Feeds

back to article Hitchhiker shot while researching 'Kindness of America'

A hitchhiker researching a book on "The Kindness of America" is currently recovering in hospital after a gun-toting truck driver gave him a small donation of some searing hot lead. Ray Dolin, was hitching on Highway 2 in Montana on Saturday as part of a project to produce a memoir on the great things about the open road in the …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

says:

Yet again someone misinterprets the meaning of "Friendly Fire".

5
0
Silver badge

"He just gave him a shot in the arm"

Didn't you mean "Collateral Damage"?

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Shoot first ask questions later.

Sums up America in a sentence.

20
7
Silver badge

Don't you mean, "Shoot first and to hell with the questions"?

12
4
Paris Hilton

Re: says:

WHATS HE BITCHING ABOUT THE TRUCKER WAS KIND ENUOGH TO GIVE HIM A WARNING SHOT

4
6
Meh

Well what do you expect, Amerikan special forces in 'nam adopted a version of Arnaud Amalric's (died 1225, a Cistercian church leader) infamous statement "Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset" (Kill them all. God will know His own) or if you prefer the modern version "Kill'em all, and let God sort'em out".

Or maybe the perp is playing too much GTA

1
0
Coat

Glasgow

Just does to show, Glasgow isn't a place to be messed with no matter which country it's in.

41
0

This post has been deleted by its author

Windows

Re: Glasgow

You go an' bile yer heid an' a'

0
0

Gun ownership.

It's been said so many times it has lost all meaning, sadly.

The kind of people obsessed with guns are the kind of people who absolutely should have access restricted in every conceivable way. A nation with a fixation on weapons, for reasons they can never, ever justify [120 million people do not go hunting], usually an unhealthy fixation on god as well.

I suppose this guy was probably a democrat, if they can make a effigy of Obama hanging with a pride flag those nutty religious republicans can do anything.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/obama-hung-in-effigy-678923

46
34
Anonymous Coward

Re: Gun ownership.

"A nation with a fixation on weapons, for reasons they can never, ever justify [120 million people do not go hunting], usually an unhealthy fixation on god as well."

Can you actually support this statement, or is it, like most of what you write, just something that you pulled out of your ass to fit the occasion?

29
42
Bronze badge
Angel

Re: Gun ownership.

All you hippy peaceniks are the same. The kind of people that are obsessed with guns are the kind of people that will save your sorry ass from the forthcoming zombie apocalypse.

No guns are fine until the zombies come...

12
12
Anonymous Coward

Re: Gun ownership.

What logical possibilities are there? Either:

1) Americans like getting shot or

2) they are too dim to figure out what's causing it.

45
6

Re: Gun ownership.

Somone on this website who thinks people with different likes and opinions is stupid?

That was completely unexpected.

11
1

Re: Gun ownership.

Or maybe 400 years of Europe shipping criminals and loonies to the US make guns a saner option than you think.

12
1
Holmes

Re: Gun ownership.

If he'd wanted to kill the guy and hadn't had a gun he could have run him over with the pick up truck.

In fact therefore probably just as well he did have a gun.

Homicidal psychopaths are homicidal psychopaths. They will kill with a plastic spoon if nothing else come to hand. End of.

16
8
Pint

Re: Gun ownership.

@theblackhand

Beat me to it.

For all we know this kindness guy is already infected and the good truck driver is one of these clairvoyant types. Any word on the rounds used?

3
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: Gun ownership.

"120 million people do not go hunting"

Don't be silly, regardless of what the NRA and others like to spout; there's only two reasons to have a well armed populace and one of them is rather outdated.

Allowing the citizenry to maintain a respectable level of force provides a defense against substantial corruption and overreach on the part of the government. If needs be, when the government gets too uppity and controlling, it can always be replaced by force... again. Fortunately, it's been a long time since we've needed to replace a government by force in the USA, but allowing an armed populace provides that option if it's ever again needed.

