Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Monday, July 6, 2009

Spare the Motherfucking Gat...

Posted by on Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:17 AM

HuffPo reports:

In a bizarre story, a father says he shot at his two adult sons who live with him because they refused to do their chores. The confrontation initially become physically violent the father struck on of the sons, and they both retrained their father until their mother ordered them to let him go. it was at that time that the father, telling the reporter he wanted to "even it up," went and got his gun and began firing.
This is the terminal point of American parenting.

 

Comments (12) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Urgutha Forka 1
This is sorta like one of Dan's "every child deserves a mother and father" posts.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on July 6, 2009 at 11:47 AM
2
Now tell my why this person had a "right" to have that gun...
Posted by Mantooth on July 6, 2009 at 11:47 AM
Banna 3
Apparently they were "retraining" their father as a marksman?
Posted by Banna http://www.ucp.org on July 6, 2009 at 12:03 PM
Vince 4
Those kids should have been carrying guns!
Posted by Vince on July 6, 2009 at 12:10 PM
Fifty-Two-Eighty 5
I'd question his "right" to be a father a whole lot more.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on July 6, 2009 at 12:10 PM
hartiepie 6
The story quote says the boys "both retrained their father until their mother ordered them to let him go" What did they re-train him to do??

And I looked all over and found the Mother but Charles, there ain't no fucking in that story....
Posted by hartiepie on July 6, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Hernandez 7
@5 Don't change the subject. When it comes to the 2nd Amendment, you have to take the good with the bad. If you defend the blanket right to bear arms, inevitably you will end up having to deal with the fact that you support the gun ownership rights of people like this guy. You can't just pull an about-face and say "this incident has nothing to do with the fact he owns a gun" (which is what you are implying) just because he gives the rest of the gun-owning populace a bad name.
Posted by Hernandez http://hernandezlist.blogspot.com on July 6, 2009 at 12:32 PM
Fifty-Two-Eighty 8
OK, Hernandez, whatever you say. But this incident really does have nothing to do with the fact that he owns a gun. It has a lot to do with the fact that he's an irresponsible fuckwad.

That same irresponsible fuckwad could get behind the wheel of a car and easily do as much or more harm. Are you saying we should use that as a justification to ban all cars?

No, cars aren't evil. Neither are guns. This is exactly what I've been saying here for years now: Punish the behavior, don't try to villify inanimate objects just because a small percentage of the people in the world are too fucking stupid to behave appropriately.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on July 6, 2009 at 12:42 PM
9
@8 The government can not control behavior but the government can control the availability of said inanimate objects.

Yes he is an irresponsible fuckwad but it was the fact that he is able to get his irresponsible hands on a firearm is the real crime.
Posted by Mantooth on July 6, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Hernandez 10
@8 No, I'm not. I'm not against gun ownership as a general concept. But I'm not naive enough to think that this situation would've unfolded differently if the guy didn't have a loaded gun sitting there in his house.

You're right, it does have everything to do with the fact that the guy is an irresponsible fuckwad, an irresponsible fuckwad who owns (and is allowed to own) a gun. If you support unrestricted gun ownership rights, then you support the idea of irresponsible fuckwads owning guns. Personally, I'd like to see more restrictions. Punish the behavior, but proactively take steps to prevent the possibility for that behavior in the first place.

Your car analogy is great - cars are dangerous and car ownership is pretty heavily regulated. Maybe we should be doing the same thing for guns, to minimize the possibility of an irresponsible fuckwad getting ahold of one?
Posted by Hernandez http://hernandezlist.blogspot.com on July 6, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Fifty-Two-Eighty 11
We regulate behavior all the time, Mantooth. Go to your local library sometime - there are about 20 volumes of statutes there, every word on every page of which regulates behavior.

Hernandez, maybe it's the libertarian in me (small "L," please), but I firmly believe that, in a free country, everyone should have enough freedom and responsibility to fuck up. Not freedom and responsibility given to them by the government, but as an unalienable right given to them at birth. You prove you're not worthy or deserving of it, it gets taken away (along with, in all probability, your freedom to do lots of other things too). But I don't believe the government has any "right" to do that before I fuck up or demonstrate that I'm not trustworthy.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on July 6, 2009 at 1:49 PM
Max Solomon 12
as long as angry dumbasses use this particular type of handy, not-evil inanimate objects on their offspring only, preferably before the offspring have reproduced, then the harm to society is minimal.
Posted by Max Solomon on July 6, 2009 at 2:45 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy