Woman shot nail salon owner because she was unhappy with cost of mani-pedi, police say
Leaving and the coming back to make trouble... shoot the owner... and then flee the scene of the crime.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
(TX) Woman shot nail salon owner because she was unhappy with cost of mani-pedi
- Thread starter mattlikewhoa
- Start date
Leaving and the coming back to make trouble... shoot the owner... and then flee the scene of the crime.
The lack of background check, training, and licensing is more egregious there.
It was spontaneous and the sister didn't actually do anything violent, so lesser charges are a given.
So now its legal to shot people when you dont like the price? Whta sick interpretation of stand your ground is this? I was afraid to pay too much?
I mean she didn't even pick up any charges for the incident itself, it was fleeing from the cops on a traffic stop afterwards
Dunno I just think its fucked up that she was there for the shooting and fled to watch someone maybe die and then didn't even turn in her sister.
Jesus, really seems like some people's first reaction to some problems is to just shoot them away. Glad the store owner is alive.
I mean the article is explicitly about said person getting arrested because it isn't legal but go off
And yeah as always super proud of my city, this shit was 4 miles from my house. Smart fucking gun laws make for smart fucking shootings
Something something, but responsible gun owners, something something, 2nd amendment, missing scene, Murica.
She didn't do anything during the incident except flee. Leaving isn't a crime for her since she didn't do anything. Fleeing from the cops would be the crime because by time the cops would've even gotten to them, enough time would've passed for the sister to have made an attempt to get the offending asshat to turn herself in. But by staying, that's come clear aiding and abetting since the intent would ultimately be to help her sister get away. Had she attacked staff or tried to rob the dude after he he was down, then they probably would've slapped some accessory to the shooting.
It's fucked up that she let her sister shoot someone, yeah, but simply being a bystander isn't illegal.
Another example of why not everyone should own a gun, and a perfect example of why strict gun laws are needed.
Who in their right mind would deal with this situation with a gun? Oh, that's right, the exact type of person who shouldn't own a gun.
Who in their right mind would deal with this situation with a gun? Oh, that's right, the exact type of person who shouldn't own a gun.
TX is becoming the old TX.
The other thing is that neither one of these women imagined this scenario when they bought the gun. Everyone sees themselves as the hero and not the villain. Well, we read about gun violence everyday. There's a lot more villains than heroes.
Not surprising that a lot of people are impulsive and irrational.
be honest, do you really think it would have made a difference here?
Made a difference here? Without knowing more than what anyone else knows, the simple answer is no, but it's far more complicated than that, imo. Does it make a difference in general? Of course it does. And if the whole country were on the same page, while these sorts of incidents would still happen because people are assholes, there'd be significantly less of them because the amount of hoops would limit the amount of assholes taking their legally purchased shit and being idiotic with it.
Ah yes, one of those weird-ass myths some Americans like to tell themselves. "If only those people had a background check and training they wouldnt shoot someone for no reason''.
Its weird how you never hear of people getting shot over the price of some nail polish in countries where guns are banned.
You also don't hear about it in countries where guns aren't banned, but that's not the point.
The point is, guns aren't going to be banned in our lifetimes. No one is going to change the constitution, state by state measures aren't going to work, a significant chunk of the population doesn't want it, and the shit is too entrenched to where even if all of the guns were banned tomorrow, gun crime would continue to be a thing for decades. Either through the millions of black market stolen weaponry, cloned weapons made in some farm overseas, or through shit people milled and 3D printed in their garage. People will start doing that shit simply out of spite.
That part isn't moving any time soon. What will move is the ease in which guns are acquired and the ease in which they're kept even after several warning sides. Make guns harder, and ultimately more expensive to get, the less people will attempt to buy a gun, and the less gun owners the US will have in general. The less gun owners there are, the less important guns are to the overall culture and framework. The less important they become, the easier they will get done away with.
Then there's the other obvious shit, like poverty reduction measures, closing the wealth gap, so on and so forth, which would also put a dent into gun ownership, gun crime, and crime in general.
Gun ownership will not go away in the manner and speed at which people want them to. We're not going to blink and have them be gone a femtosecond later. But what we do have are sensible measures the vast majority of people agree with, so instead of trying to shoehorn a solution from a vaguely similar situation into something that is far more convoluted structually, legally, and socially.
My take at this background check discussion is that no background check or training would have avoided this type of situation.
If someone shoots someone over some petty thing like this, it's a person issue. And letting them even get a gun in any way would always result in the same way - she shoots
If someone shoots someone over some petty thing like this, it's a person issue. And letting them even get a gun in any way would always result in the same way - she shoots
It seems more and more have some serious blurred reality when it comes to taking or attempting to take a life. They see a gun the same as deleting someone off Facebook.
They don't see that every person is a living being with their own life and their own struggles and their own family and by pulling that trigger you're ending the existence of that life and changing their family forever. Nobody thinks about the person on the other side of that gun barrel. It's not a delete button on Facebook where you just don't see that person again yet they still exist to others.
Killing or attempting to someone rather than a negative yelp review is just something that baffles me.
They don't see that every person is a living being with their own life and their own struggles and their own family and by pulling that trigger you're ending the existence of that life and changing their family forever. Nobody thinks about the person on the other side of that gun barrel. It's not a delete button on Facebook where you just don't see that person again yet they still exist to others.
Killing or attempting to someone rather than a negative yelp review is just something that baffles me.
One of the biggest problems in gun culture: Guns are not treated as weapons, they are toys.
Yup, in fact, I don't even think the Wild West had as many shootouts as pop culture has us believe because if you got a gunshot wound and that got infected you were looking at an amputation, they probably didn't resort to guns unless absolutely necessary. But over time weapons have become more and more like toys that anyone can pick up. Here in the UK it's technically legal to own an Uzi but only under really restricted circumstances.
The Wild West had gun control laws. The famous Tombstone city, you couldn't carry a gun inside, and the shootout was because of that if I remember right.
Obviously we don't have guns freely available in the UK but even then I can't imagine getting so angry with someone in a shop where I'd genuinely think 'If I could go and get a gun right now you'd be in serious trouble.'
User Banned (1 Week): Insensitive Commentary; Prior Ban for Trolling Sensitive Thread
Not happy. Shot him in the chest. It's terrible, but I kind of understand her thought process.
But to leave, come back in and shoot him again while he's down
I don't understand.
My reply may be controversial, but I think that although your post was meant as an attempt to be rational and realistic, it can also be interpreted as pretty blatant disregard for human life, because I don't think you realize how big of a problem gun violence is in the united states.
To put things in a bit of perspective, according to this source there were close to 20,000 deaths from gun violence in the U.S. during the year 2020 alone. That's one year, and I've seen estimates that are way higher as well.
In comparison with another (rightfully) hot topic, according to this source, over the last century, Palestinian deaths due to conflicts (be they against the British, against Israel, in Lebanon and Syria, etc.) have totalled around 30,000.
Now obviously these numbers are not completely accurate, and historical accounts are much more likely to be underestimated than recent ones, but the fact that these two are even in the same ballpark - let alone one being orders of magnitude higher than the other - should be a clear sign that gun-violence in the U.S. is closer to a humanitarian crisis than a social and legal issue that the rest of the world should just accept as the responsibility of one country to fix, on whatever timeline that is most convenient for them.
Wow it's almost like allowing people to carry deadly weapons on their person is a bad idea.
Nah that's crazy talk!
Nah that's crazy talk!
You are not living in reality if you think the US can just up and unilaterally ban guns.
