "IF" the biker had run into the car and harassed the two girls, they would have called the police. However, had they called the police, they would have had to tell their lies to someone who would see right through them (the LEO) Thier storey does not hold water period!

Instead they called Daddy, who after reading JeffyTunes second post seems was a "trigger happy shoot at anybody type of guy.." Why did they call Daddy?, Cuz Daddy would do anything to protect "his little angels" (what dad wouldn't?) and Daddy would more than likely believe their story (which was a blatent lie to start with) without question, and take their side... ... so IMHO the two Girls are not only liers, but are also accomplisis to a murder and should be prosicuted as such.

There was no "confrontation" between the biker and the dad, as some seem to think. The biker "rode by the house" he didnt get off his bike, he didnt make a threatening move towards the girls in view of the father, or the father... "he rode by the house".

there is no justification for the murder or the 21 year old on the bike... none... It was balnantly a case of a trigger happy a$$ hole, who had no business even owning a gun, which is evident by his lack of responcible behaivior when he had one in his hand.
The Father is nothing more than a Murderer, and hopefully he will be paying for his actions in prison for the rest of his life. His daughters both need to spend a little time in the Juvenile Justice System also, maybe seeing where criminals go would teach them the difference between lies and truth.

They Lied to cover their own stupidity... because of their selfish lies, an innocent man is dead!.. they are as much to blame as the father in this case.

Thats my.02

unfiguroutable
29th February 2008, 15:55
Have we not moved on a bit since then?

Humans today are the same. society has advanced considerably but our primal prain has not changed in 130,000 years. I wont bury my head in the sand. I will never trust politicians enought to lay down my arms. In fact I distrust them suffficiantly that even putting a qualifier on my later statment feels wrong to me.

steelworker
29th February 2008, 15:57
Ok, I'll concede that, but these statistics if you notice are 10 years old...and, there are about 10 other countries whose (with the exception of India) percentage of homicides with firearms are higher or within a few percentage points as the US.

True, the following countries all have a percentage of homicides involving firearms greater than, or within a few percentage points of the US:

Colombia
Guatemala
Macedonia
Paraguay
Slovakia
South Africa
Thailand
Uruguay
Zimbabwe

Good company to be in n'est pas? I'd guess that guns are pretty freely available in all of the above, and many of them are pretty much permanent war zones due to the drugs trade or racial / ethnic conflict (or were, 10 years ago).

steelworker
29th February 2008, 16:02
think about it... "IF" the biker had run into the car and harassed the two girls, they would have called the police. However, had they called the police, they would have had to tell their lies to someone who would see right through them (the LEO) Thier storey does not hold water period!

Instead they called Daddy, who after reading JeffyTunes second post seems was a "trigger happy shoot at anybody type of guy.." Why did they call Daddy?, Cuz Daddy would do anything to protect "his little angels" (what dad wouldn't?) and Daddy would more than likely believe their story (which was a blatent lie to start with) without question, and take their side... ... so IMHO the two Girls are not only liers, but are also accomplisis to a murder and should be prosicuted as such.

There was no "confrontation" between the biker and the dad, as some seem to think. The biker "rode by the house" he didnt get off his bike, he didnt make a threatening move towards the girls in view of the father, or the father... "he rode by the house".

there is no justification for the murder or the 21 year old on the bike... none... It was balnantly a case of a trigger happy a$$ hole, who had no business even owning a gun, which is evident by his lack of responcible behaivior when he had one in his hand.
The Father is nothing more than a Murderer, and hopefully he will be paying for his actions in prison for the rest of his life. His daughters both need to spend a little time in the Juvenile Justice System also, maybe seeing where criminals go would teach them the difference between lies and truth.

They Lied to cover their own stupidity... because of their selfish lies, an innocent man is dead!.. they are as much to blame as the father in this case.

Thats my.02

Speculation again, but on the face of it, I'm inclined to agree. The link to the local news story stated that the biker was shot in the back. Doesn't appear to me that he'd have represented a threat whilst riding away.

ambulldogg
29th February 2008, 16:03
what an IDIOT! lets see here........???? SHOOT the biker OR...... call the cops or even try to pull him off the bike when he drives by or even throw sh!T at him?? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM AND TO SHOOT HIM IN THE BACK???????







JACK@ss!

unfiguroutable
29th February 2008, 16:04
what an IDIOT!







JACK@ss!

so true but that does not mean we should give our arms to the furnace.

Carl-04XL
29th February 2008, 16:08
There are many things that should have happened. The daughters should have stopped and called the police... the rider should have stopped and written down a tag # when they didnt stop after the collision. Then he could have called the police and reported the hit and run. The dad should have never been outside with a gun waiting for them to get home.

And if the father really did need to 'shoot' the rider, he should have used a camera. Then he would have had proof of stalking or intent or ...

But, you only used deadly force when a reasonable person could expect to be subjected to deadly force or great bodily harm.

(But, there are times when I would like to at least scare the s**t out of some people... :shhhh )

SportyJoe
29th February 2008, 16:10
I do like the debate on Gun control.... Im totally for the right to own Guns. IMHO they are a necessary evil in this day and age... where things go a-foul is when PEOPLE act irresponsibly with the privilage they are given, and when PEOPLE no longer have respect for human life, property, other peoples rights.

CosmicCharlie
29th February 2008, 16:14
I get it, but I think it's highly unlikely that US forces would take up arms against their own people. Likewise in Britain.

We get on ok in Britain and Europe without evryone carrying guns, and gun crime and deaths from gunshot wounds (accidental or deliberate) are a fraction of that experienced in the US. Why is that?

The British DID take up arms against us when we were still a colony and their own people according to the King. And without guns, we would have been crushed.

In fact, the British have gone all around the world with their guns to wage war with "their own people" and crush colonial revolt.

unfiguroutable
29th February 2008, 16:19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

again the fundamental document in our (US) nation requires us to have the means to thow of the bounds if Desptism if it should arise. I fail to see how we could do that with out our guns, short of a military coup and even then we would only have failth that they would re instate the republic. this goes way beyond home defense. in other words loose the guns and The United States dies

SportyJoe
29th February 2008, 16:22
True, the following countries all have a percentage of homicides involving firearms greater than, or within a few percentage points of the US:

Colombia
Guatemala
Macedonia
Paraguay
Slovakia
South Africa
Thailand
Uruguay
Zimbabwe

Good company to be in n'est pas? I'd guess that guns are pretty freely available in all of the above, and many of them are pretty much permanent war zones due to the drugs trade or racial / ethnic conflict (or were, 10 years ago).

Im not really sure that the countries you have listed above are good examples of countries where gun violence is rampant comapired to the untited states, as you your self pointed out most of these are areas that are war zones, and when you think about it, had the citizens not had guns to defend themselves, the drug lords, War Lords, terrorists and corrupt political systems would have just rode in a taken over...then what do the un arrmed citizens have to look forward to? we have it very good in the US and Britian compaired to countries like Zimbabwe, and several of the others listed above.

jrossty
29th February 2008, 16:27
True, the following countries all have a percentage of homicides involving firearms greater than, or within a few percentage points of the US:

Colombia
Guatemala
Macedonia
Paraguay
Slovakia
South Africa
Thailand
Uruguay
Zimbabwe

Good company to be in n'est pas? I'd guess that guns are pretty freely available in all of the above, and many of them are pretty much permanent war zones due to the drugs trade or racial / ethnic conflict (or were, 10 years ago).
True, but looking at the bigger picture here, these countries don't have near the population as the US does (most are classified as third world countries), and if they did, I'm sure the percentages would look similar to India's. Mainly because most countries the size of India and/or China cannot support an economy very well, if at all. Basically, I could see India having a gun problem if it had the means (i.e. money). China is so government controlled that its very difficult and expensive for the masses to get their hands on firearms, (excluding the military).

steelworker
29th February 2008, 16:29
The British DID take up arms against us when we were still a colony and their own people according to the King. And without guns, we would have been crushed.

In fact, the British have gone all around the world with their guns to wage war with "their own people" and crush colonial revolt.

True. In the days of empire Britain (and Spain, France, Germany, Turkey and others) did use force to gain and retain colonies. And I don't believe the populace of those countries were exactly regarded as "our own people". There were undoubtedly many bad things done (as well as some good) in the name of empire. But as I said earlier, I think we've moved on since then - I don't think there are any plans in place to repeat our earlier actions. :rolleyes::)

SportyJoe
29th February 2008, 16:33
True, but looking at the bigger picture here, these countries don't have near the population as the US does (most are classified as third world countries), and if they did, I'm sure the percentages would look similar to India's. Mainly because most countries the size of India and/or China cannot support an economy very well, if at all. Basically, I could see India having a gun problem if it had the means (i.e. money). China is so government controlled that its very difficult and expensive for the masses to get their hands on firearms, (excluding the military).

True, and look at say China, the government pretty much runs rough shod over its people, because there isn't much the people can do... stand up against a tank with a rake? the only saving grace pople in countries like that have is the stage of world opinion... if their government wasn't concerned about the world opinion and consequences of embargos and conflict with other nations, they would just do what ever they wanted to their poeple... communists love un armed peasants

steelworker
29th February 2008, 16:49
True, and look at say China, the government pretty much runs rough shod over its people, because there isn't much the people can do... stand up against a tank with a rake? the only saving grace pople in countries like that have is the stage of world opinion... if their government wasn't concerned about the world opinion and consequences of embargos and conflict with other nations, they would just do what ever they wanted to their poeple... communists love un armed peasants

Yeah - it was world opinion and the rebellion of unarmed workers, not guns, that brought down the iron curtain. It could be argued that the communist regime would never have risen in the first place had the people been armed. I'm not so sure. The world was a very different place before the 1914-18 war, which led to the end of the old order throughout Europe. The Russian revolution overthrew the Tsarist state that had oppressed the peasants for generations, and it only succeded because the army, disillusioned by the war, also turned against the state.

jrossty
29th February 2008, 16:54
Yeah - it was world opinion and the rebellion of unarmed workers, not guns, that brought down the iron curtain. It could be argued that the communist regime would never have risen in the first place had the people been armed. I'm not so sure. The world was a very different place before the 1914-18 war, which led to the end of the old order throughout Europe. The Russian revolution overthrew the Tsarist state that had oppressed the peasants for generations, and it only succeded because the army, disillusioned by the war, also turned against the state.
Nice post steelworker, well said, well said.

One of the most, (if not the most) significant times in the history of the world took place during WWI and WWII. I don't think anyone can argue that one.

My my, how we have... :hijack :D

steelworker
29th February 2008, 17:03
My my, how we have... :hijack :D

Yes, but it's interesting, and there's only so much you can say about the original shooting incident without any facts. :)

jrossty
29th February 2008, 17:31
Yes, but it's interesting, and there's only so much you can say about the original shooting incident without any facts. :)
Bloody roight old chap :D

Well, so, lets hear what anyone else has to say now about the whole debate we've been swapping back and forth with... p.s. ima go get a beer a lil later and check back in...:clap:clap:clap

SportyJoe
29th February 2008, 17:32
Yeah - it was world opinion and the rebellion of unarmed workers, not guns, that brought down the iron curtain. It could be argued that the communist regime would never have risen in the first place had the people been armed. I'm not so sure. The world was a very different place before the 1914-18 war, which led to the end of the old order throughout Europe. The Russian revolution overthrew the Tsarist state that had oppressed the peasants for generations, and it only succeded because the army, disillusioned by the war, also turned against the state.

Well yes, I would have to agree, I guess that was a bad example that I used.. However if Im not mistaken.. Communisum is still alive and well in China where there are throngs of un armmed peasants and civilians.... possibly a better example would be in some of the African countries like Ziare, where thosuands of people are slaughtered by genocide, because they are unarmed and defenceless against an armed aggressor.... its hard to stand up against an AK47 with a stick, or a spear... if they had the weapons to stand up against their opressors, then maybe they would stand a chance.. however I dont believe that firearm laws are the culprit in this case as much as economic conditions and lack of modernization, which keeps the victims in this case from owning or even having access to fire arms, however if they did have this advantage it might be a whole different storey.

Sporting Lad
29th February 2008, 17:49
We have the gun control debate in Canada as well, although we don't have as much free access to handguns as you do in the US. We get the US news here, too.
I'll probably get flamed for this, but (IMO) you've got too damned many guns down there.
It almost seems that some collective madness has taken hold and everyone has this need to carry a firearm. Maybe it's terrorist paranoia, maybe it's industrial toxins or too much lead in your beercans, I don't know. Maybe it's just your media that wants to portray Americans as being a bunch of headcases.
I do know that it's one of the reasons that so many of my friends have decided not to go down to the States on holiday this summer: They're worried that they might be gunned down by a lunatic.
Is that why so many Americans are packing? Because they think that everyone else is, so they need to protect themselves and their families from their own citizens? Do Americans really believe that the only thing keeping them "free" is a fully armed populace? That sure seems like paranoia to me.
I don't have that fear where I live. It's probably because I don't believe that every other driver on the road is carrying a gun, or that my neighbour is about to go nuts and try to kill me because he believes that it's OK to take justice into his own hands against every imagined boogie man he thinks is after him.
I'm really glad I'm not living in a world like that. It's enough to make a person crazy! :rolleyes:
Jane Goodall once said that the only reason her chimps didn't go around murdering one another was simply because they didn't have access to firearms. Arm a tribe of chimpanzees, then sit back and watch the fun.
Now don't go thinking that I'm comparing Americans to a bunch of mindless apes. I'm sure that 50% of the people are of above average intelligence and, by and large, you're pretty nice people. But you've got to get this gun violence under control.

For any conspiracy theorists in the audience-- Is it possible that uncontrolled firearms in the hands of the people could be a way of controlling those people? I know that sounds strange, but look: It's contributing to the collective paranoia in the same way as does encouraging the belief that there's a terrorist on every block ('Everything's out of control! Somebody's got to step in and enforce law and order!). The best way to control a population is to keep them off balance, confused, and frightened.
Remember, Hitler got his mandate from the people on a law and order platform because they became terrified of the communists and racial minorities they thought were out to get them.

That's my rant for the week. Don't be too disappointed if I don't respond to flaming insults. It's just my opinion, and I'm entitled to it. By law. :D

jrossty
29th February 2008, 17:56
We have the gun control debate in Canada as well, although we don't have as much free access to handguns as you do in the US. We get the US news here, too.
I'll probably get flamed for this, but (IMO) you've got too damned many guns down there.
It almost seems that some collective madness has taken hold and everyone has this need to carry a firearm. Maybe it's terrorist paranoia, maybe it's industrial toxins or too much lead in your beercans, I don't know. Maybe it's just your media that wants to portray Americans as being a bunch of headcases.
I do know that it's one of the reasons that so many of my friends have decided not to go down to the States on holiday this summer: They're worried that they might be gunned down by a lunatic.
Is that why so many Americans are packing? Because they think that everyone else is, so they need to protect themselves and their families from their own citizens? Do Americans really believe that the only thing keeping them "free" is a fully armed populace? That sure seems like paranoia to me.
I don't have that fear where I live. It's probably because I don't believe that every other driver on the road is carrying a gun, or that my neighbour is about to go nuts and try to kill me because he believes that it's OK to take justice into his own hands against every imagined boogie man he thinks is after him.
I'm really glad I'm not living in a world like that. It's enough to make a person crazy! :rolleyes:
Jane Goodall once said that the only reason her chimps didn't go around murdering one another was simply because they didn't have access to firearms. Arm a tribe of chimpanzees, then sit back and watch the fun.
Now don't go thinking that I'm comparing Americans to a bunch of mindless apes. I'm sure that 50% of the people are of above average intelligence and, by and large, you're pretty nice people. But you've got to get this gun violence under control.

For any conspiracy theorists in the audience-- Is it possible that uncontrolled firearms in the hands of the people could be a way of controlling those people? I know that sounds strange, but look: It's contributing to the collective paranoia in the same way as does encouraging the belief that there's a terrorist on every block ('Everything's out of control! Somebody's got to step in and enforce law and order!). The best way to control a population is to keep them off balance, confused, and frightened.
Remember, Hitler got his mandate from the people on a law and order platform because they became terrified of the communists and racial minorities they thought were out to get them.

That's my rant for the week. Don't be too disappointed if I don't respond to flaming insults. It's just my opinion, and I'm entitled to it. By law. :D
I will retort Sporting Lad... just not at this moment, since I'm leaving work... but, like I said, get a few beers in me a little later, and I'm all for it... :D

johnnysquire
29th February 2008, 18:57
Yeah - it was world opinion and the rebellion of unarmed workers, not guns, that brought down the iron curtain.

Baloney. It was BIG guns - the NATO nuclear arsenal that really brought down the wall.

The USSR was bankrupted by the NATO nuke build-up. Once the economy was rotten to the core, revolution was inevitable. Walesa faciliated Gorby's bloodless coup of communism (which could have been an ugly violent revolution, too), but it couldn't have happened without the West's guns all but ending the USSR first.

As for examples - how long do you think South Africa could've kept Apartheid going if the majority had guns?

Sporting Lad
29th February 2008, 18:57
I will retort Sporting Lad... just not at this moment, since I'm leaving work... but, like I said, get a few beers in me a little later, and I'm all for it... :D

:eek::gun:yikes:yikes:yikes:yikes:sofa

steelworker
29th February 2008, 19:09
We have the gun control debate in Canada as well, although we don't have as much free access to handguns as you do in the US.

I'm sure your moose population will be greatly comforted to hear it. ;)

Sporting Lad
29th February 2008, 19:13
I'm sure your moose population will be greatly comforted to hear it. ;)

:laugh:laugh
I'm not talking about long guns here, just handguns (aka concealed weapons).

steelworker
29th February 2008, 19:13
Baloney. It was BIG guns - the NATO nuclear arsenal that really brought down the wall.

The USSR was bankrupted by the NATO nuke build-up. Once the economy was rotten to the core, revolution was inevitable. Walesa faciliated Gorby's bloodless coup of communism (which could have been an ugly violent revolution, too), but it couldn't have happened without the West's guns all but ending the USSR first.

As for examples - how long do you think South Africa could've kept Apartheid going if the majority had guns?

Isn't the nuclear arsenal thing just a manifestation of world opinion? Read my original post and you'll see that I said it was a combination of world opinion and a workers' rebellion.

crashin
29th February 2008, 19:14
So somehow you are able to investigate accidents through the internet?
The story says:
"There is evidence of a collision between Mough's motorcycle and the vehicle operated by Gear's daughters," Berry said, adding authorities do not yet know who initiated contact.


It is amazing to me that no one reads the whole story.
1) The Motorcyclist started it.
2) He then RAMMED there car.
3) He followed them all the way home and saw there Dad with as gun at the end on the driveway.
4) He then turned around and made a pass AT HIM!

DUMBASS!! I would have shot him too.

We as motorcyclist must do more to not be the cause of road rage, yes, I know how we are vulnerable out there, I just have to remember least April, but I have been cut off before, but we can't go ramming cars, and threatening people without running the risk of get run over.......or shot by a protective daddy.

GrumpyCoyote
29th February 2008, 19:23
Our gun violence in the US has nothing to do with guns. It has everything to do with fear, poverty, and over population. Keep in mind, most Americans do not own guns.

Canada has roughly the same amount of firearms per capita as the US (the hand gun ratio is reversed, but I'll get to that later…), yet only a fraction of the gun violence. Why?

Canadians are by and large, less fearful than Americans ( even in urban centers, polls have few Canadians locking their doors at all times for example). They also have substantially less poverty and population density.

I won’t go into why Americans are more fearful in this post – but the reasons are generally media and population related and have little to do with actual crime rates.

In Asia, the Macaque monkeys live in the wild with virtually no intra-species violence and almost no murder. Even when different colonies meet, the confrontations rarely result in death. In several places in Bali and Japan however temples act as preserves for the Macaque. The feeding, protection, and unrestrained breeding result in unnaturally high Macaque populations. In these densely populated preserves, Macaque on Macaque violence is a daily occurrence. The monkeys will violently murder (and even consume) each other for any reason. The environment leads to amplified fear and violence – even though the monkeys are safe from predators and do not need to hunt for food etc.

I’m not suggesting that we are identical to the Macaque, but it illustrates the population strains on primate behavior (we are primates after all).

Poverty plays a large role as well - for one of the most prosperous nations on the planet, we have disproportionate poverty and all of its associated ills, including violent crime.

Add to the mix our fearful nature and a societal taboo on talking about or dealing with mental health issues, and you have a society primed to kill each other.

We would kill each other with sticks, cars, fire, or whatever was handy. Firearms are simply the most convenient method. Hand guns happen to be a very efficient killing tool. We have quite a few of them, so they get used. It’s not about the tool though – it’s about the desire to kill in the first place.

