Yet another of the NRA’s “responsible gun owners” managed to be “responsible” for shooting people after he “accidentally” dropped his weapon in a Cracker Barrel restaurant in Florida. Though some in America advocate for unrestrained, unregulated gun ownership, a restaurant patron who was in fully legal possession of his weapon demonstrated that our current laws do not go far enough to protect Americans from God’s chosen army of ammosexuals.
As he struggled with the complicated process of paying for his food, someone who is either too stupid to properly holster his weapon, too careless to worry about the safety of others, or both, encountered some difficulty with gun safety at the Hickman Drive location of Cracker Barrel in Sanford, Florida — specifically, that he completely lacked it.
The Palm Beach Post reports that as William Hoback was headed toward the register to pay for his dinner, his gun fell and fired a single shot into a kettle. Bullet fragments hit three people, including the “responsible gun owner’s” fiance and a restaurant manager. A third victim was cut so badly by the shrapnel that he had to be taken to Central Florida Regional Hospital for treatment. The customer says he was eating his breakfast when he heard a loud bang, had some lead added to his diet, and felt a sharp burning in his shin.
Hoback apologized to the man, and deputies agreed that “I’m sorry” cancels out placing lives at risk, so everyone is happy. Seminole County Sheriff’s spokeswoman Kristen Bentsen says that the injury was not life-threatening, and the gun was purchased and carried legally. She confirmed that no charges are expected to be filed against the shooter.
“This shooting doesn’t appear to be intentional and the conduct doesn’t appear to be so reckless that it would support the charge of criminal negligence,” legal analyst Bill Sheaffer said, though he noted that the victims could file a civil lawsuit.
Cracker Barrel didn’t respond when asked if the company allows guns though it probably should make an official statement now that one of the NRA’s chosen elite has harmed three people in one of its restaurants with his “responsibleness” — or, at minimum, consider taking all those guns off the wall.
Featured Image via TripAdvisor
This is why the firearms owner insurance needs to be a thing. Had the man lost control of his car in the parking lot and hit three people, his mandatory liability insurance would be paying the medical damages and lost wages to those he hit. Who paid for that trip to the hospital? Oh, right, the person who went into their day simply planning on eating breakfast. Even with medical insurance, a trip to the emergency room can be costly.
This idiot who can’t function without his gun, should bear all costs.
William Hoback should be sued for lost wages, hospital bills, & pain & suffering! Any idiot who carries in public & doesn’t have a trigger lock on their gun should be sued if they hurt or kill someone, period. And GUN INSURANCE is a great idea, but it would be so HIGH, no one could afford it!
I’m not so sure. For the sake of simplified math - let’s average out the cost of gun insurance to $10/mo per gun. $120 x 300,000,000 guns = $36,000,000,000. 36 Billion per year would probably be able enough to cover the collateral damages from the USA’s hoplophilia. It’s certainly $36b more than the ZERO that’s in place now to cover it.
It was recklessness to have his gun improperly secured such that it fell And fired! Shame on the police for not pressing charges of reckless conduct and shame on Cracker Barrel for not insisting on charges being filed. Same goes for the customers — why didn’t they press charges? What if someone had been permanently injured or killed — would charges been filed in these cases? Just flat out dumb all the way around.
I see no criminal intent, but how is this not negligent? The gun should have been securely holstered with the safety lock engaged.
If I don’t mean to run over you and your baby, I’ll still go to jail.
Not necessarily.
Now THAT was a vapid comment.
Knee jerk reaction. The keyboard equivalent of men instinctively covering their balls.
wtf ever
yes pretty much.
Not if it was a mistake and everything is legal. ..thank God you’re a nobody and not an officer or something lol….
It’s a good thing the people who were hit weren’t minorities. Otherwise the cops would have arrested THEM!
you mean arrested the victims?
Tell that to all the people who are legally driving cars but get in accidents. That doesn’t stop them for getting tickets for causing the “mistake”. Not having a deadly weapon safely holstered, is not a mistake. That is stupidity and should have some consequences. I hope he gets sued. That will teach him a lesson. He could have killed someone. And that is not a lol.
He said Arrested. .not receiving tickets
Exactly!, there should be fines, fees and he should be responsible for the medical treatment. Perhaps even going to a gun safety class, with the removal of said gun until classes are complete with a certificate. This is not responsible gun ownership. Just because you can conceal and carry doesn’t mean you should. Restrictions, licensing, classes, and tests. Then insurance, for who want to own a gun, and or carry; regardless of where it’s purchased, gun shows or on line.
The mentality that you share with millions in this country couldn’t have anything to do with the current (over the top and growing) level of taxes, fines, fees and regulations that we now see in this country… could it? Hopefully you’re not also one of those that complains when we lose jobs to other countries without such burdens.
Maybe you should READ our Constitution, it says that CORPORATE taxes are what should fund the government, not PERSONAL WAGES!!! Our current tax code is a mess in that the WEALTHY CORPORATIONS get more in SUBSIDIES FROM THE GOVERNMENT THAN WHAT THEY PAY IN TAXES & STILL COMPLAIN that their worker’s wages are too high when wages haven’t kept up with the cost of living for 30 YEARS!!! & then they move our jobs out of the US as REVENGE when they don’t their crybaby way, just like Repugs shut the government down when they don’t get their crybaby way! I think any US company that does that should be charged TRIPLE tarrifs to bring their products back into this country than it would have cost them to just stay here & pay their FAIR SHARE in the first dam place! That’ll put a stop to that crap!
First, if you think the dems are any better than the “Repugs”, then you may be too far gone. Neither party cares about the middle class and both are guilty of whoring themselves out to the highest bidding corporations (primarily banking, oil, and healthcare). The tax and compliance burdens in this nation seem to fall hardest on small businesses that are unable to afford the extra two or three salaries that would be required to manage these ridiculous regulations. (Think EPA - great idea right?, but why are nations like China that aren’t even held to a reasonable standard allowed to compete with companies at home that are?) Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not for out of control corporations any more than I’m for out of control government. Actually, I think that they are often synonymous with one another. What I am for is a strong, healthy, and unified America that we will be proud to pass down to future generations. Those that came before us fought hard to preserve this great nation, and so should we.
Ryan, I hope you looking at Bernie, FEEL DA BERN!
He should be carrying a better quality gun.
No. He should be carrying a better quality brain.
yawn … the butthurt is strong with this one … guns aren’t supposed to go off when dropped, there was clearly something wrong with his weapon. THIS is a time in which a gun manufacturer should perhaps be held liable. Try getting your facts straight libbys.
Except that’s not true. Hammer blocks and transfer safetys fail. A lot. Especially pre-1980’s models. The best American manufacturers Colt, S&W, Ruger, etc. didn’t take this seriously until then and even now many models are not 100% drop safe. Asian manufacturers often don’t have any true positive safety method.
Saying they aren’t “supposed” to go off shows a major misunderstanding of how safety devices work and have evolved.
The type/model/brand of gun isn’t even mentioned, so how would anyone reading this have any clue as to whether the gun “should have” gone off or not?
The point is that it did. No one here is butthurt but three people were legitimately hurt. “Yawn” is the reason this is allowed to happen over and over in this country.
Asian gun manufacturers?!?!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
It’s a well known fact that modern firearms are all but drop-proof. They are NOT supposed to go off, no matter how much you spout about antique firearms from overseas. You DO realize that firearm manufacturers offer updates to their guns in much the same way that automobile manufacturers do recalls, right? I had a new hammer block installed on my old Ruger Blackhawk free of charge as part of one of these updates about 10 years ago.
However, I suppose if this guy were carrying a 1940s era Nambu, you might have a point. LOL
This was simply an accident, an unforeseeable accident that should have prevented by modern safety technology. You libturds can’t sink any lower, can you? Why aren’t you also talking about all the lives that are saved by legal gun owners every day in this country?
http://gunssavelives.Net/self-defense
Of course it was an accident. No one has said otherwise. I just think that if you accidentally drop something you’re carrying it shouldn’t be capable of injuring 3 people (or worse). And no, I wouldn’t “sink lower” to a level where I might make personal attacks and call people names.
Well good, at least you’re dropping your ridiculous “antique Asian firearms” baloney. And yes, we get it, you hate concealed carry, open carry, and any other law that allows regular people to be armed in public. As soon as we figure out a way to ensure that the criminals will be disarmed in public, or perhaps that the police are everywhere at all times, then maybe this position will make more sense.
And no, I wouldn’t “sink lower” to a level where I might make personal attacks and call people names.
Oh really? How about you tell that to the liberal hacks that run this site. Have you even read the above article?? Check out the name-calling that they are always doing. They can never run a gun-related article without using the term “ammosexual” or referring to anyone that does something inappropriate with a gun as a “NRA elite.” Gawd, hypocrite much??
Pretty hard to drop an argument I never made… That’s all in your imagination. You also have no idea what my stance on any gun issue is.
And no, I rarely visit this site and certainly don’t run it so “hypocrite” hardly applies. (More name calling… Classy)
Pretty hard to drop an argument I never made
Oh really? So just WHAT did you mean by: “Hammer blocks and transfer safetys fail. A lot. Especially pre-1980’s models […] Asian manufacturers often don’t have any true positive safety method”???
Why are you talking about old guns and guns from Asia then?
As long as you fail call this hate site out on their vitriol instead of showing tacit agreement by criticizing me for calling them out on their BS, you are acting like a hypocrite.
We’ll see whose butthurt when/if (god forbid) some idiot drops their gun in a restaurant and one of your loved ones is shot in the head.
He offered reasons why they might fail. He didn’t say that WAS the case. Either way, keeping a round chambered is retarded. Its that simple.
Soon as you put a round in the chamber, there is no such thing as ‘drop-safe’, its that simple.
He offered entirely ridiculous reasons that showed just how far he had to reach to “prove” his silly point. Asian firearms?? Seriously??
Drop-safe depends on the weapon, some safer than others, but carrying without a round in the chamber is not smart. The much better approach is to make sure you have a good quality holster.
You really might want to try and read what he said instead of trying to put up strawmen. He never said it was an asian gun, he just said that they are even more vulnerable to firing when dropped with a round chambered.
All he said is that some guns like those of Asian make are more liable to go off when dropped with a round chambered. You’ve admitted it is possible with any gun.
There is no such thing as a ‘drop-safe’ gun, no matter how modern it is. Carrying a round in the chamber is retarded any-time you aren’t literally in the middle of combat. Its that simple.
No, you are just claiming that to set-up a straw-man argument. All he said was some guns are more vulnerable to it than others and gave examples of guns that are. He wasn’t trying to ‘prove’ anything.
If anything your response is what truly proves his point. You should never ever treat a gun as ‘drop-safe’.
Stop trying to use a logical fallacy to try and support your BS.
Yea, he gave ridiculous and extremely unlikely examples, showing just how far he had to reach to try and prove his point.
No one treats guns as “drop proof,” but this doesn’t change the fact that modern firearms are NOT supposed to go off when dropped.
No he didn’t. Stop talking BS, he just pointed out that some guns where even more vulnerable to this than you might expect.
Again you are setting up a straw-man because it suits your point of view. He was simply replying to this “guns aren’t supposed to go off when dropped, there was clearly something wrong with his weapon. THIS is a time in which a gun manufacturer should perhaps be held liable.”
Which as we pointed out several times is complete BS as every gun sold since about the 60s comes with a warning that the gun is NOT drop safe (In part so you CAN’T sue the gun company if you do something really stupid like carrying it with a round in the chamber)
If you are carrying a round in the chamber then you ARE effectively treating your gun as ‘drop-safe’ or you simply don’t care if it goes off an causes deaths.
If you don’t understand that carrying a round in the chamber is completely retarded, you really shouldn’t be allowed to carry a gun.
Yes he did. He pointed out that some guns (old guns and guns from Asia, neither of which are used by the vast majority of Americans) are more vulnerable. Almost all modern handguns are very drop safe.
every gun sold since about the 60s comes with a warning that the gun is NOT drop safe
This is simply a boldfaced lie. You know almost nothing about firearms, this much is certain from your inaccurate blanket statements. What the guns DO say is that they can still be discharged with a round in the chamber and the magazine removed, not that they can’t be dropped. How many handguns have you bought in the past 20 years? I’d wager a guess at ZERO myself.
If you don’t understand that having to rack the slide before being able to fire your concealed carry gun is both dangerous and stupid, then you shouldn’t be allowed to carry a gun.
Recent Taurus class action aside?
Yup, and this gun manufacturer was held liable, as it should be, and the problem was addressed and fixed. So what?
I would not say it is “fixed” just yet as the settlement is not yet finalized.
Well, it will be. Gun manufacturers are held to certain safety standards, just like auto manufacturers. This class action does not change in any way the fact that the vast majority of modern handguns are largely drop-proof.
dropped and cocked in the same sentence. All guns are dropped tested before they go out just because the manufacturer doesn’t want stupid to happen. And any one in their bleeding right mind should never EVER have one on the pipe while holstered. It’s a simple thing but maybe to much even for the simplest minded of people.
No one should carry concealed with a round in the chamber? LOL!!!!!! Wow, spoken like someone with just about ZERO knowledge of this issue. Wow. Educate yourself, you sound like a buffoon.
what fact is wrong?
Just take your pick:
“God’s chosen army of ammosexuals.”
“deputies agreed that “I’m sorry” cancels out placing lives at risk, so everyone is happy”
“one of the NRA’s chosen elite”
Seriously, how do you people expect to be taken seriously using such ridiculous rhetoric all the time??
First…who is “you people”? I’m a registered Republican, almost as conservative as you, except I still reserve the right to think for myself.
Second…none of the phrases you use are facts. They are opinions.You have not pointed out any facts that are wrong, just opinion with which you don’t agree.
Nice try. Thank you for playing.
“You people” … liberal gun grabbers and their allies who use hateful, divisive language like this to demean those they disagree with.
You’re certainly entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. The NRA advocates for gun safety even more than they advocate for gun rights, and the idea that a concealed carrier who has an accident is “one of the NRA’s chosen elite” is pure, uncut BS, as is the idea that using the term “ammosexuals” is in any way ok. Yea, I’m sure you’re a “registered Republican” as much as Obama “truly” doesn’t want to restrict our gun rights.
Gun Grabbers is a myth, as no one has asked for anyone’s gun. Asking for people to be shown to be proficient and competent with said firearm on the other hand is something that has been asked for. Closing open private sale of firearms without background check, also not taking your guns. Insured against potential liable damage from mishandling said firearm might also be a fair idea. None of these suggestions is asking for your gun. Do you see the common thread here?
Actually, gun grabbers is no myth (talk to the millions of legal gun owners in Australia, Connecticut and New York, for example, about what has happened to their legally-owned property), but “ammosexuals” certainly is.
Yes, I do see a common thread here, the fact that anti-gun people like you don’t care how difficult, onerous, and expensive you make legal gun ownership, as long as you can feel good about the fact that you are “doing something,” even if that “something” will actually have no effect whatsoever on crime.
Actually I’m a proud responsible gun owner. I do not mind passing background checks for my purchases, nor do I find it onerous to keep them secured properly from my children. I am not now nor have I ever been anti-gun, contrary to your thinking. It is the responsibility of the gun owner to maintain the security of their property and the safety of its use, if you cannot see your way to do so then by all means turn your firearms in as you have not enough common sense to own them in the first place.
You’re right, it IS the responsibility of the individual gun owner to ensure the safe use and storage of said firearms. It is NOT the responsibility of the government to force you, upon pain of criminal prosecution, to keep yourself and your family safe.
Perhaps you’re not anti-gun, but if not, you really need to wake up and see the writing on the wall. “Universal” background checks are useless, and only represent an additional burden on gun owners. Every proposed bill with the word “ban” in the title (quite popular among Dems in recent years) represents a direct attack on our gun rights, a preemptive confiscation. Mandatory insurance will certainly be onerous and pointless, and would make gun ownership more expensive, as would just about every one of these laws that is clearly designed to discourage legal gun ownership. Dude, stop deluding yourself before its too late.
I have heard no argument from you that would make me change my mind about why we don’t, or should not have, stronger gun control laws. If taking YOUR (not sane peoples) gun will save thousands of lives every year, as it has proven to do in every country in the civilized world, I say go for it. If buying insurance would help to compensate even one person for the death or injury caused by someone brandishing a gun, I say go for it! The only thing you are is a selfish, non compassionate human being, interested in only his own self gratification.
And I think you’re a looney-toons gun grabber who is not at all interested in the truth. Once you show me real evidence that your proposed “stronger gun control laws” will actually make a reasonable dent in crime, then maybe we’ll consider supporting these laws. However, gun control never works. Gun control had ZERO effect in Australia, England, Canada, or anywhere else it’s been implemented. Crime rates have remained exactly the same every time. Guns are not the problem, people are the problem. I refuse to be disarmed just because some ignorant, bleeding heart grabber doofus has decided that me having guns is too scary for him to handle. Grow up.
