Its not that he thinks that this is normal behaviour, its that so many Americans think that this is normal behaviour.
Babcock told police what he could see on his Ring camera made him think someone was breaking into his car, so he went outside and started shooting.
Turns out your life is not in danger of someone is breaking into your car and it is not legal to shoot at them. I’m guessing this dipshit considers himself a responsible gun owner.
What the fuck is wrong with some Americans
As a late night cab driver, if you’re ever wondering why I’m on the street rather than the driveway in your sketchy, pickup truck filled suburban neighborhood, this is why.
Give me a shady looking industrial district or run down residential neighborhood over semi-rural suburbia any day of the week. I feel much safer.
Yikes.
I’m like the exact opposite, but it’s mostly because I’ve had bad experiences with gangbangers.
I was lily white guy living in ground zero of MS13 gangland in Los Angeles in the early 2000s for four years. I know it’s crazy, but best neighbors I ever had. We all bbq’d together, watched each other’s kids, and got along well.
One morning I was taking a bus to work. Two guys robbed me while I was standing at the bus stop. I had fifteen dollars, which I happily gave to them.
I went over to my neighbor that evening and told him what happened.
The next day, there was fifteen dollars in my mailbox.
I moved from there to high end HOA in Texas and holy hell it was miserable. I hated them all. They were the nosiest, most judgemental assholes imaginable. One lady would go walking down the alleys checking how many beer cans people had in their recycling and called the police on one house charging them with child neglect because of beer cans in their recycling bin. Fuck that neighborhood forever.
(There’s a funny coda to the robbery. I smoked a lot back then. When they were done shoving the gun in my ribs and walking away, I blurted out, “guys, I’m stressed. Do one of you have a light?” and I swear on a stack of books of your choice that one of them turned around and lit my cigarette)
This is real. I’ve had folks in my cab that clearly were trying to probe my boundaries to see if I’m an easy target who immediately switched gears the moment I showed my personality. Just because someone is desperate doesn’t mean they want to fuck over someone who’s cool with them and is real. The way you carry yourself makes a difference.
It’s pretty obvious if you meet me in person that I’m a broke artist who cares about real people and detests fake corporate bullshit. That’s not really an appealing target and I have fuck all to give them anyway.
But if some fuck shoots me for being on their street while being trans, or literally just someone they don’t recognize, I don’t get the chance to show how I carry myself.
There’s a certain weird honor in lighting the cigarette of the guy you just robbed. It’s kinda respectable.
In the moment it felt like a “nothing personal just business”
“It wasn’t personal, it was just racial. If we’d known you were one of the good white people we wouldn’t have robbed you. You’re not like those other ones”
Oh boy, I can’t even imagine… just parking in the street and suddenly: surprise gangbang on your hood
If you’re serious, there are two different uses of the term.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gangbanger
-
(US, slang) A member of a violent gang; a violent person.
-
(vulgar, sex) Someone who takes part in a gangbang.
Weird the US slang version comes before the actual definition. Someone needs to edit that Wikipedia article.
Every other dictionary (Including US ones)
gangbang /găng′băng″/
noun
- Sexual intercourse forced upon one person by several others in rapid succession.
- Sexual intercourse involving several people who select and change partners.
- Sexual intercourse involving more than two persons, especially with a high proportion of men.
- A street gang attacking random people on the streets and/or committing gang crimes.
intransitive verb
- To participate in a gangbang, either consensually or as an aggressor.
- To participate in violent gang-related activities.
- To subject (someone) to a gangbang.
Whether a term is characteristic of a certain dialect or region isn’t generally considered all that much when it comes to order on Wiktionary, unless it’s an “obscure” dialect. I contribute a lot to Wiktionary (mainly for languages other than Modern English though) and there are few rules on the specific the order of definitions, it’s mostly just common definitions above uncommon definitions (but this isn’t even a hard rule).
Editing it to change the order for your reason specifically might be considered vandalism, as it’s typical and allowed for entries to be like this and it’s common for little disputes like that to cause editing wars (although that’s admittedly far more common on Wikipedia, since many Wiktionary contributors are actually linguists and are less controversial).
