Argument in cinema results in gunshot death

[xbuzzerx]

I engage in dialogues. I think you and that old Canadian just do monologues/ speeches/ sermons/ harangues/ rants/ dummy spits/ do-as-I-say-not-as-I do.

You're entitled to your opinion; it's not as though your opinions being quite wrong is anything new.

 

[The Fly]

No he didn't. I'd assume he wouldn't have had an altercation if he knew the ex-cop had the gun. The demise of the guy is in full responsibility of the man with the gun.

Yes he did. He would not have been shot had he not been acting like a self absorbed dick.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Yes he did. He would not have been shot had he not been acting like a self absorbed dick.

He also wouldn't have been shot if someone didn't break the law, go get a gun and kill him. I'd love to see these same arguments get applied to when a husband shoots a wife to death during a custody hearing or whatever else. Man, she shouldn't have been such a bitch, right?

 

[pat grimshaw]

... your opinions being quite wrong...

So speaketh the PC Zealot.

The PC Zealot is indistinguishable from the religious Zealot.

They are right. The multitudes are wrong.

You haven't told me, Buzzer, if you were raised in the Catholic religion or not— but I bet you great-grandparents were religious Zealots.

You look and sound and talk and rant like a religious Zealot.

 

[xbuzzerx]

So speaketh the PC Zealot.

The PC Zealot is indistinguishable from the religious Zealot.

They are right. The multitudes are wrong.

You haven't told me, Buzzer, if you were raised in the Catholic religion or not— but I bet you great-grandparents were religious Zealots.

You look and sound and talk and rant like a religious Zealot.

You can believe that all you like, Pat. I shoot down the crap you spew in this forum because it's always decidedly one-directional and tends to be founded in a view of the world that most of the world left behind about 70 years ago. You make innuendo-- and that's all you do, because you tend to be hinting at things you can't possibly substantiate, and won't, and never do. When directly called out on a point you come back at it with "like this?" and linking something ridiculously off the point to distract from, rather than back up, whatever you were hinting at before... or you quote three words out of someone's post to intentionally break it out of context, and respond to something that wasn't asked.

I realize you think you're being novel and clever. I think most people see through you, but most simply don't think you're worth the bother. The only thing people seem divided about is whether you're intentionally trolling or just ignorant and driven by some other agenda-- some wonder if you're a gay male at all. The consistent attacks you launch on any topic touching gay equality or marriage rights certainly don't point towards a well adjusted gay male behind the keyboard at all.

And no-- I'm not Catholic, never was, no branch of my family within memory recent enough for any of my living or deceased family to remember or mention was Catholic. So that's another baseless assumption by Pat Grimshaw down.

 

[pat grimshaw]

^ Thank you for your sermon, father. I pray you will continue to lead us wayward sheep to The Path of Righteousness.

Are you available for a little bit of spanking in the vestry afterwards?

 

[xbuzzerx]

^ Thank you for your sermon, father. I pray you will continue to lead us wayward sheep to The Path of Righteousness.

Are you available for a little bit of spanking in the vestry afterwards?

Do you have any carrots?

 

[The Fly]

He also wouldn't have been shot if someone didn't break the law, go get a gun and kill him. I'd love to see these same arguments get applied to when a husband shoots a wife to death during a custody hearing or whatever else. Man, she shouldn't have been such a bitch, right?

What law was broke prior to the shooting?

Was the old guy unlawfully in possession of a concealed weapon? I haven't seen that charge anywhere.

He didn't "go get a gun" he had it on him, lawfully. If he had went and got the gun, that's premeditated murder, because he would have had the time to cool down and consider his options.

As to your custody scenario...total bullshit. If a spouse brings a gun to a custody hearing, in a court house, he/she is doing so with the intent to shoot someone. If you believe this guy brought a weapon to the movie theatre intending to shoot texters, please show me the basis for that belief.

 

[xbuzzerx]

What law was broke prior to the shooting?

Was the old guy unlawfully in possession of a concealed weapon? I haven't seen that charge anywhere.

He didn't "go get a gun" he had it on him, lawfully. If he had went and got the gun, that's premeditated murder, because he would have had the time to cool down and consider his options.

As to your custody scenario...total bullshit. If a spouse brings a gun to a custody hearing, in a court house, he/she is doing so with the intent to shoot someone. If you believe this guy brought a weapon to the movie theatre intending to shoot texters, please show me the basis for that belief.

You seem to have missed the fact that he killed someone with his gun in a fight at a movie theater. That's the breaking of the law I was talking about, genius.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

Yes he did. He would not have been shot had he not been acting like a self absorbed dick.

This is not an opinion. The only way he could have contributed to his own death is if he knew this guy had a gun and kept pushing a guy who was clearly unstable and shouldn't even have one. The person with the gun is in full responsibility of this mans death regardless of the situation before it.

 

[xbuzzerx]

This is not an opinion. The only way he could have contributed to his own death is if he knew this guy had a gun and kept pushing a guy who was clearly unstable and shouldn't even have one. The person with the gun is in full responsibility of this mans death regardless of the situation before it.

It is amazing how much people are shifting the blame off of the guy who decided to go Buffalo Bill with his gun. And an ex-cop, no less. Someone who was presumably trained not just in the proper use of firearms but a career's worth of experience dealing with law enforcement.

This guy was completely out of all bounds. Some people are rude, that's real life. It doesn't take away your culpability one bit when you decide their rudeness is your invitation to get your gun and shoot them.

