Georgia man shoots and kills guy who accidentally pulled into his driveway

[Frozenbeef]

Take your logical thinking elsewhere kind sir.
These people are trying to say all gun owners are nuts, not some people are nuts AND own guns.

That is bullcrud. No one is saying all gun owners are not responsible, they are saying not everyone should own one unless they are deemed safe enough to do so. Just like you must pass a theory and a practical driving test and pay a very large amount in insurance to drive a car.

[Luuth]

Unless there are specific signs that it is otherwise, it is legal to use another person's driveway to turn around. Lingering is another matter, but simply turning around falls under implied consent.

I like to just sit on my front porch and wait for people to accidentally pull into my driveway so I can shoot them in the face. Its pretty cool that the law says I am in the right on this one. On New Years Eve alone I must get to shoot like 20 people in the face this way.

[wow2011]

Take your logical thinking elsewhere kind sir.
These people are trying to say all gun owners are nuts, not some people are nuts AND own guns.

I am a responsible and law abiding citizen. I think it's time for me to own tanks, fighter jets, hire mercenaries and build homemade bombs and have a small country sized arsenal. I should be free to spend money however I wish and so should anyone with money.

Why aren't we selling nuclear warheads? That thing will ensure world peace. Not to mention it'll bring us out of debt very fast.

[Hean]

So wait. If you serve in the army and become a veteran...you get a free kill!? Hot daymn!

[Deleted]

Jelly that the amendment allows me to defend my land with very effective killing devices?

I used to envy it, now I pity it because it's self-perpetuating retardation.

If you are actually scared that the government is going to overthrow and control you, you need your head checked.

[bergmann620]

Considering that the information is partial at best, all I'll say is:

I guess we should be shocked that a Vietnam vet killed somebody.

[Deleted]

Agreed. with looser gun laws the guy in the car could of defended his own freedoms.

By pulling into the wrong driveway, realizing his mistake and thinking " Better get my gun out and shoot the first thing that moves to ensure I don't get shot myself! ".

You really aren't helping the pro-gun position.

[Lollis]

Do you think we need a separate forum section for gun crimes in the US yet? Every day a new one pops up.

[Deleted]

Saying that, looser gun control would actually be good.

When everyone has guns and people are killing each other all the time, maybe then they're realize that the Second Amendment is way past out of date.

---------- Post added 2013-01-30 at 08:33 PM ----------

Do you think we need a separate forum section for gun crimes in the US yet? Every day a new one pops up.

Shooting or thread? Either way, I agree on both counts.

[Beat5beat]

UK, France, United States, Russia & China have nuclear bombs & you still feel safe because you know they will not nuke randomly like crazy. Some wacko states like Pakistan & North Korea have nuclear weapons, too! But they are just threatening to not get overthrown. So there is a nuclear weapon regulation, you cannot get a nuclear weapon so easily, that is why only a few countries have them. Iran insists on the right to have nuclear technology (to achieve a good power infrastructure, but one or two bombs to threat a little bit would not be so bad). So why not spread the nuclear technology all over the world and maybe sell nuclear bombs, too? I mean, who can deny you the right to have nuclear bombs? A bomb is not killing people, in the end people are the killers, so there is nothing wrong with the bombs! Most countries still would not be a threat but you just have to wait for some wacko to actually use them which is much more possible if everyone has those bombs.

So, nuclear bomb regulation is totally fine ("LOL, DON'T LET WACKO STATES GET THE DREADFUL BOMB") but gun regulation is libertarian bullshit ("LOL, EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO HAVE A WEAPON").

An interesting argument, unfortunately I believe it demonstrates the opposite of the point you are trying to get across. Notice how countries that do not have nuclear capabilities are able to be bullied around by those that do. Now imagine if only 1 country in the world had nuclear power, what do you think would happen if this country was not so benevolent? Nobody would have power to stand against them. This is why I think think gun argument is retarded, if we want to abolish guns, we should abolish ALL guns, including those used by police, governments etc (Obviously this is an impossibility) which is why I think in the end to gain overall safety against a potentially evil force we sacrifice a little personal safety, if you do not fear your government, you are a fool. Where power exists corruption exists. The more power the more corruption.

The true problem exists in the mentality that human life is so worthless (other than your own) and the paranoia that everyone is out to get you. Responsible gun ownership needs to be taught, responsible humanity needs to be taught (unfortunately it has slipped through the cracks lately, with selfishness, apathy, and paranoia ruling the day). Sadly the media fuels this paranoia, apathy, and selfishness by promoting and flaunting every possible error a human can commit. So while something that you should not be scared of (because it almost never happens) suddenly seems the norm and an irrational fear is born, when enough people have this irrational fear it starts to become a realistic fear, and slowly society shifts downward into a cesspool of shit, where indeed people are not capable of being responsible enough to own a weapon (of any type).

[Kraenen]

Jelly that the amendment allows me to defend my land with very effective killing devices?

The amendment doesn't allow you to do that

[Biske]

Take your logical thinking elsewhere kind sir.
These people are trying to say all gun owners are nuts, not some people are nuts AND own guns.

If you read anything I (the OP) have said, you'd realize your statement is completely false. I've clearly stated I have no issue with gun ownership, but a HUGE issue with the mentality that a lot of people seem to have that it's perfectly fine to shoot people under the most ridiculous circumstances.

Also, this part isn't a reply to you, but about stuff I saw in earlier posts: the headline mentions race, but the race isn't important in the article. It's only brought up, because, well, it's NBClatino, so it's news mostly about/for *gasp* Latinos. I'm Latino, and I didn't think his race was even RELEVANT, which is why I left it out of the title in the thread. The only reason race could have even been an issue is that it probably made the guy more likely to think he was part of one of the gangs, which I think is PERFECTLY REASONABLE (assuming the gangs were, in fact, primarily composed of Latinos), but doesn't even begin to excuse his reaction.

