Gun culture has to go- enough!

[Deleted]

Oct 21, 2013 17:53:29 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

I don't worry about being physically able to defend myself. I carry a gun which does my fighting for me.

I hope you carry in a holster or pack and not your purse.

[Deleted]

Oct 22, 2013 17:43:32 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

So question for the ladies:  Is this a property protection case?

Insanity I think . . . what other reason can there be for a 22 year old getting it on with a 63 year old?  Yuck, just yuck.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 22, 2013 10:30:05 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Oct 22, 2013 9:52:22 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Thank, God I was worried for a while.

www.azfamily.com/home/68-year-old-man-shoots-wifes-22-year-old-lover-228528051.html

Twenty-two goes ìnto 63 more times than 68 ìnto 63.

Sure, but in three years "loverboy" will be a boring square while hubby will be in his prime.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 22, 2013 21:04:16 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oct 22, 2013 18:45:32 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

In your scenario, I would say no, but there was no indication the man was pointing the gun at the time of the attack.  The article implies the attack came after the homeowner said he was going to call the police.  Unfortunately, being stupid isn't a good cause to shoot somebody.  However, that 22 year old will die someday from being stupid.  He's lucky it wasn't today (or whenever the incident occurred).  I can't think that anybody would dispute that if you are in your own home, you tell someone to get out and they physically attack you when you are holding a weapon (that you have every right to possess) (especially if you are 68 years old with Parkinson's), you are, most likely going to get shot.  Now.  Who would be at fault there?  I guess that's how, if I were a judge, I would have to weigh the situation. 

Judge:   Were you in a place you shouldn't be? 

Shot Dude:  Yes.No.

Judge:  Were you doing something you shouldn't be doing? 

Shot Dude:  Yes.No.

Judge:  To make things worse, did you get all stupid and refuse to leave when you were told to do so? 

Shot Dude:  Yes.I had every right to be there.

Judge:  Then...after you refused to leave, and the homeowner said he was going to call the police, did you physically attack him?

Shot Dude:  Yes.I feared he was going to shot me so I attempted to get the gun away from the person threatening me.

Judge:  You physically attacked a 68 year old man with Parkinson's when he caught you in bed with his wife and asked you to leave?

Shot Dude:  Yes.I was defending my life.

Judge:  You are lucky you didn't get killed.  You instigated and escalated this entire situation. You could have just left when he told you to leave.   You are guilty of, at least, Disorderly Conduct.  We could throw Assault in there also. If being stupid was against the law, you'd have been charged with that.  Instead, just pay your fine and quit being an idiot.You broke no law. You may leave.

Of course, I still don't have any idea what actually went down so I might change my mind if more facts emerge. It could very well be that the guy knew what his wife was doing and lay in wait for the opportunity to shoot the guy in the hand.

My guess?

Judge: Were you having sex with this man's wife?

Dude: Yes.

Judge: Did you refuse to leave his property when he demanded that you leave? Did you berate him verbally?

Dude: Yes.

Judge: Well, you got shot. Too bad. Next!

[Tennesseer]

Oct 23, 2013 6:42:16 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 22, 2013 10:30:05 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Twenty-two goes ìnto 63 more times than 68 ìnto 63.

Sure, but in three years "loverboy" will be a boring square while hubby will be in his prime.

[billisonboard]

Oct 23, 2013 6:53:10 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oct 22, 2013 21:04:16 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

My guess?

Judge: Were you having consensual sex with Mary Smith, this man's wife?

Dude: Yes.

Judge: Did you refuse to leave his their property, to which she had invited you, when he demanded that you leave? Did you berate him verbally when he assaulted you with his cane?

Dude: Yes.

Judge: Well, you got shot. Too bad. A man has a right to shot someone who is sleeping with his wife because (well, you will have to fill in this blank). Next!

[zibazinski]

I carry on me. Purses can get snatched.

[Tennesseer]

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 23, 2013 8:51:38 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oct 23, 2013 6:53:10 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

My guess?

Judge: Were you having consensual sex with Mary Smith, this man's wife?

Dude: Yes.

Judge: Did you refuse to leave his their property, to which she had invited you, when he demanded that you leave? Did you berate him verbally when he assaulted you with his cane?

Dude: Yes.