Yes, please look at Australia, they enacted strict gun laws and have not had one more mass shooting…..yes they had to give up their privately owned guns (Property) in most part, with many exceptions, for hunting, sport etc. But aren’t thousands of lives worth more than your personal right to play Rambo?
Yet another entirely debunked falsehood. Seriously, why do you grabbers continue to parrot this blatant LIE???
The Australian mandatory gun buyback happened in 1996, and Australia has had at least four mass shootings since then, exactly on par with the number of mass shootings that they had BEFORE their ban, with no statistically significant drop in homicides, suicides, or mass shootings.
Mass shootings since 1996
Monash shootings (2002) - http://www.smh.Com.Au/articles/2002/10/21/1034561430158.html
Hectorville Siege (2011) -https://en.wikipedia.Org/wiki/2011_Hectorville_siege
Sydney Café Hostage Situation
(2014) - http://www.cnn.Com/2014/12/15/world/asia/australia-sydney-hostage-situation/index.html
Hunt Family Murders (2014) -
http://www.dailymail.Co.Uk/news/article-2906200/Farmer-DID-shoot-three-children-wife-years-immense-stress-recovery-brain-injury-murder-suicide-shocked-quiet-community.html
Only one of these incidents would classify as a mass shooting (at least 4 people killed) and that is classified as a family murder/suicide i.e. the Hunt family. In the 19 years before 1996 Australia had 19 mass shootings and NONE (I repeat - NONE ) in the 19 years since.
Who is lying now?
Wrong. These are ALL mass shootings, your silly attempt to change the definition of “mass” shooting to fit your agenda aside.
You’re also greatly exaggerating the number of pre-1996 shootings, and not applying the same metric to your definition beforehand. Of the 13 “massacres” that happened in Australia between 1977-1996, only 8 of them did not involve the person killing only members of their family. Even if we discount the Hunt Family murders, that leaves 3 since 1996. So, in answer to your question “who is lying now?” That would be YOU.
Australia continues to have massacres, only now they are burned and stabbed to death instead of shot. Gun control has had no effect on crime in Australia whatsoever, so says the Australian government
http://www.smh.Com.Au/news/national/buyback-has-no-effect-on-murder-rate/2006/10/23/1161455665717.html
Not my ‘silly’ anything.
The FBI definition of a mass shooting is ” . An FBI crime classification report from 2005 identifies an individual as a mass murderer if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location.
That means I am correct and you do not know what you are talking about.
The pre-1996 shootings which DID NOT involve only family members were ( I have not included the 5 mass shootings which only included family members).
Milperra Masacre (1984) 7 killed; Top End Shotings (1987 ) 5 killed;
Hoddle Street Massacre 1987 (7 killed) , Canley Vale Murders (1987), 5 killed, Queen Street Massacre (1987) 8 killed; Surry hills shootings (1990) 5 killed ; Cangai Seige (1993) 5 killed; Port Arthur (1996) 35 Killed.
I make that 8 mass shootings outside the family by the FBI definition; and NONE since 1996.
By the FBI definition there has been one family murder suicide and NO (Once again I repeat NO ) mass shootings since 1996.
Arson attacks occur whether or not you have guns The Happy land arson attack, Upstairs Lounge Arson attack and the Oklahoma bombing took place in the USA where guns are legal.
Looks to me like you lose on the facts so keep on insulting but your argument is still dead lost.
Wait, wait, you’re dropping from 19 to 8 now? Well, at least you’re getting closer to being accurate. I will admit that, given your limited definition of a “mass” shooting, you are barely correct (by the skin of your teeth and the fact that only 2 and 3 people were killed in two of these post-1996 shootings). However, you really should let the folks at Everytown and MomsDemandSilence and the like that they should also use this same metric in spouting off about all the supposed “gun deaths,” “school shootings,” and “mass shootings” we have in this country, as most of them do not meet appropriate definitions either.
In any case, it does not matter if you are correct or not, as the Australian government itself reports that the gun buyback had no effect whatsoever on crime in that country anyway. Nearby New Zealand hasn’t seen a mass shooting since 1997 either, yet they have not confiscated guns like Australia did. Gun crime is down here in the US by 49% since 1995, yet we have passed no such laws. There is simply no causal relationship to be found here between gun control and a reduction in ANY kind of crime, even mass shootings.
Number of mass shootings in the USA which DO meet the FBI definition of four or more people killed in one shooting THIS YEAR number (up to 30/Sept) equals 31 - ( Jan -3, Feb-5, Mar -3, Apr - 1, May - 3 Jun - 5, Jul -4, Aug -2, Sept -5) Those which do not fit as only 3 killed is around another 40 or so. There are another 225 where 1 or 2 people were killed or several people were injured (as many as 15 in one cases)
New Zealand has not had a mass shooting since 1997 - but their firearms code is very comprehensive and you cannot own pistols unless you are a member of a shooting club, you MUST have a licence to hold any weapon, you cannot have semi automatic MSSA) weapons without special endorsements.All licence holders must pass a firearms safety test.
Quote from the firearms code - ” A firearms licence allows the holder to have and use sporting type shotguns and rifles. A licence holder may possess any number of sporting - type rifles and shotguns.”
” …. You will need an endorsement on your firearm licence if you
become a collector of pistols and/or restricted weapons (‘C endorsement’)
are a member of a pistol club and wish to possess a pistol (‘B endorsement’)
wish to use a MSSA firearm (‘E endorsement’)”
” People who have
a history of violence or
repeated involvement with drugs or
been irresponsible with alcohol or
a personal or social relationship with people who maybe deemed to be unsuitable to obtain access to firearms or
indicates an intent to use firearms for self defence
may find it difficult to satisfy the Police that they are fit and proper to have a firearm”.
Any incidence of domestic violence will result in teh confiscation of firearms and revocation of licence.
Sounds like the USA should be more like New Zealand that sort of gun control seems to work.
I see you chose your time period carefully for the decrease in gun homicide as 1994 was an all time high for gun homicides in the USA. Since 1984 the decrease has been less than 10% - as opposed to knife homicides which are down by almost 50% since 1984.
The fact remains that homicide rates in the USA are much higher than in equivalent countries in Europe , Japan, Australia even Canada. The difference is the number of gun deaths. The EU has a non gun homicide rate of 0.9 per 100, 000 head of population and 1.0 if gun homicides are included. (5000 murders from a population of 500,000,000 - 500 gun deaths) The USA has a non gun homicide rate of 1.6 per 100,000 population (almost twice as high as the EU but sort of comparable) but the gun homicide rate of 3.5 per 100,000 pushes the overall homicide rate up to 5.1 per 100,000 population (16,122 homicides for a population of 315,000,000) which is definitely not comparable but a tragedy of massive proportions.
And these New Zealand gun laws didn’t prevent their large number of nasty mass shootings in the 80s and early 90s, just like Australia, now did they? Gun crime is down all over the world, and it has happened in many different countries with very different gun laws. Gun control makes no difference at all.
Yes, the difference IS in the number of “gun” deaths. So what? Why is the instrument used the only thing that matters to you grabbers? Did you know that the US vs UK murder rate was exactly the SAME in the early 1900s before England passed all their draconian gun laws? We had many more murders than they did at that time, and we still do today. England’s gun control has made no difference, Australia’s hasnt either. Neither country has the 2A or the NRA, and no similar gun confiscation is coming to the US anytime soon. I truly hope that Hillary continues to push her anti-gun agenda so strongly, it will only lead to her defeat.
Now your argument has lost all coherence. The murder rates in the UK and USA were similar in 100 years ago ; UK passed strict gun regulations ; murder rate in the UK drops to 1/5th of that in the USA ; ergo regulating guns drastically reduces the murder rate - Q E D.
perhaps you do not understand that murder rates are per 100,000 population so there should be 5 times as many murders in the USA as i the UK as you have 5 times the population, but there are 26 times as many. That is the tragedy- on a strict ratio comparing UK murder rates with USA then there should be around 2,500 murders in the USA but there are over 11,000 - that is 8,500 wasted lives sacrificed to the gun lobby every year! I truly hope that some time soon those who refuse to face facts will learn some compassion for their fellow human beings and do something positive to stop 8,500 of them dying needlessly every year, (and that is without counting the extra 1,000 people shot and killed by your police every year).
No, my argument has remained the same, you have reading comprehension issues.
