Kid Shot for Doorbell Ditching

[xfloggingkylex]

What is relevant is that you are playing Russian roulette when you annoy people.

When you annoy Americans you mean. The rest of the world doesn't respond to doorbells with shotguns. Yay America.

I don't think that I have to point out guns were invented for the purpose of killing, or at least dealing incredible harm to another. A gun serves NO other purpose than to hurt, maim, or kill.

Fortunately the world has guns to stop the Hitlers of the world and form nations like the United States. Anyone who seriously thinks guns are only used for evil is living in a fairy tale. Even if there were no guns, it would be a bow, or a sling shot, or throwing rocks, or sticks. Violence didn't start with the advent of the gun.

[veldrinal]

I believe i've already said it, but I'd just train a dog to attack, but not kill. Life lesson learned, no permenant damage.

---------- Post added 2011-09-07 at 01:20 AM ----------



The blind can only lead the blind, the insane can only comprehend the insane.

K, so I'll leave you to speak to the rest of the insane people then. At least you know what you are.

[nixcookies]

Again, if it's not a gun, it'll be a knife. Or a fist. Or a lamp. Or a fork. Or whatever someone can use to defend themselves.

Which would be for the better if they used those alternative things because the chances of killing the other person would be a lot lower than if you used a gun.

[Larynx]

When you annoy Americans you mean. The rest of the world doesn't respond to doorbells with shotguns. Yay America.

They respond with crossbows, knives, keyboards, sharp pieces of glass, golf clubs, or a piece of paper.

Either way, you're fucked.

---------- Post added 2011-09-07 at 01:23 AM ----------

Which would be for the better if they used those alternative things because the chances of killing the other person would be a lot lower than if you used a gun.

Except that you don't stop at just one.

Would you rather one gun shot, or many blunt force impacts to the head with a bat? If someone wants you hurt, they'll hurt you. There's no way around it. Sorry you can't realize that.

[Azivalla]

Except for the reasons already listed a couple pages ago.

But my point still stands. In self defense, someone can get hurt or killed. In getting food, an animal dies. That is what guns are for. That is why we one day decided to make guns. You can't change the reason for the gun's existence.

[Larynx]

But my point still stands. In self defense, someone can get hurt or killed. In getting food, an animal dies. That is what guns are for. That is why we one day decided to make guns. You can't change the reason for the gun's existence.

Fireworks were invented because of warfare. You can't change the reason for their original existence.

---------- Post added 2011-09-07 at 01:27 AM ----------

I'm just going to leave the pacifists alone.

I'm sorry you can't realize that guns aren't devil spawn, and criminals will get a hold of a weapon no matter how hard you try. It's too bad that when your life is in danger, you can't do anything about it except lay down and cry.

[inboundpaper]

That will learn them dirty hoodlums. I bet those kids will never mess with someone for the lolz for the rest of their lives.

[Gestopft]

Let's check the cause and effect chain: kid rings doorbell and runs, then homeowner shoots kid. Had kid not rung doorbell and ran, homeowner would not have shot kid. It's cut-and-dry, you cannot argue with me and be right.

Of course that point must be conceded. The issue here is that people are siding with the homeowner. Of course the kids were being stupid, but what I (and I think many other posters here) object to is the morally detestable attitude that reads the story and then makes a remark along the lines of "taught that kid a lesson" or "kids these days gotta learn to behave."

A kid was SHOT over a harmless prank. Clearly, shooting somebody is MUCH worse than merely annoying somebody. The first reaction out of a reasonable person with a dose of moral fiber should be "what kind of psychotic person would shoot someone over a mere nuisance?" To side with the homeowner either directly or indirectly by blaming the kids is utterly reprehensible. Yes the kids were being dumb, but NOBODY deserves to get shot over such a harmless escapade. This homeowner clearly crosses the line and I (and many others here I'd bed) find it appalling that someone's first reaction is to side with the shooter.

[nixcookies]

Except that you don't stop at just one.

Would you rather one gun shot, or many blunt force impacts to the head with a bat? If someone wants you hurt, they'll hurt you. There's no way around it. Sorry you can't realize that.

The thing is no one can say that the criminal would receive many blunt force impacts to the head without knowing the character of the victim and the individual circumstance, even so assuming the victim did do that to the criminal there would most probably less chance the victim would kill him as opposed to using a gun.

[ruinshin]

Which would be for the better if they used those alternative things because the chances of killing the other person would be a lot lower than if you used a gun.

Jack the Ripper says Hi.

