|
Post by gingerkid on Dec 31, 2012 12:03:10 GMT -5
*L* As long as you are comfortable with your place on the food chain it's OK by me. I personally prefer to be a howling wolf. Ahhhh Ooooooh! ROFL, Mel!! Happy New Year everyone!!
|
|
|
Post by helens on Dec 31, 2012 13:42:48 GMT -5
Let's see now...guns dont kill people, people kill people. Ok but if that is true then: - chain saws dont cut trees people cut trees. hmmm think of the number and square miles of clearcuts without chain saws.
- nets dont catch fish, people catch fish..hmmm how is the ocean running out of tuna?
- hazardous waste doesnt pollute our country, people pollute the country...hmmm why are there so many oozing landfills, waste ponds, and Love Canals in this country
The automatic weapon does not kill by itself, the person shooting it is not so deadly without it either. It takes two to tango. and these weapons enable the act of killing. I do not want to live in a country where fights are solved by the fastest, biggest, and most powerful weapon. We went through that part of nation building and came to the realization that that is fine in the wilderness and not so fine in the city. When I grew up, we talked about the cowards who had to settle their arguments with violence rather than reason. I believe it is still true today. Charlie Charlie, I agree with much of your politics, but in this, I can't really agree. You used chainsaws for an example... there would be no clearcutting of trees if not for chainsaws... but you would have a harder time clearing fallen trees across roads, downed power lines, or your roof after a bad storm without chainsaws. I grew up in NY, and we had strict gun control laws. Very strict. Yet if you wanted to buy an illegal weapon, you could easily. My uncle was shot 4x in the head with a small caliber handgun in downtown Manhattan during a robbery... a gun that is as illegal as is possible to own in NY. In NY, only criminals have handguns... but shootings still happen, there's just no self-defense possible. Even worse, as a young teen, many of my friends owned 'Saturday Night Specials' ... in the strictest gun control state in the US. Of course, no one used them, but for kids, the thrill of illegal makes doing it even more necessary. Relative to the gun owning population, the numbers of crimes committed with a gun are incredibly small. Compare this to drunk driving fatalities. No one advocates drunk driving, nor does anyone advocate banning cars.... BUT!!!! Drunk driving is VERY illegal. The consequences are dire if you are caught in any state. So tell me why, with the full weight of US law against it, Drunk driving is STILL the single highest killer of young people in the USA... found some statistics for you: www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.htmlIn 2009, 33,808 people died from drunk drivers. Tell me how well the laws work to protect people here. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens will prevent guns in the hands of criminals? That might work if we had no guns or manufacturers here already, as is the case in many other non-gun nations .... but we do. We have 2 centuries worth of gun factories churning out weapons on an assembly line, and there is no humanly possible way to get citizens to give them all up, let alone criminals. So we want a nation of criminals in possession of 200 years worth of arsenal and citizens disarmed... why? All we have to do to see how well prevention works is to compare deaths by drunk drivers (DRACONIAN laws): Mortality experience in 2009 • In 2009, a total of 2,437,163 resident deaths were registered in the United States. • The age-adjusted death rate, which takes the aging of the population into account, was 741.1 deaths per 100,000 U.S. standard population. • Life expectancy at birth was 78.5 years. • The 15 leading causes of death in 2009 were: 1. Diseases of heart (heart disease) 2. Malignant neoplasms (cancer) 3. Chronic lower respiratory diseases 4. Cerebrovascular diseases (stroke) 5. Accidents (unintentional injuries) 6. Alzheimer’s disease 7. Diabetes mellitus (diabetes) 8. Influenza and pneumonia 9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis (kidney disease) 10. Intentional self-harm (suicide) 11. Septicemia 12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis 13. Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease (hypertension) 14. Parkinson’s disease 15. Assault (homicide) • Drunk drivers around #5, assault deaths #15 -- AND assault deaths include knives, bashed in the head, etc with no guns at all involved. So taking away a little old lady's peace of mind to make the nation as safe as our drunk driving laws is the best solution to this problem? Please tell me why.
|
|
chassroc
Cave Dweller
Rocks are abundant when you have rocktumblinghobby pals
Member since January 2005
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by chassroc on Dec 31, 2012 15:24:53 GMT -5
Thanks for asking Helen
My point is that it takes two to tango. People say that they are entitled to guns any and everywhere; I say there should be restrictions.
