Metsfanmax wrote:patrickaa317 wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:patrickaa317 wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:Man, those law-abiding citizens are really responsible with their firearms.
http://www.abc27.com/story/24480398/pol ... -pranksterA 14-year-old boy was shot in the foot while he and other juveniles were ringing doorbells at Arendtsville homes as a prank early this morning, according to police.
Authorities have arrested the alleged shooter, 28-year-old Eric Lee Steinour, and have charged him with aggravated assault, simple assault and reckless endangerment, according to state police in Gettysburg.
Several juveniles were involved in the pranks at around 2 a.m. when Steinour confronted two of the youths in an alley and fired a shot from a handgun when they ran away, police said in a news release.
He should be held fully accountable for his recklessness. I do disagree that this is any good reason to support a ban on guns though.
Do you want to ban glass bottles after this story? http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2014/01/18/one-employee-stabbed-multiple-times-another-hit-head-after-fight-breaks-out-inside-boston-bar/I7h52KQZCsfZKfRaREw4VP/story.htmlA second employee who told police someone broke a bottle over his head was also taken to Mass. General, Grant said.
I'd rather ban alcohol, but banning guns is more politically feasible.
The two are mutually exclusive from each other so i have no idea what the intent of your reply is.
The two are not mutually exclusive. In your example the accident happened in a bar, and Phatscotty implied in response to my shooting example that the guy was probably drunk. So, take away the alcohol and a lot of the stupid fights go away. Unfortunately, the last time we tried that it didn't end so well.
So you would say that overall there is less violence with allowing alcohol to remain legal than there would be if there was an attempt to make it illegal?