Judge: Well, you got shot. Too bad. A man has a right to shot someone who is sleeping with his wife because (well, you will have to fill in this blank). Next!

He poked the guy with his cane. Horrors!

And it's not so much that drivers have the right to run me down with their cars if I dance naked on a busy highway, it's that by dancing naked on a busy highway, I've expressly forfeited my right not be run down.

[billisonboard]

Oct 23, 2013 11:05:15 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

...

And it's not so much that drivers have the right to run me down with their cars if I dance naked on a busy highway, it's that by dancing naked on a busy highway, I've expressly forfeited my right not be run down.

Not analogous. In the case you describe, you are in fact doing something illegal and should face a legal consequence. The young man in this case was not doing something illegal but was the one arrested. That is one issue.

A second issue is that the person who did the shooting was not arrested. The man's wife chose to take a lover. She invited him into her home (community property state remember) and slept with him. The husband went searching for his wife, found her in bed with a man, woke the man, and ended up shooting him. So the analogous situation to you dancing naked in the street would be: should a person be free of legal consequence if they see you dancing naked in the street, get in their car, and proceed to run you over? The husband had the option of leaving the couple sleeping. He chose to create the confrontation and appears to be getting away without legal consequence for shooting someone. What is the basis for that being just?

[Tennesseer]

Keep your guns.  I don't care that you own them.  But please be damn careful.

5-year-old Texas boy accidentally kills himself with napping babysitter's gun

5-year-old Texas boy accidentally kills himself with napping babysitter's gun

A teenage babysitter was arrested Tuesday and charged in the death of a 5-year-old Texas boy who accidentally shot himself with the babysitter's gun while she was napping, authorities said.

Melissa Ann Ringhardt, 19, of Vidor was being held in the Orange County Jail on a felony charge of abandoning or endangering a child, the county sheriff's office said in a statement. She could face a sentence of six months to two years if convicted.

The sheriff's office said Ringhardt, who lives with the boy's family, left her semiautomatic .40-caliber handgun on a coffee table when she went into a bedroom to take a nap Monday afternoon. When she woke up, she couldn't immediately find the boy, identified as John Read, according to the sheriff's office. She eventually discovered him dead in the living room, it said.

Because the home has no telephone, Ringhardt carried John and a 6-month-old child, whom she was also watching and who wasn't identified, about a block to his grandparents' home to call 911, the sheriff's office said. John was declared dead there when emergency crews arrived.

The 6-month-old child wasn't injured.

Ringhardt told investigators she had the gun because she was frightened of being home alone, according to NBC affiliate KBMT K-JAC.  

"People have the right to bear arms, and with that comes great responsibility," Orange County sheriff's Chief Deputy Clint Hodgkinson told KFDM-TV of Beaumont. "If someone, somehow, puts a firearm in a place where a child is able to get that weapon, you've committed an offense."

"Sometimes, it takes something like this — as tragic as it is — for people to reflect on those things, and these are the opportunities you take ... to say, 'Look, what could we have done?'" Hodgkinson said.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Not analogous. In the case you describe, you are in fact doing something illegal and should face a legal consequence. The young man in this case was not doing something illegal but was the one arrested. That is one issue.

Actually, it appears he (and she) WAS doing something illegal.  I haven't had a chance (nor can I do so at work) to research the truthfulness of the information below, but it appears Arizona does have a law (however archaic) on the books that says adultery is illegal.

And what does such a law actually look like? The Arizona State Legislature’s website reveals cheating on your spouse is in fact illegal:

A. A married person who has sexual intercourse with another than his or her spouse, and an unmarried person who has sexual intercourse with a married person not his or her spouse, commits adultery and is guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor. When the act is committed between parties only one of whom is married, both shall be punished.

B. No prosecution for adultery shall be commenced except upon complaint of the husband or wife.

[Green Eyed Lady]

I just read that, Tenn.  Broke my heart.  So many lives shattered. 

[workpublic]

you beat me too it GEL first thing I thought of was that adultry could be illegal.

he also assaulted the shooter, that too is illegal.

[workpublic]

5-year-old Texas boy accidentally kills himself with napping babysitter's gun

outlaw stupidity and lack of common sense and give annual tests?

[workpublic]

when our govt gives up it's "gun culture" then i might get behind the citizens being asked to do the same.

[Green Eyed Lady]

As I said, workpulblic, I haven't have the chance to see if it's really true. 