[Adam Jensen]

That is bullcrud. No one is saying all gun owners are not responsible, they are saying not everyone should own one unless they are deemed safe enough to do so. Just like you must pass a theory and a practical driving test and pay a very large amount in insurance to drive a car.

Indeed. I don't get why this is so hard for conservatives to understand. We don't want to fucking ban all guns, we want to make sure the psychopaths can't get their hands on them.

Not every liberal agrees with Fienstein's gun ban proposal ffs.

[Somebodyelse]

There is no news story about how the majority of gun owners are responsible, because it's not lurid and interesting.

These events are the exception.

How many more exceptions will it take ?

[Bakis]

He is charged with murder so everything is fine there.
War vet with god knows what issues owning a gun and seeing a latino in a car *bo0000 scary*, what could possibly go wrong.

[Glnger]

soo. pro-gun nuts: If we all agree that mentally ill people shouldn't own guns. AND being a vet automatically means you have "issues" that cause you to be trigger-happy. should we ban all vets owning guns? sounds pretty retarded, eh? so does your automatic defense of "oh, hes a vet hes cooky"

[Seegtease]

If you read anything I (the OP) have said, you'd realize your statement is completely false. I've clearly stated I have no issue with gun ownership, but a HUGE issue with the mentality that a lot of people seem to have that it's perfectly fine to shoot people under the most ridiculous circumstances.

How could anybody possibly defend the guy? I know people have said it in this thread, but I have to assume anybody who actually thinks the old guy did nothing wrong would be trolling, because it's just so unreasonable to say. Maybe at least just being devil's advocates to spark a debate.

But there's nothing to debate. What this guy did was not only illegal (you cannot shoot someone for pulling up and being on your lawn or driveway), but it was immoral (you don't shoot someone because they MIGHT be violent and armed. You only shoot them if you are damn well sure they are).

Bottom line is: this old guy was wrong in what he did and should be punished accordingly. Maybe he was profiling, maybe he's just trigger happy, but he did something wrong.

That's why people are debating about gun control - because they assume that's the point you were trying to make when posting this article. They assume this because debating whether or not this guy was in the wrong is so obvious it's not even worth debate.

[Deleted]

An interesting argument, unfortunately I believe it demonstrates the opposite of the point you are trying to get across. Notice how countries that do not have nuclear capabilities are able to be bullied around by those that do. Now imagine if only 1 country in the world had nuclear power, what do you think would happen if this country was not so benevolent? Nobody would have power to stand against them. This is why I think think gun argument is retarded, if we want to abolish guns, we should abolish ALL guns, including those used by police, governments etc (Obviously this is an impossibility) which is why I think in the end to gain overall safety against a potentially evil force we sacrifice a little personal safety, if you do not fear your government, you are a fool. Where power exists corruption exists. The more power the more corruption.

The true problem exists in the mentality that human life is so worthless (other than your own) and the paranoia that everyone is out to get you. Responsible gun ownership needs to be taught, responsible humanity needs to be taught (unfortunately it has slipped through the cracks lately, with selfishness, apathy, and paranoia ruling the day). Sadly the media fuels this paranoia, apathy, and selfishness by promoting and flaunting every possible error a human can commit. So while something that you should not be scared of (because it almost never happens) suddenly seems the norm and an irrational fear is born, when enough people have this irrational fear it starts to become a realistic fear, and slowly society shifts downward into a cesspool of shit, where indeed people are not capable of being responsible enough to own a weapon (of any type).

Well, without spreading the resources & know how for building a nuclear bomb and the fact that those bombs are not for sale, you regulate them. Sure, those who really want to have them will get them anyway but the number of those is small. And it is much better to have only 3 potential threats than having 100+ potential threats.
And in my opinion it is much better to have a small number of strictly controlled gun owners than to have 30% of all households equipped with weapons. Sure, in most cases there will not be any problem ever. But those dumb cowboys are a huge problem!

[Biske]

How could anybody possibly defend the guy? I know people have said it in this thread, but I have to assume anybody who actually thinks the old guy did nothing wrong would be trolling, because it's just so unreasonable to say. Maybe at least just being devil's advocates to spark a debate.

But there's nothing to debate. What this guy did was not only illegal (you cannot shoot someone for pulling up and being on your lawn or driveway), but it was immoral (you don't shoot someone because they MIGHT be violent and armed. You only shoot them if you are damn well sure they are).

Bottom line is: this old guy was wrong in what he did and should be punished accordingly. Maybe he was profiling, maybe he's just trigger happy, but he did something wrong.

That's why people are debating about gun control - because they assume that's the point you were trying to make when posting this article. They assume this because debating whether or not this guy was in the wrong is so obvious it's not even worth debate.

The old man was obviously wrong. The point that I'm trying to make is that the problem with guns is the mentality that people have that it's fine to shoot people if you even remotely think they could do you any harm. If you look at the posts people are making, they're saying it's understandable that he'd pull out a gun because the guy was in his property. For some reason, some people think that because this article was posted, it means that I want all guns banned forever for some reason. Given that this old man had no criminal record before that, it shows that the issue isn't as clear cut as just keeping the guns out of obviously mentally unstable people. There's this hostile/paranoid mentality that needs to go away.

[The Small Hours]

Have you seen what happens when a baseball bat meets glass? Were talking some seriously dangerous shards, the driver would have been blinded at the very least.

Most windscreens are shatterproof. If a 69 year old was charging at him with a knife or bat he might of had a chance to get out his car run to the shop get some smokes run back to his car and get away quickly.