The US murder rate was still many times that of the UK back in the early 1900s, despite the fact that the UK had very lax gun laws at that time. Since then, the difference in murder rates between the US and the UK has remained largely the same. Their gun laws have changed nothing. Correlation does not equal causation.
dont forget San Fran.
Good observation. If no charges at all are filed on this man, and they simply dismiss it as accidental, then I see more “accidental” shootings of people who have someone that might like to see them shot. At the very least, should this man’s license to carry receive a suspension for a limited time?
Obama unlike many politicians believes in representing the people of this country and not the NRA and the arms industries. I believe the majority of this country want stricter gun controls, we are way behind all the other civilized countries in the world, and thousands are dying every year because of it. The only ones that have to fear their guns being taken away are those that should not be having one. If you are carrying a loaded, not properly holstered fire arm in a restaurant, you are not behaving like a responsible gun owner. To not have laws at least as strict as those to operate a vehicle is just plain insane.
More people die from automobile accidents, abortion, or malpractice than guns. so lets put the emphasis on the most important things first. what about cancer? why try to make us victims of crooks because some are scared of guns. I spent 20 years in the Army, I think I know how to properly handle a firearm.
20 years in the Army may have given you familiarity with an M-16, and possibly a side arm, depending on your MOS. It doesn’t translate into experience outside of the military. Attempting to deflect attention from the problem of open carry idiots solves nothing. Do you seriously believe you need to open carry because you fear becoming the victim of a crook? In a Cracker Barrel? I was also in the Army, and there were idiots there who I would never trust with my life, nor any sort of weapon.
Yawn, what a crock of debunked crap. Obama believes in “fundamentally changing” this country, not in actually respecting the will of the people. Have you ever stopped to think about just WHY gun control is always such a toxic issue for Dems? Or perhaps where the NRA’s power actually comes from? The academically lazy answer is ” the gun manufacturers,” but this is a debunked falsehood, since no manufacturer money is actually used for lobbying purposes. The American PEOPLE are the ones controlling congress, just as it should be.
http://money.cnn.Com/news/cnnmoney-investigates/nra-funding-donors/
The only ones that have to fear their guns being taken away are those that should not be having one.
Another load of BULLS**T. Tell this to the law-abiding gun owners of Australia, Connecticut and New York who have had their legal property deemed illegal and/or confiscated.
It’s not demeaning those they disagree with. It’s pointing out that the nunguts are defending gross stupidity and incompetence with “well, those things happen” when applied to their fellow nunguts who end up doing what we’ve been warning you about since day one…..
Hmmmm … calling someone you disagree with “ammosexual,” “nunguts,” “gross stupidity,” “incompetence” and the like is not demeaning? Yea, ok dude, whatever lets you libturd numbnutz sleep at night.
It’s satire. SATIRE do you not get satire? Nobody’s calling anyone names. I thought the story was spot on. And I am a gun owner and carrier. This man should be charged with something.
not to mention the quotes around accidental. I am sure the guy threw the gun down on purpose. It is a fact.
The only “fact” around here is that you’re a loon. Why would anyone, even a crazed “gun nut” throw their gun on the ground? What sense would that make?
Dont do sarcasm much do you?
On this ridiculous little hack site, no, I don’t. The posters on here are among the most ridiculous denizens the internet has to offer.
Are you suggesting that conservatives don’t care about being shot when they go out for a family meal? If I own a gun, it is my responsibility to see to it that it is in good working order - part of being a responsible gun owner.
It’s just too damn easy, but I gotta do it: “People don’t kill people, GUNS kill people….”
Flori Duh~!!
Flori Dumb-!!
You know if you injure 3 people with a car in an accident you get at least a citation. I think it is beyond bull that these cops won’t pull these people in. Geez, if nothing else he proved he was being irresponsible and shouldn’t be carrying a gun.
agreed, write him a ticket and after so many pull his CC license. Just because you’re able to CC doesn’t mean you’re 1)a responsible gun owner and 20doesn’t mean you should.
What I would like to see is liability insurance for gun owners. It has been made mandatory for cars I see no problem in making it mandatory for guns as well.
Cracker Barrel ………where the food is hot and the bullets go crack crack crack.
I won’t go into any bar, restaurant, or other business establishment that does not have a “no firearms” sign posted at each entrance. The more guns there are in circulation, the less safe we all are.
The facts are in direct contradiction of your inane statement.
Care to share some facts to support your statement? I think you are mistaken. Countries with fewer guns have fewer gun deaths - accidental and otherwise.
yawn … if the only thing you care about are “gun” deaths, then you’re fixating on the tool used and not on the actual underlying problem. The truth is that gun control makes ZERO difference in overall crime rates no matter where you go.
Wow what is it like to live under a rock ?
What’s it like being so willfully ignorant? Tell you what, you go ahead and provide a single, verifiable instance in which gun control has lowered crime rates (NOT just “gun” crime rates, but overall crime rates), and I’ll apologize and take back my previous remark. Go ahead, I’ll wait.
True true, but why are so many of my white friends, and not friends, so damn hung up on owning guns?!? Yes, it is your right, but so is being gay, don’t see so many flocking to ‘jump on’ the bandwagon. I come from a city of major crime, and we folks in the ‘hood’ never thought that arming ourselves would be a sensible solution to being robbed at gunpoint, shot at while walking the streets minding our own business, etc., etc. I don’t get it bruh! I tell you what it did do for us though, we became more street savvy, and a lot of us started to learn how to box, (in the ring), karate, run track, okay basketball, etc. But it seems like more white people from desolate areas, want more guns. I guess I’d better stay out your way when you’re ready to start the final war upon us people of color in the hood!!!
hehehehehe … I hope you’re not serious about your silly little “race war.” No one wants that except for people like Sharpton and Holder. And if it ever came down to that, which side do you really think would win? 12% of the population with no guns? Or 73% of the population WITH guns?
We “white people” have always owned guns in this country, from its very founding, it’s in our blood. I truly do not understand why regular inner city folks like you do not want to arm yourselves against criminals. It just makes no sense to me at all. Don’t you want a level playing field? Knowing how to box and practice martial arts is great, but you should ALSO be armed, at least at home, don’t you think?
The sickness continues…..
interesting that out of the phrase - gun deaths- you are the one that emphasized “gun” not me. Actually I’m more fixated on “deaths” . I’m not even talking about crime and I did not mention gun control. (That must have been the person “fixated” on the tool.) I’m talking about accidental deaths. Do you realize that everyday in this country children die or accidentally shoot another human being? Way too many of these are toddlers.
you are the one that emphasized “gun” not me
WRONG. From your above post: “Countries with fewer guns have fewer gun deaths ”
We have fewer than 600 accidental deaths from firearms each year in the US. In a country of over 330,000,000 people, that’s only one per every 550,000 people. I don’t mind those odds one little bit. You know what the leading causes of death among young children are? Drowning, traffic accidents, suffocation, and fires. The CDC reports that fewer than 50 children under 14 are accidentally killed with a firearm each year. I keep my guns secured. My children only use them under close supervision. My family has owned guns for generations with no accidents or deaths. Course, we’re not meth-heads or gang-bangers, so why should our gun rights be restricted based on the stupid actions of only a very few people with other problems?
I’m sorry that your educational level doesn’t allow you to know the difference between mentioning a word and emphasizing a word. Again-
I emphasized the word DEATHS. I hope you don’t have a child included in that number of deaths each year, but then, it wouldn’t be a big deal to you anyway. You hug that gun sweetie.
You’re simply lying, there’s no way around it. Anyone who utters the phrase “countries with fewer guns have fewer gun deaths” isn’t emphasizing deaths, they’re emphasizing guns. End of story. Go ahead and insult my “level of education” (which is certainly higher than yours), and wish evil on me and my family, it’ll be right in line with the violent way you anti-gun people always treat those that disagree with you.
Funny how you hurl insults and wishes of death instead of actually responding with facts or logical argument. Shannon Watts, is that you?
“I don’t mind those odds one little bit.” then you are part of the problem!
Apparently you don’t understand the way that odds work. My chances of being shot, as are yours unless you’re feeling like taking your own life, are literally astronomical, so yes, I’ll take those odds.
LMFAO, What I understand, is your dismissal of 600 lives every year..you dont care do you, your lack of empathy is sickening!