Currently, 1/100 Americans are incarcerated in our prison and jail system. The ratio is 1/15 African Americans, and 1/35 Latinos. This is NOT due to any increase in crime. Crime has gone down or remained relatively flat, nation-wide for decades. This is due to fear and our insane “war on drugs” (most of the 1/100 are in jail for non-violent drug related offences) policies. I mention this only as a way to illustrate how reluctant we are in the US to address root problems – instead of dealing with causes, we deal with symptoms. This does not work.

Until we deal with mental health, our obsession with fear, our knee-jerk prohibitions, and our ignorance about poverty and population, we’ll continue to kill each other. Banning guns won’t change a thing. Gun violence is a symptom, not a cause.

powellsanmiguel
29th February 2008, 19:26
You really can't shoot people for riding in front of your house. You really can't and expect the police to smile and say, "Good job sir, he looked like a hooligan!"

As to the gun part of the discussion, we can't have pistols here in Mexico and I haven't found out how to get a long gun yet. Maybe, maybe not. But I am still armed almost all the time; a knife, an expandable baton, a jo. And there are plenty of easy to get weapons around the house.

At this point some of you are nodding and saying, "Me too." And others are saying, "My God another paranoid American!"

About three weeks ago my wife and I had just about finished dinner when a burglar jumped down an air shaft in the house, fell through a window and started running through the house. I grabbed the nearest weapon, a katana, and told the jerk to get on the floor and the poor soul tried to grab the blade of the sword. I worked badly. And my wife had picked up a jo by that time and had commenced hitting him on the head.

He sat down.

The police arrived in about four minutes and it clearly was the most fun they had seen in days. A good time was had by all, except for the ladron.

My point is that weapons are handy if you cannot beam cops down to help you, and for that matter if you are a bit suspicious of them, or government in general. I wouldn't have killed the jerk if I had a 12 gage pump-gun or a .45 either, unless he had attempted to do me or my wife "grievous harm."

So it is something to think about; what would you do if your family or yourself were under attack? What if it was a big guy with an axe?

Mostly, if you had no will or weapons, you would die, and that's a pity.

GreezyRider
29th February 2008, 19:31
The way teenage girls act these days, I am sure there is more to the story than is being reported. I see this time and time again a young female does something to enflame a situation, especially on the road, then when they piss someone off by almost ending their life in on the road then taunt the person on top of it, they finally play innocent like "I am so afraid of this crazy person! Please help me, I am so innocent and there is a scary person following me. He's going to rape me." The guy was probably following to know where they live so he can tell the parents of their behavior.

The father is not justified in anything! The only thing the guy did was follow them. Is it illegal to follow someone? I follow the UPS guy when I have a package and it is past the pickup time and then I stop them at the traffic light and give them a package. Am I a crazy rapist lunatic? What is the UPS driver is female? (she is by the way)

I know when I was a kid, I threw a snowball at a car and that car followed me home. I was scared. Once the guy knew where I lived, he spoke to my parents the next day. I didn't get away with it and I learned a great lesson. Something young people are not learning now. You are accountable for everything you do, any time 100%.

People watch too many TV shows these days. The good people think everybody is a maniacal rapist criminal while most are just normal people. And the few people who are bad get all kinds of great ideas on how to be worse.

-Greez

Donz5oh
29th February 2008, 19:34
Sporting Lad, can you show me anything else, other than a hand gun, that can put a 100 lb. 80 yr old woman on the same par as a 300 lb. mugger?

IMO, please name me one civilized society that has every existed and flourished when the government and the criminals were the only ones who had the weapon of choice at the time. I'm talking democratic governments where the people are free from tyrany and despots. Its the very presence of firearms that keeps our government as well as other governments from taking our rights away.

In the U.S., cities and states that ban or over-regulate firearms always see and increase in violent crimes. This is due to the fact that citizens are no longer allowed to protect themselves with a weapon that is comparable to the criminals. Washington D.C., Detroit, L.A., Chicago, all major cities with severe gun regulations and rampant violent crime rates.

Numbers don't always tell the whole story, one way or the other, but I can personally attest to at least three instances where having a handgun kept me from personal injury and one where I didn't have it and ended up with a major concusion as a result. The bad guys love preying on the defenseless, it makes their job easier

steelworker
29th February 2008, 19:41
Plenty of food for thought there, Grumpy and Powell.:cheers

Sporting Lad
29th February 2008, 19:48
So it is something to think about; what would you do if your family or yourself were under attack? What if it was a big guy with an axe?
Mostly, if you had no will or weapons, you would die, and that's a pity.

A perfect example of what I was writing about.
As far as I'm concerned, it's not "something to think about".
I don't think about it, nor do I fret about it.
63 years and I haven't been involved in a violent crime/confrontation, nor has any of my family, so I'm certainly not about to start fretting over it now.
"The pity" is that you and your family are living in a world where it's seemingly commonplace to have burglars jumping in through your...airvents?
I'm not sure what this says about access to handguns....

steelworker
29th February 2008, 19:52
Sporting Lad, can you show me anything else, other than a hand gun, that can put a 100 lb. 80 yr old woman on the same par as a 300 lb. mugger?
Provided she can use the gun - as I understand it, and I may be wrong, many citizens end up having their own weapon used against them.

IMO, please name me one civilized society that has every existed and flourished when the government and the criminals were the only ones who had the weapon of choice at the time.
Great Britain, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, etc, etc.

Its the very presence of firearms that keeps our government as well as other governments from taking our rights away.
Sorry, but I think this is an example of the delusional paranoia that SportingLad was talking about.

In the U.S., cities and states that ban or over-regulate firearms always see and increase in violent crimes. This is due to the fact that citizens are no longer allowed to protect themselves with a weapon that is comparable to the criminals. Washington D.C., Detroit, L.A., Chicago, all major cities with severe gun regulations and rampant violent crime rates.

The problem is that there are so many weapons in circulation in your society already that it's probably too late to turn back now - they'll always be easy for criminals to get hold of.

Sporting Lad
29th February 2008, 20:08
An excellent, well thought out, non-hysterical post.
No argument from this quarter, except... :rolleyes:

Our gun violence in the US has nothing to do with guns. ...
We would kill each other with sticks, cars, fire, or whatever was handy. Firearms are simply the most convenient method. Hand guns happen to be a very efficient killing tool. We have quite a few of them, so they get used. Itís not about the tool though Ė itís about the desire to kill in the first place.


The trouble with the concealed handgun is that it can be a lot more instantaneous. It's a lot more difficult, is messier, takes longer, and requires more premeditation to kill a person with a pointy stick than it does with a Glock pistol. Pistols allow the shooter to "snap" and kill a person from relatively far away with the pull of a trigger. "pop!" and it's done. I don't think Dad would've killed the kid if all he had was a pointy stick.

Donz5oh
29th February 2008, 20:18
steelworker, besides the fact that your statement is ignorant on the face, most people DO NOT get their weapons used against them. In fact close to 2 million crimes a year are prevented here from the simple display of a weapon.

Of the countries you listed, Great Britain has seen a continued surge in homicides and other violent crimes since the institution of a gun ban, as well as Australia, which you did not list.

France, well what can we say about France, muslims youths rioting unfetered, destroyed other peoples property with wonton abandonement while the general public can only stand by and watch the police and military stand by.

Germany, neo-nazi youth crime it climbing at an alarming rate against poor imigrants who are either jewish or non-white. Gangs of the little bastards wander around terrorizing the innocent, assualting any one who gets in their way.

Spain and Italy, organized crime has always been a problem with them not to mention the new and growing problem of muslim youth crime growing in Spain as well.

And by the way none of the coutries you listed have even close to the population of the U.S. but statistically higher violent crime rates.

As far as the paranoia goes, people not wanting to come down here because they are afraid of getting shot? Sounds to me like you and they are the paranoids.

Sporting Lad, or anyone for that matter, please tell me what other instrument can put a small weak woman at the same threat level of a big burly man? Just answer that truthfully without any of the "if she can use it" bullshyte. My grandmother lived to be 87 and carried a .357 snub and she sure as hell knew how to use it. If some of you don't feel comfortable having the ability to defend yourself fine. If you have never had to do so, good for you, some of us live in areas where that will never be a reality.

Concealed weapons permits aren't just handed out, you have to take classes and show a proficiency of use.

Rwanda, 1990's, half a million people murdered in less than six months with nothing more than machetes and knives. I'll bet those people wish that they would have had guns to defend themselves.

Sporting Lad
29th February 2008, 20:20
Anybody out there really and truly believe that they could overthrow a tyrannical government or an invading army with a Saturday Night Special, or any
other type of handgun??
You and what army?
Admittedly, the inhabitants of some Middle Eastern countries are doing
a pretty fair job, but that's not because they have handguns. :rolleyes:

GrumpyCoyote
29th February 2008, 20:52
An excellent, well thought out, non-hysterical post.
No argument from this quarter, except... :rolleyes:



The trouble with the concealed handgun is that it can be a lot more instantaneous. It's a lot more difficult, is messier, takes longer, and requires more premeditation to kill a person with a pointy stick than it does with a Glock pistol. Pistols allow the shooter to "snap" and kill a person from relatively far away with the pull of a trigger. "pop!" and it's done. I don't think Dad would've killed the kid if all he had was a pointy stick.

Of course handguns are more convenient - I said so clearly. What's the point? You cannot remove guns. Even outright prohibition would not stop gun crime. It's the motivations for the crime we need to address, not the methods. Legitimate gun ownership does not create gun crime (again, Canada has equal gun ownership per capita).

Anybody out there really and truly believe that they could overthrow a tyrannical government or an invading army with a Saturday Night Special, or any
other type of handgun??
You and what army?
Admittedly, the inhabitants of some Middle Eastern countries are doing
a pretty fair job, but that's not because they have handguns. :rolleyes:

Ask the Irish. They nearly did it just 25 years ago mostly with handgus, and a few explosives. All in a country where guns were totally banned. Also the frequency is not relevant. The freedom is. We have the right to bear arms explicitly called out in our highest laws. Unless that changes, all calls for banning them fail - regardless of argument.

They are regulated, just like any harmful personal property (cars, lead paint, pollution, etc... all of wich kill far more people every day). Banning them would not solve any issue. Banning guns does not make them go away.

Again, the problem is not guns, the problem is poverty, fear, mental health, and prohibitions. Banning inanimate objects does nothing to resolve any of the causes.

steelworker
29th February 2008, 20:53
And by the way none of the coutries you listed have even close to the population of the U.S. but statistically higher violent crime rates.



Not true. Did you read the link I posted earlier in this thread?

