Feeds

back to article Naked intruder cracks one off in Florida rampage drama

Doctors have attempted to determine just what mind-altering substance may have provoked a carnival worker to allegedly jump naked onto a Florida couple's roof, charge into the house, smash a TV, masturbate on the living room floor, defecate on the premises and drink the contents of a wet-dry vacuum cleaner before he finally …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Silver badge
Happy

Re: "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "

"..... I really miss the Lake district for fun rides though." I gave up on two wheels after giving myself gravel rash on Lake Road many years back. And yes, it was a dry day, no other traffic involved, and the Bluebird Cafe was packed out with people that caught my embarrassing, momentary lack of concentration ("patch of diesel, honest, not my fault", etc.). Doesn't make me any more accepting of people that have never rode insisting that motorbikes are dangerous and should be banned.

1
0
Silver badge
Stop

Re: @Psyx 12:23

"You seem deluded..our mentality showing through....big headed....your bias of dumb assumption. .."

Quit with the name calling, or at least have the fortitude of opinion to post non-Anon.

That aside... you've seemed to jump to the conclusion that I'm an anti-gun non-gun owner.

"You then turn camaraderie into a bad thing?

It is when it's used as a way to distance the herd from another and to invoke negative imagery and create hostility. Having a laugh with mates who support the same team is good. Shouting abuse at people because they don't support the same team is bad. Perhaps 'camaraderie' was a bad word, but creating a herd-mentality in order to cause friction is not a positive thing.

"I assume you..."

Don't assume you know what I think on other subjects based on a paragraph.

. "It's a rallying call of gun-owners to build a 'Us vs. Them' style mentality and camaraderie." is your mentality showing through. The gun owners call for protection of family and home. Self defence. Protection of the weak. If this is beyond you then so be it but you told Matt not to speak for others are thinking and yet you are just as big headed. You then turn camaraderie into a bad thing? I assume you apply this to all sports and other group related activities?

"The idea that all non firearm toting citizens want to hate gun-owners and take away all their toys is simple propaganda" is funny when you again speak for the minds of others. The loudest voices who oppose guns are rabid nuts and the general opposition in the UK is to absolute propaganda against the gun. People should be allowed to own or not own as they please within the law. The law should not be disarming victims so criminals can take over.

"I think you need to understand that there are extremes on both sides. "

I already do. Many non gun-owners view all gun-owners as NRA members who believe in automatic weapons all-round. Many gun-owners view all non-owners as hippies intent on ensuring they are all killed by burglars. It's the separation of viewpoints by extremists on each side that has led to a lack of willingness ot compromise.

" I point out that when I lived with my parents the guns were in my room and nobody elses. I was over 18 and a legally abiding, sensible gun owner."

So was that kid in the States.

If I chose to possess firearms for home defence, then they would be in my own room rather than anyone else's, be they teenager or toddler.

1
2
Silver badge

Re: Psyx @Matt Bryant

"Sorry, but you're waaaaaaay too late to hang that one on the gun-owners"

Umm, no chap. It's nothing new. It's a classic tactic for garnering support amongst moderates in any political or social situation. I'm not 'hanging' the invention of such tactics on anyone, merely saying that they are very much in use as part of the gun-control debate.

"When confronted with that type of unreasoning, non-evidence-based, almost religious belief, are you surprised gun-owners get defensive?"

And when confronted by people who own dozens of firearms and say things like "you can have my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands" or "I've got my guns so that when Obama's New World Order come to imprison me, I can fight for my family's freedom" can you see why a lot of non gun-owners get defensive?

[At least when the anti-gun lobby get on a paranoid and delusional froth they aren't armed with semi-automatics!]

There are extremes on either side, and painting any member of the opposing camp as an extremist gets the debate nowhere, and makes people not want to compromise.

1
3
Bronze badge
Thumb Up

@Rampant Spaniel 28th January 2013 13:13 GMT

> Not everyone who owns an Audi is a tit, I'm sure there are normal Audi owners who know how to use an indicator and don't tailgate you at 120mph.

Errm no you just can't say this .... they are all tits .... had enough run in's with Audi's

> Not everyone who owns a gun or supports the rights of others to do so is a loon :-)

I could be convinced.

3
2
Bronze badge

Re: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary

Odd, then, that "explanetory" isn't part of it.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "

@Titus,

No really, there are some of us 'in the middle', we just aren't as loud as the screamers at either end of the argument. Gun control is a seriously heated topic and it's the whack jobs at either end of the spectrum that screw it up.

I don't own a gun, I have previously and I have used one for work. I could own one now, I just don't feel the need.

I don't think a ban on guns is going to happen anytime soon. Nor is it appropriate to resist any attempt to curb some of the more lethal weapon and accessories. We won't stop all gun deaths, we need to reduce them and it needs to be done fairly. Banned guns need to be purchased by the govt (and not sent to Mexico) in an amnesty. Semi auto rifles, high capacity mags etc should be banned. Guns should be stored in locked safes when not in ue and inspections by the police need to happen to ensure this occurs. The police need better funding and we need to put some serious effort into reducing the causes of gun crime, better education and mental health care for a start. No one thing will stop the problem but that doesn't mean we should do nothing.

We also need to look at exceptions. The pro gun lobby showed off some footage from someones property down on the border with Mexico with drug runners armed to the teeth. Some poor sod had this in his back yard. Now if the police and army aren't stopping it, sure I'd take the land owners semi auto away. I'd also give him the keys to the loca National Guard armoury. That doesn't mean somebody in Utah who doesn't have a back yard full of well armed Mexicans needs semi automatic rifles. However, just like the abortion debate, the lot at either end of the spectrum won't compromise and just scream loudly at each other.

Please be assured, we aren't all mad! There may be as many as 7 of us capable of looking objectively at a situation :-)

Oh and as for having a gun pointed at me, the more recent situations were, riding the ninja through a town with a gang of (mostly) harley riders who took exception to the 'crotch rocket' in their town.

Another time I was drinking with a friend the night before a location shoot and stepped outside a bar to take a call, some locals got bent out of shape that I wasn't speaking English on the phone.

Another time I stopped for gas in the wrong part of town and my skin was the wrong colour for the local gang or whatever they were.

All 3 times in southern states. Shit happens.

4
1
Silver badge

Re: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary

There are three possibilities as to why Mrs. Land missed (with the gun she no doubt retrieved from the gun safe since few people carry guns in their own homes). Possibility number one is that she wasn't even trying to hurt the guy but was only trying to get his attention. Since the most common .38 in the US is a six shot revolver I find this likely. Had she missed she would have emptied the gun trying to hit him.

Possibility number two is that it was Mr. Lands gun and she only knew the basics of how to shoot it. Contrary to popular belief guns are hard to use, especially when there's something alive on the other end.

Which brings us to possibility number 3: that she knew how to use the gun and was trying to hit the intruder, but subconsciously couldn't make herself shoot a human being. "Gun owner" does not mean "psychopath".

As for the stand your ground laws, they do not allow murder. They allow for self defense, nothing else. The Trevon case was a pretty clear case of someone trying to claim self defense when they were likely the aggressor.

Also, despite what you seem to think, not everyone who owns a gun is eager to use it on another human being. I have a 12 gauge myself for exactly this sort of situation. I chose that gun specifically because the sound of a shotgun being pumped is very distinctive and sometimes enough to scare off an intruder without a shot being fired.

2
0
Silver badge
Happy

Re: Rampers Re: "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law

"..... Not everyone who owns an Audi is a tit, I'm sure there are normal Audi owners who know how to use an indicator and don't tailgate you at 120mph....." Ah, not just me that has noticed they've migrated from Bimmers then? Audi - Angry Unthinking Driver Inside.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: Dammit

Or at least 72" is what's going on the insurance claim...

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary)

Historically most South Florida homes have been built using CBS (Concrete-Block-Stucco) construction with a lot of steel bar reinforcement to tie the roof to the earth. Might be able to get through it with a 50 caliber.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: @Psyx

"Ummm... if you read my post, I did not call the wife a bad shot, but instead commended them NOT shooting the guy." You didnt but others have. You asked "I don't really see what the problem is with NOT killing people in response to trespass and being insane." and I was explaining how the fight against guns cannot let facts get in the way. I actually thought that was one of your more moderate and realistic posts.

Your comments of resolution are funny. When the nutter had no problem knocking the male occupant over and was obviously nuts enough to masturbate after being given warning shots it is clear that the pistol changed his mind about accessing the sons room and the shotgun subdued him for the police to arrive. Given to your walking out idea this guy could have been seriously harmed or caused serious harm because he was obviously not all there. Your solution would suggest that you want an easy time for criminals and believe it is right to encourage crime. Letting crimes happen oddly enough allow crime.