That being said, someone actually did intentionally move the “gang member” definition above the other one, so there’s clearly some sort of difference in opinion.
If you want it changed, the course of action you should take is starting a discussion about it. It’s a good way to get a community consensus.
So let’s be clear here. You’re implying very heavily. Are you actually claiming that this person did this nefarious thing? What are you saying?
No, not at all. You can easily view the edit history of all Wiktionary pages – 2 years ago, someone put the definitions in the order they are now for a specific reason. This person thinks it should be the other way around, so if they want to change it it’d be best to make a discussion about it. That’s the best way to get a community consensus on it. Wiktionary is a collaborative effort, people have different opinions on the specifics of a page, that’s why discussions exist and are the go-to for settling differences in views.
-
Are people just itching to use their guns or something? What the fuck
Holy shit you guys need some serious help.
It may be in the constitution, but I doubt the founding fathers envisaged that you’d all be such fuckwits.
It isn’t in there. What is in there is a legal provision allowing states to quickly raise an army to deal with a crisis.
I’m not American, so I could be wrong, but wasn’t it something about a well-regulated militia?
It was, those three words aren’t there by mistake.
Standing domestic armies were controversial at the time. They needed a way if a state was a facing a crisis it could grab a bunch of armed citizens, declare it a militia, and deal with the issue. Most of the signers were lawyers and they knew that there had to be a legally established procedure for this.
This is me being nice to them btw the issue was slavery and the fear of slave revolts.
And a few decades ago it got reimagined as a civil liberty. Which is clear from the text that it is not and is clear from the debates around the amendment at the time.
Regulation had a different interpretation back then. It had to do with training and equipment. It’s why professional soldiers were called “Regulars.” They wanted civilian militias to be equipped and have the ability to train on their weapons.
In order for civilian militias to exist, be effective, and be able to respond instantly the citizens need to have weapons.
Somebody who doesn’t have a gun and has never used one isn’t going to be effective in civil defense.
Yet there is little to no training before people are allowed to own guns. Seems to me like it doesn’t follow either the modern definition or the supposed definition of old.
Why can’t you people just admit you don’t like guns so you’re trying to desperately to pretend the 2nd amendment doesn’t mean what it has literally always meant?
You’re just like republicans with how disingenuous you are in your rhetoric.
And you know it.
My friend tells me that her in-laws in rural Missouri are cutting holes into the walls to hide guns so they are prepared for attacks from antifa.
I know a guy who in 2021 saw a single teenage girl with a BLM sign on a street corner outside St. Louis and has a panic attack, proceeded to invest in home security.
Seriously. He saw it as a signal that his ‘enemies’ who would be his enslavers are invading his space and that he wouldn’t be safe.
They’re so out of this world crazy, conservatives.
That guy in particular calls himself a liberal. Thinks anything related to leftism or marxism is authoritarianism, and loves Elon.
Wants weed, nuclear, and no substantial structural changes to society or economics whatsoever.
Me: * checks to make sure this wasn’t Georgia *
Me: “Tennessee, thank God… oh and the delivery driver wasn’t killed, that’s good too.”
only one way I can comment this
We’ve turned into a nation of cowards. Just completely craven people who shoot first and ask questions later because the news has made them terrified that they’ll be murdered in their beds, despite violent crime being historically low, comparatively speaking.
Having mingled with the gun community for some time, there are a lot of level-headed people among gun owners but there are also a worrying amount of terminally fearful people with violent ideation. Many are likely one bad life event, one half-cocked response to an uncertain situation from being a mugshot on a news story like this prick.
deleted by creator
They want cash tips, not hollow tips
Huffing Right-Wing media all day turning people extremely paranoid for no actual reason.
Sortof the defining characteristic of regressives is that they are easily brainwashed by media. An enlarged amygdala makes them fear and rage-addicted.
That doesn’t explain the city/rural divide though. It could well be that listening to reactionary right wing rhetoric leads to an enlarged amygdala.
Or that people prone to fear of others would self select living in areas that provide them with fewer others
That’s exactly the reason. When push comes to shove, these are the people that will be willingly used for fodder on the front lines.