The second reason is far less meaningful when you already have a huge military and a militia to go with it. But, having an armed populace does allow a country to produce a modicum of defense against an invading country.

None of the reasons provided by the gun fanatics can really account for why more than maybe 10-20% of the population should want a gun. Most people in complacent or "civilized" societies aren't interested in hunting. Defense against armed criminals only requires one or two armed defenders to be effective. Defense against unarmed criminals usually doesn't require the level of force that a gun provides. There are other ways to provide peace of mind at home than having a gun in the closet. Yes, some people do have a legitimate use for guns, even in relatively safe Western countries, but they are in the minority.

8
11
Def
Bronze badge
FAIL

Re: Gun ownership.

"Fortunately, it's been a long time since we've needed to replace a government by force in the USA..."

If you ask anyone outside of the United States of America, the chances are they'll opine that you should have replaced your government by force about forty years ago. And if not then, you definitely should have had a go 10 years ago.

41
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: Gun ownership.

the guns aren't about hunting alone. they are about preventing those that think they have the authority to "restrict" the rights (as long as those rights don't violate someone else's rights) of free citizens that are not generally known to be of unsound mind or career criminals. where those lines are drawn is debatable. the burden of proof lies with those claiming authority. why you think that someone who owns multiple guns or who carries a gun must be obsessed with guns is beyond me. I can guarantee that there is at least one gun in 9 out of 10 houses on my street and i suspect that their guns occupy a very low priority in their conscienceness overall as there is only one neighbor who engages in target practice somewhat regularly. To equate gun owners with someone who wants to kill or mame random living creatures is simply an expression of your ignorance of the matter or willing douchebaggery!!!!

5
9

Re: Gun ownership.

For all the anti-gun ownership talk from your side of the pond, my wife is alive and well today because I legally carried a gun and stopped someone committing a crime in their tracks before ANYONE was injured.

I'm glad that the UK is so wonderful without guns, you have every right to do it the way you want to on your side of the pond. However, I'm also glad we don't have to follow your path in the US, and I'm really not sure why you are so offended that an entire country full of people thousands of miles away from you has a different opinion on gun ownership.

Also, the legal gun owners are not the ones causing the problems. As usual, that little bit seems to get overlooked.

13
19

Re: Gun ownership.

Have you asked the many victims of gunshot wounds in the UK - little girls, young men, passers-by - how they feel about legal gun ownership?

4
7
Childcatcher

Re: Gun ownership.

Legalising gun ownership won't undo what was done to them. It won't reduce the number of future victims either; quite the opposite. What's your point?

10
2

Re: Gun ownership.

Legalising gun ownership won't undo what was done to them. It won't reduce the number of future victims either; quite the opposite. What's your point?

The numbers seem to disagree with you.

For example, you can carry a gun at 18 in Vermont with no special permit, and you can't even have one in Chicago. I've never heard about the huge amounts of violent crimes in Vermont, but I know for a fact Chicago is a dangerous place. You get the same violent crime comparison even if you go per-capita, so don't bother trying to point out that there are more people in Chicago than in Vermont.

Sure looks like legal ownership DOES reduce the number of victims. Sorry to pollute your opinion with facts.

10
19
FAIL

Re: Gun ownership.

Actually all the criminals were shipped to Australia, the US only got the the bible bashing loonies.

I know, it's so unfair that the US got such a bad deal!

34
1
Mushroom

Re: Gun ownership. (AC @ 06/12, 18:27)

"Fortunately, it's been a long time since we've needed to replace a government by force in the USA, but allowing an armed populace provides that option if it's ever again needed."

I can only remember one time when citizens of the U.S. made a dedicated attempt to replace the federal government, and that happened between 1861-1865. How did that work out for them?

