Since they all had guns, this should've ended politely ...

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by citizenzen, Jun 2, 2017.

  1. citizenzen, Jun 2, 2017
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2017

    citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #1
    But instead ... they're all dead.
    The person with the camera earns the Darwin Award for the day. They see drawn guns, and move in to get a closer look. After all, what's the worst thing than can happen?

    What a country.
     
  2. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #2
    Well it is Texas, just as nuts as Florida but just bigger.
     
  3. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
  4. The-Real-Deal82 macrumors 603

    The-Real-Deal82

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2013
    Location:
    Wales, United Kingdom
    #4
    I suppose neither of them are likely to shoot anybody ever again.
     
  5. Stefan johansson macrumors 65816

    Stefan johansson

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2017
    Location:
    Sweden
    #5
    That's exactly what happens,when most people are allowed to keep and bear arms.
     
  6. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    #6
    I refuse to believe this story. We've been lead to believe that everyone being armed leads to peaceful resolutions.
     
  7. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #7
    What are you lefties complaining about? I though a lower population was good for the planet.
     
  8. Gutwrench Contributor

    Gutwrench

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    #8
    1. Who shot who?

    2. I've never liked bounty hunters, but since it's legal in places this video shows arresting armed fugitives is very dangerous.
    --- Post Merged, Jun 3, 2017 ---
    Good point, if the two bounty hunters were unarmed there would have been only two dead.
     
  9. TonyC28 macrumors 65816

    TonyC28

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #9
    According to the article he reached for a gun in his desk, got ahold of said gun, and accidentally dropped it on the desk before a scuffle between the three started. I know nothing of the two bounty hunters other than they claimed to be federal agents and handled this situation very badly. I know this won't make you feel warm and fuzzy, but this is why when a bad guy reaches for something the police don't take a second to see what it is. He should have been dead the second his hand moved toward the desk.
     
  10. smallcoffee macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    North America
    #10
    These kinds of anti-gun threads are as nonsense as advocating for removing the First Amendment because two people got into a fist fight after an argument.
     
  11. samiwas macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #11
    This seems like a poorly-planned and poorly-executed arrest all around. You enter a car dealership with guns drawn to go after a guy sitting at a desk? Did they make any attempt to clear the place out first, or just go, guns-blazing into a car dealership filled with other people?

    Pointing out idiotic behavior with guns is just as relevant as pointing out idiotic speech. Just because someone has a right to do something, it does not mean that everything they do under that right is good and acceptable. Not even a little bit. I have not seen a single person in this thread speak about removing the second amendment. They are pointing out dumbasses with guns, and the kinds of things that widespread gun availability with no competency testing or training or knowledge requirement can cause. Sorry, but the very existence of the 2nd Amendment does not mean that we have a safe gun culture.
     
  12. smallcoffee macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    North America
    #12
    Sure it would be the same if the same people were advocating getting rid of the First Amendment after every little incident.
     
  13. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #13
    Ah, and I suppose "three people dead" == "little incident".
     
  14. samiwas, Jun 3, 2017
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2017

    samiwas macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #14
    Last time I checked, speech has absolutely no way to physically harm or kill you. To try to compare the two as even remotely similar shows the mental state of people.

    I might as well compare a car to a dumbbell, because they both are made from metal.

    And again, no one in this thread advocated getting rid of the 2nd. Even after this little Incident.
     
  15. bopajuice Suspended

    bopajuice

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2016
    Location:
    Dark side of the moon
    #15
    "Bail-bond companies seeking fugitives in Texas are required to use registered investigators".

    "Tuesday's shooting was the second time in about a month in the U.S. when violence erupted as private groups were attempting to apprehend fugitives".

    Unfortunately not all private investigators have the proper training to do this sort of work. Sounds like their plan to arrest the guy was poorly executed. At least no one else was hurt.
     
  16. niploteksi macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2016
    #16
    If they had been unarmed they would still have killed each other. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. It's a cultural thing.
     
  17. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #17
    Well, the classic example is shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater...
    --- Post Merged, Jun 3, 2017 ---
    Yeah, and neither does poison gas kill people, nor truck-bombs, nor nuclear warheads. People kill people.
     
  18. Huntn macrumors P6

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #18
    My scoop will not be denied! ;)

    I can imagine <dreaded> regulations being put in place if they don't already exist, that govern where fugitives can't be challenged.

    The calculation is simple 1+1=2, the more armed people, the more victims of gun violence, period, no debate.
     
  19. smallcoffee macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    North America
    #19
    Yeah basically.

    Frankly I just don't care. It sucks that people die. Doesn't mean we should get rid of guns. Just as I don't advocate for getting rid of something like alcohol or cigarettes. **** happens. Life happens.
    --- Post Merged, Jun 3, 2017 ---
    Nah. It's not that simple.
     
  20. OriginalAppleGuy macrumors 6502a

    OriginalAppleGuy

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2016
    Location:
    Virginia
    #20
    What? The one guy would have had a gun no matter what the laws were because he was an outlaw. The two bounty hunters had guns for their line of work. Those are hardly "most people". In fact, "most people" who have guns are law abiding and don't go around shooting people.
     
  21. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #21
    Let's just make killing people a legal problem solved
     
  22. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #22


    pssst, don't tell him that there is about 265 million guns in the US alone and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
     
  23. smallcoffee macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    North America
    #23
    Are you sure about that? Because speech can cause all sorts of things. Just like a weapon, it depends on who is using it. A gun sitting on a shelf by itself can't kill anybody, just as words falling upon deaf ears can't convince people to hijack a plane or drive a truck through a crowd.
     
  24. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #24
    Indeed.
     
  25. samiwas macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #25
    And herein lies the problem in your argument. Hijacking a plane or driving a truck through a crowd are not speech. The end action is not in any way related to the original action. They're two separate things. The speech did not cause any harm. Speech is not a physical item and thus has no possible way of physically affecting you. However, if I'm handling my firearm and it goes off and puts a bullet through my child's face, the actions are wholly related. And a firearm has every ability to do physical harm, under many circumstances. You can continue to try to make this misguided comparison, but it is specious at the very best.
    --- Post Merged, Jun 3, 2017 ---
    I'm sorry...do the syllables somehow pierce your heart? To consonants smother you? Do vowels choke you?
     

Share This Page