[billisonboard]

Oct 23, 2013 12:36:32 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Not analogous. In the case you describe, you are in fact doing something illegal and should face a legal consequence. The young man in this case was not doing something illegal but was the one arrested. That is one issue.

Actually, it appears he (and she) WAS doing something illegal.  I haven't had a chance (nor can I do so at work) to research the truthfulness of the information below, but it appears Arizona does have a law (however archaic) on the books that says adultery is illegal.

And what does such a law actually look like? The Arizona State Legislature’s website reveals cheating on your spouse is in fact illegal:

A. A married person who has sexual intercourse with another than his or her spouse, and an unmarried person who has sexual intercourse with a married person not his or her spouse, commits adultery and is guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor. When the act is committed between parties only one of whom is married, both shall be punished.

B. No prosecution for adultery shall be commenced except upon complaint of the husband or wife.

Okay, however did they arrest her? Did they charge him with adultery?

[billisonboard]

Oct 23, 2013 12:40:25 GMT -5 workpublic said:

you beat me too it GEL first thing I thought of was that adultry could be illegal.

he also assaulted the shooter, that too is illegal.

Or was he defending himself against an armed aggressor?

[Green Eyed Lady]

Okay, however did they arrest her? Did they charge him with adultery?

Not that I read.  And it appears, unless the husband requests they prosecute, they wouldn't be.  However, it does negate the argument that he wasn't engaged in anything illegal and, therefore, just a poor victim......IF such a statute actually exists.  Plus, I'd sort of doubt the husband even knew about the statute (if there is one).  He could have taken other courses of action.  Everybody in this situation could have.  But it doesn't mean what he did was criminal in any way.

[billisonboard]

Oct 23, 2013 13:12:56 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Okay, however did they arrest her? Did they charge him with adultery?

Not that I read.  And it appears, unless the husband requests they prosecute, they wouldn't be.  However, it does negate the argument that he wasn't engaged in anything illegal and, therefore, just a poor victim......IF such a statute actually exists.  Plus, I'd sort of doubt the husband even knew about the statute (if there is one).  He could have taken other courses of action.  Everybody in this situation could have.  But it doesn't mean what he did was criminal in any way.

Agreed. That is on topic of the thread. Shooting someone is not a big deal in our culture. Some of us feel that it would be good to change that.

Off topic: Think the wife got the message?

[Green Eyed Lady]

I agree also.  I'm a huge supporter of the right to bear arms, however, the story that Tenn posted (and a dozen others every day) makes me really rethink my stance.  If we could just find a way to keep weapons out of the hands of the irresponsible....

I'm not sure that if I had children in my home that I would keep my weapons.  In fact, I'm pretty certain I wouldn't.  There is no such thing as 100% safe.  There just isn't - no matter how careful you are.

As for the wife?  I guess she can thank the Lord he didn't shoot her.  It would be interesting to read what she has to say. 

[billisonboard]

Oct 23, 2013 13:41:20 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

...

As for the wife?  I guess she can thank the Lord he didn't shoot her.  It would be interesting to read what she has to say. 

Or thank her lover for taking the shot for her perhaps.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Take one for the team!

[AGB]

Oct 23, 2013 12:24:22 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Keep your guns.  I don't care that you own them.  But please be damn careful.

5-year-old Texas boy accidentally kills himself with napping babysitter's gun

5-year-old Texas boy accidentally kills himself with napping babysitter's gun

A teenage babysitter was arrested Tuesday and charged in the death of a 5-year-old Texas boy who accidentally shot himself with the babysitter's gun while she was napping, authorities said.

Melissa Ann Ringhardt, 19, of Vidor was being held in the Orange County Jail on a felony charge of abandoning or endangering a child, the county sheriff's office said in a statement. She could face a sentence of six months to two years if convicted.

The sheriff's office said Ringhardt, who lives with the boy's family, left her semiautomatic .40-caliber handgun on a coffee table when she went into a bedroom to take a nap Monday afternoon. When she woke up, she couldn't immediately find the boy, identified as John Read, according to the sheriff's office. She eventually discovered him dead in the living room, it said.

Because the home has no telephone, Ringhardt carried John and a 6-month-old child, whom she was also watching and who wasn't identified, about a block to his grandparents' home to call 911, the sheriff's office said. John was declared dead there when emergency crews arrived.