As we have confirmed before, you would take out any assailant just like chuck norris and expect we can all do that. What is the physical capabilities of this family? Are they at all disabled? Old? Unfit? Or are they superhuman? Your wider picture can be seen in the fairy tale land that criminals are not dangerous and if they are are so weak anyone can overpower them.

Simply it is funny to suggest the firearm didnt resolve this situation peacefully. Certainly takes a selective view to dream up.

As a result your last line is irrelevant. Without the firearms to control the situation without lethal force or further harm this could have been a very bad outcome.

1
3

Re: "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "

@ Matt

"I believe gun-owners should be licensed and be trained as part of the process, that is the one major addition I would make to US gun law. Proper training includes situational assessment before pulling the trigger. "

Oh, you mean like the CCW pistol permit? The license that pistol owners are required to obtain, through an extensive training course and background check?

Matt, we *already* have all these safeguards. The fact that the nutter in this case is still alive is due to this fact.

1
0
Bronze badge

@Rampant Spaniel - Monday 28th January 2013 14:46 GMT

Oh and as for having a gun pointed .. removed a bit .. my skin was the wrong colour for the local gang or whatever they were. All 3 times in southern states. Shit happens.

Ah those ‘Good Ole boys’ from the Southern States. Ya knows here in the UK it is hard for us to conceive anybody like the folks (in certain areas) of the Confe Southern states. I sort of understand having traveled a bit in Kentucky myself, and watched the Top Gear special road trip in the US of A (particularly the bit in Alabama).

That aside my thoughts on gun control are very much on the fence. I have spoken with at least one of the other 7 folks out you way capable of objectively arguing the case for gun ownership, but when I look at the statistics they tend to argue against.

Thinking about it I would guess the answer is probably to introduce more sensible gun ownership rules in the states that don’t yet have them? A license if you can prove you are responsible and sane, and have good reason to have a gun..... Difficult to imagine why a private home owner would need a military grade assault weapon however if you generate a reason.

Perhaps issue the licenses on a case by case basis onus, and costs entirely down to the gun owner ongoing?

0
4
Anonymous Coward

@Psyx 14:16

"Quit with the name calling, or at least have the fortitude of opinion to post non-Anon." I was not calling you names, I was directly analysing your comment. If you dont like it then dont do it. E.g. you complain at matt for speaking for others thoughts then you do it. And your comment suffered dumb assumptions I pointed out. And I will AC as I please thanks. Who are you to tell me when I should and shouldnt display my username?

I base my conclusion of you on your many comments over 3 topics on guns. Some of which you call me because I own guns and recognise their use in self defence.

I will agree that using herd mentality to guide any group to do bad is bad. But to assume that gun owners have a them vs us mentality is a dumb assumption, deluded and big headed to assume you know how a group of free individuals think. I would suggest your comments are more likely to cause the friction you mention.

"Don't assume you know what I think on other subjects based on a paragraph." yet you speak for all gun owners you know nothing about. I am still explaining how wrong your comment was.

"If I chose to possess firearms for home defence, then they would be in my own room rather than anyone else's, be they teenager or toddler." Which room is that? At which room may you need to defend yourself? What about security measures such as gun safes? Still not good enough? How about miles away with anti gun nutters guarding them with superhuman skills to beat up criminals? I say this after reading your views on extremists and lack of willingness to compromise.

First you must understand.

1
0
Silver badge
Meh

Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary)

Firstly, that is why a pistol for home defense is a bad idea; shotguns are best.

Secondly, three missed shots isn't bad. Most law enforcement shooting take place at 3 yards or less and often only end because both sides run out of ammunition. It is a lot harder to shoot and hit your target with a pistol than video games and TV would have you believe.

1
0
Meh

Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary)

Huh, Well I'm the average Canadian poster here, and I own several guns (like most of my neighbours), but here in our great land I would be jailed if I even thought about defending myself against a wayward masturbater. In fact I'd probably get a talking down from the CBC commenter for referencing him as riff-raff (aka minority).

2
0
Alert

Re: Dammit

Do we know the *brand* of the television in question?

0
0

Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary)

' ... shots, fired inside the home so no chance of them exiting through the walls'. Making culture-based assumptions here, Condiment.

You are probably thinking of a solid brick-built British home (where bullets bouncing around inside might be an issue if the plaster isn't thick). Many North American homes have walls consisting of two layers of chipboard with insulation between them, and plastic siding on the outside.

