Fucking idiot should go to jail.
 

There's a reason guns have sights and not speakers; you aren't supposed to shoot at sounds. JFC



Michigan teen Brandon Spangler shot dead during paintball outing in Indiana

Farmer thought he was firing at coyotes




Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...#ixzz1iL9GqONc

The Drill Sergeant in me wants to monkey stomp this cuntfaced assholes tiny fucking brain into the ground. He needs to be charged with murder and put away with a boyfriend for life.

I'm not sure if he should be put away - but all of the people who allowed such a stupid person to pick up a gun definitely should.

Dunno what you mean by other people but IMO he is solely responsible for his incompetent murder.

I must be part drill sergeant.

I especially don't like the weaselly "They didn't call ahead..."

I'm thinking her point is that it can be too easy for the wrong people to get a hold of guns the the US.

Simply another example of those who think emotionally verses adults who use logical thought. He fired blindly because he did what any emotional persons does. Feel he knows something. Then convert that feeling into fact. Then just know it must be a coyote. Because his emotions routinely become truth. This was discussed before. And it will be dicussed again. Because adults who still think like children are too numerous.

The only question is how to separate childish adults from guns. How do we measure such people to identify them?

Living in this part of the world for the last 40 years I have never seen a coyote, they are very rare here, I would have assumed stray dog before coyote.

Guns don't kill people, ignorant rednecks with guns kll people.

No, guns do kill people... not the government, not rednecks, not idiots.
People just pull the trigger.

Children die because police officers do leave their loaded guns on the bedside table,
People die because hunters do fire their guns without identifying the target.
Remove the "gun" from each of the above and those people would not be dead or injured.

Ask Australia what happened when guns, not people, were removed from that country.
.

There are coyote all over the place in this part of the world. Just a factoid.

Have them post something in the cellar. ;)

As far as murders go, it was quite competent.

That'll be about the only place in America where coyotes would be rare. They are everywhere.

Perhaps you just don't see them.

Certainly not during the daytime.

He lives in the farm country area of Ohio. I'm familiar with the area, there are coyotes. Especially to the east of Lebanon where farmland backs up to state parks.

Not much has happened at all. People still die from gunshot wounds. Not sure what you wanted an Aussie to say here lamp.

You know how I love making sweeping generalizations - everyone I ever met from Indiana was a complete nutcase. From UFO's in the backyard to Papist conspiracies to Satan planting dinosaur bones in the ground to confound the faithful, to laetril being God's own natural and pure cure for cancer that government is keeping under wraps because (and I quote) "they make too much money off a' cancer for them to want to really cure it;" from husbands murdering wives and "she's shouldna' left him alone," to the denial of evolution said with a hearty laugh, "They want me to think I'm a monkey's uncle!!" to a strong belief in an Amish "doctor" who diagnoses you by looking into your eyes and a vigorous KKK - that's what I know of Indiana folk.

This guy belongs in prison. But I doubt he will see a single day behind bars.

Wen I was a teen in Maine, there was a little girl shot in her backyard by a hunter who thought she was a deer because she had the audacity to wear white mittens while playing in her back yard. Did I mention she was in her own back yard? The hunter was sorry and promised never to do it again. Didn't go to prison. And the little girl died in her back yard.

Edit. I looked it up. It wasn't a little girl. It was a lady with little girls.

The guy should at least be prohibited from ever touching a gun again.

By that logic, guns don't kill people, bullets kill people.

It's the blood loss that kills people.

I remember that event. If you were a teen then you must be very young... like 30 or 40.


The laws about accidental shooting vary from state to state. You can be charged with manslaughter or more in NY. My hunting mentor gave me a copy of Outdoor News or something like that that had an article about hunting fatalities this year in NY. The #1 cause of death is people falling out of tree stands. accounts for something close to half of all hunting accident deaths. I would suspect that 99% of all deaths are due to knuckleheadism, of which falling from a tree stand is a subset. That last one percent might cover legitimate accidents despite proper precautions.

Clearly we need to bring back Phrenology.

audibly laughing

Do you blame the tree, or the tree stand?

Let's put the blame where it belongs. On the deer. They lead hunters on...

I'd blame the hungover, unathletic, fat guy, but I'm strange that way.

It's basic shooting safety to only shoot at a target that you can identify, AND WHAT'S BEHIND IT.

I'm not blaming the victim here, but regardless of prior permission given, you should make a courtesy call before you go to some other person's property and pretend to shoot at people. Especially in the country.