 

[The Fly]

You seem to have missed the fact that he killed someone with his gun in a fight at a movie theater. That's the breaking of the law I was talking about, genius.

Well, genius, if you read your own post, you stated "if he didn't break the law, go get a gun and kill him" and as I said prior to the shooting he hadn't broken any laws.
And at this point the shooter hasn't been proven to have broken any laws. There’s been no finding of guilt by any legal standard.
Innocent until Proven guilty ..................insults are a lame excuse factual discourse.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Well, genius, if you read your own post, you stated "if he didn't break the law, go get a gun and kill him" and as I said prior to the shooting he hadn't broken any laws.
And at this point the shooter hasn't been proven to have broken any laws. There’s been no finding of guilt by any legal standard.
Innocent until Proven guilty ..................insults are a lame excuse factual discourse.

We do not need a trial to say it's inordinately unlikely this would not have ended in a death if a gun hadn't entered the picture.

What's really bad about these laws in Florida is that it's lending support-- however indirectly-- to the dangerous reasoning exactly like what you have just given. That there's room to view shooting someone to death in a relatively ordinary day to day situation or disagreement as potentially legitimate or legally supportable. I have almost no doubt in my mind it's had that effect on these shooters who carry guns around with them-- be it this guy or Zimmerman.

 

[The Fly]

This is not an opinion. The only way he could have contributed to his own death is if he knew this guy had a gun and kept pushing a guy who was clearly unstable and shouldn't even have one. The person with the gun is in full responsibility of this mans death regardless of the situation before it.

He contributed to his own death by getting in a heated confrontation with a stranger who could have been anyone....including a nut with a gun. It's not like he was standing on a street corner and someone just shot him for nothing.

They were a couple of tough guys, and all tough guys eventually end up in one of two places....dead or in jail. In this situation it's definitely one and possibly both.

- - - Updated - - -

What's really bad about these laws in Florida is that it's lending support-- however indirectly-- to the dangerous reasoning exactly like what you have just given. That there's room to view shooting someone to death in a relatively ordinary day to day situation or disagreement as potentially legitimate or legally supportable. I have almost no doubt in my mind it's had that effect on these shooters who carry guns around with them-- be it this guy or Zimmerman.

I totally agree with this other than singling out Florida, it's anywhere these laws are on the books. But people inability/unwillingness to interact respectfully with others is a contributing factor.

 

[Kulindahr]

Wow, now that is gun news.
What is the best punishment for a 71 year old.
Take all his assets away and in prison never to be released.

Send him to night school with teenagers studying computers.

 

[xbuzzerx]

H
I totally agree with this other than singling out Florida, it's anywhere these laws are on the books. But people inability/unwillingness to interact respectfully with others is a contributing factor.

I don't disagree-- however, I do think it goes both ways, and I also think that people who carry guns around with them feel very emboldened to begin confrontations they might otherwise not. The one guy at the gas station with the three teens was a great example of that.

Bankside said it much earlier in the thread--- being civil/ignoring a behavior that's irritating you rather than getting up and starting a chestthumping confrontation over it is its own form of public politeness, too.

 

[Kulindahr]

Pretty sure most theaters are pretty strict about cell phone usage in the theater. Any time I go to the movies there is stuff on the screen about it. Is it really that hard to speak to a Manager to do something about it? As much as this guy was rude the people irritated hardly handle these situations as "adults" and only have their self to blame.

Last theater I was at, if there was a problem you didn't have to get the manager, just an employee. They knew what qualified for removing a person or not, and were taught to come up with solutions otherwise. Our old gunman could have, at that theater, grabbed someone from behind the snacks counter and complained. My bet is they would have made the texter go sit in a corner seat far away from anyone else, if he wouldn't quit.

 

[Kulindahr]

* Gun ownership is actually declining. Since 1973, the GSS has been asking Americans whether they keep a gun in their home. In the 1970s, about half of the nation said yes; today only about one-third do.

The total number of owners has grown ever so slightly, but not nearly as fast as the population has grown. And of course it depends where you live.

* The current wrangle in politics over gun control is usually about an "assault weapon ban". The term "assault weapon" is somewhat meaningless, but it refers to a very specific type of gun with very specific type of equipment and specs. The nation appears roughly split down the middle about whether or not to ban this type of gun...which accounts for far fewer than 1% of all guns, and far fewer than 1% of all crime/violence committed by guns. In short, actual "gun control" is America is similar to having the UK discuss whether to ban 30-foot-limos from driving through town, and calling it "car control".

"Assault weapon" really means "a long weapon I think looks scary". And if Congress really wants to reduce firearms violence, they should end the misnamed "War on Drugs".

 

[Kulindahr]

I think that repeatedly labeling a guy who was murdered for texting his daughter as some gigantic asshole is actually worse than texting in a movie theater.

He was either an asshole or he wasn't; saying so if he was detracts not at all from the idiocy of the shooter.

 

[Kulindahr]

Whilst I appreciate that gun ownership rates in the United States have declined in recent decades; America still has the highest gun-related homicide rate of any developed country in the world. Also, I cannot understand why there is such a great deal of opposition to President Obama's proposal to reintroduce the ban on military-style assault weapons, after all, those types of weapons are not suitable for everyday citizens, as witnessed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting, where many innocent people lost their lives as a result of someone, who was clearly deranged, having access to semi-automatic weapons.

There are no "military-style assault weapons" available in gun stores in the U.S.

Unless you're playing the "lie by saying 'style'" game, which is what liberals like Schumer do, using a meaningless term to scare people.