The 6-month-old child wasn't injured.

Ringhardt told investigators she had the gun because she was frightened of being home alone, according to NBC affiliate KBMT K-JAC.  

"People have the right to bear arms, and with that comes great responsibility," Orange County sheriff's Chief Deputy Clint Hodgkinson told KFDM-TV of Beaumont. "If someone, somehow, puts a firearm in a place where a child is able to get that weapon, you've committed an offense."

"Sometimes, it takes something like this — as tragic as it is — for people to reflect on those things, and these are the opportunities you take ... to say, 'Look, what could we have done?'" Hodgkinson said.

That wasn't an accident, that was negligence. She left out a loaded weapon with two small children in the home while she went to another room to take a nap. She screwed up on so many levels. And how did she not hear a gunshot in another room??

[workpublic]

what can we outlaw to prevent this?

www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57608947-504083/colleen-ritzer-murder-philip-chism-14-accused-of-beating-mass-teacher-to-death-was-shy-kept-to-himself-classmates-say/

[billisonboard]

Oct 24, 2013 8:51:09 GMT -5 workpublic said:

what can we outlaw to prevent this?

www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57608947-504083/colleen-ritzer-murder-philip-chism-14-accused-of-beating-mass-teacher-to-death-was-shy-kept-to-himself-classmates-say/

Nothing.

Since this is on a gun culture thread, I would like to mention that I am glad that Chism did not choose to join the gun culture and use a gun at school to kill this teacher plus multiple others.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 23, 2013 11:37:59 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oct 23, 2013 11:05:15 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

...

And it's not so much that drivers have the right to run me down with their cars if I dance naked on a busy highway, it's that by dancing naked on a busy highway, I've expressly forfeited my right not be run down.

Not analogous. In the case you describe, you are in fact doing something illegal and should face a legal consequence. The young man in this case was not doing something illegal but was the one arrested. That is one issue.

A second issue is that the person who did the shooting was not arrested. The man's wife chose to take a lover. She invited him into her home (community property state remember) and slept with him. The husband went searching for his wife, found her in bed with a man, woke the man, and ended up shooting him. So the analogous situation to you dancing naked in the street would be: should a person be free of legal consequence if they see you dancing naked in the street, get in their car, and proceed to run you over? The husband had the option of leaving the couple sleeping. He chose to create the confrontation and appears to be getting away without legal consequence for shooting someone. What is the basis for that being just?

I doubt the legality of the act is of much importance. If I had obtained a waiver from the city entitling me to dance naked on the highway, it wouldn't mean a hill of beans in determining who was at fault if I was struck by a car.

Or if you prefer, it's perfectly legal for me to dress up like a deer and go frolicking on all fours through the woods during hunting season, but I doubt any judge would have much sympathy for me if I was shot by a hunter.

The issue isn't so much legality as it is the reasonable expectation of harm. Sleeping with a man's wife, telling him off, and then refusing to leave his property carries with it a particularly large risk of harm as far as I'm concerned. You may be legally within your rights to defy him, but you've committed at least three major sins against him in his eyes and you've got to know that he isn't going to be the most rational or balanced man at that cosmic moment in time.

In short, you've placed yourself in a situation where there is a realistic expectation of harm. That's going to weigh heavily on the judge's mind while he's handing out sentences.

[billisonboard]

Oct 24, 2013 9:50:24 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

...

In short, you've placed yourself in a situation where there is a realistic expectation of harm. That's going to weigh heavily on the judge's mind while he's handing out sentences.

May we fall back to the start of this discussion.

The person shot was arrested. The person doing the shooting was not. I have a problem with the man being shot being charged. I have a problem with the man doing the shooting having zero consequence. I would have no problem with the judge saying, "I hope you learned a lesson" and sending the young man on his way. I would have no problem with the judge giving a suspended sentence on a minor charge to the man doing the shooting.

And I certainly wouldn't have a problem with the third person involved in the situation facing a consequence for her actions to set the whole thing in motion in the first place.

[Tennesseer]

Where the heck did this 11-year-old get this stuff?  Where are the parents?

Boy, 11, brought 400 rounds of ammo, handgun, knives to school: cops

Boy, 11, brought 400 rounds of ammo, handgun, knives to school: cops