People say that guns don't kill people, but I insist that a semi automatic makes any of these incidents more tragic for these innocent little children than less potent weaponry.
A semi with a large magazine capacity plus a person is more lethal than a person with a knife or a slower shooting gun or one with fewer bullets in the clip.
Just as a person with a chain saw can kill many trees faster than a person with a bowsaw or a penknife. The two together are a more lethal combination
Unlike our reactionary friends, I have no reason to ban chain saws; there is a place where they are put to good use...in the forest, not in a public gathering. Just as chain saws have their place, so do semi-automatic weapons...but neither is good to operate in schools or sporting events or rock concerts or nascar races or political rallies or the HS prom or the college graduation.
You've seen the knee jerk reactions of so many members of even a relatively calm and civil group like ours. Guns have no place out in public. Not even in a civil and great society like our own.
charlie
|
|
herchenx
Cave Dweller
Member since January 2012
Posts: 3,360
|
Post by herchenx on Dec 31, 2012 16:14:08 GMT -5
It goes without saying that there are vastly differing perspectives on this, but I think there is a more fundamental issue going on and I'll take a very crude stab at it.
In "the old days" armed guards were posted on stagecoaches, banks, in town, etc. wherever there was a threat perceived great enough to justify defending lives or property with deadly force. Today, there are still armed guards in some public buildings, in some banks and in other places where the defense using deadly force seems justified.
If no danger was ever posed along any stagecoach line, ever, no armed guard would have been posted on stagecoaches. If no one had ever walked into any bank and attempted to take money no armed guard would ever have been posted.
Then there's the deterrent side - assuming no one had ever robbed a bank, no one would dare ever try to rob a bank that was guarded by armed guards.
Whether the offending party would have chosen to use guns, dynamite, arrows, spears, knives or their bare hands was beside the point - the threat was real or the value was great enough to justify the use, or threat of use, of deadly force.
We have entered an age where offending individuals are choosing to steal not just money with an attempt to flee, but to enter defenseless facilities with lethal force, lethal intent and an absolute willingness or intent to die themselves. Maybe they wouldn't get as many with a lesser powered weapon, but that would just shift their choice of "weapon" to something that would allow them to fulfill their intent. Other means can and have been used to ensure maximum loss of life and damage to property.
I don't have the reach to understand where these people are coming from, but I do feel that we need to respond appropriately. An appropriate response is not "disarm everyone and then no one can do this" - that is utter naivete in my opinion - again they have the intent to do these things, and forcing them to change tactics won't stop them. WE have to respond to the threat to what we think is valuable because these people exist and are increasingly willing to take action. Use of deadly force, if the threat is real, is absolutely justified.
Until we can solve "crazy" - there is absolutely the need for guns in civil society - in order for it to remain civil. Meanwhile, don't think that coming after legal gun owners and their rights makes you or anyone else any safer.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Dec 31, 2012 16:22:04 GMT -5
Thanks for asking Helen My point is that it takes two to tango. People say that they are entitled to guns any and everywhere; I say there should be restrictions. People say that guns don't kill people, but I insist that a semi automatic makes any of these incidents more tragic for these innocent little children than less potent weaponry. A semi with a large magazine capacity plus a person is more lethal than a person with a knife or a slower shooting gun or one with fewer bullets in the clip. Just as a person with a chain saw can kill many trees faster than a person with a bowsaw or a penknife. The two together are a more lethal combination Unlike our reactionary friends, I have no reason to ban chain saws; there is a place where they are put to good use...in the forest, not in a public gathering. Just as chain saws have their place, so do semi-automatic weapons...but neither is good to operate in schools or sporting events or rock concerts or nascar races or political rallies or the HS prom or the college graduation. You've seen the knee jerk reactions of so many members of even a relatively calm and civil group like ours. Guns have no place out in public. Not even in a civil and great society like our own. charlie Charlie, there may be a misunderstanding of terms here... This is the definition of a semi automatic per