Face it--even with all the civilians and all the guns they possess, the US federal government is simply too powerful to be stopped--it has already become so corrupt that it has engaged in two illegal wars, their criminals in the government that caused the current global recession are practically untouchable, and their laws are considered the laws of the world. If all of the US citizens somehow formed a likemindedness to remove the government by force, all the government would have to do is dispatch a few drones, kill a few strategic people in strategic places, and the sheep with guns will gladly go back to being just sheep. When that happens, the US will officially be a dictatorship.

11
1

Re: Gun ownership.

ooh - my sarcasm detector is trembling, that's why I like these fora - it gets lots of practice.

:-)

0
0
Holmes

Re: Gun ownership.

Perhaps all the gun toting criminals in Chicago bought their guns in Vermont? Or just stole them.

A criminal is hardly going to use a gun which they bought and registered in their own name are they?

Having different rules on ownership in different states / cities doesn't work unless you have airport-style controls on all the borders - something that would be near impossible to implement.

However if handgun ownership were made illegal (or tightly controlled - e.g. they have to be stored at the gun club and only used there) nationwide then this reduces the available guns for the scum to steal and use illegally.

Gun Ownership is NOT a deterrent, if a burglar is in a neighbourhood where he knows 9/10 of the house owners are armed, he'll just arm himself and go in anyway, and the house owner is that much more likely to be killed.

In a country where there are (virtually) no guns, if a burglar is disturbed he will run. In a country with guns - he'll shoot first to make sure HE doesn't get shot - it's simple.

Take a look at the Firearm Related Death rate and compare the US to England / Wales. There's a reason for the rate being 10 Times higher in the US - and its the availability of weapons.

Having said all that it's pointless arguing the point - Americans are addicted to guns, and there's nothing anyone can do to reverse that - unless someone invents a star trek style stun gun (not a stupid 1-2 shot Tazer), THEN it will be interesting to see what excuse they can come up with to keep them.

21
4

Re: Gun ownership.

Agree chicago does have a LOT of gun related crime(and every other form), hell its so bad people getting shot don't even make the news anymore unless it was a white guy shooting a black teen(cause that's racism opposite isn't true)

Guess what those crimes are committed with unregistered guns illegally acquired(trust me I hear automatics being fired quite a bit at work). Getting guns illegally is not hard at all, and even if guns were flat out banned the illegal guns used in crimes would still be there solving nothing at all, and might actually make things worst seeing then they KNOW no one can defend themselves.

For the tree hugging hippies if you somehow magically remove every gun from the country the criminals will then go to tasers, knifes, etc... If you magically remove those,and ban them you all ways have broken glass, 2X4's with nails, lead pipes, baseball bats, ice picks, anything else you can pick up, bare hands, etc... So if someone REALLY REALLY wants to kill someone there is no way in hell to prevent it.

IMO Guns are not contributing at all to the crime problem its the idiotic politicians that have screwed the country, city, and state up to the point more, and more people are turning to a life of crime to survive.

4
8

Re: Gun ownership.

Switzerland, anyone? They all have guns, and it's not exactly the most dangerous warlike country in the world.

13
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Gun ownership.

Nope, that's Australia.

Religious folk got sent to the USA.

1
1
Thumb Down

Re: Guns, God, and rights

"Allowing the citizenry to maintain a respectable level of force provides a defense against substantial corruption and overreach on the part of the government. If needs be, when the government gets too uppity and controlling, it can always be replaced by force... again. Fortunately, it's been a long time since we've needed to replace a government by force in the USA, but allowing an armed populace provides that option if it's ever again needed."

And yet, strangely, when you look at the political landscape in this country you see that the folks who are most obsessed with having guns to help fight off Big Gummint are also the folks most keen on restricting other people's rights...'specially if those other people happen to be women, non-Christian, or (God help them) both.

If the day comes when the government does get serious about crushing the rights of the citizens, it will be the Guns 'n' God squad who are standing on the streets cheering, not fighting the government off.

11
1
Silver badge
Windows

Re: Gun ownership.

We don't need no steenkin' guns, we got treadmills!

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Gun ownership.

