I was wondering how long she could keep it up...

[Bruzilla]

You are coming up with alternative scenarios here. I made no mention of "sneaking up on someone", I was merely saying if you were to face someone with a variety of weapons noted in previous posts, a 12 guage might be a more formidable weapon to have to overcome than the others, if the opportunity exists, OK?

I was merely trying to nicely state that your smug scenario to 2A was invalid... in short it makes you look foolish. People who want to attack someone with a blunt object don't stand 20 feet away and give them time to react. I had to offer an alternative scenario because your's was... foolish. Your's was like saying "would you rather face a charging tiger or a charging box turtle", which is a foolish comparison as box turtles neither charge, attack, or eat meat. Same deal with comparing someone 20 feet away attacking you with a shotgun and someone attacking you with a frying pan.

I just wish that people who insist on offering their dos centavos worth on gun issues actually knew something about guns.

 

[vraiblonde]

Penn, I think the question for you is why assault with a firearm resulting in death, and not just any old kind of assault resulting in death? Why is the firearm a factor?

Just curious because shooting someone is rather impersonal but beating someone to death takes a special kind of lunatic.

 

[Sharon]

Sharon, it's true, which ever kind of object is used, yes indeed, dead is dead.
I can't argue that fact.

You're still missing the point.

Vrai got it.

beating someone to death takes a special kind of lunatic

 

[Bruzilla]

Just curious because shooting someone is rather impersonal but beating someone to death takes a special kind of lunatic.

Not so much lunacy, but there is motivation. In attacks where someone is merely killed in the quickest way possible, you're looking at stranger-on-stranger crime. Cases where the attacker goes to an extra effort to inflict damage on the victim, you're looking at someone who knew the victim. For example, looking at all the damage that was inflicted on Nicole Simpson it was damned obvious that someone with a lot of animosity attacked her. That didn't ever seem to be pushed very hard at the trial.

 

[vraiblonde]

Not so much lunacy, but there is motivation.

It's the level of anger involved. You don't have to be particularly juiced up to shoot someone - bang, big deal. But to beat someone to death indicates rage - there's a good bit of energy expended, you're probably going to have injuries yourself, even if it's just scraped knuckles.

I find that much more disturbing.

 

[Bruzilla]

Again, it's a level of effort thing. Basic criminals always use the lowest amount of effort needed. If their goal is to kill someone with a gun, they shoot them in the easiest way possible. If their goal is to send a message, they'll shoot them in a particular way. If they're wanting to inflict maximum "pay back", they'll shoot them multiple times, with several shots finding "sensitive" areas, i.e., the groin and breasts.

It's not really lunacy, just human nature.

 

[2ndAmendment]

just human nature.

Or inhumane nature.

 

[Larry Gude]

Uh...well...

it was damned obvious that someone with a lot of animosity attacked her

...any suspects?

 

[Penn]

I would like to apologize to anyone and everyone to whom I offended in my post, and subsequent replies about the issue of violent crimes involving the use of firearms.

It's not the red hits I received, but more to the point, I was wrong to associate the taking of a life in only that manner. Whatever weapon is used to extinguish a life is just as wrong as any other.