Wiki: "A semi-automatic, or self-loading, firearm is a weapon that performs all steps necessary to prepare the weapon to fire again after firing—assuming cartridges remain in the weapon's feed device or magazine. Typically, this includes extracting and ejecting the spent cartridge case from the weapon's firing chamber, re-cocking the firing mechanism, and loading a new cartridge into the firing chamber. Although automatic weapons and selective fire firearms do the same tasks, semi-automatic firearms do not automatically fire an additional round until the trigger is released and re-pressed by the person firing the weapon." In my personal experience, it is no faster to fire a semi than a bolt/lever/pump/revolver action weapon you are familiar with. Other than muskets using balls and powder, all weapons are designed to be fast action, and have for well over 100 years. Semis actually have a setback, the triggers are generally MUCH harder to pull than a 2 step, which are typically more sensitive due to the delay. In both cases, you can fire til the bullets run out with minimal effort. The massive magazines are an arguable problem. No one needs to be able to shoot 20-50 bullets to defend themselves. But the 'stock' magazine for weapons like the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) only held 4 bullets (1 in chamber), while a regular hunting rifle can hold 7 (1 in the chamber). BAR's btw do not come with a selector switch to make them fully auto anymore, the name is a carryover. But to say that banning semi-autos because they can shoot faster is just wrong. They can't. And that's not counting hand fatigue to repeatedly pull a stiff trigger. If a determined crazy wanted to kill children, they can just sling 5 shotguns over their shoulder, and there is no missing. They point and fire in a direction of humans and it's GOING to kill at least 1. Most can be pumped with 1 hand and fired with 1 hand, and the damage they could do blows away what most semis could do, not to mention shrapnel damage. So where does the banning stop?
|
|
|
Post by Rockoonz on Dec 31, 2012 19:11:57 GMT -5
What's the difference between 2 30 round magazines and 6 10 round magazines? 4 additional 1-2 second magazine changes, not nearly enough time to rush the perp. As to cycling time I have seen skeet shooters with pump action shotguns squeeze off shots faster than you would think. If you really think being able to fire more shots means you can hit more targets I challenge you to find a target range, set a target close enough to hit in the center with a single shot, then fire, say 10 shots at the target in 5 seconds, far less than the capabilities on any modern weapon. I would be amazed if you hit the target more than once. There's this thing called aiming. Helen, I'm with you on all of this but the shotgun with one hand thing, only Ahhnold the former Governator does that. I'm 6'2", 250 lbs give or take and I KNOW when I have fired a shotgun. Lee
|
|
|
Post by helens on Dec 31, 2012 20:33:40 GMT -5
That's cuz you're firing a 12 gauge... there's a lot to be said for a 20 gauge:P. Have you ever seen photos of what a 12 gauge shotgun does at close range?
Years ago, I went to the Walter Reed Medical Museum. When you walk in the door, the first display was of shotgun to the head wounds... a full wall in full color of the damage. My God, I couldn't sleep for a month. There IS no face to ID afterwards, and usually no complete head. A 12 gauge used on a human is like throwing a boulder at a mosquito. And as you pointed out, you are going to suffer using it yourself.
My hubby said that the AR-15 that crazy kid used would be too hot to hold after firing a full magazine (the kind that you flip over and stick back in)... so depending on how proficient he is with guns, the shotguns can be FAR deadlier in that situation than semis.
But forget that, lets pretend they banned ALL guns... there's still grenades, homemade bombs, and last but not least, breaking into a water reclaimation and dumping toxins into the water supply or a meat factory or a food processing plant. How about ricin in the subways? Oh wait, that's been done. How about anthrax in the mail? Oh wait, that's been done too. How about driving a truck bomb into a Federal bldg? Oh wait...
The point is that banning one thing will not address the root of the problem, that we need to have SOME way for people to get help for sick individuals BEFORE they kill or hurt anyone. Deciding that any tool is the evil is a refusal to look in the mirror and solve the real problem. At best it's a distraction, at worst it creates more problems.
|
|
|
Post by gingerkid on Jan 1, 2013 7:40:11 GMT -5
|
|
fmelvis
starting to spend too much on rocks
Member since November 2010
Posts: 235
|
Post by fmelvis on Jan 1, 2013 8:48:05 GMT -5
Helen wrote
The point is that banning one thing will not address the root of the problem, that we need to have SOME way for people to get help for sick individuals BEFORE they kill or hurt anyone.
