because the 4 year old didn't have a gun to fight back.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...a8e4b08589ef49d060?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...a8e4b08589ef49d060?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063
That's pathetic. Who the hell does something like this out of road rage? And I'm assuming both drivers are guilty in escalating the matter - why are you driving like an idiot with your 4 year old in the car?
Nice job of bringing the "gun nut" debate to the forefront. They don't even know what kind of car the suspect was driving, let alone who it was, but you can determine that it's a "gun nut". Sad.
You obviously haven't seen the ball since the kickoff!!Person fires into moving car with kids in it = gun nut
Certain that he knew there was a kid in it?Person fires into moving car with kids in it = gun nut
Certain that he knew there was a kid in it?
That was the criteria I was just given for being a gun nut. Is there not a consensus amongst you people as to what a gun nut is?And that matters how?
Car was a dark red late model Toyota 4-door sedan, and suspect was described as darker 'white' perhaps hispanic male in his 20's to 30's. No word on the motive though.That's pathetic. Who the hell does something like this out of road rage? And I'm assuming both drivers are guilty in escalating the matter - why are you driving like an idiot with your 4 year old in the car?
Nice job of bringing the "gun nut" debate to the forefront. They don't even know what kind of car the suspect was driving, let alone who it was, but you can determine that it's a "gun nut". Sad.
And what, pray tell, does this have to do with an apparent case of road rage in which a 4 year-old girl is shot and killed?I know you Libs won't do it and it's a shame. But if you have Facebook or Twitter, follow a few pro gun groups. I.E. Iowa Gun Owners, NRA, etc. They post every day and even a couple times a day about a homeowner defending their property.
I dare you.
This made the news. Shooter must be white and a legal gun owner.
The four year old killed by random gunfire in Chicago doesn't deserve the same empathy apparently.
Certain that he knew there was a kid in it?
That was the criteria I was just given for being a gun nut. Is there not a consensus amongst you people as to what a gun nut is?
The obvious reason for these posts about how harmful guns are to society is to push an agenda that, let's be honest, is wrong. I've had plenty of conversations with people on here that think this type of accident occurs more often than people defending themselves with a gun.And what, pray tell, does this have to do with an apparent case of road rage in which a 4 year-old girl is shot and killed?
Unfortunately, anyone that owns a gun is a "gun nut" to you guys. If not, please specify otherwise.Are you seriously arguing against this a-hole being id'ed as a "gun nut"?
"From what we understand, the cars were both moving," Officer Simon Drobik told KOAT News. "One car pulled up next to the other car and started firing rounds into that vehicle."
Unfortunately, anyone that owns a gun is a "gun nut" to you guys. If not, please specify otherwise.
Unfortunately, anyone that owns a gun is a "gun nut" to you guys. If not, please specify otherwise.
Person fires into moving car with kids in it = gun nut
Correction, person firing into a car is a nut.
As for the 4 year old being present, I could argue said nut didn't know a child was in the vehicle.
Yes, I am.Are you seriously arguing against this a-hole being id'ed as a "gun nut"?
"From what we understand, the cars were both moving," Officer Simon Drobik told KOAT News. "One car pulled up next to the other car and started firing rounds into that vehicle."
Correction, person firing into a car is a nut.
As for the 4 year old being present, I could argue said nut didn't know a child was in the vehicle.
You're just being emotional and spouting common left verbiage now.Ummm...how about someone who pulls up beside another car on the highway and fires multiple rounds into a moving vehicle. I know gun nuts consider that "defending themselves" but the rational amongst the population would call that deranged behavior.
Feel free to "specify otherwise".
When saying the guy is a gun nut because of the fact he shot at a moving car with a kid in it?Because that matters?
Gun nut is like pornography.
I know it when I see it.
Another reason why I am no fan of anybody and everybody having guns all the time.
Stuff escalated and somebody loses their mind and starts shooting.
It will become more common everyday and nothing can stop it.
Um, you made the statement. Therefore, it's incumbent upon you to back it up with evidence.Unfortunately, anyone that owns a gun is a "gun nut" to you guys. If not, please specify otherwise.
Huh? To be honest, I think there are a few people that post here that might actually believe that sentiment. Or at the very least, want to believe it.So anyone that owns a gun would fire multiple rounds into another vehicle in a fit of road rage?
I think one could state with a degree of certainty that this is an "Incredibly stupid and reckless individual. A murderer who needs to be caught." AND, who may or may not be a gun nut.Yes, I am.
Incredibly stupid and reckless individual. A murderer who needs to be caught. But not everyone who owns a gun is a "gun nut".
Ok now I'm confused. I don't think but the tiniest percentage (.0000001%) of gun owners would consider that self defense. So either your statement is way off base or only .0000001% of gun owners are gun nuts. Which is it?Ummm...how about someone who pulls up beside another car on the highway and fires multiple rounds into a moving vehicle. I know gun nuts consider that "defending themselves" but the rational amongst the population would call that deranged behavior.
Feel free to "specify otherwise".
That's very reasonable and level headed. I wish more thought like that.I think one could state with a degree of certainty that this is an "Incredibly stupid and reckless individual. A murderer who needs to be caught." AND, who may or may not be a gun nut.
I think there are plenty of people who I would consider to be "gun-nuts" but they aren't murderers. And then there are people who have never owned a gun in their lives until one day decide to get one and commit some heinous crime, but wouldn't meet my personal definition of "gun-nut."
Oh, I have my moments of lucidity.That's very reasonable and level headed. I wish more thought like that.
Unfortunately, anyone that owns a gun is a "gun nut" to you guys. If not, please specify otherwise.
Don't we all?Oh, I have my moments of lucidity.
Same here. The point of the post wasn't from "our" perspective. It was for some of the lefties that loosely use the phrase.I own guns and by no means do I consider myself a gun nut.
I also support sensible gun control regulations and don't consider myself anti-guns.
Yes, I agree there appeared to be an agenda to the manner in which this was originally posted.Same here. The point of the post wasn't from "our" perspective. It was for some of the lefties that loosely use the phrase.
Make no mistake, I'm not saying he isn't a "gun nut". I'm saying that calling him one at the moment is (reasonably) impossible. Being a gun nut and committing crimes don't go hand in hand in my opinion. Someone can be a gun nut and have the record of a choir boy until the day they die. And vice versa.I think one could state with a degree of certainty that this is an "Incredibly stupid and reckless individual. A murderer who needs to be caught." AND, who may or may not be a gun nut.
I think there are plenty of people who I would consider to be "gun-nuts" but they aren't murderers. And then there are people who have never owned a gun in their lives until one day decide to get one and commit some heinous crime, but wouldn't meet my personal definition of "gun-nut."