“Over the past year, new studies and media reports have documented America’s extraordinary number of child-involved shootings. These occur when a child happens upon a gun, or is left alone with one, and ends up shooting themselves or another person. Such disasters result in hundreds of child fatalities and have made American children nine times more likely to die in gun accidents than children anywhere else in the developed world. These deaths pose a massive challenge for the NRA. They demonstrate fairly conclusively that guns cannot be both safe and ubiquitous; the inevitable consequence of widespread gun ownership is a never-ending series of tragedies involving children. But, desperate to insist there’s nothing wrong, the NRA has proved itself totally incapable of responding to the problem.”
Ahhh to heck with it, not your kids right? No one you know, why care? Just the price of doing business right?
You’re right, it’s not my kids. I take care of my kids, and I am responsible, so my kids aren’t in danger. Why should I give up my rights just because other people aren’t willing to keep themselves safe?
Your point of view only makes sense to someone who sees absolutely no value in the owning of firearms. Your pov is arrogant, uninformed, and entirely unhelpful. Move along troll.
LMFAO. of course of course you are a ” responsible” gun owner. I bet all those people involved with accidental shootings thought they were too.
I can see you don’t care about anyone or anything other than “your own”. Typical.
However I am no troll. A troll only wants a reaction and diesnt care what the reaction is. That isn’t me.
I am NOT uninformed and I was just on the Bay County Sheriffs Office outdoor rifle range last week with my brother. A retiredSEAL/ EOD twin pinner. We were shooting M-4’s and Tavors. Lots of fun.
So you really don’t know who I am or what I know do you. You in fact dismissed those deaths and that’s sickening. Seriously. What’s wrong with you. People need more training than they are getting. That’s obvious to any without a bias. Such as yourself.
Anyone who leaves their child alone with access to a gun is not at all responsible. Anyone who doesn’t use a quality holster while carrying concealed is not responsible. Etc, etc, etc. Unlike you, I have generations of proof, no accidents, no deaths, nothing. We ARE safe and responsible, so how is it my fault or my responsibility when others choose not to take the necessary steps to keep themselves safe?
I DO care about others, which is why I join with the NRA in advocating gun safety all the time, not gun control. If you care about others, you don’t push for gun control, it only benefits criminals.
I do not ‘dismiss’ any deaths, I simply refuse to be held responsible for them or to have my rights infringed upon simply because your ilk want “to do something,” even if that “something” will have no effect on crime or on accidental shootings. It’s not up to the government to force people to get training, especially when they insist that those people pay for the training themselves. If this administration were TRULY interested in keeping people safe from “gun” violence, they would offer to train people on the goverment’s dime, not push to require training that will simply make gun ownership more onerous and difficult. I’d be on board with mandatory gun training that were paid for by the government. That seems like a fair compromise to me.
That’s a false narrative that ” gun control” only benefits criminals.
And guess what. The NRA has been for ” gun control ” before. Check the Mulford Act.
If you can afford a gun, you can afford training. You say the NRA is about safety. They used to be. They do have safety courses do they not? You are a conservative yet you advocate more government?
And just what is ” your ilk” in relation to me. You have no idea what I advocate or what I am.
I take it you are just going to dismiss my liking to shoot then huh?
I am not against owning guns at all. I also agree with Heller vs DC.
SO JUST WHAT IS ” my ilk?
And BTW when you said those lost lives were acceptable do that you can have your rights, you ARE being dismissive of those lives. Those are just the deaths too. Many more were shot. Putting more guns on the street actually puts more guns out tgere for criminals to obtain. And research shows that less restrictive laws actually raises the level of violence. Two people with guns in a road rage incident will result in deaths, if neither has a gun, not so much.
I advocate for the right to own. But not unfettered rights.
All the Amendments have some restrictions and limitations.
Weapons hot. Safety first.
Fine, I will begrudgingly admit that I find the fact that you know what a Tavor is to be somewhat impressive ;). I’ve shot all kinds of stuff, including the M4, the AK, the P90, the Kriss Vector, the UMP, and several others, but never the Tavor. I hear it’s a pretty good gun.
Perhaps I’ve painted you with too wide a brush, I will admit, and if so, I apologize. Too many people claim to “support the 2A” yet they don’t actually support it at all. I am also intimately familiar with the history of the NRA, and they have always advocated gun safety, and only gun control in recent years as the threat to our rights has increased.
I do not believe I am being “dismissive” of the very few lives lost to accidental shootings because restricting my gun rights will have almost no effect on these deaths. Even if this were not the case, my right to armed self defense trumps these unfortunate accidental deaths. 600 might sound like a lot when you lump it together like this, but in a country of over 330,000,000 people where about 2.5 million die each year from a variety of causes, I’m sorry, but I just can’t get behind blaming legal gun owners for this tiny number of deaths.
research shows that less restrictive laws actually raises the level of violence.
That’s funny, because the research I’ve read shows that more guns in the hands of good people reduces crime, and that background checks, waiting periods, “assault” weapons bans, and the like have no effect whatsoever on crime rates. Restrictive laws almost never stop someone bent on killing from accomplishing their goals. However, they DO prevent good people like Carol Bowne from defending themselves.
OK, I can see you are a stand up guy… not many out there, no matter what your views… the Tavor is an urban assault weapon, and the bar that drops down in front is actually where your forearm goes, you tuck it in close to your body…even my brother found it a bit odd at first, I took to it like a duck to water….great sights to, made to use both eyes open, a really really nice weapon…the gun is basically built around the barrel….as for my assertion of more guns=more crime, here is an excerpt from a Live Science article….””The one thing that would have at least ameliorated the horrible situation in Charleston would have been that if somebody in that prayer meeting had a conceal carry or there had been either an off-duty policeman or an on-duty policeman, somebody with the legal authority to carry a firearm and could have stopped the shooter,” presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said in a Fox News interview on June 19.
A new study, however, throws cold water on the idea that a well-armed populace deters criminals or prevents murders. Instead, higher ownership of guns in a state is linked to more firearm robberies, more firearm assaults and more homicide in general. [5 Milestones in Gun Control History]
“We found no support for the hypothesis that owning more guns leads to a drop or a reduction in violent crime,” said study researcher Michael Monuteaux, an epidemiologist and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. “Instead, we found the opposite.”
There is more, I dont post links because they always get flagged for review…anyway… we have slightly different views on this subject but really you can carry a lot of different firearms…so there really isnt much restriction..thanks and have a nice day!
Not true. i just returned from Ireland. Cops do not carry, debate about allowing cops to carry tasers. Very few civilian guns, homicide rate ‘WAy down.
Uh huh. Correlation does not equal causation there pal. Where is your proof that their gun control laws are the CAUSE of their low homicide rates? Crime rates are down dramatically all over the world right now, in countries with gun control and without. You have no proof that Ireland’s gun laws have anything at all to do with it.
The same time as Sandy Hook, a man in China stabbed 28 school kids. They ALL survived. Sandy Hook 26 dead. So tell me again how the gun made zero difference.
Strawman argument. My argument is that gun CONTROL makes no difference, and it doesn’t. You’re cherry picking your data again, and you have no idea how statistical analyses even work, so I won’t waste my time trying to explain it to someone who clearly won’t understand and, worse, doesn’t actually care about the truth.
No guns makes it an easy target for crooks. Most mass shootings occur in no gun zones.
another bullcrap story
True but you can’t be single minded on the issue. ..
Oh bullshit Harold. BTW, most mass shootings are committed by white guys…should we start profiling white guys Harold?
yes
Actually, this is completely wrong. Approximately half of all mass shootings in the past 20 years have been carried out by non-whites. Even the uber-anti-gun MotherJones shows this in the data they collected.
http://www.motherjones.Com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data
On that list you site there were 27 mass shootings committed by non white including the one listed as unknown. The other FORTY FOUR were whites. Try again…and maybe actually read the article and data you are using to support your argument.
I’m not sure who taught you how to count, but between 1995-2015 (the 20 years I cited), 28 of the listed killers were white, out of a total of 53, which is 52.8% of the total. You DO realize that “Latino” and “Asian” are not “white,” right?
Now, remembering that whites account for over 73% of the population, whites actually commit fewer mass shootings per capita than do blacks.
Blacks make up about 12.6% of the population, and since 9 of these mass shootings perpetrated by blacks (17% of the total), blacks are committing more mass shootings per capita than are whites.
how do you know who is “white”?
Never mind, I looked at it more closely… to the point, you cherry picked the years so you could be ‘white”… you cant just pick whatever years ya want to fit your false narrative..well, I guess you can but the only point you make isnt a good one.
and how do you count the latinos? They are actually a race…
“Cherry picked” the years? Hardly. The last 20 represent most of the chart, and the population of non-whites in this country has been growing steadily in the past 20 years. Whites made up nearly 85% of the US population 25 years ago, so how does an “analysis” seeking to blame whites for shootings make any sense when almost everyone is white??