Wasn't that guy in colorado who shot up a theater seeing a shrink and getting so called help?
Still was able to get guns and ammo.
Too bad none of you armed good guys were there to take him out like they would of in Florida right Helen?
Helen wrote
we haven't had any mass killings approaching other states... probably because someone would take the gunman down fast.
Pure Fantasy
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,466
|
Post by Sabre52 on Jan 1, 2013 10:53:45 GMT -5
Elvis, You really have to subscribe to the NRA magazine so yo have some idea about what you are talking about. They have a column called " The Armed Citizen" that picks up just a few from the hundreds of newspaper stories each month showing how armed citizens do save themselves, their families and often others from violent criminals and crazies. Latest stats from the Journal of Criminal Law have DGU's ( defensive gun uses) up to over 2 million per year now in the US and that is not pure fantasy. However your pink cloud and unicorns ideas about a disarmed population being safer, are just that....pure fantasy. You might consider doing a little reading on the subject before you come up with such "head up your a** stupid" statements.....Mel
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Jan 1, 2013 11:55:40 GMT -5
There was a man was walking his claim in the Cariboo mountains in BC. The man turns a corner on the trail that he has walked many times before. To his surprise a 400lb black bear is blocking the way. The man stops and says to the bear. Mr Bear before you attack me you have to wait for me to load my 870. My government says I can't have shells in the magazine with out a bear licience. So please wait. Sounds stupid but thats the law here thanks to all our lib friends in eastern Canada. ie Ontario, Quebec and the greens on the west coast.
The above is a true story. All except for empty magazine, It was full and a warning slug was fired at the bears feet. The bear ran the other way.
Elvis I invite you to come out to the claim for a camping trip. After a bear has opened your tent like a can of sardines. You will change you mind.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Jan 1, 2013 12:23:02 GMT -5
Helen wrote The point is that banning one thing will not address the root of the problem, that we need to have SOME way for people to get help for sick individuals BEFORE they kill or hurt anyone. Wasn't that guy in colorado who shot up a theater seeing a shrink and getting so called help? Still was able to get guns and ammo. Too bad none of you armed good guys were there to take him out like they would of in Florida right Helen? Helen wrote we haven't had any mass killings approaching other states... probably because someone would take the gunman down fast. Pure Fantasy That's no refutation, Elvis... basically you are using the same argument as before... banning works. Punishment works. Well, we have already seen how well it works on drunk driving. It doesn't. In the case of blaming problems on tools, we aren't banning any other tools that cause death, I've never seen anyone suggest banning rocks, you can bash someone's head in with a rock, you can stone someone with rocks. To compare the US to any other nation is a bit naive... I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure we beat most nations crime rates if you took OUT the guns. It has more to do with US culture than anything else, in many ways, this nation rewards individual initiative more than other cultures. We need to treat the problem, not the tool used to manifest the problem, because a person denied guns can use something else, anyone determined to kill can find a way. Guns may be easier to use, but they are not the most lethal, even for mass killing. The biggest reason I argue for this point is the HUGE flaws in this position. 1. It's unpopular. It alienates gun owners and entire states for no reason. There are plenty of states where people live in very rural settings and guns are protection against critters, and not just the 2 legged kind. To even suggest they must give up their weapons is going to be a fight. You want to take away people's way of life. That might have shamefully worked with a native underdeveloped culture, but attempting it on peers will not only not work, the backlash is a self-inflicted wound. 2. It's unconstitutional. The 2nd Amendment is a fundamental right this nation was based on, and to stick to a point that many Americans would fight for takes away from any Political party's power base. Is it more important to ban something that causes FEWER deaths say than alcohol or tobacco, and LOSE elections that affect our retirements, our current quality of life, our children's education? 3. It's irrational. The attempt allows gun supporters to fall more easily for arguments against all other Democrat platforms because they can rationally believe that supporters of gun control are irrational thinkers. PEOPLE commit crimes, TOOLS do not. We recognize this fact with every other dangerous tool except this one. That's illogical. I know plenty of people who vote for this single platform. To defend an irrational position and be willing to allow evil people with other agendas political control because of it defines insanity. 4. It shifts the focus from the real problem... how to deal with PREVENTION of the desire for using a tool to kill others. Investing energy into a platform that is no solution means no one looks for the better solution. A national focus on mental health and providing parents with troubled kids help could even lower drunk driving death rates among other benefits, not the least being turning someone feeling useless and unproductive into a worthwhile contributing member of society.
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,466
|
Post by Sabre52 on Jan 1, 2013 14:50:47 GMT -5
Billy, I saw a photo story of another incident up Alaska way I think, since he had a pistol. Another guy out for a walk. Turns around sees a brown bear at full charge. Draws a .454 Casull and lets fly from the hip and makes what even he admitted as a lucky shot. Dead bear was half starved and skinny with few teeth, just perfect for a maneater. Definitelyt one of those instances when you need clean shorts but are sure thanking a merciful God that you was packing a pistola...Mel
|
|
fmelvis
starting to spend too much on rocks
Member since November 2010
Posts: 235
|
Post by fmelvis on Jan 1, 2013 16:49:30 GMT -5
Helen, A guy attacks a classroom in china with a knife, no one dies. In the US,well, its a different story huh? Guess the guy here got his hands on better" tools " as you put it.
A national focus on mental health and providing parents with troubled kids help.
Wow. good idea. Would this be part of your National Health Care?
|
|
|
Post by helens on Jan 1, 2013 16:58:02 GMT -5
Helen, A guy attacks a classroom in china with a knife, no one dies. In the US,well, its a different story huh? Guess the guy here got his hands on better" tools " as you put it. A national focus on mental health and providing parents with troubled kids help. Wow. good idea. Would this be part of your National Health Care? Irony is, if the Dems said, "Ok, we'll back off on guns IF you include mental health as a priority in funding..." suddenly, I think the Republicans would sit up and agree. Will it happen? Not til Dem's wake up to addressing the problem itself, and not waste all that political credit chasing moonbeams. As for your harping repeatedly on the 22 children wounded and not dead, that's only the LATEST incident. PLENTY have died from SCHOOL attacks alone in China: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%932012)On March 23, 2010, Zheng Minsheng (郑民生)[2] 41, murdered eight children with a knife in an elementary school in Nanping,[3] Fujian province;[4] The attack was widely reported in Chinese media (called 南平实验小学重大凶杀案),[2] sparking fears of copycat crimes.[4] Following a quick trial, Zheng Minsheng was executed about one month later on April 28.[3]
An attacker named Wu Huanming (吴环明), 48, killed seven children and two adults and injured 11 other persons with a cleaver at a kindergarten in Hanzhong, Shaanxi on May 12, 2010;[3] early reports were removed from the internet in China, for fear that mass coverage of such violence can provoke copycat attacks.[3][11] The attacker later committed suicide at his house; he was the landlord of the school,[12] Shengshui Temple private kindergarten, and had been involved in an ongoing dispute with the school administrator about when the school would move out of the building.[12] On May 18, 2010 at Hainan Institute of Science and Technology (海南科技职业学院), a vocational college in Haikou, Hainan, more than 10 men[13] charged into a dormitory wielding knives around 2:30 am;[14] after attacking the security guard and disabling security cameras, 9 students were injured, 1 seriously.[14] The local men attacked the dorm in an act of revenge and retaliation against college students following conflict the previous day at an off-campus food stall in which 4 students were injured, for a total of 13.[15]
On 4 August 2010, 26-year-old Fang Jiantang (方建堂) slashed more than 20 children and staff with a 60 cm knife, killing 3 children and 1 teacher, at a kindergarten in Zibo, Shandong province. Of the injured, 3 other children and 4 teachers were taken to the hospital. After being caught Fang confessed to the crime; his motive is not yet known.[16]
In September 2011, a young girl and three adults taking their children to nursery school were killed in Gongyi,[19] Henan by 30-year-old Wang Hongbin with an axe.[20] Another child and an adult were seriously wounded but survived.[21] The suspect is a local farmer who is suspected of being mentally ill.[22]
Prof. Joshua Miller, chair of Social Welfare Policy at Smith College, attributed the attacks to stress caused by "rapid social change, mass migrations, increasing disparities in wealth and weakening of traditions."[26] Some sociologists believe some of these attacks may be due to the PRC government's failure to diagnose and treat mental illness.[14] The perpetrators may feel victimized by stress due to the rapid social changes[14] in China during the last 10 years caused by the privatization and decreased social security of China's reform and opening period. During this time, more and more migrant workers from rural areas have moved to cities such as Shanghai to find jobs. However because they do not have social security (because of the hukou system), many of them do not have health insurance. Because of the financial crisis of 2007–2010, some have lost their jobs, which is stigmatized in China, and have had to return to their native villages jobless and unemployed. The choice of schools for most of the attacks means they could be copycat crimes.[14][26] The above are DEATHS from School attacks, not just injuries. You only cited the latest one.
