Oregon man shoots neighbors with AK-47 because kids were noisy

[Deleted]

You should only limit the right of people who use those rights to initiate aggression and therefore infringe on others' rights.

A man who's not a felon or crazy and minds his own business should have the right to own a gun.

But you're already infringing on his right to bear arms. Why not move that limit lower?

- - - Updated - - -

Nuclear weapons are not capable of accurately targeting an aggressor. They are unfit for self-defense including against a tyrannical government since their use would kill innocents as well as render large portions of land unusable for centuries.

Also my definition of force initiation as I understand it would include subjecting people to significant risks without their consent. Forget nuclear weapons, no form of explosives should be allowed, and especially not in proximity to other people.

Property rights also come with property responsibilities. Civilians simply don't have the resources that would be needed to secure a nuclear weapon. Even if you tried to get one and it was legal, you'd be constantly visited by criminal organizations and foreign agents trying to take it from you.

Why draw the line at rocket launchers then? I demand my right to self defence using rockets.

[Deleted]

People that have multiple kids who are old enough to run around and cause a lot of noise by the time they are 20 is different from a couple having their first baby at 19.

And yes, people who have multiple kids before 18 in a non third world environment, are, and forever will be trash.

Correct. 10char.

[Dys]

We almost went a full week without a post here on mmo champ of a random American shooting his way through the neighborhood.

It's still a daily occurrence. The media is simply not reporting it since it doesn't mesh well with their attempts at racial division.

[Coldfrostzero]

People that have multiple kids who are old enough to run around and cause a lot of noise by the time they are 20 is different from a couple having their first baby at 19.

And yes, people who have multiple kids before 18 in a non third world environment, are, and forever will be trash.

You're making a lot of judgments without knowing a single thing about them other than one of them is 20 with kids and the other neighbor happened to be 20 and was defending the father. They don't specify the noise complaint, for all we know the kids were 1 and a newborn and crying and it sent this man into a rage. I think the only trash here is your opinion of people.

[Coombs]

You're making a lot of judgments without knowing a single thing about them other than one of them is 20 with kids and the other neighbor happened to be 20 and was defending the father. They don't specify the noise complaint, for all we know the kids were 1 and a newborn and crying and it sent this man into a rage. I think the only trash here is your opinion of people.

I think you lack the most basic levels of reading comprehension. Read my first post again, then another time. After a third and a fourth let me know how you deciphered the cryptic text of my reasoning.

[Coldfrostzero]

I think you lack the most basic levels of reading comprehension. Read my first post again, then another time. After a third and a fourth let me know how you deciphered the cryptic text of my reasoning.

Hence my original follow-up where you confirmed that anyone under the age of 18 with kids is trash. That is called reading comprehension my friend. Sorry if you don't understand what you wrote.

[Coombs]

Hence my original follow-up where you confirmed that anyone under the age of 18 with kids is trash. That is called reading comprehension my friend. Sorry if you don't understand what you wrote.

You'll notice the multiple. I only expect that of trash and cults.

[melodramocracy]

No, Murica. Don't get triggered.

You seem deficient in math. There are books that can help.

[Deleted]

But you're already infringing on his right to bear arms. Why not move that limit lower?

- - - Updated - - -

Because it would be an arbitrary limit.

Why draw the line at rocket launchers then? I demand my right to self defence using rockets.

Another example of a weapon that can't accurately target aggressors + explosive based too dangerous around civilian populations even with the best intentions

[Antiganon]

mental health problem. not the gun's fault

- - - Updated - - -



because "assault rifle" is a made up term. they made it up to scare you.

Assault rifle is a military-style rifle capable of fully automatic fire, usually with a select-fire option.

Calling an AK-47 an assault rifle is 100% accurate.

The made up term is assault weapon. It was used just as much by gun-control advocates to create fear of the weapon as it was by gun manufacturers to lionize it, at least up until the federal AWB in 94.

[Deleted]

Because it would be an arbitrary limit.



Another example of a weapon that can't accurately target aggressors + explosive based too dangerous around civilian populations even with the best intentions

So arms need to be able to accurately target something?

I'm trying to work out why your already abitary limit couldn't be a stricter arbitrary limit.

[Deleted]

So arms need to be able to accurately target something?

I'm trying to work out why your already abitary limit couldn't be a stricter arbitrary limit.

It's not arbitrary. Inaccurate weapons like nukes or other explosives put civilians at a high risk of death or injury and with nukes it's pretty much a certainty. There is no way you could use a nuke without it being an aggression against at least someone. You don't even know where the fallout will go.

Explosives do a lot of area damage that will likely harm more than just the aggressor you're trying to defend yourself from. Explosives can also be easily mishandled and blow up, so it doesn't matter. Even if you have lawful intentions and are not insane, you are subjecting people to a risk without their consent if you own explosives.

This is a whole league of weapons that you can't compare with guns.


Nukes are also a kind of weapon that no single civilian could possibly bear the responsibility of securing. And without the capacity to be responsible for your choices, you cannot have a right.

[Antiganon]

It's not arbitrary. Inaccurate weapons like nukes or other explosives put civilians at a high risk of death or injury and with nukes it's pretty much a certainty. There is no way you could use a nuke without it being an aggression against at least someone. You don't even know where the fallout will go.

Explosives do a lot of area damage that will likely harm more than just the aggressor you're trying to defend yourself from. Explosives can also be easily mishandled and blow up, so it doesn't matter. Even if you have lawful intentions and are not insane, you are subjecting people to a risk without their consent if you own explosives.

This is a whole league of weapons that you can't compare with guns.


Nukes are also a kind of weapon that no single civilian could possibly bear the responsibility of securing. And without the capacity to be responsible for your choices, you cannot have a right.

You know nothing about explosives if you assume that they are inherently inaccurate and cause civilian casualties.

When people use explosives to cause civilian casualties, it is because they wanted to cause civilian casualties.

Morons being unable to properly control explosives does not make explosives inherently uncontrollable.

[Orby]

That's the face of a man I would have expected from that article

[Gaidax]

It's the kids fault they did not carry assault rifle, he should be released immediately and hailed a hero of 'Murica for showing such restraint and not killing anyone.

[truckboattruck]

It's the kids fault they did not carry assault rifle, he should be released immediately and hailed a hero of 'Murica for showing such restraint and not killing anyone.

no one has said that what he didnt wasnt wrong you know.....

[Ghostpanther]

Assault rifle is a military-style rifle capable of fully automatic fire, usually with a select-fire option.

Calling an AK-47 an assault rifle is 100% accurate.

The made up term is assault weapon. It was used just as much by gun-control advocates to create fear of the weapon as it was by gun manufacturers to lionize it, at least up until the federal AWB in 94.

The AK-47's sold to the general population legally in the US are not fully automatic capable. The original was however. But the ones sold here, are not much different than a AR-15 except they use a higher caliber round, 7.63mm versus the 5.56mm. The AR-10 would be more comparable to the AK-47 in the .308 caliber.

[Vankrys]

clearly, all that was missing a good guy a weapon, or a lot of weapons, for everyone.

in fact the whose street should have been armed to prevent this, even the squirels.

[Harbour]

it was sane guy most likely realized what he did, sit on his ass waiting for cops.
that shows why these fuckers in state should ban the guns.
dude wasn't crazy or mentally ill. he was just fucking annoyed by the kid and instead of a knife he a fuckign ak47 near by.
next time that would be the tired dude that want some silence in the bus full of annoying kids.
murica is fucked up.

[jackofwind]

clearly, all that was missing a good guy a weapon, or a lot of weapons, for everyone.

in fact the whose street should have been armed to prevent this, even the squirels.

He was just trying to deliver the ammunition to the men and kids so they could use their own guns to protect themselves!