25 years ago white=75%
and Latinos are mostly white…some are black or mixed race…
from 1982-1995( the ones you want to eliminate, there were 18 serial killings(mass) 14 white and 4 black/asian…why use this data set if you are going to monkey with the figures?
US Census 1990 - % of US population that is white - 83%
“Latinos are mostly white”?? Um, huh? Are you serious?
Why are you ignoring the fact that blacks commit violent crimes of ALL types at widely disproportionate rates, while at the same time sticking to your bogus line that “all mass shooters are white” BS?
Latino is a language reference, they could be any race.
KKK hoods are equivalent to the hoods the muslim women parade around in , intending to intimidate western women, muslim men are taught that women who are not headcuffed are fresh meat to be raped and converted, to eventually terrorize the female population, including 6 yr old girls as child brides.
Go jerk yourself a soda.
Hey, its the racist dude!! HEY THERE BUDDY!! Got your sheet on?
No the KK hoods are not the equivalent to Hijab…I dont agree with the covering of women but thats their choice, the cover for the KKK is so people dont know who the racists are…
What about all the honour killings of western girls who don’t wear the headcuffs. my islamic sympathizer friend, islam is not a race either. The islamists are on a 1400 yr old mission to make you convert or die, they intend to kill anyone in their way, sympathetic fools can’t see this, they call people racists to undercut any resistance by people who can see the obvious. the muslims are the KKK without the hoods, the headcuffs are designed to show women the muslim men’s dominance over women, to instill fear, same as KKK.
They are not doing such a great job at killing everyone are they? I mean they have 5 billion left to kill!! You are a racist and nt from just this post do i know that…”headcuffs”??? LMFAO!
What “honor killings” of western women”???
You need to keep up on current events, it happens all the time, are you saying they don’t stone women for getting raped, or hang homosexuals, or women showing an ankle in public, you have deluded yourself, it’s time for you to open your closed mind and see that islam is a threat. people like you are enabling the evil cult to cultivate it’s culture, to eliminate ours. Beating women is a muslim man’s choice not the mother’s.
i
HEADCUFFS???
What the Bible says about stoning
Everybody must get stoned
For touching Mount Sinai
Whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death. Exodus 19:13
For taking “accursed things”
Achan … took of the accursed thing. … And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones. … So the LORD turned from the fierceness of his anger. Joshua 7:1-26
For cursing or blaspheming
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:16
For adultery (including urban rape victims who fail to scream loud enough)
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city.Deuteronomy 22:23-24
For animals (like an ox that gores a human)
If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned. Exodus 21:28
For a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night
If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her … and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel’s father shall say … these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. … But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:13-21
For worshipping other gods
If there be found among you … that … hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them … Then shalt thou … tone them with stones, till they die. Deuteronomy 17:2-5
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers … thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 13:5-10
For disobeying parents
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother … Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city … And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die.Deuteronomy 21:18-21
For witches and wizards
A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:27
For giving your children to Molech
Whosoever … giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. Leviticus 20:2
For breaking the Sabbath
They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. … And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones…. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses. Numbers 15:32-56
For cursing the king
Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die. 1 Kings 21:10
Old testament rules for the two abrahamic religions, the ishmalites and the jews.
Love is God, the rules of Love are in everyones heart.
Before Jesus came the sons of abraham needed rules because abraham gave away his first begotten son because his jealous wife told him to, his love for ishmael was weak, he listened to his wife instead of God, like adam did with eve, abraham was not Holy enough to do the work, so God created Jesus to do the work, and he promised abraham and ishmael that he would protect them until the coming of Christ, so the good news from Jesus could be given to them also.
sorry, but the Abrahamic religions are Judaism, Christianity and Islam…
Wrong Jesus is not Mary’s son, he is the son of man, men created their need of Jesus by abraham not being up to the work, Jesus is the son of all of us not a descendant of abraham.
LMFAO…
Abrahamic religions (also Semitic religions) are monotheistic religions of West Asian[1] origin, emphasizing and tracing their common origin to Abraham[2] or recognizing a spiritual tradition identified with him. They comprise one of the major divisions in comparative religion, along with Indian[3] and East Asian religions.[3] Judaism, Christianity and Islam are the largest Abrahamic religions.[4][5][6]
The largest Abrahamic religions in chronological order of founding are Judaism (1st millennium BC)[specify], Christianity (1st century AD) and Islam (6th century AD).[7]
Abrahamic religions with fewer adherents include Rastafarianism,[8] Samaritanism,[9] Druzism (sometimes classified as a branch of Shia Islam),[10] Mandaeism,[11] Bábism [12] and the Bahá’í Faith.
As of 2002, it was estimated that 54% (3.8 billion people) of the world’s population considered themselves adherents of an Abrahamic religion, about 30% adherents of other religions, and 16% adherents of no organized religion. Christianity is the largest, with 32% of the world’s population, Islam is second with 28%, and Judaism has only 0.2%
The Genealogy of Jesus
1The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham: 2Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers.…
Mathew 1:1
The Genealogy of Jesus Christ
1 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
2 Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, 3 and Judah the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram,[a] 4 and Ram the father of Amminadab, and Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon, 5 and Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse, 6 and Jesse the father of David the king.
And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah, 7 and Solomon the father of Rehoboam, and Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asaph,[b] 8 and Asaph the father of Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah, 9 and Uzziah the father of Jotham, and Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, 10 and Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, and Manasseh the father of Amos,[c] and Amos the father of Josiah, 11 and Josiah the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.
12 And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoniah was the father of Shealtiel,[d]and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, 13 and Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, and Abiud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor, 14 and Azor the father of Zadok, and Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud,15 and Eliud the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob, 16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.
17 So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations.
Jesus is the end of judaism and ishmaelism.
Jesus was the word in flesh, Jesus is the beginning and the end, how can Jesus be the son of abraham, before the word , I Am said Jesus.
Jesus was not pleased with abraham, abraham did not have faith in God’s word, he listened to sarah and had his first son with hagar, like adam eating the fruit eve gave him defying God’s instructions.
Jesus in flesh resisted satan proving that the flesh of man can resist the temptations of satan, God was pleased with Jesus.
I take it you dont believe the Bible then!! LMFAO, you need to see a shrink man. bye now!
You just record words, you don’t see the whole story, that is true for everybody, but I think you don’t think for yourself, try to concentrate on Jesus more, he came to save the people of the world, not just the people of certain religions.
Love is God and God has given us love in our hearts to be used to save the people of this world, far better than some rules written on a tablet.
The Quran does not mention stoning as a punishment for any crime.
Now you are parsing using percentages…Your argument is weak…
LOL, not hardly. Yours is far weaker when you (1) can’t count to save your life, and (2) you pretend that a larger percentage of ANY type of crime committed by the 73% majority race is somehow significant. What’s far more significant is the fact that in recent years, a disproportionate number of non-whites, including 9 blacks, have been responsible for mass shootings, not to mention the even more uncomfortable fact that the 6% of the US population that are black males are responsible for fully HALF of all murders and assaults in this country. Talk about weak.
Yawn…. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ I believe all mass shootings were done by men. So what does that say about men??
I think all establishments should require EVERYBODY to come in ‘strapped’! That way when someone accidentally fires off a round, we can have complete melee and carnage all over!!! What the heck do we need cops for?!? Let’s just police ourselves! (Hope you can read through the thick vapor of sarcasm)
Yawn, yet another libturd who would prefer a massacre to a shootout. Yet another libturd who is vapid enough to believe that the cops can always protect you (you know that they’re not actually legally required to protect anyone, right?)
Thanks for the insult! Always the reply of the poorly educated!
Uh huh, says the guy calling gun owners “ammosexuals” and the like. Besides, you set yourself up for that one, made it too easy. You clearly prefer the massacre of unarmed innocents to the type of gun battle that would happen were everyone armed. You also clearly believe that the police can protect everyone everywhere, so there is no need for regular people to carry guns. Both of these are demonstrably false, and make you look “poorly educated.” Way to take the high ground with your silly little “you’re uneducated” BS.
obviously you can’t read sarcasm, let alone understand it.
Ok then Ms Smarty Pants, enlighten me.
NOT!