|
|
fmelvis
starting to spend too much on rocks
Member since November 2010
Posts: 235
|
Post by fmelvis on Jan 1, 2013 17:21:03 GMT -5
yeah helen, i wonder how many more would of died if these fine assholes had semis with high capacity clips?
You know as well as i that adam lanza would not of been able to kill 26 people with a knife.
Your right helen, the world will never be a safe place. You will always have murders, no matter what you do. I understand. I will never be convinced that everyone walking around with a gun tucked in their mini skirts is making the world a safer place.
By NBC News staff
A Florida man invoked the state’s controversial “stand your ground” law after he shot another customer at a pizza parlor who complained that his pie wasn’t coming out fast enough, the Tampa Bay Times reported.
F#&king priceless.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Jan 1, 2013 18:21:34 GMT -5
People claim all kinds of things, doesn't mean they get away with it. In Florida, its so rare to get away with it that it's almost unheard of... Trayvon Martin was actually the ONLY time I've heard of someone getting away with murder while NOT defending themselves... and as you can see, he's still sitting in jail and not getting away with it.
My point is, I'd much rather see political clout expended on something that will benefit more people, than to spend it on something that MIGHT slow down some crime, but will damage a lot of people for no reason. This effort is the cutting your nose off to spite your face. It's a benefit that does not outweigh the harm. It's demanding amputation to get rid of a wart.
How many of these school shootings do we have a year? Is it worth the lives of thousands of people who may live because they were able to defend themselves, but to prevent one school shooting every 5 years, they may die?
The entire issue is so ludicrous that it's a HUGE reason I was Republican to begin with. As a child in NYC, to see guns, to KNOW people had guns, and they were 100% illegal there. It only prevented good people from feeling safe, because bad people had all the weapons. To know that people who ARE STILL SHOT THERE may be alive because citizen ownership may be a deterrent. You know, it's a reason I moved to Florida too.
The Democratic party NEEDS to get it together, this single issue brands the entire party as just plain irrational, voiding so much of the truly positive actions Democrats try to promote.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,175
|
Post by jamesp on Jan 1, 2013 21:05:51 GMT -5
A simple logical outlook Helen.
|
|
darstcreek77
has rocks in the head
Member since April 2011
Posts: 673
|
Post by darstcreek77 on Jan 1, 2013 22:29:09 GMT -5
Charlie what are you gonna do when a couple of 6"4 250 muscle crack apes kick in your door and want your family and all your money and decide to use your family as a punching bag maybe a little loving . you gonna call the union or the aclu ? No your gonna think if i had a gun I could stop this . are you going to be on the cross or the nailer ? I have been a gun owner since 74 never hurt anybody .... wake up its not a safe world .I will pray for you and family to stay safe .....
|
|
fmelvis
starting to spend too much on rocks
Member since November 2010
Posts: 235
|
Post by fmelvis on Jan 2, 2013 8:58:58 GMT -5
Hey helen, how about this little diddy from florida,
Michael Dunn, a 45-year-old Florida resident, is invoking the controversial law after a recent confrontation turned fatal, The Orlando Sentinel reports.
According to authorities, 17-year-old Jordan Russell Davis, a black teenager, and several friends were confronted by Dunn, a white man, who pulled alongside the teens' SUV in the parking lot of a Jacksonville, Fla., gas station. Dunn asked them to turn their music down, and after an exchange of words, he fired between 8 and 9 shots at the vehicle, several of which hit Davis, causing his death.
I guess he was threatened by the loud music.
Sure, they will be punished, but two people are dead for no reason other than a jackass with a gun.
|
|