Knowledge Fight takes a critical look at Alex Jones(I put this in every post I make about him because I can’t stand to listen to AJ direct, and I don’t want people thinking I do). Anyway, he goes out to break quite often shouting stuff like THEYRE COMING FOR YOU, THEY’RE COMING FOR YOU, THEY’RE COMING FOR YOU!!! after having discussed the “demonic antifa/BLM/democrats coming to your houses.”
Obviously not everyone is as sensationalist as Alex Jones, but he’s been bragging about how other places have started sounding like him. Including Joe Rogan (probably more on Vax and stuff like that, but still)
Please make sure this fuckhead is never allowed to touch a firearm for the rest of his life. And give him a few years in a secluded spot to think about what he did wrong.
Sincerely,
Responsible Gun Owners
You know what this guy was before he tried to kill someone for the first time?
A responsible gun owner.
“Responsible” as in “doesn’t know the laws regarding firearms ownership in his area so he just tried to shoot someone he was never legally allowed to even if he was breaking into his car?”
Trust me on this one, anyone who owns guns but doesn’t know how to use them safely, efficiently, and legally, isn’t “responsible,” as those are prerequisites for “responsibility.”
The point is there is no way to distinguish the two until they try to kill someone or kill someone. (And seemingly every effort to make it possible to distinguish the two ahead of time - well, you know how those go.)
Right, you can’t know what’s in the can until you open it. Unfortunately there isn’t really a way to distinguish it ahead of time in many cases.
Sure, there are cases like Parkland, in which Broward Co had received over 40 calls about Cruz in the years before the shooting and each time decided not to charge him with a felony or hold him on an adjucated IVC, both of which could have been done but weren’t. Same for that recent kid who’s parents got charged, he had been begging for help, there are times which we could’ve done something even with our current laws and the system failed. In those cases there was a clear indication of the “can’s contents” so to speak. There is clear evidence to speak that they are a danger, and we can already do something about that, even if sometimes we fail to do so (and I blame in part, in the above cases, Broward Co Sherrifs and the kid’s parents respectively for their failure to act on the information they had).
But that isn’t what they’re advocating for. They want everyone to be treated as if they are a danger without evidence simply because “some people are.” That is frankly the antithesis of our justice system, which considers (at least ostensibly) people innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I agree that taking guns from people who have proven themselves dangerous is a good idea, and that it can be done before significant harm is done in many cases. What I do not agree on is the concept of being considered dangerous without any evidence to base the assumption on.
They want everyone to be treated as if they are a danger without evidence simply because “some people are.” That is frankly the antithesis of our justice system
And yet, we have the patterns of behavior we see in our police. That’s tangential, but I couldn’t not mention it in response to this comment.
I agree that taking guns from people who have proven themselves dangerous is a good idea, and that it can be done before significant harm is done in many cases. What I do not agree on is the concept of being considered dangerous without any evidence to base the assumption on.
You know what would shut me the hell up on gun control? These simple measures, which would be treated by the right like I’m calling for a total ban on guns.
- To own a gun, you must be licensed as a gun operator.
- To be licensed as a gun operator, you must complete a nationally standardized gun safety course. Then and only then can you take legal possession of a firearm.
- To teach such a course, you must be trained and certified to do so.
- Trainers of such a course are empowered and encouraged to reject issuance of a license based on a standardized list of criteria. One might call them flags. One might call them “red” flags, to highlight that they should be cause for concern. Edit - such “flags” could in some cases be resolvable.
- To maintain your license status, you must have a safety course refresher on some periodic basis. (I’m thinking a certain number of years, more than one, but not too many.)
Caveats:
- If you are licensed, you get concealed and open carry privileges in every location where this doesn’t violate applicable local/state laws.
- If your license lapses, it’s a felony to leave your home with your guns.
- Charges dropped if you make a valid self-defense case after doing so.
- And if you are leaving the home to overthrow your tyrannical government, then the laws don’t really matter at that point, right?
Would my plan solve every problem? No. Would it be a better solution to school shootings and other related issues than “let’s arm teachers and everyone else Wyatt Earp style?” Yes, yes it would. And, like any such measure, it could be further refined over time.