A .38 will go right through. Heck, you can do it with a nail-gun if you are not careful.

1
1
WTF?

Re: they have the goods but not the skills.

You are recommending legalising carrying guns based upon the quality of British driving!!!!!!!!!!!!! 20% of drivers seem to forget or ignore everything taught on lessons the second they leave the test centre. Another 30% are just useless. And now you want to give them guns as well . . . .

0
2
Silver badge
Stop

Re: Jim Booth Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ...

"..... How many bloody guns does a person need???...." Well, let's look at the options. For skeet/trap/clays I'd want a double barrel over-under shotgun though probably not a pump or auto shotgun; for TR/MR I'd want a bolt-action rifle in 7.62mm NATO; I don't shoot F-class as it's too expensive but that would be an even more powerful rifle; plus a .22 rifle for plinking; and for nostalgia I'd want an SLR. With the exception of the SLR the rest are perfectly legal in the UK, no hillbillies or rednecks involved. There are plenty of such collections in the UK, all perfectly legal. They are just sports equipment intended for different roles in the sport, just like someone that owns a set of golf clubs - do you insist golfers can only use one type of club or that having too many irons will mean a golfer is guaranteed to go mug someone with one? Gosh, I must be due a child-killing spree any day, right?

3
0
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: Psyx @Matt Bryant

"....And when confronted by people who own dozens of firearms and say things like "you can have my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands" or "I've got my guns so that when Obama's New World Order come to imprison me, I can fight for my family's freedom" can you see why a lot of non gun-owners get defensive?...." Sorry, chap, but I have never met a gun owner that has said anything like that. Even way off the beaten track in Texas, with people the anti-gun crowd would sneer at as "rednecks", there is more of a glum acceptance that if the anti-gun lobby win they will have to give up their weapons. There is no talk of "resisting", just a worry that if they don't make use of every legal recourse then the anti-gun lobby will out-maneuver them in court. What you forget is this is not a chicken-and-egg situation, the anti-gun crowd were the ones that started the confrontational approach.

".....At least when the anti-gun lobby get on a paranoid and delusional froth they aren't armed with semi-automatics!...." No, they're armed with lawyers and marketeers. The former will twist the law to make gun-ownership as problematic, limited or just expensive as possible, and the latter will take any anti-gun instance and hype it beyond belief (Sandy Hook, Columbine, etc.), carefully ignoring the actual problem people involved.

2
0

it angle?

Fine story, but I'm not sure what the IT angle is.

0
2
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Re: "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "

".....you mean like the CCW pistol permit?...." Yes, but IIRC it is not a uniform requirement across America, with differing laws in many States. I would suggest a Federal law setting a minimum training requirement. After all, kids have to do driver ed before they go on the roads, the same should go for firearms, and it wouldn't breach the Second Amendment. I have yet to meet a shooter that didn't think it was a sensible idea, it was just some in the US that were worried that the anti-gun lobby would make the training and certification process so arduous and expensive as to kill the sport that way.

0
2
Silver badge
WTF?

Re: @Psyx

"it is clear that the pistol changed his mind about accessing the sons room and the shotgun subdued him for the police to arrive."

No: It's not. Firing the pistol caused him to masturbate frantically and far from subduing him... "Officers arrived to find the suspect "flailing around on the floor and not making any sense". After he "sucked the water from the spilled vacuum into his mouth and spat it back out", he made several attempts to escape and was tasered into submission."

So: No. He was not subdued by the firearms. He was subdued by a taser. I think perception bias is perhaps making you take from the text what you want to see, rather than what is there.

"Given to your walking out idea this guy could have been seriously harmed or caused serious harm because he was obviously not all there."

It's probably safer than having him within 6 feet of a loaded firearm, and if he does come to harm, it's then not any of my business.

"Your solution would suggest that you want an easy time for criminals and believe it is right to encourage crime. Letting crimes happen oddly enough allow crime."

This guy was not a 'criminal'. He was clearly temporarily insane, which caused him to commit a crime. That's not 'a criminal'.

"As we have confirmed before, you would take out any assailant just like chuck norris and expect we can all do that."

You seem to have this serious issue with the fact that other people feel that they can avoid crime without needing to blow fucking big holes in other people. Why is that?

You are unwilling to spend at least a few hours learning how to reduce the risk of crime to yourself and a few hundred quid on a security system, but you want to be able to spend money on a lethal weapon and expect to use that as some kind of equaliser without spending at least as much time learning how to safely use it as it would take to learn how to diffuse or avoid situations which require you to use a lethal weapon? That's wild west logic: You've fixated on the gun as the solution to the problem, instead of thinking of OTHER solutions.

