You Know It’s Pretty Bad When..
…gunloons treat this kind of story as good news:
Norcross Police Detective Jason Carter said. Ojeda joined a group of four other people — other regulars, but not well acquainted with the man — on the patio and became belligerent when one person asked Ojeda not to be obnoxious. After a brief scuffle, Ojeda left, only to return with a gun about 45 minutes later, Carter said.
As people on the patio scattered, one of the men he’d been sitting with ran away but drew his own gun, police said. That man, whose name was not released, fired once and hit Ojeda in the head, police said.
Of course, the gunloon moral of this story is that folks should carry firearms everywhere, even bars.
The real moral of the story: guns, alcohol, recipe for disaster.
You seem rather obsessed with firearms, and have mentioned morals. I believe this is where I step into the fray.
Beyond statistics, good conduct rules and other obfuscations lies the basic question concerning armed citizens. The implication of forcibly disarmed citizens is that those citizens are subservient to the ends of government. You may note, that in the US the government is subserviant to the citizen. This is the only moral mode of governance.
I will spare you a lesson in governance, only to cut to the chase. Murder with or without arms is a crime. To prevent crime with crime is an amazingly lack of foresight. You would reduce the government of the several states to not being the protectors of a free people, and a free state of existance, but to simply the biggest thugs on the block. Thuggary, regardless of intent, is not a good in any sense of the word.
How do you respond, sir?
Comment by Jared McLaughlin — October 23, 2007 @ 10:56 pm
The real moral of the story is that when some unknown person get in your face, is told to leave, leaves and returns after boiling for the bigger part of an hour, it would have gone to court as murder-one.
How were these patrons doing anything wrong anyway? Note that they were *outside* an establishment which serves alcohol.
Comment by Michael Hawkins — October 24, 2007 @ 3:21 am
Because an armed citizen stopped what may well have been, a multi shooting & Jade, VPC along with Sara didn’t get to dance in the blood.
Comment by The Duck — October 24, 2007 @ 7:23 am
Jared McL: Good comment. First, I’d note there have been no shortage of despotic countries where everyone and anyone could purchase or possess any kind of firearm. Yet, these nations were run by tyrants and/or corrupt governments. Iraq is a prime example. Certainly countries in eastern Europe and Africa also qualify.
.
Our nation is one of laws and we have a representative democracy. We may not always be happy with those laws or the conduct of our leaders but we have a process for enforcing those laws as well as adjudicating any grievances with either the laws or each other.
.
Your premise, if I’m interpreting it correctly, is one of mob rule.
Comment by Administrator — October 24, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
MH: The story strongly implies the patio was part of the bar or lounge. It describes everyone as either regulars or near-regulars of the establishment.
.
We really don’t know what transpired between the group of men–other than alcohol and an argument. You’ve got to look at the operative issue–what caused this shooting? Too often, we look at the results and say it’s good or bad without examining what led to that result. In this case, alcohol and firearms were catalysts.
Comment by Administrator — October 24, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
So, you start a paragraph stating that we don’t know the culprit, and then end it as you point the finger at guns and alcohol?
Comment by Michael Hawkins — October 24, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
No, MH, I didn’t say we didn’t know the culprit–though that’s partially true. Instead, I suggested we look at root causes rather than an end result. After all, the result could have well been a two or more folks shooting at each other in a crowded place.
Comment by Administrator — October 24, 2007 @ 3:51 pm