I especially like the guy in the 3rd panel.
Soooooo… Florida. What the fuck are they putting in the water there? I cannot fathom any good reason to allow legal “warning shots.” (Although the law mentioned at the end of the article was pretty damn groovy.)
Also, people keep emailing me this: Pot denounces kettle as black. This could get REALLY interesting.
It is important to remember now if you are in Florida and feel like shooting your gun in the air just make sure you declare that you felt threatened by someone and you were firing warning shot.
[SouthPark]
He’s coming right for us! *blam*
[/SouthPark]
It wuz a flyin’ saucer! I heered about them alien abductions!
A note to all Floridians tempted to fire warning shots: gravity still applies. Please point your muzzles DOWN. Thank you, that is all.
Ricochets apply too.
Right. Will definitely fire my warning shot into the attacker, too.
Not sure where to put this observation, but here seems as good a place as any other… If it’s not safe to fire a bullet into what’s behind your target, it’s not safe to fire a bullet into your target.
It think you missed the point; firing a warning shot in Florida carried a MANDATORY 20 year sentence. Judges had no options. Me, I’d rather scare the #$%^ out of someone and have them go to jail than live with the memory of me killing them.
What’s the scenario? When should someone fire a lethal weapon (and remember, you are responsible for every bullet you fire) without an urgent need to stop a threat?
Because I like punching holes in paper? Or were you implying “in a threat situation”?
Probably I’m being pedantic (and maybe I’m a little puncy because it’s day SIX of house guests), but be careful the arguments you use lest they come back.
The specific scenario is that they previously didn’t have a rule at all, so declaring that you fired a warning shot was the same as declaring you simply discharged your weapon in public. STUPID. I’m glad they made SOME changes. I think they could have done better than just saying, “Warning shots are legal.”
If you are referring to the case I think you are referring to, the headlines about the warning shot didn’t reflect the reality of the situation.
Damn it, people, if you feel in so much danger that you need to use a “warning shot”, put the damn thing centre mass.
“So I fired two warning shots – right into his head.”
Chicago?
Public outcry being what it is, they were pressured to do it.
As far as the case inspiring the new law, I’ll give my unsolicited opinion.
From what I read on the events, Alexander successfully retreated and returned with a firearm. That’s not self-defense anymore. I don’t think she deserved 20 years for it, but the state’s 10-20-life sentencing would have hit her hard no matter what.
Yeah, people who thought she shouldn’t have gone to jail failed to take into account that she walked PAST the guy, into the garage. It was HIS house. She came BACK into his house to fire the “warning” shot. She got what she deserved. Well… Maybe a bit harsh. But she did deserve to be found guilty.
Stand Your Ground laws are totally fucked. They result in more homicides, and magnify the already heinous racial disparities in our justice system.
[Citation needed.]
Yeah, try to cite something here and you get paranoid conspiracy theories about how the American Association of Pediatrics wants to take our guns away. I’ve given up on that.
No, seriously though, SYG laws have been around for years, and have REDUCED the problems you think it’s causing. And since when is a medical association where you should go for gun facts? Bulletitis isn’t a real thing, yet.
Criminals, if they retreat in the face of lethal force kill them,
for not even having the work ethic to do their chosen profession well.
The ramifications of such a law, in re. politicians could prove. . . “Interesting.”
Should such a law pass, I call Feinstien.
Or do I have to call it AFTER such a law goes in place.
That’s a good example of thinking outside the box, with all the guns to choose, he decides upon the noose.
From the article: “Some gun rights supporters have recently raised concerns that the confusing language could actually weaken self-defense protections.”
That’s my concern as well. It’s just begging to have a prosecuting attorney ask “why didn’t you just fire a warning shot?” Even if it makes zero sense to have done so, some people on the jury are going to believe that it would’ve been better. If firing a warning shot is legally more risky than just shooting to kill, that’s beneficial from the point of view of a legal defense. (Although I’m with Bob-in-Florida above; given the choice, I’d rather not live with the memory of killing somebody. On the other hand, as I’ve heard it said, I can live with killing somebody else more easily than I can live with them killing me.)
Also mentioned in the article was the “pop tart bill”. Totally on-board with that one.