It isn't that most people are raging nutters, the problem is that the system allows the raging nutters easy access to guns and makes it difficult to distinguish the nutters from the non-nutters.

The question is whether I put my interest in having a gun ahead of the interest of those shot due to lack of gun controls. Given the homicidal tendencies of Americans, compared say, to Canadians, should I insist on my rights to hold a gun, knowing that others will die because of it? No-one is saying you shouldn't be able to go out and hunt for your dinner, but perhaps slowing the rate of fire by allowing only long bows wouldn't be such a bad idea.

4
2
Silver badge

@Kevin 6

"For the tree hugging hippies if you somehow magically remove every gun from the country the criminals will then go to tasers, knifes, etc... If you magically remove those,and ban them you all ways have broken glass, 2X4's with nails, lead pipes, baseball bats, ice picks, anything else you can pick up, bare hands, etc... So if someone REALLY REALLY wants to kill someone there is no way in hell to prevent it."

You tase someone, they will probably live. You shoot someone, they often die. Surprise: the one with the tasers but no guns has a lower murder rate.

So, it turns out you prove your opponent's point, but don't notice it.

12
2
Bronze badge
Holmes

Ever heard of the Civil War?

The Civil War was EXACTLY what they had in mind when they added the Second Amendment to the Constitution. In particular, the slave-owners of the South wanted to insure the federal government would not interfere in their precious States' Rights even after the other pro-slavery clauses of the Constitution had expired (in 1808).

Unfortunately for the Second Amendment, that great REPUBLICAN President Abe Lincoln decided he had to overrule the Second Amendment. Rather a bloody mess, what.

In retrospect, I think that perhaps the most amazing thing is that they did not repeal the Second Amendment de jure after they had the long war to overrule it de facto. In other words, they just kicked that question down the road. Now I find myself wondering whether repealing the Second Amendment might have been in Lincoln's plans if he hadn't been assassinated? Of course as of that time, they had never repealed any constitutional amendment, but merely two minor amendments before 1865...

I guess we should be grateful that the actual author of the Second Amendment didn't have enough imagination to anticipate future weapon systems. If he had, I'm rather confident he would have specified individuals should be allowed to own "all weapons invented in the future", too.

0
3

Re: Gun ownership.

It's probably not so much that there are more people in Chicago, but rather that there are more people per square mile..

2
0
Bronze badge
Mushroom

Switzerland

"They all have guns [...]"

Yes, as a part of "well-regulated militia". In a way, all able-bodied male Swiss are in the Army, but are on an extended leave, and keep the personal firearm at home.

Not exactly the same thing as the American gun mania...

I'm actually a big fan of the compulsory military service. When you are forced to play with guns and military manoeuvers in your youth, most sane people get enough of it, and have little desire to obsess about firearms later. The best pro-peace education there is! It's just too bad that country after country in Europe is dropping this tradition, in favour of all-professional armies. There will be consequences...

13
0
Anonymous Coward

@Drendar

How fortunate then that over half of the firearm related death rate is self inflicted. Seems a problem that solves itself.

0
1
Silver badge
Stop

Re: Ever heard of the Civil War?

Perhaps they should limit gun ownership only to those types in existence when the 2nd Amendment was written.

3
1
Thumb Down

Re: Gun ownership.

Tell that to the wife, relatives of the three people shot and killed by a nutter with a hit list here in the Vancouver area. The police gave him back the rifle after taking it away. While most of our recent years' spate of gun deaths have been drug gang related hits with illegal weapons, this one clearly was not.

0
0
Silver badge
FAIL

@Figgus

"Also, the legal gun owners are not the ones causing the problems. As usual, that little bit seems to get overlooked."

According to this article the truck driver is now facing charges of: "felony assault with a weapon and driving under the influence" but /NOT/ the illegal possession of a gun.

5
1
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Gun ownership.

>Allowing the citizenry to maintain a respectable level of force provides a defense against substantial corruption and overreach on the part of the government.

When does that start to take effect then?

