Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   In most places, people don't randomly shoot each other while waiting for pizza, and then claim self-defense. And then there is Florida   ( foxnews.com) divider line
    More: Florida  
•       •       •

5734 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Dec 2012 at 10:54 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



224 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-12-20 11:46:31 AM  

Sultan Of Herf: And when carrying a gun its your job to do everything possible to keep it from escalating.


Wrong.

I love how you Statists manage to invent bullsh*t ethical rules on the spot. Do you have an endless supply of them stored up your asses?
 
2012-12-20 11:46:48 AM  

Sultan Of Herf: And when carrying a gun its your job to do everything possible to keep it from escalating.


Indeed. Actually I think even without a weapon that should be everyone's default mode. What a world we would live in if everyone could just keep their lizard brains in check.

Phinn: Nice dodge, tough guy. You like to get vague when it suits you.

See, out here in reality, there is a point when "taking things to the next level" constitutes posing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

When you cross that line, it's OK to kill you.


Well it's come to my attention you are just a pleasure troll so be gone with ye foul beast.
 
2012-12-20 11:47:03 AM  

here to help: Quit justifying gun violence.


Gun violence isn't inherently wrong. Often wrong, but just as homicide isn't always murder, violence isn't always the wrong answer.
 
2012-12-20 11:47:03 AM  

here to help: gun violence.


here to help: being a dick.


here to help: violent asshat.


here to help: Responsible gun owner. Nothing to see here.


here to help: 2nd amendment douchensteins...

Dinks.


here to help: asshole


here to help: freaking the hell out


here to help: idiot


here to help: you f*ck around you get knocked the f*ck out. .


here to help: idiots


f.kulfoto.com
 
2012-12-20 11:48:26 AM  

Phinn: here to help: I have seen lots of fights. 99% of them could have been avoided by one party just not taking things to the next level even if the other party was being a dick.

Nice dodge, tough guy. You like to get vague when it suits you.

See, out here in reality, there is a point when "taking things to the next level" constitutes posing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

When you cross that line, it's OK to kill you.


Here's some baby ointment, you know, for your butthurt :)

Your turn to provide proof that this guy is not some paranoid freak who over-reacted. I love this game!
 
2012-12-20 11:49:56 AM  

Cold_Sassy: This is NOT the law. As a CCW holder you are required to do everything within your power to physically retreat from the situation before using your weapon. And, you as a holder cannot instigate or escalate any disputes. THAT is why this guy is in trouble.


Is he? He's roaming around free? I'm not sure exactly how serious those charges are but they don't sound on the level with what should happen when you try to kill someone over pizza.

But that's not my point. My point is wingnuts will ignore or even champion this guy and that is unacceptable IMO.
 
2012-12-20 11:50:03 AM  

Cold_Sassy: This is NOT the law. As a CCW holder you are required to do everything within your power to physically retreat from the situation before using your weapon.


It's called "Stand Your Ground" for a reason.
 
2012-12-20 11:50:26 AM  

themasterdebater: Jacobin: Sometimes I think that having 7 billion people in the world is making things too crowded and making people just a little too cranky.

You'd think that is a lot, however if every single person on the planet stood together in one large group, it would only cover around 7 square miles of space.


This is a lie.  You know how many god damn fatties there are?  We're talking lots!
 
We'd cover at least 200 square miles, possibly cubic miles.
 
 
Anyway, shooter is a farking idiot who needs 20 years of jail time, before he shoots someone else.
 
2012-12-20 11:52:18 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: .


Meh. I've made my point. The extra saltiness is purely to keep things entertaining. This is, after all, Fark.
 
2012-12-20 11:53:50 AM  

here to help: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: .

Meh. I've made my point. The extra saltiness is purely to keep things entertaining. This is, after all, Fark.


Yes. Yes it is. Cue "Welcome to Fark"?
 
2012-12-20 11:54:04 AM  

here to help: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: .

Meh. I've made my point. The extra saltiness is purely to keep things entertaining. This is, after all, Fark.


I just liked the juxtaposition between the username and the abrasiveness of the posts, it made me giggle.
 
2012-12-20 11:54:50 AM  

here to help: My belief is if there is ANY question as to how responsible someone will be with a firearm then the default position should be not to allow them to acquire one. That is sadly very much not the current situation.


I would say that our common ground is very rocky. As the right to keep and bear arms is...well, a right, I believe that "shall issue" is the more correct approach. Find a reason and I'll back blocking someone from buying guns. A legally-competent (i.e. not adjudged incompetent) adult without a felony conviction should be assumed to be responsible.

here to help: There should also be RIGOROUS training required.