"Simply it is funny to suggest the firearm didnt resolve this situation peacefully. Certainly takes a selective view to dream up."

No it's not. Don't be absurd and accuse me of being selective when you even ignored what the police are quoted as saying. How would walking out the back door have been worse? How would threatening with a cricket bat been worse? From WHAT THE WORDS IN THE ARTICLE ACTUALLY SAY rather than what you want them to say, it is not in any way clear that the firearms 'solved' the problem. Please show me where you believe it says they did and where the home-owners had no option but recourse to pulling out firearms.

"Without the firearms to control the situation without lethal force or further harm this could have been a very bad outcome."

Yes, the naked, unarmed, non-violent man could have wanked himself to death or something. Terrible. I really don't know how I'll sleep tonight without a couple of firearms in another room of my home.

1
3
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Re: "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "

"Shit happens."

I think the point is that shit *doesn't have to* happen, and that it'd be nicer to live in a world where people didn't have the option of pointing lethal weapons at each other for owning the incorrect model of motorcycle.

That said, 100% agreement with your post. Well said and my own views and experiences are very similar.

0
1
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Re: @Rampant Spaniel - Monday 28th January 2013 14:46 GMT

".....Ah those ‘Good Ole boys’ from the Southern States. Ya knows here in the UK it is hard for us to conceive anybody like the folks (in certain areas) of the Confe Southern states. I sort of understand having traveled a bit in Kentucky myself, and watched the Top Gear special road trip in the US of A (particularly the bit in Alabama)....." Having traveled the South, especially Texas, Florida and Georgia, I'd have to say I not only felt more welcome but also safer than in many of the Eastern cities, especially New York. The high gun-crime rates of Washington DC and Chicago would seem to underline the South is not some haven of bible-thumping, gun-wielding psycopaths, that in fact the problem is more centred on "civilised" areas.

2
1

Re: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary

Before you mock 'missing with three shots', how about trying out at a pistol range. I think you will find out it is a bit harder than it looks - even for some people who trained for years*. Its not like in the Westerns you know.

Then throw in a crazed naked freak going ape in your house and I will guarantee you will also miss.

* I know someone who was trained to shoot every year for 20 years and never passed his test. We even tried moving the target closer and closer to him. He got so frustrated at missing he threw the gun at the target....and hit it.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: @Psyx 14:16

"Who are you to tell me when I should and shouldnt display my username?"

The name's at the side of the post.

"But to assume that gun owners have a them vs us mentality is a dumb assumption, deluded and big headed to assume you know how a group of free individuals think. I would suggest your comments are more likely to cause the friction you mention."

Because a lot of US do.

"Which room is that? At which room may you need to defend yourself? What about security measures such as gun safes?"

*If* I were keeping a firearm for home defence it'd be in the bedroom (where I'd be if my home was being invaded, in all likelihood. If I were still awake I'd be on the ground floor and could simply LEAVE through the other door). In a concealed gun safe next to my bed, where it is secure and not going to be accidentally used or stolen, thus putting another firearm in criminal hands. All firearms belong in gun safes.

Gun safes are only a security measure for the gun though. For the price of one and a firearm I could instead install a security system which would alert me to danger and a rope ladder to escape it.

1
2
Silver badge
Devil

Re: Mark 110 Re: they have the goods but not the skills.

"You are recommending legalising carrying guns based upon the quality of British driving.....And now you want to give them guns as well. . . . " Sorry if someone forgot to tell you, but there are actually plenty of shooters in the UK (http://www.nra.org.uk/). That car next to yours on the road may be being driven by one, they might be returning from a day at the range and be loaded up with shotguns and high-powered rifles. If you're an Audi driver you might want to think about that before you tailgate. :P

1
2
Silver badge
Holmes

Re: Psyx @Matt Bryant

"Sorry, chap, but I have never met a gun owner that has said anything like that."

...Apart from Charleton Heston, obviously.

If you type the quote into Google and find it on forums, just see how many 'right ons!' it gets. Likewise as regards the fringe "I'm waiting for it to all go to hell and then I will FIGHT for my freedom" camp, I implore you to just spend 5 minutes in the name of widening your horizons looking for these people on Google. They are genuinely fucking terrifying and precisely the people who seem too mentally unstable to be owning .50 BMG rifles.