The only thing those things mean is that the chances of both people being hurt are increased.

Fist, knife, fork or lamp, all are more than capable of killing you.

Nearly every case of gun use involves harming/killing someone or something.

Nearly every case of fork use involves consumption of food.

Nearly every case of fireworks use involves entertainment.

Nearly every one of your arguments involves using the absurd.

Got numbers on that? Really, I'll bet the amount of people who get stabbed by forks is nearly as high as gunshot wounds yearly in the US. Not counting warfare, of course, as again, we would just find different toys to kill with.

About 65,000 people have gunshot wounds a year. About 45% of those are fatal. About 15% of those are intentional suicide.

So, really, I'd be willing to be more than 65,000 people a year piss their wives or husbands or kids off and have a fork shoved in their hand.

The thing is no one can say that the criminal would receive many blunt force impacts to the head without knowing the character of the victim and the individual circumstance, even so assuming the victim did do that to the criminal there would most probably less chance the victim would kill him as opposed to using a gun.

If I shoot someone in the shoulder, he's down, and chances are, he's gonna live. Hell, if I shoot him in the stomach, chest, or even head with "most" low caliber bullets, the guys gonna live. He may not be in best shape, and he may have some side effects, but chances are, he will live.

If I beat the guy in the head with a metal bat, I don't know if he will live. See, because he's going to keep moving. And I'll crack his skull open. It's no longer a pop and drop. Its now a swing fest, and people are going to swing long past what is needed, because the human body often breaks irreparably on the inside before the outside even shows strain.

[mirthen]

As much as it is a bit of an overkill (similar to the crossbow story).

I actually support them, just for the fact that kids nowadays thinks they can do anything without consequence, and that teaches them otherwise, may be they will behave a little better if they know they could get shotgunned.

Kids have been doing this very thing since the invention of the door on homes, before that they would hit rocks together at the cave entrance and run away. why all of a sudden is it "kids nowadays"? the person with his doorbell going off should just be thankful he didnt put out a flaming bag of dog crap outside his door instead.

Now, far as the kid is concerned, yeah he is a moron. "nowadays" those people living there can be complete psychos. a kid knocking on a strangers door could get it opened with all sorts of things on the other side. from drug dealers, to naked old men/women with their bits flopping about(rather it be a drug dealer myself), to some pedo or maybe a serial killer. shooting someone for the misdemeanor crime of disturbing the peace, and if they push real hard trespassing, is a bit on the psycho side of things. that person definitely should undergo some form of evaluation, even if its just an extreme case of stress, it still needs some attending to.

[Holofernes]

haha well i suppose the kid asked for this.
nice to see a victim of harassment counteracting.

hitting him with a baseball or belt or something would be ok, shooting is a little bit over the top... but : defense against an intruder. so no legal matter to "accidentially" kill in an act of defense of property against a burglar / stalker, especially if its dark.

i hope the boy learned his lesson.

[nixcookies]

The only thing those things mean is that the chances of both people being hurt are increased.

Fist, knife, fork or lamp, all are more than capable of killing you.

Yes but the chances that the victim would kill the criminal in defence would be lower than if he used a gun.

[Imadraenei]

Of course that point must be conceded. The issue here is that people are siding with the homeowner. Of course the kids were being stupid, but what I (and I think many other posters here) object to is the morally detestable attitude that reads the story and then makes a remark along the lines of "taught that kid a lesson" or "kids these days gotta learn to behave."

A kid was SHOT over a harmless prank. Clearly, shooting somebody is MUCH worse than merely annoying somebody. The first reaction out of a reasonable person with a dose of moral fiber should be "what kind of psychotic person would shoot someone over a mere nuisance?" To side with the homeowner either directly or indirectly by blaming the kids is utterly reprehensible. Yes the kids were being dumb, but NOBODY deserves to get shot over such a harmless escapade. This homeowner clearly crosses the line and I (and many others here I'd bed) find it appalling that someone's first reaction is to side with the shooter.

Of course it's horrible. No one deserves to get shot over it. That doesn't change the fact that it happened, and the kid made a decision that led to the incident. I don't ask what kind of psychotic person would shoot someone over a nuisance, because my answer is in the article! First gut response for me tends to be "How could this have been avoided/be avoided in the future?" The answer is don't go around pissing people off to get your jollies. It's not foolproof, but it certainly ups your chacnes of survival.

[Fuzzzie]

Closing since this has pretty much become "pile on the US because it happened there" with all the terrible posting that goes along with that...