That's, again, a point upon which we shall differ. Who defines rigorous? What if Illinois puts all of its training facilities in Southern Illinois, open 4 PM-4:15 PM every 7th Thursday, 10 hours training required to obtain a gun. Hyperbole, yes, but that's just what happens when you subject people's rights to requirements that are, very often, subject to arbitrary abuse. Now when it comes to concealed carry...some level of (basic) training or testing wouldn't be bad, I suppose, but keeping it from being ONEROUS rather than just RIGOROUS takes care.
 
2012-12-20 11:55:26 AM  

Cold_Sassy:
This is NOT the law. As a CCW holder you are required to do everything within your power to physically retreat from the situation before using your weapon. And, you as a holder cannot instigate or escalate any disputes. THAT is why this guy is in trouble.


Not entirely true, not in Florida anyway. We have no duty to retreat so long as we are in a place lawfully. Hence why it is called "stand your ground". As for instigation and escalation, yes you're correct there and why this guy is in trouble.
 
2012-12-20 11:55:48 AM  

Incog_Neeto: Your right CCW permit holders do commit crimes, albeit at a much lower rate than the rest of the population but don't let that stop your rant.


The sampling bias is this statement is staggering.
 
Criminals can't get CCWs so every CCW holder is law-abiding until the day they actual cross over into criminal behavior, thereby relinquishing their CCW permit.
 
2012-12-20 11:56:26 AM  
"An armed society is a polite society."
 
2012-12-20 11:57:17 AM  

damndirtyape: Cold_Sassy:
This is NOT the law. As a CCW holder you are required to do everything within your power to physically retreat from the situation before using your weapon. And, you as a holder cannot instigate or escalate any disputes. THAT is why this guy is in trouble.

Not entirely true, not in Florida anyway. We have no duty to retreat so long as we are in a place lawfully. Hence why it is called "stand your ground". As for instigation and escalation, yes you're correct there and why this guy is in trouble.


True, but it wasn't "his" ground to begin with. It was the Pizza's ground.

/also, did he aim at the skittles???
 
2012-12-20 11:58:32 AM  

Arkanaut: "An armed society is a polite society waits patiently for their pizza no matter how long it takes and shoots anyone who doesn't."

 
2012-12-20 12:00:20 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: I just liked the juxtaposition between the username and the abrasiveness of the posts, it made me giggle.


;-)

/here to help

stevarooni: As the right to keep and bear arms is...well, a right,


And many would say that that "right" is being completely misinterpreted and abused today. I doubt the writers of the constitution would be too thrilled it was being used to excuse the EXTREMELY poor actions and judgment of certain modern day citizens. Especially considering some modern guns outperform even the most powerful heavy artillery of the day.
 
2012-12-20 12:03:16 PM  

tricycleracer: Incog_Neeto: Your right CCW permit holders do commit crimes, albeit at a much lower rate than the rest of the population but don't let that stop your rant.

The sampling bias is this statement is staggering.

Criminals can't get CCWs so every CCW holder is law-abiding until the day they actual cross over into criminal behavior, thereby relinquishing their CCW permit.


That could be tested by checking Crimes committed by anyone who has ever had a CCW permit I suppose or by ignoring any crimes committed by the same people out of the general population hrm.
 
2012-12-20 12:03:43 PM  

swahnhennessy: It's called "Stand Your Ground" for a reason.


It's a terribly written law.  There's a reason Florida is the only state with its own Fark tag.
 
2012-12-20 12:04:01 PM  

A Shambling Mound: Is it really that much of a stretch to consider that maybe the guy who was complaining was belligerent and threatening?


I am hard pressed to think of any situation where you're in a pizza joint, a fight breaks out, and you need to shoot an unarmed man. I'm sure there must be one, and I'm sure this isn't it.

Any CCW permit holder who tries to defend this idiot should lose their permit.
 
2012-12-20 12:05:46 PM  

you have pee hands: [Stand Your Ground]'s a terribly written law.  There's a reason Florida is the only state with its own Fark tag.


Do you have some examples of its misuse? In the case of Zimmerman's 2nd Degree Murder trial, that defense has pretty well been refuted, if what he says happened, happened.
 
2012-12-20 12:07:43 PM  

Charlie Chingas: Your turn to provide proof that this guy is not some paranoid freak who over-reacted. I love this game!