And yes: There are people who want all guns banned regardless of use banned too.

"the anti-gun crowd were the ones that started the confrontational approach."

Well...yeah, because the gun-lobby had it all their own way. That's a little like saying "It was the abolitionists who started the confrontational approach... [because up until then, we were allowed slaves and there was no confrontation]"

"No, they're armed with lawyers and marketeers."

As opposed to the NRA, who aren't? Plus the enormous gun lobby and a lot of fire-arm manufacturers with vested financial interests? Hell: There aren't even many figures on the effects of gun-crime because the NRA prevented the CDC from gathering them in case it opposed their view.

C'mon: Please don't even TRY to go down the route that the anti-gun movement is being all nasty and using lawyers and PR, while all the gun-owners have is their steely pioneering spirit. Ultimately the pro-gun lobby has more money to throw around than the anti-gun crowd.

2
2

Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary)

You forget how flimsy American homes can be, a .38 could go right through the wall, a shot gun is a better idea, as long as your not using too big of a shot size......

0
1
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: Psyx Re: @Psyx

".....and a few hundred quid on a security system...." See, it's just like I said - all their own fault for not having twenty-foot walls, steel doors and bars on the windows. Oh, and an alarm system. Every home should have a naked-drugged-up-guy-on-your-roof alarm. Duh!

"....This guy was not a 'criminal'. He was clearly temporarily insane, which caused him to commit a crime. That's not 'a criminal'....." Sorry, he's still a criminal if he commits a crime, even if he pleads diminished responsibility.

"......Yes, the naked, unarmed, non-violent man could have wanked himself to death or something....." You could argue that he did not intend to commit a crime or was unlikely to have wanted to hurt anyone, but how would you know that if it was some naked stranger going berserk in your home? After all, as this incident shows (http://deadspin.com/5549389/mushroom-tea-murder-man-removes-friends-still+beating-heart), drugs make even sane and ordinary people unpredictable and potentially very dangerous. Whilst this case happily turned out to be more comic than tragic, what if he had injured Mr Land when he jumped off the roof, would Mrs Land then have been more likely to shoot to kill if her husband had been unable to help her? Could you guarantee that Bruni could not have turned violent and raped Mrs Land seeing as he obviously had a sexual urge he could not control?

1
4
Silver badge
Thumb Down

Re: Psyx @Matt Bryant

"....Apart from Charleton Heston, obviously...." Except I never met Heston. Or anyone like him. And it's not like I traveled America blindfolded, I went to ranges and talked to shooters in many States. You are simply quoting the extreme and trying to pass it off as mainstream.

"....Please don't even TRY to go down the route that the anti-gun movement is being all nasty and using lawyers and PR, while all the gun-owners have is their steely pioneering spirit....." I'm not, I'm simply pointing out that the anti-gun lobby went there first. WRT to the Charlton Heston comment, I have met several Yanks that have insisted they HAVE to repeal the Second Amendment, just to outlaw guns. These people were very nice, very civilised and educated, but hadn't a clue about guns or gun-owners. They were simply shocked when I said I shot regularly in the UK, almost like they thought they had "wiped out the disease" in the UK. So, sorry, but going on my experience you are much more likely to run into anti-gun extremists than pro-gun ones.

1
3
Bronze badge
Thumb Up

Re: @Matt Bryant 17:35

I can't disagree with you Matt I too remember a warm welcome from folks in the Southern States. My comment is partly based on a couple of trips one into one of the not so good areas in Cincinnati, and a drive in Kentucky.

I guess the visit to Cincinnati could be put down to it being one of the more central "civilized" areas. The drive in Kentucky may have just been prejudice in that I drove up a minor hill north of Frankfort, driving along thinking this is just like the Walton's, then getting a little further up the road. The road by now was getting pretty narrow and looking in around I though nah this is more 'deliverance' than the Walton's.

The phrase 'Good Ole Boys' as was explained to me by folks (the welcoming ones etc) it could have a couple of meanings, one being essentially defined as red neck folks in pick up, shot gun rack and being driven errm like an AUDI. These being folks that were well worth avoiding.

1
0
Silver badge
Mushroom

Re: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary

"Breaking into a home" is the sort of thing that NEVER required any sort of "stand your ground" law.

Burglary is already considered a violent crime under common law.

The old "your home is your castle" thing applies.

Apparently, wherever you come from you are expected allow lunatics to run free in your home and to menace your loved ones.