Non-firearm homicide rate per 100,000 pop.
Australia 1.5729
England & Wales 1.45
Canada 1.58
Germany 1.1679
Spain 1.2506
USA 4.55

Firearm homicide rate per 100,000 pop.
Australia 0.3073
England & Wales 0.12
Canada 0.54
Germany 0.4672
Spain 0.2456
USA 2.97

% homicides with firearms
Australia 16.3435
England & Wales 8.00
Germany 28.5714
Canada 25
Spain 16.4129
USA 39.00

Overall homicide rate per 100,000 pop.
Australia 1.8802
England & Wales 1.57
Canada 2.12
Germany 1.635
Spain 1.4962
USA 7.52

Source: United Nations Office on Drugs & Crime, 2000

No statistics were listed for Italy or France, but you get the general idea.

:gbflag

GrumpyCoyote
29th February 2008, 20:59
Exactly - we rate highest no matter the method.

Gun crime is a symptom - not a cause. Even if we could push a magic button and get rid of all firearms, we still rate highest.

Banning guns does not adress the real causes.

steelworker
29th February 2008, 21:08
Exactly - we rate highest no matter the method.

Gun crime is a symptom - not a cause. Even if we could push a magic button and get rid of all firearms, we still rate highest.

Banning guns does not adress the real causes.

My buddy Sparkin' has just walked in and, to quote him "If they hadn't had the right to bear arms in the first place, would they be in the situation they are now?"
Guns may not be the root cause, but they make it easier to kill someone, as demonstrated by the higher percentage of homicides involving guns.

SportyJoe
29th February 2008, 21:18
My buddy Sparkin' has just walked in and, to quote him "If they hadn't had the right to bear arms in the first place, would they be in the situation they are now?"
Guns may not be the root cause, but they make it easier to kill someone, as demonstrated by the higher percentage of homicides involving guns.

If we hadn't had the right to bear arms.. only the criminals and the government would have guns... Im sure in countries that have strict gun laws the criminals have guns... think?

GrumpyCoyote
29th February 2008, 21:22
My buddy Sparkin' has just walked in and, to quote him "If they hadn't had the right to bear arms in the first place, would they be in the situation they are now?"
Guns may not be the root cause, but they make it easier to kill someone, as demonstrated by the higher percentage of homicides involving guns.


Of course they do - that's their job as a tool. They are built to kill humans as efficiently as possible. No one is arguing otherwise.

That's also irrelevant Ė itís a red herring. We canít make guns go away nor can we make them less efficient. We can address the root causes of the violence in the first place. To argue that guns make killing easier is to say the sky is blue. True, but pointless.

By your numbers above Ė even without guns, our homicide is disproportionately higher. This indicates that something else is going on here. Thatís where our energy should be spent Ė with the fundamental human causes for violence here - not pursuing inanimate objects as some kind of magic fix to the issue.

Itís illogical.

I agree on your first point - the cat is out of the bag. We have guns, we can't make them go away.

SportyJoe
29th February 2008, 21:23
Would we be in the same perdicement? hmmm... last time someone tryed to mug me they tried to use a knife... they weren't very successful but they still tryed to mug me... they didnt have a gun... neither did I...as has been said by so many post before... the guns arent the problem..its the people who have them.. but then you've heard that a million times im sure.

skratch
29th February 2008, 22:12
As far as the paranoia goes, people not wanting to come down here because they are afraid of getting shot? Sounds to me like you and they are the paranoids.



exactly what i was thinking. you know, contrary to what your (or even our) media tells you, it is not like the wild west here. everybody and their brother is not running around waving a pistol, screaming at the top of their lungs and firing willy nilly into the air. statistically, it is the areas where guns are more highly regulated (banned) that have the highest rate of violent crime..... that in itself ought to tell you something. if the criminals don't know who does and who doesn't carry, they are more apt not to mess with you....

no offense, but it's no sweat off my balls if you decide not to come visit. i'm not aching to go up there either.

Billsxl1200c
29th February 2008, 22:15
Sad story for all involved.

GrumpyCoyote
29th February 2008, 22:16
Correct. Most Americans do not own any firearms.

Far more Americans die on the highway every day due to inattentive drivers.

Gun violence is not quite the issue our media portray it as.

Issues like the one in the original post skew the perspective.

ShadenGheist
29th February 2008, 22:26
this much of your post is not in dispute. the OP question was did he over react? I say of course he did. There was no threat to his life. He was jsut angry.Of course he over reacted. That is a given. The Biker was shot in the back. My curiosity is in WHY he over reacted. I believe the girls made a mistake, got scared, compounded it with a lie, Daddy heard the fear, and reacted without getting the whole story, or thinking. We won't know if this is true until the story unfolds, but hey, why do these stories even get put out to the public? So we can SPECULATE and GOSSIP. Sad to say, but there is no other reason.

AussieGazza
29th February 2008, 22:35
What the girls SHOULD have done was drive to the police station and let the guys follow them there...

Now their father is gonna be a punk in prison.

To be fair though, XL883 is right, alot of us would follow a car if they hit us. But then again, we don't know the whole story here...

I agree!

Only really facts out there are that he was shot in the BACK.

I would find it very hard to agree with any defence argument where you ended up shooting someone in the BACK.

Sporting Lad
29th February 2008, 23:44
An excellent, well thought out, non-hysterical post.
No argument from this quarter, except... :rolleyes:
The trouble with the concealed handgun is that it can be a lot more instantaneous. It's a lot more difficult, is messier, takes longer, and requires more premeditation to kill a person with a pointy stick than it does with a Glock pistol. Pistols allow the shooter to "snap" and kill a person from relatively far away with the pull of a trigger. "pop!" and it's done. I don't think Dad would've killed the kid if all he had was a pointy stick.

Whoa there! Now I see why they call you Grumpy... :laugh
I agreed with you on everything except that one point--killing with a gun is a lot easier and quicker than being "up close and personal" with your...opponent (unless you're some Navy Seal commando terminator assassin). I'm sure you understand the point I'm trying to make.

So how difficult is it (in reality) to possess a handgun there?

Look, my argument is not about "GUNS". If a citizen feels he/she needs to go out into the woods to find supper, fine. They can use a rifle or a shotgun. No problemma. But I must have missed the part in your treates where you differentiate long guns from handguns? And I don't think all handguns should be banned. I think you should keep them out of Walmarts. On both sides of the counter!

As far as this "the right to bear arms" thing that's so near and dear to the heart of every red-blooded American-- I'm honestly curious: could you define "arms" as specified in your Constitution? Is there a limit on the type or amount of "arms" it gives you the right to bear? AKs? RPGs? Nukes? Where does it say that? I'm sure you will be able to make that distinction. I know this is one of those "hot button" issues down there (like "pro life/pro choice").
There's two sides to the fence with millions of people railling at one another about who's wrong and who's right. I think most of the members who wrote in here already made up their minds long ago and are not about to change them as a result of a few posts (well presented though they may be).
So we can agree to disagree, but if you'll re-read my earlier response to your non-hysterical post :p I think you'll find that we agree on more points than we are at odds on.

I still think there'd be fewer killings if so many people were not running around with concealed handguns. :laugh

I support The Right to Arm Bears and The Right to Bare Arms.
The first gives the animals a fair chance, while the second lets me show off
my tattoos. I'm proud to live in a free country! :tour

Big Angry
29th February 2008, 23:52
I agree!

Only really facts out there are that he was shot in the BACK.

I would find it very hard to agree with any defence argument where you ended up shooting someone in the BACK.

The biker could have turned his back, when he saw the gun pointed at him.

Horse
1st March 2008, 00:02
The only reason this guy was able to shoot that biker is because the ustice system didn't do their jobs the first time he took shots at someone. It's not about the guns, it's about our justice system. There's an oxymoron for you. If you're rich, you get away with murder, if you aren't, you cant get out of a jay walking ticket. Graft, greed, special interests, rights taken away at a whim, how can you ask why we protect our right to own firearms.

Sporting Lad
1st March 2008, 00:05
Ask the Irish. They nearly did it just 25 years ago mostly with handgus, and a few explosives.

?? :dunno Are you thinking about what happened in Ulster (not "Ireland", BTW) during The Troubles? Actually the worst of that was more like 35 years ago, and nobody "nearly" overthrew anybody there. Admittedly it was a mess, but it's been settled now. Let's not drag them into this! :doh
If you're thinking of what happened in Ireland back in the 1920s, there was a lot more going on behind the scenes at that time. It wasn't merely a few firefights with Webleys against Lewis Guns.

Sporting Lad
1st March 2008, 00:35
Correct. Most Americans do not own any firearms.
Gun violence is not quite the issue our media portray it as.
Issues like the one in the original post skew the perspective.

That's what I'd like to believe. But I don't know what to think. I hear conflicting stories from you Yanks.
There's you saying most(?) Americans don't own guns, then somebody chimes in about their 87 year old granny who's a trained killer, or watch out for those 300 pound muggers, and so on. From my own experience I know that most (?) of my American friends and rellies do not own firearms, yet a surprising number do:
My uncle in Detroit had an automatic to protect his business; my ex sister-in-law has an automatic under the pillow. She is forever talking about instances where she'd have to use it. The wife and I were camping in her yard when I needed to use the facilities at night, and I'm thinking, "OK, here's the part where I get shot...." :yikes
It's a scary thought, her having a gun. If you knew her you'd know what I'm talking about. She's a liability to anyone within range! :laugh

glh
1st March 2008, 01:13
As far as this "the right to bear arms" thing that's so near and dear to the heart of every red-blooded American-- I'm honestly curious: could you define "arms" as specified in your Constitution? Is there a limit on the type or amount of "arms" it gives you the right to bear? AKs? RPGs? Nukes?

That is always an interesting question, and long term a concern for me.
AKs?
Others would know better, but I believe our assault weapons ban expired.
RPGs?
I think these are unavailable, but I can't be sure.
Nukes?
Aye, there's the rub. It scares the crap out of me to think of Bush Family Nukes or Clinton Family Nukes or ... you get my drift. For the Sci-Fi readers among us, the "Family Atomics" were an integral part of Frank Herbert's Dune. Each aristocratic house had their own arsenal, divvied up in a time of turmoil.

Believe it or not, things are not so bad in the USA. I have never carried a firearm, and never been confronted with one. That said, there some specific areas in this country (let's call them micro climates) where if were doing more than passing through I might change my mind about that. Like others have said, it's more about poverty and hopelessness and ignorance and fear. I would guess that in his heart the shooter was a fearful man.

Oh, I forgot to add ...
My governor now wants his tank back. Huh?
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g5-YTDft8csq9tAvnMdl4lIYIaQAD8V3FTJO4

GrumpyCoyote
1st March 2008, 01:25
Interestingly, only about 25% of Americans own guns, and the number is decreasing (Evaluating gun policy: effects on crime and violence. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press, pgs. 3,4. ISBN 0-8157-5311-X).

I'm not suggesting we don't have a large number of gun deaths, but the image is worse than the reality. This is meaningless to those who have to deal with the aftermath of a shooting of course, but thats' what I was referring to when I said "perspective".

Donz5oh
1st March 2008, 01:39
Look, my argument is not about "GUNS". If a citizen feels he/she needs to go out into the woods to find supper, fine. They can use a rifle or a shotgun. No problemma. But I must have missed the part in your treates where you differentiate long guns from handguns?

You can only decide that for yourself, you have no perogative or justification for deciding for anyone else.

And I don't think all handguns should be banned. I think you should keep them out of Walmarts. On both sides of the counter!

Just in case you missed the news, there hasn't been a handgun sold in a WalMart or Kmart for the better part of two decades.:doh

I know that might surprise some of you, but its true.:frownthre

Donz5oh
1st March 2008, 01:42
Aye, there's the rub. It scares the crap out of me to think of Bush Family Nukes or Clinton Family Nukes or ... you get my drift. For the Sci-Fi readers among us, the "Family Atomics" were an integral part of Frank Herbert's Dune. Each aristocratic house had their own arsenal, divvied up in a time of turmoil.

Yes, and there was peace in the known galaxie for 10,000 years thanks to those atomics!!!:geek

jrossty
1st March 2008, 01:46
:eek::gun:yikes:yikes:yikes:yikes:sofa
hahahah... I think you got me all wrong man :D No guns loaded here... plus i'm a lover, not a fighter :D:banadanc:banana:banana

I just like to go out and have fun w the friends on the weekends :clap

although, I'm too drunk to post anything pertaining to an intelligent thought as of right now...:cheers:band

kiltbill
1st March 2008, 01:55
Scary stuff...

Just when did it become sensible to let anyone bear arms?


We all have moments when the red mist clouds our judgement, but when you can go out and shoot someone just because of a telephone call from your loved ones about an alleged incident is bordering on insanity.

I remember one incident when my son came home crying about a man that had hit him...

Son's story...

"We were winding these girls up and they got upset"

The father of the girls story...

"Your son and his friends were being abusive to my daughters"

The real story...

My 13 year old son and his friends were acting like young teenagers, the girls were acting like smarmy 11 year olds... Nothing more.

My reaction...

I went round to the guys house with one of the fathers of his friends (who had also been hit, but not hard) and I wanted to kill the guy. "Who the !!!!!!! did he think he was, hitting my child?"



So red mist and anger...

Was I justified?

No...

Was he?

No

We were just father's who were protecting our loved ones...

But if guns had been legal, would I have shot him? Hopefully not... But who knows...











You guys are so ready to judge, but you need to take some responsibility for the society you have created and your gun laws...



kb

glh
1st March 2008, 01:59
Yes, and there was peace in the known galaxie for 10,000 years thanks to those atomics!!!:geek

Point well taken.

On the other hand, the peaceful period after the butlerian jihad was not exactly a democracy or meritocracy or all that nice for that manner. It was a feudal empire.

If I were to find myself suddenly born into that Universe I would like to think I could be a more than half rate Mentat, or take a lot of drugs, learn to fold space, and join the spacing guild. I would still be a peasant with the heart of an aristocrat who believes in nobless oblige.

steelworker
1st March 2008, 02:49
Scary stuff...
Just when did it become sensible to let anyone bear arms?
I went round to the guys house with one of the fathers of his friends (who had also been hit, but not hard) and I wanted to kill the guy. "Who the !!!!!!! did he think he was, hitting my child?"
So red mist and anger...
But if guns had been legal, would I have shot him? Hopefully not... But who knows...
kb

That's what I've been saying all evening, KB. In the heat of the moment, it's so easy to pick up a gun, and from that point there's no going back.

Just giving a view from outside looking in, but it ain't our country, and at the end of the day our American cousins are quite within their right to tell us to f***k off and mind our own business. Which I'm going to do now, as I've just consumed a decent quantity of their finest bourbon, and I'm off to bed.
Goodnight all :)

Donz5oh
1st March 2008, 07:46
Just when did it become sensible to let anyone bear arms?

About the time our forefathers fled from England trying to escape religious tyranny and oppression. It took us quite awhile to get it right on our own but we did.

We all have moments when the red mist clouds our judgement, but when you can go out and shoot someone just because of a telephone call from your loved ones about an alleged incident is bordering on insanity.

Perhaps its best if you don't have a weapon, if you don't think you have the ability to control your temper enough. As for me, I have no doubt as to how I would react, being that I have personally been in situations where it was necessary to defend myself. I do agree that in this particular instance insanity is a better description of what happened.

You guys are so ready to judge, but you need to take some responsibility for the society you have created and your gun laws...

Were the ones judging? Again, this society was created to ensure that the government would never again be able to subjegate its citizens without the consequence of retaliation by that citizenry. This is also the society that has kept yours and every other freedom loving country free for the last 100 years. Guns and the sence to know when to use them has kept this country free and given us the motivation to keep other peoples free too. Perhaps all of those countries who condemn us and tell us to take responsibility should in fact do the same when it comes to their own protection and freedom. Britains army isn't what kept the soviets form rolling over Europe, Canadas army isn't what has kept it safe in this hemisphere. Being next to and friends with the strongest super-power on the planet is what kept the Soviet from coming over the North Pole and taking what they want.

You all may have what ever opinion of us you want but remember you have the right to that opinion because us Yanks brought our guns on over there. We spilled our blood to make sure you have the right to talk shyte to us all you want. Our gun laws and our sence of freedom.

Sporting Lad
1st March 2008, 17:03
Again, this society was created to ensure that the government would never again be able to subjegate its citizens without the consequence of retaliation by that citizenry.


When was the last time your government subjugated you? I must have been asleep that day in history class.

I think this thread has gone WAY beyond the pale in terms of the scope intended. While it's been an interesting and fun discussion, I think it should be moved to the Politics and Religion forum where it now belongs.
Note from the header: "NO POLITICS OR RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION PLEASE."
So maybe I'll see some of you over there. I'm "unsubscribing" from this thread now. All the best. No hard feelings. You bunch of psychos. :p:laugh :bye

dagsportster
1st March 2008, 20:29
Adrenalin will make you do really stupid things. Mix it with anger/fear and cars/bikes/guns and you the perfect recipe for a tragedy. Maybe the biker was really pissed about the incident and wanted to put the fear of god in the kids. I've been there. Maybe the dad was mad as hell his kids were being harassed.

Earlier in the day the dad and the biker were probably two regular Joes with families and jobs and now there's a kid shot dead and a dad in jail. :frownthre What a waste.

CosmicCharlie
1st March 2008, 23:36
Some more info...

Here is the intro thread (http://208.131.141.2/showthread.php?t=26743) the victim posted 2 weeks ago on another board.

Here it the thread (http://208.131.141.2/showthread.php?t=27235) regarding his funeral complete with many posts from the local sheriff (who has had his 'M' endorsement since Carter was signing them) investigating the crime.

It seems he was a total newbie rider with 3 months experience. 21 years old riding a Ninja 250 and a computer tech and anime freak. I seriously doubt he looked like a threat considering his avatar in the intro thread.

Hot Rod Sporty
1st March 2008, 23:52
The biker could have turned his back, when he saw the gun pointed at him.



On a motorcycle, the only way that could happen is if he was actually passing the man.



...unless he jumped up on the tank and spun around JUST as the dad was pulling the trigger....:doh:doh:doh:doh The kid was an Ethan Hunt wannabe! :shhhh


:laugh:laugh:laugh:laugh:laugh


Seriously, it was a pre-meditated killing. The dad had plenty of time to make a decision to go get a gun, load it, watch the kid ride by once, turn around, and ride by again, and then finally to point the gun and pull the trigger, even though the kid was only riding by the house on his motorcycle...on a public street.....(nothing more threatening than that, right?)

The heat of the moment?....I seriously question that.....unless he was just a scared shitless coward, which could be probable...:frownthre

CosmicCharlie
2nd March 2008, 00:38
?? :dunno Are you thinking about what happened in Ulster (not "Ireland", BTW) during The Troubles? Actually the worst of that was more like 35 years ago, and nobody "nearly" overthrew anybody there. Admittedly it was a mess, but it's been settled now. Let's not drag them into this! :doh
If you're thinking of what happened in Ireland back in the 1920s, there was a lot more going on behind the scenes at that time. It wasn't merely a few firefights with Webleys against Lewis Guns.

I'm proud to be Irish. I live in Colorado and was born in Washington D.C. I'm no less Irish than anyone else with similar bloodlines.

Ulster is only "not" Ireland because the British have occupied the territory. The people there are still "Irish" except for the Brits. And without guns they would still be suffering as second class citizens and not "almost" equals in their own land. Okay, don't get me started.

FYI, not all of Ulster is in occupied territory.

CosmicCharlie
2nd March 2008, 00:41
That's what I'd like to believe. But I don't know what to think. I hear conflicting stories from you Yanks.
There's you saying most(?) Americans don't own guns, then somebody chimes in about their 87 year old granny who's a trained killer, or watch out for those 300 pound muggers, and so on. From my own experience I know that most (?) of my American friends and rellies do not own firearms, yet a surprising number do:
My uncle in Detroit had an semi-automatic to protect his business; my ex sister-in-law has an semi-automatic under the pillow. She is forever talking about instances where she'd have to use it. The wife and I were camping in her yard when I needed to use the facilities at night, and I'm thinking, "OK, here's the part where I get shot...." :yikes
It's a scary thought, her having a gun. If you knew her you'd know what I'm talking about. She's a liability to anyone within range! :laugh

Fixed. There are few actual automatics left in this country and only legal in very limited circumstances.

CosmicCharlie
2nd March 2008, 00:42
When was the last time your government subjugated you?


Exactly! Good thing they know we have guns.

Gone
2nd March 2008, 01:10
Some more info...

Here is the intro thread (http://208.131.141.2/showthread.php?t=26743) the victim posted 2 weeks ago on another board.

Here it the thread (http://208.131.141.2/showthread.php?t=27235) regarding his funeral complete with many posts from the local sheriff (who has had his 'M' endorsement since Carter was signing them) investigating the crime.

