Slashdot Mirror
Seeking YouTube Fame, A Teenager Kills Her Boyfriend (arstechnica.com)
Last Monday a 19-year-old woman named Monalisa Perez gave the police a strange reason for why her boyfriend, Pedro Ruiz III, was dead. An anonymous reader quotes Ars Technica:
A Minnesota woman has been charged with manslaughter after she shot and killed her boyfriend as part of the pair's attempt to become YouTube celebrities... The two had set up two video cameras to capture Perez firing the gun at Ruiz while he held a book in front of his chest. Ruiz apparently convinced Perez that the book would stop the bullet from a foot away. The gun, a Desert Eagle .50 caliber pistol, was not hindered by the book. Ruiz, who was found with a single gunshot in his chest, was pronounced dead at the scene. Hours before the incident, Perez posted on Twitter, "Me and Pedro are probably going to shoot one of the most dangerous videos ever. HIS idea not MINE."
The teenager -- who is pregnant with the couple's second child -- now faces second-degree manslaughter charges, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, a fine of up to $20,000, or both. A local sheriff told the New York Times, "I really have no idea what they were thinking. I just don't understand the younger generation on trying to get their 15 minutes of fame."
The teenager -- who is pregnant with the couple's second child -- now faces second-degree manslaughter charges, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, a fine of up to $20,000, or both. A local sheriff told the New York Times, "I really have no idea what they were thinking. I just don't understand the younger generation on trying to get their 15 minutes of fame."
Doesn't change the fact that their genes get carried on regardless, which is the whole point of calling it the DARWIN Award.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Frying pans specifically or just improvised bludgeons in general? I can't imagine too many deaths by frying pan but I do recall reading how the sale of baseball bats go up with every street riot.
Murder rates generally are unchanged or go up with restrictions on gun ownership. I can't imagine death by stupidity would be changed by gun control laws either. This guy was looking to get killed, jumping off of roofs and driving go-carts like mad.
I'm paraphrasing Penn Gillette who said something like passing insane laws to stop the insane from doing insane things is itself insane.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
So diving licences are the first step to rounding up cars? They are an attempt to limit your constitutionally guaranteed right to travel around?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Actually, 50%.
Unless want to count the mitrochndrial DNA.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I haven't even listened to rap music to know that. The Desert Eagle is the totally OP handgun in so many shooters I've lost count. Max Payne took it up a notch and let you dualwield Desert Eagles.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
"That being said it seems like the government knowing who and where all the guns are would defeat the idea behind the amendment, but even otherwise the whole round em' up scenario is no longer a hypothetical situation as we've seen gun confiscating campaigns in California and New York already. Speaking of hypothetical situations there is also a famous scene in the movie Red Dawn, whose producers were opposed to the then new FFL system, where a soviet commandant in the invading force orders a subordinate to raid all the gun stores in occupied territory to collect all the Form 4473's so they can systematically quell any opposition in the bud before the citizenry can form a militia."
Right, and that's great in Red Dawn fantasy land, but it's become pretty clear given the mass and serious erosion of rights, coupled with the deterioration of freedoms and civil liberties, and increase of the oligarchies with billionaires now running the country having consolidated their power even more that no one is actually ever going to use their 2nd amendment rights anyway because people just don't give that much of a shit.
I can give you a counter-example to your Red Dawn theoretical scenario from the real world - Syria, Libya, Ukraine, and Tunisia. In all these countries weapons were massively restricted by existing authoritarian police states, and in all cases the populace were able to rise up, capture arms, and fight against the government regardless of the level of authoritarianism.
So yes, whilst your theoreticals on the right to bear arms are great, it's all entirely meaningless in reality where Americans are both too lazy to fight for their rights, and where it's been shown that no matter how authoritarian and controlling a government is, or becomes, a population uprising is still going to result in them successfully being able to fight the government with varying levels of violence required depending on the external support the authoritarian leadership has regardless. Therefore no, your theoretical arguments aren't real actual pragmatic arguments against gun control as they hold no resemblance to reality.
I'm sure you'll try and misdirect the argument now by saying "Yeah but look how much of a mess Syria is!" - it doesn't matter, if Trump became grand dictator of the US with increasing authoritarianism it doesn't matter if you have arms to start with or not if he not only maintains control of the military and gets military backing from Russia and Iran too as has happened in Syria then your country would just as much end up in a shitshow of blood bath, constitution be damned. The right to bear arms offers no real practical benefit, it's merely just another religious belief from a religious document by any other name.