If you join the Armed Forces, you get a lot of training in weapons, including not shooting people you are not allowed to shoot. And your behaviour is monitored. Get it wrong and your guns get taken away for a while. Get it very wrong and you get discharged, whereupon, bizarrely, in parts of the US you now have the right to go out an arm yourself to the teeth.
It’s almost as if generals and long haired hippies like that think the “well ordered” bit of the militia is more important than the “right to bear arms.”
Or she burns the house down with everyone in it, and possibly wipes out the neighbors as well. This looks to have been pre-meditated, so she would have just made another plan.
Damn, she pulled a Medea. (The classics are still relevant, kids.)
I’m willing to admit that some people are mature and responsible enough to have guns. I just think they tend to be the sort of people who don’t want them.
For the most part, I think that most people are mature and responsible enough to have guns.
However, I also think that even the most rational person is just one very, very bad day away from not being mature and responsible enough to have guns, which is why I think that it’s probably better just to qualify “no one” as mature and responsible enough to have guns,
They’d still be dead, because guns don’t make you bulletproof. What they needed was really good body armor. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is someone who can avoid getting shot, as the NBAA (National Body-Armor Association) puts it.
I know what you mean, that creepily disengenious, ignorant, look that seems to be ok with burning a screaming kitten alive, as part of some sort of weird, petty demonstration, based on some vague, childlike, ‘ideal’…
(I feel bad for the father)…
You’re speculating on two things that are individually uncertain and at this point unknowable. We don’t have details of her mental condition such that we could diagnose her, and we don’t know how a court would have hypothetically ruled. Your comment should be a lot more tentative than assertive.
Besides, it’s just bad form to diagnose people over the internet; nobody who isn’t an amateur does it.
Your comment should be a lot more tentative than assertive.
Besides, it’s just bad form to diagnose people over the internet; nobody who isn’t an amateur does it.
The courts never, especially in law-enforcement-land, ever let someone get off for diminished capacity. Not since Hinckley. You have to be clinically demented, as in nobody home upstairs, and well-defended. I realize there’s no court diagnosis here, but a cursory look at case history makes the theoretical outcome clear.
Look at the Roof case. Clearly a nutjob in the lay sense, but they’re going for death. 1st degree in that case, 2nd degree in this.
“… prominent republicans never seem to have any upper lip … A good friend of mine pointed this out to me …”
Evidently the reptiloids still have something to learn about making human suits. Do you think they’re just all made from the same basic pattern, and they never got around to fixing the flaws in the original design?