Unpossible
In handgun-free Chicago, 7 dead and 14 wounded.
In handgun-free (unless you’re rich and famous) New York: A stray bullet fired by a mourner killed a mother of three as she walked by a memorial for a popular local rapper in New York.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
April 1st, 2008 at 10:03 am
If only that mother of three had herself been packing, she would have been able to defend herself, and this tragedy never would have occurred. Oh, wait…
April 1st, 2008 at 10:05 am
who said that?
April 1st, 2008 at 10:19 am
And more last night.
April 1st, 2008 at 11:29 am
More guns, less crime, right?
April 1st, 2008 at 11:31 am
seems that gun laws don’t equal no shootings, which is the point I made.
April 1st, 2008 at 12:23 pm
“A stray bullet fired by a mourner”…
My media filter is rejecting this. So it was just some bullet that was misplaced by a poor grieving mourner looking for a way to express his sadness?
In typical fashion, an anti blames the gun/bullet & places no responsibility on the careless individual. After all, he was just really sad.
I prefer “Asshole gangster thug indiscrimately murders a mother of 3”.
The method in which he killed her is completely irrelevant. He killed her. If he had decided to express his “sadness” by driving downtown at 100 MPH & ran over someone, would there be a cry for fewer cars to reduce pedestrian homocide?… completely irrational & without discerning thought.
April 1st, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Wait – hold the phone. I just thought up a law that would’ve stopped this. I’ll call it the “Dead Rapper Funeral Gun Free Zone.” Anyone who attends a dead rapper’s funeral and carries a firearm in the commission of said attendance shall be FINED.
There. That’ll show them.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:33 pm
“More guns, less crime, right?”
Yes, that is right, if you understand the actual context of the statement. That being; more [legal] guns [in the hands of law abiding citizens], less crime.
Under gun prohibition, the criminals and only the criminals will be armed (just like only those willing to break the law can make money selling recreational drugs).
Law abiding citizens are the only ones hindered by anti-gun laws. This is what we call a “disparity of force” and it means armed criminals have more power over their disarmed victims, and therefore a greater-than-ever incentive to be armed inside a gun prohibition zone. Criminals don’t tend to be so concerned about learning proper gun handling either, compared to law abiding citizens. But I’m sure you knew all this already.
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:06 am
tgrish: You just have to THINK beyond the first layer. Was the mourner an NRA member? Was he a legal gun permitted owner in the State of New York? Did he have a permit to carry a weapon in NYC? Is firing a gun in a funeral in a city a responsible gun-owner act?
I bet the real story is that this person killed a woman by carelessly and illegally discharging an (already) illegal firearm in a place that was (already) prohibited. He broke MANY state and federal laws.
And you want MORE laws? That’s smart.