It seems he was a total newbie rider with 3 months experience. 21 years old riding a Ninja 250 and a computer tech and anime freak. I seriously doubt he looked like a threat considering his avatar in the intro thread.

That's kinda f'n eerie to read that intro post knowing that the kid's dead now. I totally support the second ammendment, in fact I am legally permitted to carry a concealed weapon, and I do. I know all of the arguements....'Guns don't kill people, people do....etc.....But there has to be a way to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of jackoffs like the hillbilly that killed this kid in cold blood, for no valid reason-Without sacrificing the constitutional rights of the millions of law abiding gun owners.

I read the second link, and about started bawling. That funeral must have been something to see!

glh
2nd March 2008, 01:19
Some more info...

Here is the intro thread (http://208.131.141.2/showthread.php?t=26743) the victim posted 2 weeks ago on another board.

Here it the thread (http://208.131.141.2/showthread.php?t=27235) regarding his funeral complete with many posts from the local sheriff (who has had his 'M' endorsement since Carter was signing them) investigating the crime.

It seems he was a total newbie rider with 3 months experience. 21 years old riding a Ninja 250 and a computer tech and anime freak. I seriously doubt he looked like a threat considering his avatar in the intro thread.

Thank you for posting the links Charlie. I was moved reading about the ride that was organized, and the reaction of the family.

emackel
2nd March 2008, 01:44
That was a shame. Following someone does not give you the right to kill them. What are people thinking?

Big Angry
2nd March 2008, 02:58
On a motorcycle, the only way that could happen is if he was actually passing the man.

...unless he jumped up on the tank and spun around JUST as the dad was pulling the trigger....:doh:doh:doh:doh The kid was an Ethan Hunt wannabe! :shhhh

Ya, you are probably right, I was just trying to make a point that no-one here knows for sure what really happened...


Seriously, it was a pre-meditated killing. The dad had plenty of time to make a decision to go get a gun, load it, watch the kid ride by once, turn around, and ride by again, and then finally to point the gun and pull the trigger,

The biker could have pretended to reach for a gun while he was riding towards the dad at unknown speeds. If you did that to a cop, he might shoot you also, So, It could have been premeditated, But then again maybe it wasn't.

even though the kid was only riding by the house on his motorcycle...on a public street.....(nothing more threatening than that, right?)

Come on, He wasn't just riding down a public street on a Sunday ride, He was chasing 2 young girls down at unknown speeds, Then he passes their house, turns around and rides back towards a guy with a gun, escalating the situation.

I'm not trying to defend the dad, or justify the shooting, But the biker was acting like a criminal and when you act like a criminal, you might get shot :(

Some people think the dad should have called the cops and stayed in the house and took no action, I say B.S. The biker was a unknown threat to his girls, He had all the right in the world to get his gun and protect his loved ones. I think the dad should have called the cops, got his gun, and simply escorted his girls into the house and waited a few minutes to a few hours for the cops to show up.

Big Angry
2nd March 2008, 03:04
That's kinda f'n eerie to read that intro post knowing that the kid's dead now. I totally support the second ammendment, in fact I am legally permitted to carry a concealed weapon, and I do. I know all of the arguements....'Guns don't kill people, people do....etc.....But there has to be a way to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of jackoffs like the hillbilly that killed this kid in cold blood, for no valid reason-Without sacrificing the constitutional rights of the millions of law abiding gun owners.

That's the down side of Freedom, The criminals will take full advantage of it, Like the old saying, It's better to have 100 guilty men free that it is to have 1 Innocent man in jail.

FSZEKE302
2nd March 2008, 03:56
I can't believe how stupid and quick to judge some people are. I'm a Biker, a Proud Father of three boys and a girl and a firm believer in the right to bear arms. What I'm not is able to understand why so many of you are so quick to rush to judgement on the guilt or blame in a case with so many unknowns an so little known facts. I'm ashamed to read about half of the posts in this thread. How about waiting till the facts are sorted out. By any standard this is a Tragedy and All those involved deserve their chance to be heard or stood up for till all the facts are in. Zeke

sportsterfreak05
2nd March 2008, 04:05
Girls should have called police and had biker pulled over during the act of being folowed. Also Father was a nut in blasting away t rider. Giving some one the bird is no excuse for murder. Father should have called police to meet and catch rider at house. if rider approched girls at house then lethal for maybe should have been used. Just be careful who you follow home, Dads are on edge due to idiots now days. I may have done the same thing over my little girl I don't know. Warning shot could have also been a thought.:frownthre

unfiguroutable
2nd March 2008, 08:10
Anybody out there really and truly believe that they could overthrow a tyrannical government or an invading army ...rolleyes:

the american rebels fought and won against the most powerfull empire of thier day. it is a shinning example of what a few motivated individuals can do.

Tha_Goblin
2nd March 2008, 08:59
If all he did was ride past and make obscene gestures I should be shot every day of the week.. ;)
Dad went too far, no matter what. Only reason he should have shot the guy is if he was fysically trying to harm the dad/daughter.. and even then. a pointed gun usually works pretty well too.. no need to actually fire it of.
But wait, the dude was a biker.. that means he is a raping, baby killing monster.. my isstake...

Mohntonite
3rd March 2008, 03:46
http://onlineathens.com/stories/030108/news_2008030100208.shtml <-- This is about the collision.
Another follow up story, The AMA is also following this very closely. I believe on page 57 of that thread theres a letter from the AMA. I think they have a list of a dozen stories related to that tragic shooting and are very interested.

csa89xl
3rd March 2008, 03:52
Good for him. Actually bummer for him. Following one thing, but ramming a different story. Assualt. Teenagers stupid. We all know that. Ramming their car makes it assualt, and following them after that makes it aggravated. Good for him. Ram me and follow me home? My bike in the shop for the next few weeks. Gives me a nice place to polish my guns.

Sporting Lad
3rd March 2008, 19:14
the american rebels fought and won against the most powerfull empire of thier day. it is a shinning example of what a few motivated individuals can do.



I have "unsubscirbed" from this gun crime post because it's content has become inappropriate for the forum.
But I did happen to read your last post.
By mis-quoting me out of context you have twisted my words to mean something entirely different to suit your own purposes.
What I said was, "Anybody out there really and truly believe that they could overthrow a tyrannical government or an invading army with a Saturday Night Special, or any other type of handgun?? "
Your version of my statement has changed the meaning entirely so that it looks like I have no knowledge of history. Of course rebel armies, guerrillas, insurgents, call them what you will, have overthrown governments and invading armies. America, France, Russia, Cuba, Vietnam, the list goes on.... My point (and I think you know this very well) is that they didn't do it with just handguns. That's what I'm talking about: Hand Guns.
I think the XLF is a great place for Sportster enthusiasts to exchange views. There are many differing opinions on here and it will only work if we can be respectful of others. That doesn't mean we have to agree all the time, but we do have to play according to the rules. What you did to me on a public forum was unfair. You owe me an apology.

CrossBonesRick
3rd March 2008, 21:23
I get it, but I think it's highly unlikely that US forces would take up arms against their own people. Likewise in Britain.

We get on ok in Britain and Europe without evryone carrying guns, and gun crime and deaths from gunshot wounds (accidental or deliberate) are a fraction of that experienced in the US. Why is that?

Acutally you are wrong on this front. In the UK crime has gone up 400 percent since the government has put into place strict gun laws. Same in Australia and Canada. You see criminals don't follow the laws and that is what makes them criminals. Yobs are running the streets of many cities in the UK and home breakins with the home owner at home are on the rise. Criminals can cause what ever crime they wish on anyone they wish but let a citizen defend themselves and harm or kill a criminal in self defence and watch what happens. You will be the criminal then. There is no self defence in the UK. Anyone who fights back at a criminal will be arested and jailed. No. I don't want to live in a nany state and surrender my ability to defend my family or myself. You brits can have that, just dont' come crying to us when you need our guns like you did in WW2 when Hitler was beating your bums to dust. Americans sent over thousands of guns to help brits defend their country because they surrendered them to the government back then. This is a sad statement but the guns were needed to stop an opresive government from destroying your country. You need to stop thinking government will always put your rights ahead of their own power. To the guy who said that Briton never tried to re-colinize the US again think of the war of 1812. They tried again and we beat them back again. All with the aid of self armed citizens. The reason our goverment doesn't enslave us like the UK has done is that we are armed and would not stand for it. Now. I will step down from my soap box.

CrossBonesRick
3rd March 2008, 21:32
True, the following countries all have a percentage of homicides involving firearms greater than, or within a few percentage points of the US:

Colombia
Guatemala
Macedonia
Paraguay
Slovakia
South Africa
Thailand
Uruguay
Zimbabwe

Good company to be in n'est pas? I'd guess that guns are pretty freely available in all of the above, and many of them are pretty much permanent war zones due to the drugs trade or racial / ethnic conflict (or were, 10 years ago).

YOu are wrong in your guess. Many of the coutries listed are anti-gun and private citizens can not and do not own guns. They are at the mercy of their opressive governments and that is why genocide can and does happen in them. Also, many of these countries are dictatorships or ran by totaliarian governments if not monarch governed. If you look at the rise in crim in your own country then you would see that being anti-gun has done nothing to stop criminals from murdering or robbing UK citizens. Also, the police in the UK are not arming with guns to fight crime. They are issuing sidarms to police and some carry H&K PDWs in their patrol cars. You should read a little history and some news facts before you assume. You're facts do not hold water as they are not facts but your own assumptions. Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of history are condemed to repeat them.

CrossBonesRick
3rd March 2008, 21:36
The British DID take up arms against us when we were still a colony and their own people according to the King. And without guns, we would have been crushed.

In fact, the British have gone all around the world with their guns to wage war with "their own people" and crush colonial revolt.

Amen to that brother. There once was a time in the past when England was a empire builder and thought nothing of overthrowing a country they wanted to rule. It was once said that the sun never goes down on the british empire.

CrossBonesRick
3rd March 2008, 22:20
Oh by the way, the quote from Jane Goodall about the chimps is wrong. People who study chimp society and chimp behavior see chimps war against other chimp colonies all the time. Chimps kill and eat other chimp tribes and they kill with savage abandon. More agressive than humans in many ways. The false idea that primates are peaceful is a falacy that has been spread by the animal rights nuts who don't want to give animals the same bad behaviors that they attribute to humans all the time. Don't belive me, then check out Animal Planet sometime. The filmed documentaries are on there all the time.

