How Gun Laws Work

I was debating using this story mostly because I found it more depressing than anything else.

A 15-year-old girl in Little Rock, Arkansas, is dead, police say, because of a prank that went horribly and tragically wrong.

…The teenagers told police they had thrown toilet paper, eggs and mayonnaise on a car parked there.

As they were leaving, a man came out of the house and opened fire.

Broadway was struck in the head and died.

Another teenager, the driver, suffered injuries to his right arm. He was transported to a hospital, where he was treated and released.

I’m typing it because a bunch of antis are dancing in this poor girl’s blood. Still what do the antis want? A young woman and a friend were engaging in minor criminal acts. Stupid move, but not worth their lives. A man shot and killed her and wounded her friend. Stupid move, and it IS worth his life.

And that’s likely what will happen. This is murder, and like the aforementioned Dunn case he will spend the rest of his life in prison.

What do they want background checks? Wouldn’t have stopped this. Licensing and registration? Wouldn’t have stopped this. Repeal of Self Defense laws? This wasn’t self defense. Banning guns or magazines? Again, nope.

And for what? A criminal man is in custody, and facing some serious charges. I have little doubt justice will be served in this case.

What the antis want is the REST of us to be punished for this crime, and they ignore the GOOD done with firearms because it doesn’t suit their agenda.


This entry was posted in Freedom, Guns, Safety, Self Defense. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to How Gun Laws Work

  1. Bob S. says:

    Growing up we heard of such stories; our parents told them to us as cautionary tales against ‘harmless’ pranks.
    Not everyone reacts the same way. Not everyone has common sense or good judgment — there fore keep your pranks to something that doesn’t jeopardize your life.

    This is a crime and a person will be tried (and probably) found guilty and suffer the consequences of his actions. Unfortunately, a young person also suffered the consequences of her actions.
    I’m always amazed at how the antis believe that how the world should work can be achieved within our life times. “People should be able to walk down the streets” “Parent Should out live their children” — all great sentiments but ignores the vast history of mankind that belies those dreams.

    • Archer says:

      “People should be able to walk down the streets” “Parent Should out live their children” — all great sentiments but ignores the vast history of mankind that belies those dreams.

      This sentence nicely sums up the difference between pro- and anti-freedom people.

      Anti-freedom people are so consumed with what they think the world should be that they refuse to acknowledge what the world is. Pro-freedom people understand that there’s a fundamental difference between “should be” and “is,” and work for the former within the realm of the latter.

      Advocates of anti-freedom laws promise a lot of should – indeed, they’re chock-full of should; “People should follow the law, so this new law should make everyone safer” – but they rarely deliver when it comes time to do or do not (with apologies to Yoda 😉 ).

      If the problem is “criminal guns,” banning law-abiding people’s guns won’t help the problem any more than banning sober people’s cars will fix the problem of drunk driving. No amount of “should” will change this simple fact. If the problem is “criminal guns,” the solution is to go after the criminals. Period.

      • Archer says:

        As an addendum to the last paragraph:
        The fact that the antis still insist on banning law-abiding people’s guns is a big “tell.” Either they’re totally clueless about should versus is, as I explained …

        … or the “problem” they want to fix isn’t “criminal guns;” it’s legal ones.

  2. Alan says:

    I don’t know about Arkansas, and IANAL, but in Texas malicious mischief after dark is still a felony and you can use deadly force to stop it. If Arkansas has similar laws, the shooter might not be charged with anything.

    Given the damage and expense of repair, it’s hardly a “prank”.

    I am less knowledgeable about Arkansas law (as in not at all) but a quick search shows that criminal mischief involving damage over $2,500 is a felony. It’s not clear to me whether Arkansas allows deadly force to stop felonies.

    HOWEVER it is worth noting that destroying people’s property might get you killed in any state and it’s not ever a harmless “prank” or a minor crime.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      I think Texas is alone with its liberal deadly force laws.

      As I said, it was a REALLY stupid thing, and VERY ill advisable. Doesn’t it mean you DESERVE to die…no, but that won’t stop somebody from killing you.

      Buddy of mine got a back full of rock salt stealing pumpkins from a farm. That was back in the “Good Old days”, so the owner didn’t go to prison…today he would. Doesn’t mean the old farmers have changed their tactics…

      Also even as a kid I was told NEVER to mess with lobster gear, even stuff that is washed up on shore because lobstermen are VERY protective of their gear, and sabotage and theft is not uncommon. The general consensus is “IF the fisherman catches you messing with his gear, he’ll probably shoot you”. Is that legal? NO. Did it happen, probably!

    • Barrett says:

      Arkansas does not allow for the use of deadly force to stop a felony where lives aren’t at risk. However, I’m not at all surprised that someone in Arkansas would think that a warning shot is perfectly acceptable. I’ve tried to educate friends and family on how bad an idea warning shots are but that particular idea is incredibly stubborn in that neck of the woods.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *