Washington man damages 4 homes in bulldozer rampage, authorities say

[dixiegrrrrl]

A man angry at his neighbors went on a rampage in a bulldozer Friday on Washington's Olympic Peninsula, damaging four homes, knocking one off its foundation and cutting power to thousands of people, authorities said.

http://www.freep.com/article/20130511/NEWS07/305110064/Man-angry-at-neighbors-damages-4-homes-with-bulldozer

Damn, now we gotta ban bulldozers.
or at least have background checks on anyone who uses one.
right?

[Skittles]

1. are gun humpers really that stupid?

seriously

[mercymechap]

7. Apparently,

didn't they also suggest we are going to ban pressure cookers? You can't fix stupid.

[snooper2]

2. Somebody get this on YouTube?

That is a viral video waiting to happen

[The Straight Story]

3. The solution to this is easy

Treat all people like the few - don't let any people here (other than the government) have access to bulldozers.

No one 'needs' them, people want them. You can do the same thing with a shovel - which is what our founding fathers used.

We should only trust people in government (cheney, bush, et al) with such things. Me and you? We might, possibly, maybe less than 1% of us, use them in a negative way - and that is enough to only have us trust a few people in government with them.

[backwoodsbob]

4. when you outlaw bulldozers only outlaws

aww what the hell

[bigtree]

6. primary purposes of a gun are to kill, maim, or intimidate

. . . always amazed at the disconnect from that basic truth in equivalency arguments like the one you presented.

[The Straight Story]

11. Nope.

Primary purpose is to send a piece of copper/etc to it's destination. A paper target. A deer. Skeet. Etc.

What SOME - a very few - use it for, well we have laws for that already.

You and others cling to those few and parade them around as though they represent the many. Much like the right does with some islamic fundies. But when they do it, you get upset and ask why they paint the many based on the few.

[bigtree]

28. I'm perfectly comfortable in concerning myself with actual lives

. . . as opposed to defending someone's right to 'send a piece of copper/etc to it's destination, etc..

I'll 'cling' to that, yes.

SS:

"You and others cling to those few and parade them around as though they represent the many. Much like the right does with some islamic fundies . . ."

Wow. Was that really you on this very thread talking about folks listening to opinions other than their own and complaining about deflections couched in personal attacks? Was that really you? Wow.

[ljm2002]

32. Oh right...

...the person who invented the gun said to himself, "Hey, I gotta send a piece of copper to its destination". Yes. I'm sure that is exactly how it happened. That was the literal motivation for inventing the darned thing. Yep.

Shooting at targets and shooting skeet are training. One shoots at targets, skeet etc. to become a better shot so that when the gun is used for its intended purpose, one does not miss. Shooting skeet helps one to be a better shot when shooting at birds. Shooting at a paper target helps one to be a better shot when shooting at mammals such as deer. Or people -- which is why cops and soldiers use targets in their training (we don't pay cops and soldiers to shoot deer for us). Some paper targets are in the shape of life sized persons. Gosh, I wonder why that is?

Sure some people never use their guns to kill. That does not alter the ultimate intended purpose of the gun. It simply doesn't.

Who are you trying to kid here?

C'mon. Guns are made to kill. They are made to kill animals, maybe for food but not always; and they are made to kill people, maybe in wars or law enforcement but not always. They are extremely efficient at their intended purpose. That is one reason the Europeans were so successful conquering the Americas: the natives had nothing even remotely as efficient at killing.

Oh and BTW: I am not anti-2nd amendment. I am pro-reasonable restrictions.

[geckosfeet]

26. Guns are used for self defense, to deter crime, to hunt, for recreation etc.

I would guess that 99.9% of gun owners have never, and never will "kill or maim" anyone.

[Skittles]

8. OMG, another one

it never ends

gonna have to put you on Ignore; very sad end considering I used to really enjoy reading your stuff but your affinity for gun humping is sickening

[The Straight Story]

12. Fine. But it is not 'gun humping'

And sad to me that you would call it that.

When you take the values some have and apply them elsewhere it is a little disturbing.

Don't own a gun myself. Don't plan on it unless I get myself some land where I could hunt. But just like other issues that don't impact me personally I can't just let certain things slide by.

If you don't want to ban guns - fine. But some do - and my posts are directed at those few.

Want sensible legislation? I am for that and for funding it (we have plenty already, and quite a few laws are not funded enough).

More than happy and open to talk about gun laws and such - as long as people see that it is not the many but the few and we don't spout off banning things.

[Cali_Democrat]

16. Is it true that you used to post on Free Republic?

[The Straight Story]

19. Ummm how does that matter here?

Oh....I get it. People think they can dismiss an argument in such ways.

That usually happens when a person is failing in their ability to reply.