I don't have to. To justify punishing someone, the goons calling themselves "the State" are required to disprove a claim of self-defense.

They still have to prove guilt, which (in self-defense cases) means disproving self-defense.

Self-defense is wholly lawful, not merely excusable or justifiable. Under life-threatening circumstances, we are as free to kill the threat as we are to walk down the street.

Maybe belligerent dickbags should be more polite. They'd get shot less often.

(Trayvon Martin, I'm looking at you ... or, I would, if you weren't already dead.)
 
2012-12-20 12:07:52 PM  
Stand Your Ground is legalized murder. Leave it to Florida to find a way to paint murder with an acceptable-sounding name. Stand Your Ground. LOL. The world would be a better place with more people getting mental help and less people "standing their ground."

What crime are you going to legalize and give a friendly name to next, Florida? How about a law called "Enjoy Adult Beverages While Driving" to legalize drunk driving. Or "Sex Without All The Red Tape" to legalize rape?
 
2012-12-20 12:09:26 PM  

Arkanaut: "An armed society is a polite society."


Just like Somalia! And Syria! And post invasion Iraq! And Afghanistan!
 
2012-12-20 12:09:28 PM  

here to help: And many would say that that "right" is being completely misinterpreted and abused today. I doubt the writers of the constitution would be too thrilled it was being used to excuse the EXTREMELY poor actions and judgment of certain modern day citizens. Especially considering some modern guns outperform even the most powerful heavy artillery of the day.


Please explain "misinterpreted". I don't understand what you mean.

As for abused...people who murder are and should be prosecuted. People who buy guns of the type and number that you don't like aren't.

I agree that the Founders wouldn't be thrilled at mass murder, but given the preface of the 2nd Amendment, many analysts seem to believe that the average citizen should have access to what the average soldier of the time has...in which case our rights are being infringed. Now they might be appalled at the state of warfare in general, but the idea that citizens can get their hands on firearms that are almost as capable as soldiers in a standing army...that's going to need a citation.
 
2012-12-20 12:11:39 PM  

Phinn: Charlie Chingas: Your turn to provide proof that this guy is not some paranoid freak who over-reacted. I love this game!

I don't have to. To justify punishing someone, the goons calling themselves "the State" are required to disprove a claim of self-defense.

They still have to prove guilt, which (in self-defense cases) means disproving self-defense.

Self-defense is wholly lawful, not merely excusable or justifiable. Under life-threatening circumstances, we are as free to kill the threat as we are to walk down the street.

Maybe belligerent dickbags should be more polite. They'd get shot less often.

(Trayvon Martin, I'm looking at you ... or, I would, if you weren't already dead.)


Of course you don't have to. But you expect everyone else to. Are you that legendary white knight I keep hearing about? Pick a fight, person fights back, you shoot person because you feel threatened. You know, I just got it. You're projecting! You're that angry white man who would pick a fight then feel justified in shooting someone because you felt threatened. I get it now.
 
2012-12-20 12:11:42 PM  

here to help: Come on 2nd amendment douchensteins... get in here and back this retard up! NO licensed gun owner would EVER use their weapon in an irresponsible fashion! RIGHT?! RIGHT?!!!

You have blood on your hands.

Dinks.


Why didn't the guy that was about to get shot just call the police?
 
2012-12-20 12:11:50 PM  

stevarooni: you have pee hands: [Stand Your Ground]'s a terribly written law.  There's a reason Florida is the only state with its own Fark tag.

Do you have some examples of its misuse? In the case of Zimmerman's 2nd Degree Murder trial, that defense has pretty well been refuted, if what he says happened, happened.


Oh man!  I was totally wrong about Florida.  It's been used to excuse killings that aren't self defense in a whole bunch of states. Sorry, Florida.
 
2012-12-20 12:12:33 PM  

Englebert Slaptyback: TFA:

Man shot at Florida pizza restaurant for complaining about service

Published December 20, 2012

FoxNews.com

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. - A Tampa Bay area man accused of shooting and wounding another man during an argument at a pizza restaurant said his actions were justified under Florida's "stand your ground" law.

St. Petersburg police say 52-year-old Michael Jock was waiting in line at a Little Caesars on Sunday when another customer, 49-year-old Randall White, began complaining about the slow service. The men exchanged words, which turned into a shoving match.

The Tampa Bay Times reports that Jock pulled a revolver and shot White in the lower torso. The two struggled and White was shot a second time.