3
1
Happy

Re: "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "

Typical lovely liberal attack with no empirical evidence to back it up. Evil white people murdering minorities with impunity. Unfortunately, actual crime statistics don't back up that assertion. Although only comprising 12% of the population, from 1980 to 2008, blacks accounted for 56.9% of all homicides, or broken down demographically:

"Blacks were disproportionately represented as both homicide

victims and offenders. The victimization rate for blacks (27.8

per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per

100,000). The offending rate for blacks (34.4 per 100,000) was almost

8 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000)" -U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics November 2011, NCJ 236018

Sorry lefties, Trayvon was the exception, not the rule. Where the victim/offender rate is identical for whites, 4.5 per 100,000. For blacks, the victimization rate (while appalling), 27.8 per 100,000, is significantly lower than the offending rate, 34.4 per 100,000. They are victims at a lower rate than they are offenders. I know. Sometimes facts suck.

3
0
Silver badge
Linux

Re: @Psyx

Yeah... "no direct physical threat to others". He was just running around like a nut doing insane things and running into people's houses.

No "threat" at all.

As far as "what's the point goes":

A dead burglar discourages the other idiots.

A dead burglar also helps mend your own family, helps them sleep at night, and allows them to feel safe in their own home.

It works for the neighbors too. It feels reassuring after some burglar gets mauled by someone's dog. It helps make a high crime zone feels a little less dangerous.

4
1
IT Angle

Re: Dammit

If it were, one would expect the units to be linguine, not inches. I fear you'll have to look elsewhere for the tech aspect.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "

I would suggest a Federal law setting a minimum training requirement.

Constitutionally speaking the Federal government has no authority to make such a law, just as they have no authority to dictate requirements for a driver's license. Realistically speaking most gun owners are well versed in gun safety even without any laws requiring it. Not all, certainly, but then not all (or, I would say, even most) licensed drivers can safely handle a car either. I would guess that there are proportionally more gun owners who handle their weapons safely than drivers who handle their cars safely. Statistics would certainly back that up, given how many more fatal car accidents there are each year than accidental shootings.

3
0
Childcatcher

Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary)

Last year a woman was jailed for 20 years for firing a warning shot into a wall in here own home. So for three shots this woman should get sixty years. The home invader will get a warning and be told to go back to his day job writing policy documents for the NRA.

0
2
Devil

Re: @Jake

Welcome to Florida, my home.

0
0
Bronze badge
Happy

Re: @Psyx

@Psyx: "This could equally have been resolved by the home-owners walking out of their back door..."

Fantasy Island! YES!!!

Oh here we go...everybody pretend we live in an alternate universe and pretend things work out exactly the way you _ASSUME_!. Let's leave reality behind, paying no attention to the fact it worked out beautifully there. No, everybody hit the fantasy train and pretend about things. All your assumtions will come true!

Come on Psyx, we'll let you play Captain! You can put all your bullshit to life!

1
1
Silver badge

Re: "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "

Sisk is entirely correct. The states created the federal government and devolved limited powers to it. There are many areas where the federal government has no power whatsoever beyond being able to bribe states (like forcing states to adopt a speed limit or face the federal government not providing funding for highways). This is largely at odds to what most of us know from lives in constitutional monarchies and similar. I'm not sure it is any better or worse, just making a clarification for those of us who would assume the federal government largely had carte blanche. This is no small way contributed to the local motorcycle licence test being a 30 question multiple choice test and a quick wobble around some cones. Forget all the simulations cbt \ das etc in the UK. After proving you can ride a scooter around a cone you are entitled to ride a pangiale or a zx14. Not that any locals can pronounce pangiale :) Apparently it's pan-e-gail.

As for banning cars for causing more deaths, you'd need to look at the number of people who own a car or a gun and how often they use each. Roughly there are more guns than cars, but more car owners than gun owners. I really would not like to try and figure out but I would love to see harder road tests and harsher punishments for drunk driving. A friends wife was recently killed by a drunk driver in a truck (no licence, drunk, crossed the centerline whilst using his cellphone), the driver was out of prison before the wifes passenger was out of hospital. Apparently it's ok because he was sorry and he was just driving home from the bar which is a well known situation when it's ok to drive pissed.

2
0
Devil

Re: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary

As an 'Merican' (and Texan at that) I'd say you're spot on. Do also note that Fark.com has an entire category for weird news simply labelled "Florida".