Nice try.

[Cali_Democrat]

34. I'm just wondering. Nice try?

Huh? I just I heard another poster mention it, but I wanted to get confirmation from you.

Is it true?

[murielm99]

13. Why would you put someone on

ignore if they disagree with you about one thing, especially if you enjoy their other posts?

I swear, the gun issue makes crazies of BOTH sides. I don't even like to get into it. When I am asked to serve on a jury here where guns are the issue, I won't do it any more. I am not sure I know how to be fair to either side.

[The Straight Story]

20. Probably because ignore is a way to remain blissfully ignorant

of opinions other than your own.

[rbixby]

9. The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a bulldozer is a good guy with a bulldozer.....duh! NT

[kwassa]

10. well, there was the guy who stole a tank in San Diego ...

and crushed lots of parked vehicles. It did not end well.

[dixiegrrrrl]

14. OK..THAT's IT, dammit. GOTTA ban tanks, too!!!Right f**king now!!!!

Bulldozers and tanks
and humvees

before there is mass smashing all over.

Yeah...............

[L0oniX]

31. "Hulk smash"?

[ljm2002]

33. "before there is mass smashing all over"...

...but you negate your argument right there. Because, you see, with all of the existent bulldozers, tanks and humvess out there, there is NOT any "mass smashing all over".

There is, however, a lot of gun violence all over this country.

Disconnect much?

[Purplehazed]

15. A trained operator and bulldozer on every street corner

[treestar]

17. Why does this fallacy continue?

Again: bulldozers are useful for things other than shooting people. They are not normally used to kill or harm people. They are difficult to use to kill or harm people. The guy could have killed a lot of people with a gun. It appears he did not kill people with the bulldozer. He damaged only property.

[dixiegrrrrl]

18. Just for you..

since my OP comment obviusly needs it:

[The Straight Story]

21. One key word you used a few times

"He (or guy)" - so it was the person and not the tool they used that caused the problem.

I think many of us on the left can come to some sensible resolutions when we strip it all down and see that guns (and other things) are not the issue. SOME - very very few - people are.

We all want to keep those 'some' away from dangerous things.

[nomorenomore08]

23. But it's hard to find "balance" on this issue when even mild restrictions fail in Congress.

I certainly don't think that "banning all guns" is possible, or even desirable - I recognize that they have some legitimate uses. But when you have NRA types freaking out over the slightest tightening of gun laws, once again, where's the "balance"?

[The Straight Story]

24. Well

We can find balance in funding laws currently on the books (and I have posted links before about this and how some states don't do full checks because they don't have the money to put it all into computer systems).

I don't like the NRA, they are worthless assholes with a skewed agenda and a pack of liars.

Balance, to me, would come from us asking honest questions as adults (without the name calling and implications) and seeing what has worked, what can work, and how we could implement it all in way to affect the least amount of people and have the greatest impact.

Background checks are fine - but they are limited. You can buy a gun today and in three years you could be someone who could not pass a check but still have a gun from a prior check.

Better mental health screening. Reduce poverty. Help fight drugs/alcohol which are behind many such crimes.

Guns are not the problem. People are. They always have been since the dawn of time. We have been killing each other, hurting one another, since the day we came into existence here. Blaming guns and trying to restrict them won't solve the problems we have.

We are ignoring the core issues in favor of things that make us feel better. I can't think of a gun law that we have (or could write) that would have stopped the shootings in CT. That young man broke many laws already in place, and having them did nothing to stop him.

Let's work on the issues that create such people. But that might not be so easy and won't make people feel good - some just want to rush in and make more laws and then sit back and say 'well, now I am safe, if someone shoots me they will do two life sentences instead of one and we can track them easier'

[nomorenomore08]

25. Nothing wrong with anything you just wrote.

I agree that mental health awareness (and funding), anti-poverty measures, drug/alcohol treatment for those who want or need it, are all vitally important. Gun control measures, while also essential, aren't the one and only answer.

[treestar]

27. Besides hunting, guns have no other use

We don't need to worry about those people and other things - most people don't find or drive a bulldozer and it can't be carried around by one person. It has many good uses. And they probably are regulated. Tagged, and maybe who can drive them is restricted.

[L0oniX]

30. Mean while ....they do kill people with bulldozers in Israel.

Rachel Corrie RIP

I know this was an exception ...it just came to mind.

[Honeycombe8]

22. It'd be easy to do a national registry of bulldozer owners. Kinda hard to hide 'em.

(Insert cartoon here with officers and FBI on front porch of man's home, with bulldozer parked in driveway, with old man in shorts saying, "What bulldozer?&quot

[L0oniX]

29. Another rampage movie in the making. n/t

[Archae]

35. You're almost 40 years out of date.