Jock, who has a concealed weapons permit, told officers he was justified under Florida's "stand your ground" law, which allows people to use deadly force if they believe their lives are in danger.

The officers charged Jock with aggravated battery with a weapon and shooting within a building. He was later released on $20,000 bail.


There, now the rest of you don't have to click on foxnews.com.


God Bless you kind sir.
 
2012-12-20 12:13:14 PM  
Is this really becoming a fad? Like happy slapping? I only ask because this exact same thing happened to me a while ago, while I was waiting in line at a pizza restaurant, and I got attacked from behind when I tried to ignore the person demanding I give up my place in line for them.

/maybe someone is trying to conduct social experiments on CCW licensees
//in my case, nobody got shot because I pussied out and decided to get my pizza somewhere else
///it would be funny if the whole incident was taped and is now floating around on FB somewhere, studied and imitated by a bunch of Trayvons-in-training
 
2012-12-20 12:15:02 PM  

Tatterdemalian: Is this really becoming a fad? Like happy slapping? I only ask because this exact same thing happened to me a while ago, while I was waiting in line at a pizza restaurant, and I got attacked from behind when I tried to ignore the person demanding I give up my place in line for them.

/maybe someone is trying to conduct social experiments on CCW licensees
//in my case, nobody got shot because I pussied out and decided to get my pizza somewhere else
///it would be funny if the whole incident was taped and is now floating around on FB somewhere, studied and imitated by a bunch of Trayvons-in-training


It is your duty to always back down when confronted. Don't give lip just be subservient. This way no one will be injured.
 
2012-12-20 12:16:19 PM  

stiletto_the_wise: Stand Your Ground is legalized murder. Leave it to Florida to find a way to paint murder with an acceptable-sounding name. Stand Your Ground. LOL. The world would be a better place with more people getting mental help and less people "standing their ground."

What crime are you going to legalize and give a friendly name to next, Florida? How about a law called "Enjoy Adult Beverages While Driving" to legalize drunk driving. Or "Sex Without All The Red Tape" to legalize rape?


Everything you've said is wrong. I have a feeling that's a common occurrence for you.

Under Florida law, you can only legitimately kill in self-defense when you reasonably believe someone poses an imminent threat of death or serious injury.

It used to be that the State, in its infinite wisdom, decreed that, in addition to the existential threat element, the sheep were ALSO required to show that they had retreated as far as they could.

All "Stand Your Ground" does is delete the second requirement -- retreating.

Self-defense is still only legitimate when you are reasonably in fear or your life (or serious injury).

But, sure, please continue to champion the rights of a belligerent dickbag to physically attack anyone who asks him to cork his hole.

You're probably used to cowering before those people anyway, so it's not surprising you'd do everything you can to defend them. Sort of like Stockholm Syndrome, only since you're not held hostage at the moment, it's actually more pathetic.
 
2012-12-20 12:16:49 PM  

stiletto_the_wise: Stand Your Ground is legalized murder. Leave it to Florida to find a way to paint murder with an acceptable-sounding name. Stand Your Ground. LOL. The world would be a better place with more people getting mental help and less people "standing their ground."


If murder is illegal, only criminals will commit murder.
 
2012-12-20 12:17:05 PM  

stevarooni: Please explain "misinterpreted". I don't understand what you mean.


I mean many folks say that it was intended for the average citizen to have arms in case of a military threat against the nation as there was no standing army. Now the US has the most powerful army on the planet so that right is no longer needed. I'm not sure I agree as I'm not a constitutional scholar but it's a valid point.

My thinking is gun ownership should be a privilege like a drivers license. You abuse that privilege and it can be revoked. It works quite well in many countries.
 
2012-12-20 12:20:30 PM  

Phinn: Under Florida law, you can only legitimately kill in self-defense when you reasonably believe someone poses an imminent threat of death or serious injury.


t0.gstatic.com
 
2012-12-20 12:20:37 PM  
Everything you've said is wrong. I have a feeling that's a common occurrence for you.

Just because you say it on the Internet does not make it true. Everything you've said so far is also wrong and severely opinionated.

Under Florida law, you can only legitimately kill in self-defense when you reasonably believe someone poses an imminent threat of death or serious injury.

Still doesn't justify you starting a fight. Mind your own business if someone is complaining about something.

It used to be that the State, in its infinite wisdom, decreed that, in addition to the existential threat element, the sheep were ALSO required to show that they had retreated as far as they could.

You sound angry.

