Oklahoma Dad Allegedly Murders Son, 13, by Shooting at Truck He Thought Was Stolen

You are actually making an argument for gun control by arguing humans cannot be trusted

 

Tell that to the millions with concealed carry licenses that have been found to as, if not more responsible than the police in this country where,

https://www.gunstocarry.com/concealed-carry-statistics/

 

Not exactly an unbiased source
Studies have shown that having a gun in the house puts you at a much higher risk of harm

https://www.vox.com/cards/gun-violence-facts/gun-house-death-risk

 

The source of that assertion is Kellerman’s work that has been thoroughly debunked time and time again for using a flawed methodology and data designed to intentionally create a biased finding.
If you never drive, like say a Guahibo in the Llanos of eastern Columbia you aren’t likely to be killed in a car accident... it’s a silly arguement.

 

Who has critiqued Kellermans work?

Not based on Kellerman anyway and you would have seen that if you had read the links

 

Perhaps not, but the data is assessible at each state level were revocations of CC’s represent a miniscule fraction of those that have them. Prove it wrong.

 

Why should I when your whole argument is based on a false premise?

I could easily stay that a majority of people who own cars do not have fatal accidents

 

It is ultimately based on Kellerman’s work. As far as his work being critiqued, it was revived and dismissed in the CDC’s 2012 National study of gun violence funded by Obama’s Admin in hopes it would support his call for more gun control which the did the opposite. Kellerman’s was also dismissed in the 2003 study as well. I have posted link to both studies more than once, but antis want to dismiss their findings without reading them.

 

Which premise is that?

I will carry on later today... well after 3am here, hoping to do 30-40mi cycling then test a few Fly Rods I just completed building today. Slan.

 

Incorrect. The shooting is justified so long as the law enforcement officer claims they believed it was necessary.

 

Then name any particular piece of such legislation that would have physically prevented the father from engaging in illegal activity.

 

Explain exactly what "better training" entails in this particular matter, that would have physically prevented the father in question from engaging in an illegal activity. Lay out precisely what the hypothetical mandatory training regimen would be, and what aspects of current united states law it would cover, that would have been able to physically prevent this exercise of reckless behavior from being carried out by one who simply did not stop and think.

Law enforcement officers are subject to far more extensive firearms training than any private firearms owner, and yet they are responsible for numerous bad shooting incidents where they were no weapon, with deadly force being deployed immediately, before they even evaluate the situation. They often shoot a suspect on sight, and then make up the story after the fact to justify the use of immediate deadly force.

 

That is how criminal law works in the united states. An illegal act must be committed for there to be a crime that can be punished. It is legally impossible to punish someone before the fact when they have done nothing. Laws serve only to define what constitutes a crime, and lay out the prescribed punishment for it being broken. They do not exist to prevent a crime from occurring.

 

Kellermann also said that living alone or renting increases your risk of being a homicide victim, at a rate higher than that of having a gun in the house.

 

I already said that I'd like them to be more educated about when it is legal to shoot someone and when it isn't. Is there anything unclear about that?

Bad logic. Major League Baseball players strike out more often than the average American (because they play baseball more often). That doesn't mean that their training doesn't do them any good.

 

Uh use of deadly force is the major part of CCW instruction. Once again you have nothing.

 

Look at the big picture. Gun violence is violating people's rights everyday. Thomas Jefferson recognized that we have a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. A person who is lying in a pool of blood with a bullet in their head can no longer can live, have liberty, and pursue happiness. That is the bigger concern these days.

 

Yet it's predominately libs/Democrats and their acolytes committing the violence. Go figure.

 

Nice try but only a fraction of gun owners get CCW instruction. All gun owners should know when it is legal to shoot someone and when it isn't.

 

Can I get the gangbanger franchise because that's where the action is. Wait, they're criminals. How does that work?

 

You just demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that you don't have the first inklings of what rights are, what they mean, or even what it means to live in a free society.

We have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Since we have a right to life and liberty we have a right to possess the means to defend that life and liberty, and thus a right to own and use the most effective tools with which to conduct that defense. The majority to those "lying in a pool of blood with a bullet in their head" tend to have ties to criminal activity themselves, and many of the others are people who might very well have survived if they had possessed the means to defend themselves. They made a CHOICE to be defenseless, and they had the right to make that choice, and must accept the consequences for their own choices.

You clearly don't believe in gun ownership. Well, go forth and live your life as you choose. I won't stop you. But quit trying to force me to conform to what YOU want instead of recognizing my RIGHT to make a different choice than you..

 

Not true.

 

I had asked you what your motive was in creating this OP. Without knowing the father’s level of experience and training you can make no conclusion on whether he had adequate training or not, it’s obvious you wrote his narrative to justify the point you wanted to make, regarding training. But, other than people knowing the law... something in every other situation is incombant on them, neighter you or any other advocate for manditory training for owning/carrying guns, has provided what that requirement for training would entail, nor why, would the RTKBA be singled out for training over that of any other right....why not the first?
If the motive for the OP wasn’t a means for you to push the training dialog, the what was your motive?

 

The only lack of clarity on the matter, is on the part of those who believe that such will physically prevent someone from engaging in reckless, illegal activity, when all available evidence proves that it will not. If someone is going to engage in reckless behavior, they are going to do such no matter what is attempted. If someone is going to open fire on a moving vehicle without evaluating who is operating it, it is not a lack of knowledge that is responsible, it is a lack of common sense. If someone is going to be that stupid, they deserve to be legally punished.

Irrelevant and off topic. The training itself is the first thing to be blamed when law enforcement officers use excessive force. Rather than admit responsibility, they claim they were merely following training, meaning they are trained to use force first and think later, after the fact.

 

In the united states, the "big picture" as it is being referred to, are the constitutional rights themselves, not the loss of individual lives due to members of the public engaging in reckless, stupid behavior.