Edit - I made a distinction between owner and operator, I think this makes it better. shrug
And yet, we have the patterns of behavior we see in our police.
And yet we continuously decry this as “bad.” It’s wrong when they do it yet you encourage it more. Guess you’re one of those “thin blue line” guys who thinks it’s good if you want to do it too, eh?
To own a gun, you must be licensed as a gun owner.
2a prevents this, it would have to be overturned to pass. Licensure is seen as turning a right into a privilege by the courts. Personally I don’t like it because of how easily it could be abused to deny “the dangerous blacks” or “those suicidal trans” from gun ownership by an “instructor” so inclined.
To be licensed as a gun owner, you must complete a nationally standardized gun safety course. Then and only then can you take legal possession of a firearm.
See above. Though I did want to mention accidents are on the low end of our actual problem in terms of numbers. I think gun safety is important too but this does nothing to stop murderers and the like.
To teach such a course, you must be trained and certified to do so.
The license thing being blocked by the 2a still throws a wrench in your plan, but these are the guys who can decide “I won’t approve guns for blacks” that I was referring to. Currently, these people are sheriffs doing it with carry permits, because that’s the extent of their power, but it is being done as black people are iirc 60-70% of permit denials in some areas. Furthermore some guy deciding I’m “weird” is no basis for denying me rights. Even if it isn’t due to skin color, I’m certainly not christian, what if I happen to wear my Anti-Christ Demoncore (great band) shirt and the instructor decides that’s a “red flag” simply because he doesn’t understand Vegan Satanists from California aren’t actually all that bad just because they use scary imagry? Hell, “those columbine kids loved metallica, any metalhead shouldn’t own a gun” is a thing I’ve actually heard before. Having the basis for denial of rights being anything other than “is criminal” opens denial of rights up far too wide.
Trainers of such a course are empowered and encouraged to reject issuance of a license based on a standardized list of criteria. One might call them flags. One might call them “red” flags, to highlight that they should be cause for concern.
Sheriffs currently can do this to some degree with those permits, it’s just that those “red flags” are often “is black.”
To maintain your license status, you must have a safety course refresher on some periodic basis. (I’m thinking a certain number of years, more than one, but not too many.)
Frankly safety doesn’t change much over time, the guns themselves haven’t even changed all that much in the last 100yr.
If unlicensed, it’s a felony to leave your home with your guns.
But they can have them unlicensed at home even though they can’t legally own them at all without a license? A) How would they get it home from the store? B) From the home to the range?
Charges dropped if you make a valid self-defense case after doing so.
So if you carry it illegally out and don’t get attacked and don’t shoot anyone but get searched by an overzealous likely racist cop you’re fucked, but if you do get attacked and kill a guy it’s cool that you were carrying illegally? Why not just not harass the guy for not getting attacked?
And if you are leaving the home to overthrow your tyrannical government, then the laws don’t really matter at that point, right?
Well sure lol.
Guess you’re one of those “thin blue line” guys who thinks it’s good if you want to do it too, eh?
LOL you are either being intentionally obtuse, or otherwise reaching so far, I don’t really see the point in trying to tease any further nuance out of this discussion.
I do find it genuinely amusing that my sideswipe at police was interpreted as a pro-police statement - but clearly we’re having two different conversations.
I get angry enough that a cop pulling me over for speeding carries a gun, or that every emergency call needs to be responded to by jackbooted, militarized thugs when less than 15% ever involve violence. I can’t imagine living in a country where every scared little baby had easy access to firearms.
What astounds me is it’s clearly a losing battle. Our statistics are terrible. The proliferation of firearms makes us no safer and in fact leads to a plethora of terrible side-effects that yield a net-negative upon society. Even the Wild West was no safer, hence why both Dodge City and Tombstone both implemented gun control laws.
It only makes sense. Easy access to firearms benefits the deranged and criminal since they’re the ones with the willingness to abuse them and we don’t live in Minority Report where the defender can easily shoot first.
I see you used the word “statistics” and I have bad news for you:
Most of those idiots don’t know what that word means.
But damn if they can’t name every component of a gun. Not spell any of them. But they sure can hold a conversation.
But boy oh boy don’t you confuse clip from magazine!