All "Stand Your Ground" does is delete the second requirement -- retreating.

You're probably used to cowering before those people anyway, so it's not surprising you'd do everything you can to defend them. Sort of like Stockholm Syndrome, only since you're not held hostage at the moment, it's actually more pathetic.

Again, projecting. Glad you have the internet to vent your menstra... I mean, frustrations...
 
2012-12-20 12:22:06 PM  

stevarooni: What if Trayvon had Zimmerman down on the ground, beating his head against the backdrop of the sidewalk (Mr. Zimmerman's claim)? Is that a typical beatdown in your part of the world? "Unarmed" does not mean "Incapable of deadly force".


It goes both ways.   Any amount of beating up to and including killing Zimmerman was justified because, unlike Zimmerman, we know for a fact that Martin's life was in danger.  He's dead after all.
 
2012-12-20 12:22:14 PM  

here to help: My thinking is gun ownership should be a privilege like a drivers license. You abuse that privilege and it can be revoked. It works quite well in many countries.


There is a way to do that, ya know. It just isn't politically expedient.
 
2012-12-20 12:22:30 PM  

Phinn: factoryconnection: This guy seemed to think he was going to get shoved to death.

Wow, you must have special access to unreported evidence.

Go ahead -- prove that the shooter did not reasonably believe the other man posed an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

Take your time.


And THAT is exactly the problem with the law. All we have is his word for it that he believed he was about to die before he opened fire. Shouldn't we hold the users of deadly force to a higher standard if they're going to potentially kill people?

I think this is one of those cases where the preponderance of evidence must lie with the shooter, not the guy with holes in him.
 
2012-12-20 12:23:03 PM  

damndirtyape: Cold_Sassy:
This is NOT the law. As a CCW holder you are required to do everything within your power to physically retreat from the situation before using your weapon. And, you as a holder cannot instigate or escalate any disputes. THAT is why this guy is in trouble.

Not entirely true, not in Florida anyway. We have no duty to retreat so long as we are in a place lawfully. Hence why it is called "stand your ground". As for instigation and escalation, yes you're correct there and why this guy is in trouble.


You know, you are right. In the state I am licensed in, they are trying to get the "Stand your ground" law changed, but for now you are still required to retreat if possible.

I hope it passes, because that part of the present law IS stupid.
 
2012-12-20 12:24:52 PM  

Charlie Chingas: Of course you don't have to. But you expect everyone else to. Are you that legendary white knight I keep hearing about? Pick a fight, person fights back, you shoot person because you feel threatened. You know, I just got it. You're projecting! You're that angry white man who would pick a fight then feel justified in shooting someone because you felt threatened. I get it now.


I'm only expecting people to explain how they know what they claim to know -- that the shooter was not in reasonable fear of his life.

You know, what with NOT BEING THERE, and all.

I wasn't, so I wouldn't attempt to prove or assert anything, one way or the other.

The only thing I can speak to is the law and ethics of self-defense.

Your self-serving scenario -- "pick a fight, person fights back" -- covers a lot of territory. It glosses over the central question -- who posed a threat of death or injury?

For whatever reason, you just don't like it when threatening people get kill'd.

P.S., you also don't know what "projecting" means.
 
2012-12-20 12:25:57 PM  

stevarooni: here to help: Come on 2nd amendment douchensteins... get in here and back this retard up! NO licensed gun owner would EVER use their weapon in an irresponsible fashion! RIGHT?! RIGHT?!!!

You have blood on your hands.

Dinks.

Hyperbolic post is hyperbolic.

BUT...no reasonable gun rights proponent would suggest that "NO licensed gun owner would EVER" anything. Statistically, licensed concealed carriers perform fewer crime.


So we should let them off the hook when they do? "Look, you screwed up this time, but since the rest of the gun owners are responsible, we're going to let you slide this time. Just be more careful next time, Tex."

Gun owners are not the problem, but just because most are good doesn't mean they all are and therefore this should not be scrutinized.
 
2012-12-20 12:29:08 PM  

GoldSpider: There is a way to do that, ya know. It just isn't politically expedient.


And that's why the courts or the politicians need to nut up and freaking do something and not let the mouth breathers get in the way of saving lives. Sadly this is one of the major drawbacks of living in a democracy. You can't do much about the idiots. Especially when they block funding for education which in theory would help reduce the idiot population.
 
2012-12-20 12:30:11 PM  

here to help: stevarooni: Please explain "misinterpreted". I don't understand what you mean.