CrossBonesRick
3rd March 2008, 22:22
I have "unsubscirbed" from this gun crime post because it's content has become inappropriate for the forum.
But I did happen to read your last post.
By mis-quoting me out of context you have twisted my words to mean something entirely different to suit your own purposes.
What I said was, "Anybody out there really and truly believe that they could overthrow a tyrannical government or an invading army with a Saturday Night Special, or any other type of handgun?? "
Your version of my statement has changed the meaning entirely so that it looks like I have no knowledge of history. Of course rebel armies, guerrillas, insurgents, call them what you will, have overthrown governments and invading armies. America, France, Russia, Cuba, Vietnam, the list goes on.... My point (and I think you know this very well) is that they didn't do it with just handguns. That's what I'm talking about: Hand Guns.
I think the XLF is a great place for Sportster enthusiasts to exchange views. There are many differing opinions on here and it will only work if we can be respectful of others. That doesn't mean we have to agree all the time, but we do have to play according to the rules. What you did to me on a public forum was unfair. You owe me an apology.

Dude if you can't stand the heat then don't start the argument. I noted on many of your posts you taking the words of others and twisting them sarcasticly to represent or misrepresent your point of view or make others look insaine or foolish. Don't use the tact if you don't want it refelcted back at you. Nobody owes you anything. Just live with it.

powellsanmiguel
3rd March 2008, 23:34
But it is certainly valid that there is an enormous difference between a long gun and a hand gun. With a long gun I can kill you at a much greater distance. And with a long gun of the right caliber, like a .375 H&H, I can kill you even if you are hiding behind most things.

Mr.Hick
4th March 2008, 00:08
Being in the armed forces I can tell you that an armed politic is much more difficult to hem in and enforce crazy rule. I would rue the day that I had to fight the American public cornered and upset. If there was no civilian access to firearms (long rifles AND hand guns) I wouldn't think twice about oppressing the public.

It doesn't matter what you believe in, the cold hard truth is that guns are going to be around as long as humans exist. (legal or not) And poor poor pitiful you if you are the one caught unprepared on the wrong side of battle with only your wits and a butter knife.

Donz5oh
4th March 2008, 00:13
True indeed.

And lest we forget for those who say that no one has ever tried to invade the U.S. In 1916 Pancho Villa supporters invaded Glenn Springs and Boquilla on the Texas/Mexico border.

After WWII, the admirals and generals who had helped plan the Pearl Harbor invasion were asked why they hadn't just carried on to the west coast of the U.S.

They stated that they weren't worried about the military targets but instead feared the civilians with guns. They had been told that everyone in the U.S. had guns and were not prepared to fight house to house to take each city.

Now, if that isn't good enough reason for every person to own a gun, be it a rifle, shotgun, OR PISTOL, please tell me what it is.

:soap

Sporting Lad
4th March 2008, 04:25
Dude if you can't stand the heat then don't start the argument. I noted on many of your posts you taking the words of others and twisting them sarcasticly to represent or misrepresent your point of view or make others look insaine or foolish. Don't use the tact if you don't want it refelcted back at you. Nobody owes you anything. Just live with it.

Your first post! Might as well make it a good one, eh?

I didn't start the argument.
You are the only one complaining about my posts, but you're a brand new member. If other members I have quoted are feeling insulted or hurt as a result of my posts it's really up to them to let me know if I have twisted their words or misquoted them. They are adults. When they let me know how they are feeling I will publicly apologize to those members one by one.

Welcome to the XL Forum.
Enjoy your Cross Bones (when you get it).

Donz5oh
4th March 2008, 05:11
Your first post! Might as well make it a good one, eh?

I didn't start the argument.
You are the only one complaining about my posts, but you're a brand new member. If other members I have quoted are feeling insulted or hurt as a result of my posts it's really up to them to let me know if I have twisted their words or misquoted them. They are adults. When they let me know how they are feeling I will publicly apologize to those members one by one.

Welcome to the XL Forum.
Enjoy your Cross Bones (when you get it).

No one needs to apologize, just stop whining about getting misqouted and man up. I don't see his post as complaining, just telling you not to. You didn't so much as take our statements out of context as you just kept bringing up moot or acenine retorts. Your oppinion is your oppinion, same as everyone elses, but you can be just as wrong as the rest of us. Particularly when history or facts back up our arguments, and not emotion. That is all.

So say me.

Donz5oh
4th March 2008, 05:13
But you are right, that was a heck of a first post! Can't wait to see where he's going.

Roadster_Rider
4th March 2008, 05:47
My guess is that the daughters were at fault for the collision and he followed them(what motorcyclist would intentionally hit a car?).

Hot Rod Sporty
4th March 2008, 06:01
My guess is that the daughters were at fault for the collision and he followed them(what motorcyclist would intentionally hit a car?).



I told my dad about this tonight....

Keep in mind that my dad is the consummate pappa bear.....and VERY protective of his family,.......especially the girls...keeps a small arsenal of handguns and hunting weapons, and wouldn't hesitate to kill someone he thought was really threatening them.

ME: There was this incident in Georgia where, apparently, these two teenage girls in a car got into an argument with another teenager on a motorcycle. The girls said the guy rammed their car with his motorcycle, and then followed them home. They called their daddy at home, who subsequently took his 9mm outside and waited. The girls pulled in, the biker passed in front of the house. I don't know if he saw the gun or not, but he turned around and rode by the house again, and the daddy shot him in the back as he rode by.

DAD: ...and the motorcycle never went onto the property?

ME: Nope, never even stopped as far as I've heard.

DAD: The dad's in some DEEP SHIT!

What does that tell you?

steelworker
4th March 2008, 13:12
Acutally you are wrong on this front. In the UK crime has gone up 400 percent since the government has put into place strict gun laws.
I don't know wher you got your figures from, but to my knowldege there have been strict gun laws in the UK at least as far back as the beginning of the 20th century. If you're comparing modern crime figures with those of Victorian England, I don't think that's a relevant comparison.

Yobs are running the streets of many cities in the UK and home breakins with the home owner at home are on the rise.
True, there is a problem with youth gangs in some larger cities, but few gangs carry guns. There is, howver, a growing knife crime problem.

Criminals can cause what ever crime they wish on anyone they wish but let a citizen defend themselves and harm or kill a criminal in self defence and watch what happens. You will be the criminal then. There is no self defence in the UK. Anyone who fights back at a criminal will be arested and jailed.

This is not correct. You are entitled to use "reasonable force" in defence of yourself or your property. In practice, you can get arrested and charged with an offence if the Crown Prosecution Service decide the force used was not "reasonable" in the circumstances. In that case, it comes down to a jury to decide. A notable case a few years ago, a farmer disturbed 2 burglars attempting to break into his property and shot one of them in the back as they fled. If he'd shot him in the front, chances are he'd have not been prosecuted, but he was sentenced, and there was a national outcry about it. There is widespread feeling that the authorities have given too much emphasis to the "rights" of criminals, instead of their victims, in recent years (another symptom of rampant political correctness), but there are signs that this is changing - again, due to public pressure.

You brits can have that, just dont' come crying to us when you need our guns like you did in WW2 when Hitler was beating your bums to dust. Americans sent over thousands of guns to help brits defend their country because they surrendered them to the government back then.

Those guns (and planes, and tanks, etc, etc) were sent over to supply our armed forces, not to arm every household. The fact that Germany had been allowed to build up it's armed forces to such a degree during the thirties was due to political failings - it had nothing to do with the fact that British citizens were unarmed. Britain stood alone in Europe against the nazis for 2 years from 1939 until the US entered the war in December 1941, prompted by the attack on Pearl Harbor. During that time, volunteers from the US, as well as Free French, Poles and others, joined up to support the British armed forces.
And those supplies sent over from the US throughout the war? We finished paying for them just a couple of years ago.

The reason our goverment doesn't enslave us like the UK has done is that we are armed and would not stand for it.


That's news to me. I never realised we had been enslaved by our government. I thought we were also living in a democracy.

jrossty
4th March 2008, 14:19
True indeed.

And lest we forget for those who say that no one has ever tried to invade the U.S. In 1916 Pancho Villa supporters invaded Glenn Springs and Boquilla on the Texas/Mexico border.

After WWII, the admirals and generals who had helped plan the Pearl Harbor invasion were asked why they hadn't just carried on to the west coast of the U.S.

They stated that they weren't worried about the military targets but instead feared the civilians with guns. They had been told that everyone in the U.S. had guns and were not prepared to fight house to house to take each city.

Now, if that isn't good enough reason for every person to own a gun, be it a rifle, shotgun, OR PISTOL, please tell me what it is.

:soap
Holy $hit!! Awesome post... rep for you!!!

This is why the U.S. has had problems in the past with this kind of warfare. House-to-house combat is not something to be taken lightly. Just ask those in Iraq who do it on a daily basis....

Really what all this comes down to is personal responsibility. You have to have some self-control with any kind of weapon. I have knives, guns, and the occasional baseball bat or blunt object laying around my home. Does this mean when I get angry or upset that I'll go and shoot or stab someone? No. Why? Because I have a responsibility to keep myself under control.

And what happens when people don't keep themselves under control??? Society will take care of them. Thats why we have the authorities. I love target shooting, with my handguns or rifles or shotgun, plus I love to have that security over myself and my home. There is absolutely no reason why this should be taken away from me, unless I, personally, lose control. Then, prosecute me to the letter of the law.

Are we going to now quit selling fertilizer, gasoline, or even cars? I mean since they can kill many people at once (bomb)?

It all starts with one little law being passed... then another, then another, until our freedoms are no longer ours. Where does it end??

Maxanimal
4th March 2008, 14:57
I had 5 sisters and 2 daughters and violence has been resorted to at least once for every one of them.
Never had to kill any of the guys involved.

This guy has been waiting to kill some one his whole life.

steelworker
4th March 2008, 18:54
Acutally you are wrong on this front. In the UK crime has gone up 400 percent since the government has put into place strict gun laws.

:not That's just bollocks!! Did you get that from an NRA pamphlet?

This from the Home Office website http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/gun-crime/

A snapshot of gun crime
Contrary to public perception, the overall level of gun crime in England and Wales is very low Ė less than 0.5% of all crime recorded by the police.

Facts & figures
The number of overall offences involving firearms fell by 13% in 2006/07 compared to the previous year.
Firearms were involved in 566 serious or fatal injuries in 2006/07, compared to 645 the previous year - a drop of 12%.
The number of armed robberies involving guns dropped by 3%
There were 13% fewer serious and fatal injuries related to gun crimes in 2006/07.
The number of reported crimes involving imitation guns dropped by 15% in 2006/07.
The number of reported crimes involving air guns dropped by 15% in 2006/07 over 2005/06.
:gbflag

sportyblue
4th March 2008, 19:00
Well, that was a bad decision...