False.
where’s your statistics? Did you know, until recently, there was never any posting of no gun zones, and the worst shooting happened then So before you go and try to sound all smart, check your fact. Like the Mc Donald’s In San Yesidro, or the Texas tower shootings, and even Columbine.. Those shooting happened when there was no signs marked no gun zones. They are to date the worst mass shootings. Check your facts.
Columbine? all schools are no gun zones. Theater shooting ? no gun zone. It is hard to have a conversation with an idiot or someone who has their mind made up before the conversation starts, so we both should stop.
Not true. Look it up.
Guns also make it easy for anyone who gets mad enough to kill for the dumbest reasons. Look at the people who have died or been shot at in road rage incidents. Two of them them shot and killed EACH other last year. Down here in Florida an old man shot and killed his neighbor because his dog pooped on his lawn. How many innocent children are killed when they accidentally killed themselves when they found their parents gun? So people who just had a bad day are ending up killing innocent people just because a gun was too available. Australia banned assault weapons in 1996 when they had a mass shooting that killed 35 people. In almost 20 years they have not had ONE SINGLE mass shooting. How many have we had??? So tell me again how banning these types of guns don’t work???
Lmao you are so pathetic! im literally dying laughing after reading your comment!
saw a creepy guy on a motorcycle with a gun, hope he shoots his balls off.
No one is that good of a shot.
It so sad to see things like this in the news everyday…….. Who am I kidding, the embarrassment factor is priceless.
This is why you have the hammer on an empty chamber in a revolver or no cartridge in the chamber of a semi-automatic. Dropping a weapon shouldn’t result in accidental discharge.
Better yet: don’t take a gun to Cracker Barrel. If you’re that paranoid: eat in. Statistically, the odds are clearly much higher of accidentally shooting yourself (or others) than successfully defending yourself. As this story illustrates.
But if you ARE such a gun-nut you just have to carry one…don’t chamber a round!
“well regulated” surely means people should be trained in gun use. I used to be qualified to squad marksman (RAF) level. Lesson one, point one: KEEP YOUR SAFETY ON UNTIL YOU NEED TO FIRE. Second point was, as you say, don’t have one in the chamber unless you need it there.
Yes, Paul. Exactly. The first three things I was taught about guns: always assumed they’re loaded; keep the safety on; and, don’t chamber a round until needed. Failure on that first one has killed a ghastly number of people.
Don’t forget ‘Always make sure your weapon is secured and safe’, which he clearly didn’t follow either.
If you are going to be armed, its your duty to make sure the weapon is SECURE in your holster as well as no danger to anyone you aren’t actively trying to kill.
I was taught the same.
RCAF for me. It has already been stated that you don’t have a round in the chamber or have the hammer on an empty chamber unless you need to fire the gun.
“But, but, but…then I won’t be able to quick draw and shoot the bad guy from 50 yards right in the heart like Wyatt Earp!!!” Give me a break. If you don’t have the hammer, down, the safety on, and an empty pipe, then you’re a hazard, and should be liable to being sued.
Too much logic. GTFO, This is ‘Murica and if you don’t like getting shot while eating omelets on a peaceful morning, you can git out!
Statistically, the odds are clearly much higher of accidentally shooting yourself (or others) than successfully defending yourself.
Oh really? Got a citation? Hint: you don’t, because this your statement is baloney.
Actually I have seen several different reports that all come to the same conclusion. In that report it also stated, that a person who has a gun in his home is more likely to be shot by a gun than a person who doesn’t have one. Oh and guess what, they are more likely to be shot by their own gun than someone else’s. Now as for you asking for proof, I suspect your proof will show up in a most surprising and painful way.
Gee, “several different reports,” eh? Yea, ok, not evidence at all, sorry.
a person who has a gun in his home is more likely to be shot by a gun than a person who doesn’t have one
This “statistic” is entirely meaningless. If I own a pool, I’m far more likely to drown than if I don’t. If I own a baseball bat, I’m far more likely to be killed by bat than someone who doesn’t own one. It doesn’t mean people are AT ALL likely to be shot, drowned, or beaten to death with a bat. You’re more likely to die in just about any other way than you are to die via gunshot in this country.
My statistics are the news. Almost every day on the news I hear about a child who died because they got a hold of their parents gun and shot themselves in an accident, or hear of owners who shot themselves by accident or something like this. But I RARELY hear about a home owner who saved himself or his family by shooting an intruder. Most thieves rob homes during the day time when the owners are at work, so in many cases they steal the owners gun too. Most robbers are smart enough not to break into a home while they are home. My friend lives in Australia. They haven’t had a single mass shooting since 1996 when they banned assault rifles due to the shooting where 35 people died. How many have we had since then??? Also, children killed by accidentally shooting themselves is a VERY rare occurrence yet it happens here almost every day. After the mass shooting in 1996 there, tens of thousands of people gave up there guns voluntarily. As a result fewer kids die, unlike our country. So those are my statistics.
So, just because you haven’t “heard about” them means they don’t happen? Ever hear of media bias? I hear about defensive gun uses almost every day. See www. gunssavelives.Net/self-defense/ for a list of over 1500 self defense cases, all verified in the local and/or national media.
The CDC reports that only about 50 kids per year are accidental killed with guns. Contrast that with the tens of thousands (perhaps millions) of defensive gun uses that researchers estimate occur each year, and a pattern begins to emerge, a pattern showing that every time a kid gets killed, they jump all over it. However, they all but ignore almost all defensive gun uses quite religiously, and people like you lap it all up as if it were the God’s Honest Truth. Ugh.
Oh boy, the old, tired Australia example again. How many mass shootings did Australia have BEFORE their 1996 buyback? Do you even know? Here’s a hint: almost NONE. How many people are killed in the US with “assault” rifles each year? Here’s a hint: fewer than those killed by sticks, stones, fists, feet, and all other non-handgun weapons.
Your statistics are pointless, meaningless, and thoroughly debunked. You can try again, but I doubt you want the embarrassment.
Hey jerk I don’t care what you think and honestly I hope you keep a loaded gun handy without the safety on. Just be sure to do the world a favor and never reproduce.
I win, you lose. Once you devolve into hateful name-calling, you clearly can’t defend your ridiculous position with facts, argumentation or logic. You’re just like every other inured lib here, totally unwilling to challenge your preconceptions. Pathetic.
Feel free to provide actual “evidence” that isn’t just nasty name calling and pointless, blanket assertions. Unlike you, I’m not unwilling to learn new things and change my viewpoint when necessary.
I didn’t realize we were having a contest. My facts have been reported and verified in many different articles. The fact that you never even questioned my story just used the analogy of a swimming pool…..BTW you also lost if this is a analogy contest since no analogy would be better than your sorry excuse. This is the end of our conversation I only used the term jerk when I was referring to you because I have always believed in being accurate in my assessment.
awwww … the butthurt is strong with this one, oh yes … keep on living your life in fear you coward, see if the rest of us care at all. Pathetic.
Goes without saying that the man was white, doesn’t it?
If it happens when I am around, the shooter will be beaten up. F**K these careless pieces of crap. You attack me, I will attack you.
Settle down “big guy” nobody is attacking you.
And you’ll go to jail for assault. Hope you’re proud of your doofus self.
florida is becoming the wild west !
It wasn’t intentional, but it was negligence on the gun carrier’s part..they should sue to the fullest extent!
Not negligence according to police. No basis for suing anyone here. Move along, stop whining.
Because ALL police are SOOOO good, wonderful, honest and incorruptible!
B.S. on the police call. They’re mostly gun nuts, too and many are sociopaths and control nuts. 40% of police families are victims of domestic violence by the police officer. That’s 4x the general public. STILL want to give a great big BJ to the police??
40% of police families are victims of domestic violence by the police officer.
Uh huh. I’d love to see you provide any evidence whatsoever to back up this silly little statement.
Google the claim, doofus! It took me two seconds but you are too lazy to do that?
Just to prove I’m smarter than you ( and feel sorry for your deficiencies), I will give you the source: the Atlantic magazine.
More proof that right-wingers are so entrenched in their beliefs, that they won’t even take the time to debunk or verify a claim. Calling it silly is a solution? Yeah… Pathetic.
Fixed News indoctrination syndrome…
Deeeerp, you are more proof that you libturds will take even the tiniest thread of “evidence” and take it as the gospel, as long as it supports your preconceptions that is. This “40%” claim is ridiculous, backed up by supposedly “two studies,” one of which was actually a “hearing before the Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families House of Representatives” in 1991, and the other a study from 1992, that’s almost 25 years ago! If this were truly a huge problem like you’re claiming it to be (supposedly almost one out of every two cops is a domestic abuser?!?!), they there’d be far more evidence out there than just a single 25-year-old study. People like you don’t understand how real research evidence works.