4
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Gun ownership.

"Allowing the citizenry to maintain a respectable level of force provides a defense against substantial corruption and overreach on the part of the government."

Clearly, it doesn't. Or hasn't, rather.

The whole idea of the US population rising up to throw off a government is preposterous these days. Look at the levels your human rights have been torn to shred because a tiny sliver of people [AKA terrorists] took up arms against the US internally. The US gov would ruthlessly crush any would-be revolution with a mixture of harsh legislation, propaganda and overwhelming firepower. The idea of the right to bear arms being a viable way to express unhappiness with the government is outmoded in the extreme.

As to defence against invaders... well, that isn't honestly viable, either. Nobody is about to invade the US, and semi-automatic rifles don't really do much good against MBTs anyway. The US is essentially an island nation with a blue water navy that dwarfs any other. Any latter-day armada isn't going to reach the coastline.

I really don't see either of those reasons as worth the number of firearm-related deaths in the US each year. Maybe half of them or more would happen anyway; but that's still a steep cost in human lives, for no real reason.

If needs be, when the government gets too uppity and controlling, it can always be replaced by force... again. Fortunately, it's been a long time since we've needed to replace a government by force in the USA, but allowing an armed populace provides that option if it's ever again needed.

The second reason is far less meaningful when you already have a huge military and a militia to go with it. But, having an armed populace does allow a country to produce a modicum of defense against an invading country

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Gun ownership.

"Also, the legal gun owners are not the ones causing the problems. As usual, that little bit seems to get overlooked."

There wouldn't be as many illegal ones, if legal ones weren't so common, though. Most of the illegal firearms start out as legal ones. You're not even required to keep them under lock and key, or in a safe state.

I think also that the legal firearms owners *are* the problem when you look at accidental deaths.

I don't have a huge issue with firearm ownership. I have an issue with over-prevalent firearm ownership, overly-easy firearm access, and unsafe storage (especially with children in the home).

4
3
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: Gun ownership.

It's one of those cognitive bias thingies.

Handgun owners think they are safer because they own a gun "for protection", and fail to take into account that while it's so easy for them to own and carry a gun, it's also very easy for everyone else to also own and carry a gun.

They also apparently fail to take into account that old adage "shit happens", because more likely than not, the gun that they bought "for protection" will (a) be used by themselves to shoot at / kill someone they know (b) someone they know will use it to shoot at / kill them (c) accidentally shoot / kill either themselves or someone they know. The intended purpose, that of intimidating / shooting at any potential intruders or troublemakers comes way, way down on the list of ACTUAL, REAL-LIFE use of firearms purchased "for protection"

5
1

Re: Switzerland

If your suggestion is that we should train chavs to use guns more effectively your as nuts as a Yank.

0
3
Silver badge
Happy

Re: Gun ownership.

@Kevin6 - Homicide rates everywhere else in the Western world are lesser than the US by an order of magnitude. So either (a) what you're saying about gun ownership is totally not true, and having less guns DOES reduce violence or (b) as you say, it's not the weapons it's the people, but in this case that would mean that USAians are, by an order of magnitude, more violent, psycopathic and paranoid than people from other first-world countries.

Hmmm, come to think of it, maybe you're right it IS the people, not the guns!

5
0
Silver badge
Holmes

Re: Gun ownership.

Switzerland has a stratospherically hig gun ownership because they have military conscription, and all the conscripts get issued with a military weapon (small semiauto or auto rifle) which they then keep at home after the service has ended. So firearm ownership is extremely high BUT (a) only a tiny amount of these are hanguns that can be easily carried about and/or concealed on the person, and (b) the arms are owned by people who have had extensive training in their use, not just any numpty who can walk into a gun shop with a wad of cash

2
0
FAIL

Re: Gun ownership.

"I'm really not sure why you are so offended that an entire country full of people thousands of miles away from you has a different opinion on gun ownership."

The ENTIRE country has a different opinion? Really?

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.