Now instead of being around to protect his daughters from real predators, he's gonna be locked up.......

Exactly !!!!

cdbpp
4th March 2008, 19:08
Crazy s--t happens in this country with guns.

Weo
4th March 2008, 19:43
don't know if anyone's posted it, but here's another forum link with info of the collision (although it "is" an internet reference): http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/2048275/page/2/nt/15/fpart/1

Donz5oh
4th March 2008, 20:19
That's news to me. I never realised we had been enslaved by our government. I thought we were also living in a democracy.

You usually dont until its too late.

BTW, I thought the U.K. was a representative monarchy, and thats considerably different than a democracy. As a matter of fact, the U.S. isn't even a true democracy, were a representative republic. True democracy counts each and every vote instead of using proxys to vote for blocks of constituants.

Also, I know a few Irish gentlemen who might disagree with you about being enslaved by your government. Oh, and the British government didn't decide to leave the Irish alone because they finally figured that they deserved freedom. A bunch of armed civilians kept kicking the crap out of regular army troop till they forced the British government to comprimise.

405king
4th March 2008, 20:27
thats pretty messed up. No one deserves to get shot or killed

Horse
4th March 2008, 20:54
thats pretty messed up. No one deserves to get shot or killed
Nobody? I don't agree with that at all.

Donz5oh
4th March 2008, 22:30
thats pretty messed up. No one deserves to get shot or killed

At least no one who didn't do anything to deserve it. This guy certainly did not do anything to deserve getting shot. Now if you want to bring up Hitler or Hugo Chavez, then I will disagree with you.

Mr.Hick
4th March 2008, 22:39
Are we going to now quit selling fertilizer, gasoline, or even cars? I mean since they can kill many people at once (bomb)?

Well, they have stopped the sale of Fertilizer with more than .3% nitro in it:p

Thanks TIM!

Shu
4th March 2008, 23:03
I have read it a couple of times. I am trying to figure out how the father thought his life was being threatened. No report of a gun on the biker, no report of the biker on the fathers land and the biker has a bullet in his back. Keep in mind the daughters were 17 and 19 and the biker was only 21. Not a lot of wisdom used by any one of the people involved. Sad it had to end like this from sheer stupidity. If the duaghters caused all of this, then hopefully they will have to think about how it affected their father and the biker for the rest of their lives.

Horse
4th March 2008, 23:43
Like I've said, we may never know what really happened. With the only witnesses to anything and everything being related, there's no way to be sure even if they tell the truth. This SOUNDS like a tragedy, a senseless killing, but do we know what happened on the scene? no, will we? no. This guy is going to be tried for murder, maybe he deserves it, maybe he doesn't. The armchair jury happening in this thread however is an exercise in futility, operating on personal beliefs and half facts. Justice relies on neither.
It's been said that we americans need to take responsibility for our policy concerning the right to bear arms. Seems to me that we do, wherever and whenever our help is needed in the world, we are there. We take a lot of flak for it, we take a lot of grief over it, but deep down we truly believe that we are trying to do the right thing.
We hold these truths to be self evident...

kiltbill
4th March 2008, 23:51
About the time our forefathers fled from England trying to escape religious tyranny and oppression. It took us quite awhile to get it right on our own but we did.


You deserve the right to your country as many did, the Britsish raped and paillaged many contries in the 17th and 18th centuries...


Perhaps its best if you don't have a weapon, if you don't think you have the ability to control your temper enough. As for me, I have no doubt as to how I would react, being that I have personally been in situations where it was necessary to defend myself. I do agree that in this particular instance insanity is a better description of what happened.



Were the ones judging? Again, this society was created to ensure that the government would never again be able to subjegate its citizens without the consequence of retaliation by that citizenry. This is also the society that has kept yours and every other freedom loving country free for the last 100 years. Guns and the sence to know when to use them has kept this country free and given us the motivation to keep other peoples free too. Perhaps all of those countries who condemn us and tell us to take responsibility should in fact do the same when it comes to their own protection and freedom. Britains army isn't what kept the soviets form rolling over Europe, Canadas army isn't what has kept it safe in this hemisphere. Being next to and friends with the strongest super-power on the planet is what kept the Soviet from coming over the North Pole and taking what they want.

You all may have what ever opinion of us you want but remember you have the right to that opinion because us Yanks brought our guns on over there. We spilled our blood to make sure you have the right to talk shyte to us all you want. Our gun laws and our sence of freedom.

You deserve the right to your country as many did, the Britsish raped and paillaged many contries in the 17th, 18th 19th and 20th centuries... We are far from without blame.

However the difficulties faced in the 2oth century aren't all related to the troubles we face now.

Donz5oh
5th March 2008, 00:22
You deserve the right to your country as many did, the Britsish raped and paillaged many contries in the 17th, 18th 19th and 20th centuries... We are far from without blame.

However the difficulties faced in the 2oth century aren't all related to the troubles we face now.

That depends on what you are refering to.

steelworker
5th March 2008, 09:15
Also, I know a few Irish gentlemen who might disagree with you about being enslaved by your government. Oh, and the British government didn't decide to leave the Irish alone because they finally figured that they deserved freedom. A bunch of armed civilians kept kicking the crap out of regular army troop till they forced the British government to comprimise.

Enslaved? Last thing I knew, a majority of the population of Ulster still wished to remain as part of the United Kingdom. Personally, I think all of Ireland should eventually be reunited, but that will not happen until the people of Ulster and Eire decide that's what they want.

As for kicking the crap out of the British army, I don't think so - that campaign consisted mostly of bombing civilian "soft" targets. Negotiating with the IRA was done under ceasefire agreements, after a prolonged period without bombings, when Sinn Fein had indicated that the IRA were ready to engage in the democratic process. As an alleged former member of the USMC, you must realise that it is necessary for former enemies to negotiate at some point to bring about an enduring peace. Concessions were no doubt made on both sides, including the IRA agreeing to decommision their weapons. The pressure on them to do so increased after 9/11, when a major source of funding for terrorist activities dried up. ;)

Oh, and by the way, where has the greatest support for the USA come from since 9/11?

GrumpyCoyote
5th March 2008, 09:38
The gun rights issues are totally irrelevant.

The father was charged with murder. By all accounts (even the father's "self-defense" claim was unspecified) there was no direct threat by the biker.

No direct threat means murder. Assuming he's found guilty, and no threat was made, we'll hold the father responsible for his actions and he'll do time.

The question at hand is "was the father justified?" - not "were guns responsible?"

Without threat - it was totally unjustified. It's a pretty clear law (self defense) and totally independent of method (guns do not matter to the law). The problem arises when there are only two parties involved and one is dead... It's hard to prove threat or lack thereof. In this case, we have witnesses. It should be cut and dry and the right to own a gun doesn't enter the picture.

jrossty
5th March 2008, 12:25
[QUOTE=GrumpyCoyote;1140358]The gun rights issues are totally irrelevant.The question at hand is "was the father justified?" - not "were guns responsible?"QUOTE]

Agreed. We were just having a nice friendly debate. :D:clap:clap

Those are always a good time.

steelworker
5th March 2008, 12:35
[QUOTE=GrumpyCoyote;1140358]The gun rights issues are totally irrelevant.The question at hand is "was the father justified?" - not "were guns responsible?"QUOTE]

Agreed. We were just having a nice friendly debate. :D:clap:clap

Those are always a good time.

+1 on that!! Perhaps we have strayed a bit far though... :D

Sporting Lad
5th March 2008, 18:14
Right? Left? I dunno. :laugh
But thanks, Grumpy, for bringing the thread back into focus (again!).
I did mention in an earlier post that the forum header states
No political or religious discussion, but it seemed to get trampled
under a stampede of members wanting to rant against one another
rather than addressing the issue directly: Was Dad justified?
When Bert gets back he's probably gonna kick our butts. :shhhh

bjfoien
5th March 2008, 18:27
Thank you Grumpy. You are right.

Big Angry
5th March 2008, 19:47
Well, I have been searching the Internet for about 10 years, and whenever ANY gun topic comes up, There is always some British or Australian guy telling Americans they shouldn't have guns for whatever reasons :rolleyes: They talk about how many people are shot in America every year and say thing like no-one should ever be shot, Without even considering a large percentage of the people shot in America are BAD guys getting shot by GOOD guys, They don't realize that more civilians(good guys) shoot BAD guys per year in America than the police do. and when I say BAD guys, I mean just that, murderers, rapists, car jackers, home invaders etc..

They also say things like "If I was really mad at someone and I had a gun I might shoot them" BUT they have knifes, baseball bats, hammers and cars and they DID NOT stab, hit, or run-over the person they were mad at, Hmmm, So what makes the British and Australian people think if they had a gun they WOULD pick it up and start shooting people when they get angry? Maybe it's just because they where raised with anti gun propaganda their whole life, I don't know.

Also, Whenever there is some crazy weirdo in the USA that shoots a bunch of people, Do you notice how they go to a "Gun Free zone" to do the shooting? I wounder why they choose to go shoot-up a place like that? O' ya, It's because Gun free zones = guaranteed defenseless victims.

Some guy said in a previous post, In Britain, If you fight off an attacker you go to jail, Is that true? If it is, That is focked up! In America, if you fight off an attacker, The police will shake your hand and tell you that you did good! You might even get an award or medal for your bravery, Your friends and neighbors will buy you a beer/soda for being one of the GOOD guys! ;)

Donz5oh
5th March 2008, 20:02
Right? Left? I dunno. :laugh
But thanks, Grumpy, for bringing the thread back into focus (again!).
I did mention in an earlier post that the forum header states
No political or religious discussion, but it seemed to get trampled
under a stampede of members wanting to rant against one another
rather than addressing the issue directly: Was Dad justified?
When Bert gets back he's probably gonna kick our butts. :shhhh

Your probably right, we need to start figuring how were gonna talk our way out of this one. :doh

steelworker
5th March 2008, 21:09
Your probably right, we need to start figuring how were gonna talk our way out of this one. :doh

:doh Peace, everyone? :hipg

:banapart

Donz5oh
5th March 2008, 22:52
Of course, just because we don't agree doesn't mean I don't like any you.

Now, if you were French...

Just kidding!!! :p

MDT
2nd July 2008, 00:17
This guy should've been in Texas

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,333351,00.html