Oh, and children are more likely to die of drowning in a bathtub or playing high school football than they are by intention or accident involving a firearm.


Ban the bathtubs!

Don't go making some left field ridiculous comparison to bathtubs simply to yank another poster's chain. This here is a serious call for banning firearms.

We'll get around to cars and electricity next.

How 'bout we just ban Indiana?

I'm all for banning 'stupid' but you know, that tromps on stupid peoples' inherent (god given and born with) right to be stupid.

Of course if we ban stupid, only stupid people and stupid people offspring will die in bathtubs. It's 'win-win.'

Oh, the irony. To have survived several hundred baths, only to be shot dead :eek:

*thnort*

^^FTW^^

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Just like spoons don't make Rosie O'Donnell fat.

Huh, I'd rather take a bath than a bullet any day of the week. Just sayin.

So this guy was shootin' crow in his backyard (perfectly legal) and his gun didn't fire so when he set it down, on the butt and aimed at him, and the gun fired and went through his arm and out his back.

The crows went wild. (insert crow crowd noise here)

He deserves some kind of civil punishment for sure. He fails the first rule of hunting anything. Never shoot at a target you can't identify with 100% surety.

That was the Windex TV commercial that the censors censored.

:lol:

Crime went up, Lamp. You don't want that.

You don't want genocide either. Particularly if you believe you are more virtuous than me. You can't get genocide without disarming the victims first, can you now?

So, as a fairly pro-gun liberal, I have a possible compromise scenario to run by you die-hards:

prior to gun ownership, along with existing background checks, all potential owners must complete a training (just like you have to do to get a driver's license or whatever), 4 hours or whatever, with in-depth legal and practical walkthroughs, coupled with much harsher penalties for firearms incidents? Short of calling character witnesses to prove you're a responsible, intelligent adult that can handle a firearm, how do we tackle the problem (regardless of how dire a problem you believe it is, I think we all agree that ANY accidental injury or death from firearm use is a problem) of accidental gun death?

I would argue that in cases of intentional murder, in most cases, preventing murderers from getting guns is too lofty a goal - the whole "only criminals will have guns" argument - but in cases of irresponsible firearm use, a stricter or more in-depth licensing program, coupled with, for example, both harsher criminal penalties for hurting someone and a suspension program for less serious gun infractions - just like driving a damn car, if you do it wrong, you get a time-out.

to be fair, I don't know quite how in-depth the process is as it exists, but I think liberty can stand intact while preventing irresponsible operators from endangering others.

This has always pissed me off. Yes, UG, yes you damn well can. Look at Rwanda, look at Sudan, look at so many hundreds of years of ethnic conflict and cleansing in central asia, africa, even eastern europe. Just cause the victims tried and failed to defend themselves doesn't mean they were all disarmed first. In fact, history more or less shows that genocide is almost NEVER the orderly, policed affair the Germans made of it - genocide is open, bloody, unregulated, and while the FORCE of arms is always imbalanced, the losing side isn't always - or even usually - a DISarmed one.

Agree with you about Rwanda, etc. Germany had no special reason to disarm the Jews. Most of Europe is not as pro gun as we are, and citizens do not commonly own guns. This included the Jews in Germany in the 30's.

They weren't pro gun, so there was no need to disarm them - how'd that work out?

Like Ibram says, that orderliness was just the German thumbprint. Can you imagine if the Swiss had been in charge? It would have been over before any one knew it.

When Johnny Turk did the Armenians it wasn't nearly as efficient but was at least as effective. Now Turkey can hide behind UG definitions of genocide and pretend it never happened... The American genocide against the native Americans was against a small well armed effective fighting force but that was nothing against shear numbers of immigrants and economic reality.

And in none of those cases did widespread access to firearms save the eventual victims. There was admittedly often LESS access to firearms for the victims, and arguably less will to own them in some cases, but even if access to them had been better, it would only barely have slowed the sheer numbers/funding/hatred/whatever of the murderers, be they government or otherwise.

Where does the situation in Libya fit into your theory?

Being armed enabled them to hang on long enough until external help arrived.
Then again, Syria has been hanging on for months and now the Arab League is removing their monitors due to increased violence ... go figure. :/

I'm not arguing that they SHOULDN'T be armed, duh! Libya wasn't a genocide, that was a revolution - initially a peaceful one - and the situation in Syria is INTENTIONALLY non-violent on the part of the protesters. I'm not talking about a political struggle, but if i were I would be advocating gun ownership by pro-democracy movements. I'm talking about minorities under threat of genocide by overwhelmingly large majorities, and how with the clear exception of the jews in germany/german territory, gun ownership wouldn't save them. Yes, I think external powers should intervene on their behalf - something I think even the most anti-war liberal and hawkish conservative can agree on - and maybe, just maybe, they COULD hang on long enough with enough guns, but somehow the UN and US are both extremely slow to respond to stop genocides.

I'm all for widespread gun ownership, especially in the third world - but I think in safe, industrial, democratic nations, that maybe, just maybe, not everyone is qualified to operate a firearm, let alone a powerful military-grade weapon, safely and responsibly, and that maybe we better make sure, on top of existing background checks, that anyone who wants to own a firearm knows how to operate, store, clean, and otherwise safely own one.

EDIT: I guess it's fair to say I draw a distinction between the SORT of gun ownership that exists in the United States, and the reasons for it, and the sort of gun ownership and reasons for it in the sorts of situations where the institutions and organs of government (or lack thereof) are set up in a way that neglects, rather than defends, civil liberties, human rights, and the rule of law. The more authoritarian the government, or the more anarchic or libertarian the government's protection of human rights, the more important public ownership of firearms, not just handguns, shotguns, and rifles, but so-called assault weapons, or military firearms. However, in a fairly socially-libertarian country with a government that defends human rights and the rule of law, public ownership of military weapons might maybe deserve a little regulation, as the density of population and questionable risks to public safety begin to balance against the public good of safety-by-the-bullet. In the United States, I trust the U.S. Military, National Guard, FBI, Federal, State, and Local police all to protect me and every single other American from the threat of genocide or hate crime based on any one of my minority statuses - so the argument that I need an AK-47 to defend my liberty and safety is a little less valid, to me, here in the United States, as opposed to, say, in Libya, or even more importantly, China, or Myanmar, or North Korea, where wholesale government-sponsored genocide, both violent and non-violent (yes, they exist), is being perpetrated against unarmed minorities. If the Tibetans or the Uighurs or whoever were armed, would the current shit be going down? Sure as hell not. But do YOU need a machine-gun to protect YOUR freedom? No, we have a government and military and law enforcement that we CAN trust, made up of people from ALL backgrounds and ALL walks of life who ALL believe in the rule of law. So SHOULD you be able to own a machine gun? I believe you should be, IF the regulatory agency can't prove (in a court of law even? would that extra step help protect rights?) that you are a threat to others, and IF you can show though a transparent and standardized licensing process that you can safely own and operate it.

An remember in Nazi Germany the erosion of Jewish rights was so gradual at first that it didn't even occur to anyone to raise arms even if they had them. It didn't happen one night. By the time it got to the point of armed resistance it was far, far too late.

There are plenty of stories of people who believed it wasn't happening to them despite standing on the platform at the train station.

That is part of the point of the amendments.
The First amendment is to protect unpopular speech-- it helps prevent marginalizing groups.
The second amendment is another form of check and balance. If another situation were to arise in this country where let's say an election was stolen through nefarious means and the political party that came into power were to, well maybe there are better examples, but in any case, you all know what kind of low coefficient of friction slope we're talking about here.

but again - right now, I would argue, our political system, for all its shortcomings, is still governed by the rule of law, even when the laws are a little iffy. and I would further argue, there is NO chance of the U.S. military and law enforcement being used to perpetrate anything on the scale of genocide. There is enough diversity of thought and political affiliation to prevent them from becoming that sort of organization. That is very very much not true in much of the world, but it is here. I would still argue that there should be public gun ownership and that it does help ensure a free america - but it does not ensure it so singlehandedly that we can't afford to regulate gun ownership to ensure public safety, does it? I think we would almost all argue that there should be SOME sort of limit - some sort of process to keep from selling, say, felons, or schizophrenics, or minors weapons, at least - and I argue, the more dangerous the weapon, the more powerful the weapon, the more should be done not just to make sure that you're a safe person to own it, but that you can also own it safely.

I don't believe it would have happened in Switzerland despite the fact that the Swiss were as prejudiced as the Germans back in the 30's. The difference is that every male Swiss citizen between the ages of 18 and 60 is on stand-by against foreign attack. They have their army rifles (or whatever military weapon) stored in their homes at all times. Plus, they go through a period of military training every couple of years or so to keep their skills sharp. If the Swiss had attacked their Jewish population, the result would have been a civil war. Just not worth the grief.