Ramzal said:
senordesol said:
Ramzal said:
I believe it's an issue because so many people agree with the method he used. A gun is flat out a lethal tool. No one was in danger nor was he protecting anyone or himself. The fact that so many find this acceptable is deplorable. So we use lethal weapons and tools now to prove a point? And at worse, it's childish? Why don't we fire a nuclear weapon into an unpopulated area to show North Korea that we aren't accepting their terms of testing nuclear weapons.
I can understand a blunt object not being as bad or a hammer, or running it over with a car. Granted that all of the above can be lethal, but they weren't made with lethal intent. Honestly, I find as many people as I saw agreeing with this method disturbing. Borderline frightening.
We've tested plenty of nukes in unpopulated areas so...yeah...we did that.
Second, why does the fact that the weapon being a 'lethal tool' have any bearing whatsoever? I've shot paper targets, soda cans, and beer bottles with firearms; what makes a laptop any different? He selected his target area so that there would be no collateral damage and chose his ammunition for same.
I'm not saying firing at an object is wrong. He's discharging it simply out of anger at his daughter. It's one thing to do something like that for practice, or even as a hobby. This was done out of anger. A gun should not be used like that.
It was done in a manner that was sufficiently controlled. Maybe he was angry, but it doesn't matter if he was. What matters is that his anger was well enough controlled that he did that stupid show in a safe manner.
Don't be stupid. Firing a nuclear weapon has actual consequences. Like nuclear fallout. Also it provokes even if it didn't have such consequences. What was the harm in him doing it? You're complaining out of some kind of misguided outrage it sounds like. There are no consequences except the laptop is destroyed. You haven't provided anything solid.
And if he were drunk, would you still have that same opinion?
No because being drunk is not a state to do anything remotely dangerous in.
People have been killed because of misused of a firearm under anger and rage.
And? He clearly wasn't out of control.
How is this leading by example for his child? "If you're mad, or you need to prove a point, go shoot something?"
Stop playing stupid. No one's going to learn that from it anymore than they're going to learn to kill people from a game. The difference between shooting a laptop in a controlled situation and shooting whatever is bothering you at the moment is obvious.
And yes, my example is strong but it has a point.
Your example was weak as hell. I tore it apart, it doesn't compare at all.
You shouldn't use something lethal to prove a point.
Congratulations on
not proving that point. I pointed out the real reason it wouldn't be used instead of the reason you want to pretend it wouldn't occur.
I'm sorry, did you say "misguided?" I've learned my discipline with weapons and firearms from the U.S. Navy as well as martial arts.
Ooooh now I'm going to agree with you. Oh wait I'm not. Idgaf where you learned it, that doesn't make your stupid outrage any less misguided. You have NOT answered where the real consequences are. We just have a paper thin argument that it'll teach kids the wrong idea.
Both taught that it is not--by any means, right to use a weapon to prove a point.
I don't care. I don't take people's words for such things.
You are arguing from a point of consequence, many crimes come without proper consequence, does that make them alright? People lose their homes and lives due to corporate interest, does that make it alright?
If people are losing their homes
there's a fucking consequence. Now come back with a bit more integrity instead of dishonest questions like those.