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary)

Except the average American house is made out of paper and so bullets would easily have been able to find their way outside into an innocent bystander.

I would check the TV for bullet holes.

0
3
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Psyx @Matt Bryant

"You are simply quoting the extreme and trying to pass it off as mainstream."

Don't talk balls Matt: I specifically SAID it was an extremist view. I'm *specifically* saying it's an extremist view FFS.

"I'm not, I'm simply pointing out that the anti-gun lobby went there first."

And I said: Of course they were confrontational first, because the gun lobby had all their own way. Another example: You have ten apples, I have none. According to you the moment I say "I want a goddam apple" then I'm somehow wrong for "being confrontational first".

1
1
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Psyx @Psyx

"See, it's just like I said - all their own fault for not having twenty-foot walls, steel doors and bars on the windows."

It's not as you said at all Matt.

But apparently we live in a world where it is reasonable for you to believe that we should go out and buy firearms to protect ourselves, but it is totally reasonable for people to buy security systems instead. Apparently somehow that's 'hiding' and somehow too passive for you, and you want a lethal option instead.

You honestly believe that a deterrent and fair warning of intrusion is a worse way to spend the money than a lethal weapon? You are that willing to force a confrontation with a lethal weapon when it can be avoided?

"Sorry, he's still a criminal if he commits a crime, even if he pleads diminished responsibility."

"Whilst this case happily turned out to be more comic than tragic, what if he had injured Mr Land when he jumped off the roof, would Mrs Land then have been more likely to shoot to kill if her husband had been unable to help her? Could you guarantee that Bruni could not have turned violent and raped Mrs Land seeing as he obviously had a sexual urge he could not control?"

So many what if's, Matt. What if those three bullets struck someone in the next house? What if the guy shot a guy stone dead who'd had a his drink unwittingly spiked? We can make 'what if' situations up all day, but let's just stay with the facts. And the facts are that firearms did not 'solve' the problem.

As I said: I'd have been sat around my neighbour's house with a cup of tea waiting for the police to arrive and having a bit of a laugh about it, not waving a firearm at a nut-case and putting myself in the situation where I might need to kill someone who had the misfortune to have taken leave of his senses. If that somehow in your mind makes me less of a 'man' than you, then you seriously need to take a look at your stance towards violence and firearms.

1
2
Silver badge
Meh

Re: @Psyx

"Fantasy Island! YES!!!"

Haven't you got a back door?

Your fantasy island is where someone (potentially with a firearm) breaks into your house, you whip out your firearm and heroically apprehend them until the police arrive. It all goes perfectly to plan. Either nobody gets hurt, or you take down one or more armed assailants with leet skills and a handy piece of steel.

Mine is where I get the fuck out through a window that's a yard from my bed, and I let the people being paid for it sort it out.

Which is the bigger fantasy, really? Who is making the most assumptions? And who is making a TON of assumptions and triggering a potentially lethal confrontation. I'm making only one: That I have time to get out of a window after hearing an intruder break into my home.

2
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: Uh, JaitcH (was: Americans use such self-explanetory language ... once you learn the vocabulary)

@AC Nobody said this was an "average American house". There are 115 million households in the US, which comprise properties made with all kinds of various materials, just like anywhere else.

@ sisk "statistics" : You would have to compare the ratio of gun crimes to gun owners against the ratio of vehicle accident deaths to vehicle drivers - not the absolute numbers - in order for it to have any remotely relevant meaning at all.

Further, it would probably be valuable to consider the relative proportion of incidents that were in fact accidents and the concept of fault in road collisions. To me it would seem easier to make a mistake and accidentally crash a car than it would be to accidentally take a gun from a safe and fire it at someone. Someone who is involved in a minor altercation on the road isn't automatically deemed unsafe or irresponsible.

0
0
Silver badge
Thumb Down

Re: "a little more careful murdering people under the Stand Your Ground law "

"Apparently it's ok because he was sorry and he was just driving home from the bar which is a well known situation when it's ok to drive pissed."

Which frankly sucks.

"This is no small way contributed to the local motorcycle licence test..."

Which is - I think we can all degree - likely to cause people to get killed. I'm not trying to strip people of all their toys nor suggesting that. But for a start, how about we just legislate and license firearms at least as well as we legislate vehicles (in the UK). That way people who -drawing a parallel - who get drunk with a gun and shoot it in the air 'for fun' aren't allowed to play with them any more.

1
1

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.