It doesn’t matter how old it is, if its still active its active. It doesn’t matter that the sun rose 25 years ago. It’s STILL rising. That has not changed. Present your contrary evidence then. Lack of recent evidence is not proof that it’s untrue. You have not mastered logic obviously.
What’s your idea, are we supposed to guess it?
Okay, let’s interpolate since you cannot communicate: somehow a miraculous change has occurred in cops, the stresses that cause them to be violent have evaporated, and the type of people they recruit is massively different??? NOT likely. If SO, PROVE IT.
However LACK of any evidence for your poorly communicated, actually unspoken “theory” is proof of…NOTHING.
Waiting for contrary evidence …
Waiting. …
STILL waiting. …
Oh-NADA.
“DEEERPPP.” (Yes, using your third grade language to show you how stupid it looks in print.) Nothing from you but bloviating loud words.
Buck up, genius-or shut up.
It doesn’t matter how old it is, if its still active its active. It doesn’t matter that the sun rose 25 years ago.
WOW, now there’s a derp-worthy statement. Can’t you understand that multiple studies are required for something like this to be taken seriously, especially when it’s such a controversial, explosive claim? I conduct studies for a LIVING (I’m a tenured professor at a high research activity institution) and I can tell you that NO ONE takes seriously any major theory only backed up by a single (or even a few) studies. Also, can’t you also understand that things change? Crime of all types of down in this country by 50% in the last 25 years, so what makes you think that THIS particular type of crime hasn’t changed?
You want to talk about lack of evidence? YOU’re the one making the explosive claim that police officers are four times more likely to commit domestic violence than the general public. If you can’t prove it with reasonable sources, then it’s up to YOU to stfu, now isn’t it?
Even a cursory look at recent research articles, newspaper/journal articles, and stories on Officer Involved Domestic Violence (OIDV) reveals that there is simply no good evidence or consensus on this type of crime. For example, in a 2014 research article published by two criminology professors (you know, the people who actually KNOW the most about this stuff) states: “There are no comprehensive statistics available on OIDV and no government entity collects data on the criminal conviction of police officers for crimes associated with domestic and/or family violence.”
http://cjp.sagepub.Com/content/24/5/601.short
Shoot me “…by accident…” and I’ll sue you until your great-grandchildren are dead.
Perhaps if you are too cowardly to go unarmed to a restaurant, you should just stay home.
if he was black you know that would have ended differently
I wonder what percentage of CB patrons carry guns.
If that were the case, the gun would not have gone off when dropped, even WITH the safety off and one in the chamber. That’s just not how it works with modern firearms.
Well, I’m pulling Otto’s chain, he’s famous for marginally intelligent one-liners and never following up. But, if your statement is accurate, then how did the gun go off when it fell and hit the floor? That would imply he pulled the trigger, intentionally or not. Bottom line, a clown with a gun allowed said gun to discharge uncontrolled and in a public place. He should be forever banned from owning a weapon - he proved he’s not responsible enough.
Sue him off the Earth! Not in control of his gun. not quilifed to carry. Sue him and his family!
Who needs insurance when you have tort suits and criminal prosecution to deter such misbehavior? Oh…. Waiddaminnit….
What could go wrong, Wayne LaPierre? Bang Bang!! “Oh, darn, I’m sorry.!” 🙁
Called you out on your uneducated bias and you don’t approve the comment. Nice job. So lets try this again.
1) the person is NOT a responsible gun owner
2) not all gun owners are irresponsible
3) you not only attack the person responsible, but every gun owner
If the guy had driven his SUV through the wall, run over and injured three people, etc he would be in jail, tested for alcohol/substance, charged with destruction of property, assault with a motor vehicle etc, and might loose his drivers license. But some idiot too afraid to leave home without it can bring an assault gun into a restaurant where families go, drop it and kill someone…and its all OK, because its a gun. At minimum, people who purchase or own a gun or ammunition should be charged a liability fee/tax or required to have insurance on it against injury or death to others.
Charging a fee to possess a gun sounds just like charging a fee to vote IMO. Both interfere with constitutional rights.
(Just for the record-I am not a member of the NRA and have never owned a gun)
What about the medical expenses of the “victims”? Will Cracker Barrel step up and pay? I Very Seriously Doubt It. Neither will the responsible gun owner.
Guns do not “go off” when dropped. If you don’t believe me ask firearms experts or MythBusters. They go off if Clem got the trigger caught on his pocket or belt…or his finger touched the trigger. Safety’s should ALWAYS be on. And 3 people were not SHOT. They were hit with debris when the kettle was hit. Nice inflammatory headline.
you all read the article…..it wasn’t the fault of the owner or the gun, the bullet hit a kettle…..kitchen pots and pans also lead to over-eating and the rising obesity rate in the United States. time for legislation banning all cooking utensils.
If it were a black guy, they’d ban all minorities from carrying guns, too.
Oh wait-that’s unconstitutional. Unless Florida secedes…
Hmmm, not the only southern state where gun carriers’ “rights” trump public safety.
how do you know he is a nra member?
That responsible gun owner had darn well better be responsible for the medical bills.
i bet it was a glock
This is Deep BS.
Nice clickbait headline for this non-story.
AAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
What a crock of SH*T!!! The burden of proof ALWAYS lies on the person making the claim you buffoon. Wow, so freaking clueless!!!!
Did you know that the NRA does not allow people to carry guns into their gun shows, gun conventions/conference and in their HQ? Even Ronald Reagan was against open carry, he said that in today’s America the was no need to carry loaded weapons on the streets.
I hope that gun makes up for his tiny penis.
Most guns have internal safeties that prevent the gun from going off it is dropped, I have no idea what he was carrying, something really cheap or really old. Another possibility is he mishandled the pistol and pulled the trigger, then blamed it on a drop.
Just because there was no intent, he was still careless. When people get in car accidents, I am sure none of them have the “intent” to cause an accident, but that doesn’t stop them for getting a ticket if they caused the accident. How is this different. The gun owner obviously did not secure his weapon properly. If you are going to legally carry a gun, its should be securely holstered. Not just flopping around in your pocket. I hope he is sued by those he hit…and another argument for gun owners to have insurance, just like car owners.
The premise where he was so irresponsible not to have his gun securely holstered. So poorly secured that all it took was him reaching to pay his bill that the gun “fell” ?? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out he was careless and irresponsible. The gun “falling” out of his pocket is all the proof a “normal” and “logical” person needs. So you know what your comment is..
Complaining about the gun laws in the United States is a waste of time. Both Britain and Australia introduced draconian gun laws and saw a reduction in gun violence as a result. Both are islands so they can do this. Canada is trying to do the same but there’s this huge unprotected border with the US where guns can cross that makes gun control impossible. From what I understand there’s this thing called the second amendment to the US constitution that has been interpreted by the supreme court to allow unrestricted access to firearms in that country. The argument that gun control means that only the criminals would have guns is true - for a while. A reduction in the number of available guns and gradual confiscation of illegal ones would eventually result in a drop in gun violence. The problem with that is there are SO MANY GUNS in the US and it’s hard to get around that second amendment.
“Any good Lawyer,” eh? LOL!! A Lawyer you clearly are not.
Didn’t someone arrest a person for shooting a drone? shooting people is ok though?……….NOT!
In Florida he will just say the people sitting at their table eating scared him. Florida will accept any excuse.
If “I’m sorry” was good enough, I will guess the shooter is a white man. Am I right? Because if this were a black man, he’d have been beaten, thrown to the ground, handcuffed and jailed, no questions asked and no excuse listened to.
Yup, you’re all vapid, hoplophobic cowards. Get used to it.
Me “and my article”??!?! LMAO!!
The website I cited above is not an “article,” it’s a collection of stories of legal armed self-defense, all verified in the local and/or national media. You clearly didn’t even look at it before arbitrarily labeling it “total Right-wing brainwashing nonsense”
It’s pretty hard to take people like you seriously when you’re clearly not interested in objective facts or balanced analysis.
Gee, nice citation. Too bad the “analysis” they are following is debunked BS. Nice try pal, but quite the fail.
Only a total idiot owns a holster that a gun can fall out of, or a gun that will discharge when dropped. This guy should be legally barred from ever owning a gun again.
It was not negligence because the injuries were not life threatening…..huh? But it would be if someone was killed….?