Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Gun owner against the SDA.
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow" data-source="post: 1011618" data-attributes="member: 7123"><p>The *appropriate* response is to (a) Sue the shooter for damages for his negligence / recklessness, and (b) for the DA to charge the shooter with a crime(s) commensurate with and appropriate for, the level of negligence displayed, and the degree of harm caused. In this case, something along the lines of criminal mischief & discharging a firearm in city limits. If the facts are as presented, this dipstick needs to cool his heels for about 90 days for extreme recklessness.</p><p></p><p>The appropriate response is NOT to begin opposing a sensible gun law which is also a constitutional right - the 'victim' here is almost as dumb as the shooter. And yep, dollars to donuts, this shooter was NOT a CCW holder.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow, post: 1011618, member: 7123"] The *appropriate* response is to (a) Sue the shooter for damages for his negligence / recklessness, and (b) for the DA to charge the shooter with a crime(s) commensurate with and appropriate for, the level of negligence displayed, and the degree of harm caused. In this case, something along the lines of criminal mischief & discharging a firearm in city limits. If the facts are as presented, this dipstick needs to cool his heels for about 90 days for extreme recklessness. The appropriate response is NOT to begin opposing a sensible gun law which is also a constitutional right - the 'victim' here is almost as dumb as the shooter. And yep, dollars to donuts, this shooter was NOT a CCW holder. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Gun owner against the SDA.
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom