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.

(Gawker)   Meet Daniel Quinnell, the luckiest asshole in 'Merika   (gawker.com) divider line 266
    More: Florida, Muhammad said, hate crimes, Pasco County Sheriff's Office, air guns  
•       •       •

34046 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Jan 2013 at 9:14 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-07 05:57:08 PM

specialkae: R.A.Danny: specialkae: I really like you WhyteRaven74: And this, is justice. Shooting and likely killing the guy would just be vengeance not justice. And vengeance gets you nowhere.

You should have been added to my faves eons ago, but as it is, you are added today. Thank you and keep the peace and the sane vibe.

I am a political polar opposite of WhyteRaven74 in many ways, and I will still vouch that he is indeed a completely awesome human being.

I love this post, so very much


Thanks so much! I am *hearting* all of Fark so much that it's a shame my meds/whiskey ran out!
 
2013-01-07 06:17:39 PM

SockMonkeyHolocaust: Profedius: He is a better man then I since I would have triple tapped him (that is two to the chest one to the head for those that don't know)

Thanks for explaining that. i was wondering about the terminology and then I read the rest of your sentence. You sound really dangerous and like someone I DEFINITELY want on my side in a situation where a "triple tap" would be necessary.!


chortle.
 
2013-01-07 09:42:20 PM

AssAsInAssassin: Jesus. I merely pointed out that the writer wrote something badly, that came off as insensitive. It's what I do--literally. I am a proofreader. I proofread. I passed judgment only on the writer's style, not on his point of view. Please, try to compartmentalize your anger. You'll find the world works better when you can see several viewpoints simultaneously, rather than making everything black or white, us or them.

Take a nap.


I see you can't take what you dish out.

If you want to be an opinionated jerk, that's fine.  This is Fark after all.  But it looks pretty pathetic when you tear into someone like you did and then go all "waaah!  Poor persecuted me!" when someone calls you on it.

Take a nap?  Grow some thicker skin or don't dash into the kitchen.
 
2013-01-07 10:08:58 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Hickory-smoked: Actually, I don't see how his actions prove gun-control advocates wrong at all.

"It's too easy for assholes to get guns" is not the same statement as "all people with guns are assholes."

I mean more the implied assumption among many gun-control zealots that the average joe can't be relied upon to restrain himself from blasting away at the slightest provocation and that more people armed will absolutely mean more minor conflicts end in gunfights.


Wel, again... that argument does not rely on the premise that all gun owners are irresponsible psychopaths, just that the number of irresponsible gun owning psychopaths is higher than optimal.
 
2013-01-07 10:37:28 PM

MaritimeGirl: The entire concept of hate crime bothers me. It defines one human being as more valuable than another.


No, it doesn't.  What makes a crime a hate crime is what was going on in the mind of the perpetrator.  Much like how accidentally killing someone with a car is usually manslaughter, whereas intentionally killing someone with a car is usually murder.  Charging someone who accidentally killed Bob with a car with manslaughter while charging someone who intentionally ran over Alice with murder has nothing to do with Alice being any more valuable than Bob.


MaritimeGirl:   Murder is murder.

No, it isn't. The legal concept that there are different kinds of murder (as well as acts of killing which are not murder) goes back to  Hammurabi (and probably is much older than that).


MaritimeGirl:   If a person kills a victim because he has blue eyes, is that a hate crime?

It would be, yes, if there were systemic bigotry against blue-eyed people.
 
2013-01-07 10:41:40 PM

Buffalo77: See this is the guy that shouldn't have a conceal carry permit.

Why carry a gun is you aren't prepared to use it when attacked. Was he not trained?

Its as stupid as carrying around an unloaded gun for protection.


So your argument is that, if you have a gun, and you're in a situation where you could legally use the gun, it's stupid not to use the gun in every such situation?  You should shoot and kill EVERYONE you have a legal right to, every time?
 
2013-01-07 10:48:27 PM

Chinchillazilla: MaritimeGirl: The entire concept of hate crime bothers me. It defines one human being as more valuable than another. Murder is murder. If a person kills a victim because he has blue eyes, is that a hate crime? If a person kills a victim because he has brown skin, that all of a sudden is a hate crime. In both cases the murderer is crazy, the murderer is guilty of the same crime, not two different ones where one is worse than the other.

It's not about the victim themselves. It's about the intent to frighten others like the victim into behaving as the criminal wants them to. For example, this guy yelling about a "n----- with a white girl" suggests that he wanted this victim to be a symbol of what happens to black guys who date white women, and scare black people into not dating white people. It's similar to terrorism in that the goal is greater than the immediate crime; it's meant to frighten the populace, which is a more serious crime than simply hurting one person.

Whether you can prove intent is another story, but I think at their core, hate-crime laws are a good thing.



Your explanation is much better than mine.
 
2013-01-07 11:05:42 PM

Hickory-smoked: Wel, again... that argument does not rely on the premise that all gun owners are irresponsible psychopaths, just that the number of irresponsible gun owning psychopaths is higher than optimal.


I don't know anyone who has ever said that every single gun owner is an irresponsible psychopath, and I did not say that either.

But I think we can agree that there is an implied (and sometimes explicit) assumption among many gun-control zealots that widespread gun ownership increases the likelihood of gun violence because the average joe can't be relied upon to restrain himself from blasting away at the slightest provocation and that more people armed will absolutely mean more minor conflicts end in gunfights.

And this guy illustrated nicely that even under extreme provocation, a rational and reasonable person can choose not to resort to lethal force, even when armed. (Also, so do the strong statistics on licensed conceal carry guyn owners.)

/full disclosure, I am not a CCL nor do I intend to be having only ever fired a gun a few times in my life.
 
2013-01-08 09:17:44 AM

ciberido: AssAsInAssassin: Jesus. I merely pointed out that the writer wrote something badly, that came off as insensitive. It's what I do--literally. I am a proofreader. I proofread. I passed judgment only on the writer's style, not on his point of view. Please, try to compartmentalize your anger. You'll find the world works better when you can see several viewpoints simultaneously, rather than making everything black or white, us or them.

Take a nap.

I see you can't take what you dish out.

If you want to be an opinionated jerk, that's fine.  This is Fark after all.  But it looks pretty pathetic when you tear into someone like you did and then go all "waaah!  Poor persecuted me!" when someone calls you on it.

Take a nap?  Grow some thicker skin or don't dash into the kitchen.


No irony there.
 
2013-01-08 10:15:36 AM

SockMonkeyHolocaust: Profedius: He is a better man then I since I would have triple tapped him (that is two to the chest one to the head for those that don't know)

Thanks for explaining that. i was wondering about the terminology and then I read the rest of your sentence. You sound really dangerous and like someone I DEFINITELY want on my side in a situation where a "triple tap" would be necessary.!


Thanks, but I am still torn on whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. Right now I am just happy there has not been a situation where it was necessary since leaving the service.
 
2013-01-08 12:41:29 PM
Well, since you are more likely to get struck by lightning than shot,,,
All of you reading this are luckier than that guy.

If you died in a car accident, less lucky, but you're not reading are you?
 
2013-01-08 01:06:00 PM

Profedius: SockMonkeyHolocaust: Profedius: He is a better man then I since I would have triple tapped him (that is two to the chest one to the head for those that don't know)

Thanks for explaining that. i was wondering about the terminology and then I read the rest of your sentence. You sound really dangerous and like someone I DEFINITELY want on my side in a situation where a "triple tap" would be necessary.!

Thanks, but I am still torn on whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. Right now I am just happy there has not been a situation where it was necessary since leaving the service.


Better man, luckier man, man who processed sensory input fast enough to realize he wasn't actually in a lethal force situation, man who would rather die himself than have his girlfriend think he was a killer morally equivallent to the guy attacking them... whatever the case, the only thing it really means is he made a good call this time. Hopefully if I'm in a similar situation I'll also be able to correctly assess it and take appropriate action, but the odds are pretty good I'll make a bad call, or one that's perceived as bad (because I'm not pretty, if for no other reason) and the rest of civilization will put an end to my own life for it.

/we will all be Zimmerman some day
//well, unless you commit suicide before you get unattractively old
 
2013-01-08 06:45:14 PM

Profedius: He is a better man then I since I would have triple tapped him (that is two to the chest one to the head for those that don't know)


Oh snap. I thought it was happened to your mother all the time. Wait a second.. It kind of is.
 
2013-01-08 10:15:47 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Hickory-smoked: Wel, again... that argument does not rely on the premise that all gun owners are irresponsible psychopaths, just that the number of irresponsible gun owning psychopaths is higher than optimal.

I don't know anyone who has ever said that every single gun owner is an irresponsible psychopath, and I did not say that either.

But I think we can agree that there is an implied (and sometimes explicit) assumption among many gun-control zealots that widespread gun ownership increases the likelihood of gun violence because the average joe can't be relied upon to restrain himself from blasting away at the slightest provocation and that more people armed will absolutely mean more minor conflicts end in gunfights.


I think the only point we disagree on here is that it isn't the "average joe" people are worried about being armed, but rather the "sub-average joe." In which case, yes, I'd hypothesize that wider-spread gun ownership among the untrained and unlicensed would result in more accidents, crimes, and violent acts of stupidity.

That's the theory I approach the issue of gun control with, anyway... but perhaps it's not me you were referring to in your initial statement. I believe gun laws should have high standards of responsibility and strong powers of enforcement, but I've never advocated a universal ban.

Maybe we can split the difference and agree Mr. Mohammed doesn't disprove gun-control arguments, but he does disprove the worst anti-gun stereotypes.
 
2013-01-08 10:17:40 PM

Profedius: He is a better man then I since I would have triple tapped him (that is two to the chest one to the head for those that don't know)


That would make a great cover article for the next issue of ITGQ.
 
2013-01-09 05:32:08 PM

Hickory-smoked: Maybe we can split the difference and agree Mr. Mohammed's behavior doesn't disprove [completely dispute] gun-control arguments, but it does disprove dispute the worst anti-gun stereotypes.


I would agree with that. In most circumstances, no one action can possibly disprove anything.

And no, I did not mean you, specifically, were a representative of gun control zealots.
/ ,
 
Displayed 16 of 266 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report