Originally Posted by Dr. Gigglepants
This is exactly what I'm talking about. WhiteWhale has already decided that the guy was "going around pointing guns at other people they're suspicious of." The quoted article doesn't actually say what happened, and yet WhiteWhale is assuming the guy just pulled his gun, ran up and shot the kid. Now if the guy goes to court, he not only has to prove that didn't happen, but also that the kid posed an imminent threat to him.
More people think like this and Wickedson, that all guns are bad and should all be outlawed and are not very forgiving to people who choose to lawfully carry weapons.
I'm not defending him at all, from what I gather, he was the one who initiated the confrontation, which you never ever ever do. That is where he went wrong.
You cannot shoot people with guns unless the barrel is pointed at them. That isn't about gun rights, it's about function. Of course he pointed the gun at him. Otherwise the kid wouldn't have a bullet in his chest, nor would he have come down with a sudden case of death. I never said anything about him running up waving a gun and opening fire, but when your argument is weak you must create holes in another's statements to make yours appear more valid. I understand.
I also didn't say anything about guns being bad nor did I utter a word about gun control. Another assertion you make out of ignorance to strengthen your position that this guy shouldn't have to defend killing an unarmed person in court. Yeah, I know you didn't actually assert that. Since you were doing it I thought I'd be cool and try it.
If you feel like discussing this like a grown up, I'll be here.