Blogs Jan 25, 2016 at 9:35 am

Comments

1
Sheesh.
Lots of people died by misusing their shovel clearing sidewalk.
Shit happens if you are protecting your family.
2
@1: Moshi moshi, beito desu.
3
dont forget Gun Shop Owner and Son Killed In Shootout With Customers

http://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/…

@1 you are the lamest troll ever.
4
@1 Thanks for that post. It's always refreshing to know that those who disagree with you on major policy issues lack basic logic & reasoning skills and back up their points with non-sequiturs.
5
@1 is absolutely correct. In fact, I have an elderly neighbor who was startled when a young passerby offered to help him shovel his driveway and the neighbor bashed the young passerby's head in right there with his shovel. This could have been anyone. If a young passerby offered to help you shovel your driveway, you'd probably do the same thing.
6
@3
I figure that must be the proper use of a gun--if a lying, conniving gun shop owner tries to overcharge you, you have to stop them. So the customers are the good guys with the guns, no doubt about it.
7
@3: just coming to add that one to the list, as well. apparently the customers (now murderers) were angry that they paid a $25 deposit and the gun wasn't repaired yet. then the gun store owner brandished a gun at the father and son customers, so the customer son pulled out his gun and killed the father and son owners.

no non-gun owners were harmed.
8
@1, how many?
9
@1, wow...just fucking wow. Really... I don't even...... *face palm*
10
#1 Well, actually, you're right!

According to recent statistics, the shit that happened when trying to protect their family by owning a gun, is by 300%, that more gun owners were shot themselves, or shot a family member, neighbor, or a rando innocent, than used said firearm in self or family defense.

For instance in 2015, on average one US toddler a week shot someone in homes of oh so responsible gun owners.

If only there had been a good toddler with a gun to defend against the bad toddlers with a gun...
11
OK, shoveling your sidewalk IS somewhat "protecting your family." From slips and falls, I guess. I mostly just do it so that the mail-carrier comes to my house. But, you seem to be comparing shovel "use" with gun use, if I understand you correctly. Did you want to dig yourself into a bigger hole (hey shovel reference!) and explain that for me please? Because I do not get the comparison at all.

(I almost deleted all of the above, and threw up my hands, because... why??...what!?? But I'm curious if you have data on defensive shovel-use).
12
@3: You mean two good guys killed two other good guys in a shootout at a freedom shop.
13
Well, it would be unwise to bring a shovel to a gunfight.
14
It's okay to show up after a gunfight with a shovel.
15
So the good samaritan killer should have been killed instead of taken into custody to avoid anyone playing the race card. Got it.
16
Logically by their very actions prove that we need more good guys with guns to take care of the former good guys with guns who decided to become bad guys with guns because there were no bad guys with guns around at the time. Second amendment heroes, all.
17
I'm still shaking my head at people driving drunk in a snowstorm. Not that you should drive drunk in perfect conditions either.
18
Sheesh.
You folks are dumber than dumb.
Can't you detect black humor?
I guess not.
And no, don't one of you jokers suggest that " black humor" is racist unless you want to make my day more so.
19
Yawn.
20
Vapid pismire @15, you're either being willfully obtuse, or you are actually cognitively deficient. [Hint: neither are effective rhetorical gambits.]

The comment did not imply that he should have been killed at the stand-off. The comment on the killer's race pointed out that a black man with a gun, who had just killed a fellow citizen, would have been shot.

Step up your game you tedious twit.
21
Don't forget our movie going ammosexuals. A woman just got out of Harborview after getting shot in the shoulder in a Rented movie theater by drunken idiot giving conflicting stories.

@18 you forgot the humor part...
22
@15, "So the good Samaritan killer should have been killed instead of taken into custody to avoid anyone playing the race card." No.

No one wants ANYONE killed, especially if they're just running away, or drunk, or mouthing off, or shoplifting, or even (I would argue) brandishing a knife. This should be obvious. And it's not "playing the race card" to say that Black people are more often treated much worse than this fellow, even for minor infractions of the law. Please don't accuse liberals of wanting MORE WHITE PEOPLE shot by police, OK? It's a terrible thing to accuse us of. We're saying we want minorities, on average) treated AS WELL as white people by law-enforcement.
23
@15, If he were black he probably *would* have been killed under the same circumstances, but no one *should* have been killed. Also, sarcasm.

I know it hurts your feelings when people acknowledge that racism exists but you shouldn't let that cloud your thinking. This is pretty basic stuff.
24
Don't forget the ammosexual shooting a woman in the Renton movie theater on Thursday. She's out of the hospital and he's giving conflicting stories.
25
Apologies for double post, thought the 1st was lost
26
Well, Richard Pryor WAS pretty fucking funny.

@18, well we are familiar with your idiocy, so this wasn't much of a stretch.
27
"And no, don't one of you jokers suggest that " black humor" is racist unless you want to make my day more so."

Cretin @18, man, you are so out of your weight class you don't even know it. Take a moment and look at your sentence above. It is poorly constructed, and indicates that your day may become more racists in the event of a contingency.

If one looks at your whole post, it is possible you meant that your day could get dumber given an eventuality. While I suspect that your day may very well follow one or both of these paths, I will charitably assume that is not what you intended to say.