I mean many folks say that it was intended for the average citizen to have arms in case of a military threat against the nation as there was no standing army. Now the US has the most powerful army on the planet so that right is no longer needed.



Where is our military right now?
 
2012-12-20 12:30:51 PM  

Phinn: Charlie Chingas: Of course you don't have to. But you expect everyone else to. Are you that legendary white knight I keep hearing about? Pick a fight, person fights back, you shoot person because you feel threatened. You know, I just got it. You're projecting! You're that angry white man who would pick a fight then feel justified in shooting someone because you felt threatened. I get it now.

I'm only expecting people to explain how they know what they claim to know -- that the shooter was not in reasonable fear of his life.

You know, what with NOT BEING THERE, and all.

I wasn't, so I wouldn't attempt to prove or assert anything, one way or the other.

The only thing I can speak to is the law and ethics of self-defense.

Your self-serving scenario -- "pick a fight, person fights back" -- covers a lot of territory. It glosses over the central question -- who posed a threat of death or injury?

For whatever reason, you just don't like it when threatening people get kill'd.

P.S., you also don't know what "projecting" means.


to ascribe one's own feelings, thoughts, or attitudes to others.

You sound angry. Quick to come to this guy's defense (the shooter), as appose to the guy with extra holes. You come off as angry. I get the impression you're that guy who would start a fight, then shoot someone because you felt "threatened". You're very adamant with your argument. Plus, this is Fark. Calm. The. Fark. Down.
 
2012-12-20 12:30:56 PM  

JerkStore: And THAT is exactly the problem with the law. All we have is his word for it that he believed he was about to die before he opened fire. Shouldn't we hold the users of deadly force to a higher standard if they're going to potentially kill people?

I think this is one of those cases where the preponderance of evidence must lie with the shooter, not the guy with holes in him.


All wrong.

I have no idea about this pizza shooting, but I assume there were other people there. So, it's not a matter of "his word." There could have been 20 witnesses, for all we know, including the guy that got shot, who apparently lived.

Self-defense is wholly legal and ethical. It's more than merely justified or excusable. It's the first, most basic human right. It's pretty much the origin of "rights" altogether.
 
2012-12-20 12:32:16 PM  

here to help: GoldSpider: There is a way to do that, ya know. It just isn't politically expedient.

And that's why the courts or the politicians need to nut up and freaking do something and not let the mouth breathers get in the way of saving lives. Sadly this is one of the major drawbacks of living in a democracy. You can't do much about the idiots. Especially when they block funding for education which in theory would help reduce the idiot population.


Luckily we don't live in a democracy.

Republic is what we have. A slight limit on the tyranny of the majority.
 
2012-12-20 12:32:52 PM  

JerkStore: stevarooni: here to help: Come on 2nd amendment douchensteins... get in here and back this retard up! NO licensed gun owner would EVER use their weapon in an irresponsible fashion! RIGHT?! RIGHT?!!!

You have blood on your hands.

Dinks.

Hyperbolic post is hyperbolic.

BUT...no reasonable gun rights proponent would suggest that "NO licensed gun owner would EVER" anything. Statistically, licensed concealed carriers perform fewer crime.

So we should let them off the hook when they do? "Look, you screwed up this time, but since the rest of the gun owners are responsible, we're going to let you slide this time. Just be more careful next time, Tex."

Gun owners are not the problem, but just because most are good doesn't mean they all are and therefore this should not be scrutinized.


Zimmerman is a gun owner.  Hes not a problem?  Hes a lunatic with a farkin' gun.
 
2012-12-20 12:35:27 PM  

Charlie Chingas: P.S., you also don't know what "projecting" means.

to ascribe one's own feelings, thoughts, or attitudes to others.

You sound angry.

Irony, thy name is Charlie Chingas.

Charlie Chingas: Quick to come to this guy's defense (the shooter), as appose to the guy with extra holes. You come off as angry. I get the impression you're that guy who would start a fight, then shoot someone because you felt "threatened". You're very adamant with your argument. Plus, this is Fark. Calm. The. Fark. Down.

I have no idea if this was legitimate self-defense or not. But then again, neither does ANYONE posting here.

You have no trouble with the people here who instantly presumed guilt. But you get all shirty and frothy when I point out the laws of self-defense and disclaim anything remotely constituting knowledge of the facts of this case.

But thanks for the psychoanalysis. I'll return the favor -- you come across as a control freak, as well as a slave to your own political biases.

 
Displayed 50 of 224 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report