Wthout the warning shot law, if you fire one shot into the ground you can be charged. If you fire a shot into the criminal, no charge.
What this law does, is to make the warning shot shooter have a little more legal protection. There are still many things that are legally problematic when discharging or even displaying a firearm in a confrontation.
It’s just because enough people are believing the bullshit headlines about Marissa Alexander’s “warning shot in self defense.”
According to Wikipedia, she left the house, got a gun, CAME BACK INTO THE GUY’S HOUSE, and shot at his head but missed. His arms were raised and his kids were by him at the time.
The guy is an admitted shitbag and the world would be better off without him, but that wasn’t a warning shot in self defense. It was an armed home invasion, attempted murder and reckless endangerment of two children.
The other main provision of the law is important and shouldn’t be glossed over. Before this law, there were scenarios where you could be in legal jeopardy if you displayed your weapon without firing, but you’d be in the clear if you shot the assailant. That obviously makes no sense. If he breaks off the attack at the sight of the gun, that’s a result. The law shouldn’t punish you for not shooting.
you know, out of all the candidates from the last couple of strips, I’d hire the Cabela’s guy. He seems the most sane and least criminal, and he has actual legitimate retail experience, even if it was kinda light. The downside is that it wasn’t specifically gun sales experience. Also, how do you work as a greeter for four years and not get promoted into something better?
You might not get promoted because you truly suck as a greeter? “Welcome to Cabela’s, buy some shit and get out.”
…although, personally, that might make me more likely to shop there.
I think I’d go with the airsoft guy; I think “close enough, right?” is actually relatively true, since at least it’s retail sales experience. My concern would be bad habits he may have picked up (especially lack of trigger discipline).
He might not have been promoted because he sucked, sure. That’s what I was thinking. But there could be an explanation, like he was going to school or working at another job full-time, and working at Cabela’s was a side job to make a few bucks. The greeter position might have offered flexible, part-time hours, whereas doing actual sales elsewhere in the store would have demanded more time commitment. Also, if he was really young at the time, that could explain a lack of ambition and commitment. Lots of people are like that and then grow out of it. I’d at least want to hear the story. At least the guy isn’t blatantly criminal or blatantly a bullshitter. Sure, he embellished his resume a little, but not to an outrageous extent.
The “not quite 21” guy also seems enthusiastic and eager, which is a great thing. Mick was probably like that when Omar gave him his job. I’d be inclined to give him a chance except for the “must be 21” requirement. I’d almost feel bad about disappointing him, and hope he comes back once he meets the age requirement.
I’d hire the dude in the third block. If he’s been dealing for 20 years, he hasn’t been caught, likely won’t have the same customer base, he’s good at details and following guidelines, and possibly after all that, he’s not a felon.
Tell him the rules and the consequences, and I bet he’ll follow them. Rules are different than laws. The rule in the gun shop is to follow the gun laws.
I mean, he’s obviously trying to go legit.
Or else he’s just looking for a new supply of merchandise.
*snerk* How did I know a noose would show up on Monday somewhere?
Mick’s getting his knots confused. The rabbit goes “around the tree and down the hole” once for the bowline knot, but the hangman’s knot doesn’t do that shit. You just wrap it around 6-8 times.
I actually taught myself this knot while in the navy. It takes a surprisingly large amount of rope to go around 12 or 13 times, as is traditional.
re: Pope Francis. His statement isn’t without precedent. Anyone who commits a sufficiently grave sin is excommunicated “latae sententiae,” i.e., automatically. And what that means is that they cannot receive any of the other sacraments until they confess and repent. You’ll find posts by various lay bloggers howling that such people as Nancy Pelosi, V.P. Biden, or other abortion supporting national politicians have excommunicated themselves, going back years, and so should be refused the Eucharist. Believe it or not, murder or extortion isn’t on the list of sufficiently grave sins, while voluntarily procuring or providing an abortion is.
Now, how is any of Papa Francis’s behavior, either as Pope or as Jorge Cardinal Bergoglio, comparably violent and criminal as the extortion & drug dealing organization he denounced?
Haven’t Panel 2 Dude and Panel 3 Dude been in the strip before?