Learn to use the language, or know that we all get a good chuckle from the kiddie who thinks he belongs at the grown-up table.
28
My deliberately, obviously, absurd and sarcastic comment in @15 merely points out how every law enforcement event is nearly always seized upon by a (I'm the most racially sensitive person blogger on the planet) to trigger yet another unnecessary racial comparison and milk the white guilt. It's really getting quite passé.
29
@18) R A C I S T.
30
@27
Thanks for great advice!
You are very helpful.
I like slog readers like you -- always nice, kind, smart too!
32
Can you guess the man's race?

Yeah. It reminds me of the time this one guy got high and used his reporter's credentials to slip into Seattle City Hall brandishing a firearm.

Can you guess THAT man's race?
33
@32: Who? I couldn't find it in a search. Goldy from The Stranger?
34
@28, That's not how sarcasm works.
35
@32: I don't know what race you are, but you're talking about yourself, right?
36
@33 Why that would be the author of this piece, Dan Savage. He brags about it in his piece on August 31, 2006 called "Baking and Entering: Why I Took Illegal Drugs and a Gun Down to City Hall on a Lovely Summer Day"

It was "Only a prop gun" though so I guess that's alright since Dan Savage is rich and white and the Seattle Police won't blow his brains out when he brandishes a realistic looking firearm in City Hall.
37
@28 got white guilt milk ?
39
@36: stunning that you remember that article. you're a champ at harboring resentments. congrats, very healthy.
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/bakin…

note that nowhere does Savage "brandish" his prop weapon.
40
When a person is willing to MURDER someone who's trying to help him because he doesn't want to go to prison for committing a crime that recklessly endangers the lives of others, I am not going to wail over the cops weighing the odds under fire and deciding that the continuing risk this guy poses to others outweighs the nobility of trying to bring him in alive. That they were able to bring him in alive is nice, but I wouldn't have howled about brutality if they hadn't.
41
@34: Yes. You're right. I'm sorry, my sarcasm license expired and am no longer eligible to have one.
42
486 homicides in Chicago in 2015. Over/under: how many of those guns were purchased legally: 5%
43
@1

Can you save us all a little time and maybe "protect your family" a little more so "shit will happen" to you.
44
also from people watching movies
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news…
45
@42:

It was 468 homicides, not 486. And I've not been able to find any figure specifically identifying the percentage of legally-versus-illegally acquired weapons used to commit those crimes, but its worth noting researchers, government officials, and even law enforcement agencies indicate it's extremely difficult to quantify, because of the wide variation of gun purchase laws from state-to-state (for example: a gun legally purchased in one state may be considered an illegal purchase in the state where the crime was committed), nor does it account for weapons legally purchased by, say, other family members, so it would be helpful if you could cite the source on that.
46
@14: Well played!
47
@42 Prima Facie completely made up. You don't really think that all the weapons used for homicides in Chicago have been captured and intentioned do you? Geez, just think for a moment.
50
Per RCW 9.41.270 regarding brandishing.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?…

Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm—Unlawful carrying or handling—Penalty—Exceptions.
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.
(2) Any person violating the provisions of subsection (1) above shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. If any person is convicted of a violation of subsection (1) of this section, the person shall lose his or her concealed pistol license, if any. The court shall send notice of the revocation to the department of licensing, and the city, town, or county which issued the license.

I like the bit about losing ones concealed pistol license. But since Dan Savage is rich and white and a local celebrity he was able to get away with a gross misdemeanor that any random individual would be prosecuted for. Not to mention being forced to undergo psychiatric analysis given the deranged state that Mr. Savage appeared to be in at the time.
51
@18: I warned them about the bait, but they took it anyway...
@42: Well, 60% of crime guns recovered in Chicago came from states with weaker gun control laws. And about 20% of the total came from just four dealers in Chicagoland, all of whom showed signs of trafficking (many guns used in crimes shortly after the sale), but federal law remains unconscionably lax and so not much can be done in that regard.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/Assets/do…
52
Lots of guns were purchased legally the first time but were stolen or otherwise acquired by another party somewhere along the way.

This seems really, really simple to me. If a crime was committed with your gun, you are legally culpable for letting it get into the wrong hands. It’s almost certain you were storing it improperly.

Kind of like holding hosts and bar owners responsible for guests who drive home drunk. That changed a lot of behaviour right quick.
53
@50:

Merely being in possession of a toy gun, one not apparently capable of producing bodily harm (unless his intention was to beat someone repeatedly over the head with it, I suppose), without the MANIFEST INTENT (very important point here) to intimidate in a manner that warrants alarm for the safety of another, etc., etc., clearly doesn't meet the legal definition of "brandishing" under RCW 9.41.270. In order to do so, one would have to prove Dan knowingly INTENDED to use the toy gun surreptitiously stuck into his shorts in a manner described in the Code, and that would need to be predicated on people feeling alarmed by him having it. But, he never mentioned he had it, no one questioned him, or searched him, or otherwise exhibited any indication of feeling threatened or intimidated by the thing none of them even knew he had on him. In short, if nobody knew he had a gun, toy or otherwise, and none of them were "alarmed", there's no "brandishing" as defined under the RCW.
54
Nice compilation. You missed one:
An 8yr old shot his brother in the head because their idiot parents left them alone in a car with their breeder's purse which had a gun inside it. An 8yr old wanted to play and so took the gun and was shooting it at his siblings.

http://www.wdef.com/news/story/Brother-A…

It's being called accidental. No charges yet against the morons who were allowed to breed 4 times.
55
To combine myths about guns that lead to stupid incidents like this and rape culture, meet Ted Cruz http://ofmeansandends.com/2016/01/26/ted…
56
war on guns?

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.