Man Gets 100 Years for Accidentally Killing His 8-Year-Old Daughter While Trying to Shoot His 18-Year-Old Son
Man Gets 100 Years for Accidentally Killing His 8-Year-Old Daughter While Trying to Shoot His 18-Year-Old Son
Tony Valez, 66, flew into a rage when he thought he was being evicted from his home, authorities said.
You're viewing a single thread.
wtaf?
Valez believed that two women had come to the house to evict him and he lost his temper
so… how did that relate to his partner and son?
so confused
daughter in law and his partner were the two women maybe?
article is kinda bad
yet another shining example of the kind of quality republican needed to prove the value of the second amendment
Republicans prove the value of the second amendment everytime they open their mouths.
Trump is the greatest argument I’ve seen for it.
(Just… for the record… I’m generally pro gun control.)
I've got bad news for you buddy, second amendment or not, the side who's got the army behind them wins. You can have whatever shiny gun you like, you won't even see the drone that blows you up.
You’re right. If the military comes down on a side, that side probably wins.
You assume that a) such a hypothetical starts with the military and b) I was talking about all out war to start with.
There’s a very large spectrum here.
In what scenario does the military not pick sides? No matter if it's from the get go or not.
All out civil war? Same scenario, military gets involved? The side they're on will be told to hide, they'll shoot anyone walking around with a gun and it will come from the sky.
The second amendment was written at a time when it made sense, with today's military it doesn't make any anymore and it achieves the opposite of what was intended, putting people in danger instead of keeping them safe.
In the scenario where they fracture in command- most likely that’ll be a regional thing at the base level
Politics has been more easily explained throughout American history as “north” vs “south”. In addition to the regular army, there’s all the nat guards that’ll probably go with their states.
The thing is, people think it will come down to armed conflict. It won't. It's much easier duping people into believing the Fuhrer and have them join the movement instead. It has worked innumerable times in history, and is literally what is happening right now and has been going for decades- half the nation willingly votes in tyrants, under the rationale that the non-tyrants will take away the citizens' rights to defend against being ruled by tyrants.
Flbprprprprprprprblpr is my state of mind since around the turn of the century.
I'll be sure to let North Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and most recently Gaza know your thoughts on it, buddy.
Didn't know they had the second amendment over there.
Not only do they not have the 2A, they don't need it, guns are plentiful and cheap and somehow ignorant farmers who live in caves and huts keep using them to resist drones and smart bombs.
I'm not advocating for 0 gun regulations, I'm pointing out the "the side with the bigger guns wins" argument is stupid and provably false.
What you're ignoring for the sake of your argument is that the army would be on its own turf instead of going somewhere where they don't know the land and there's a big difference between Americans with guns and foreign militias backed by other countries. Also, don't look up the death rate of Afghans vs foreigners in the 2000s war because it doesn't look good for the Afghans.
Don't know why you would bring up Vietnam, drones weren't a thing back then, today the military wouldn't even have to get off base to fuck up the opposing side.
If the military today wouldn't even have to get off base to fuck up the opposing side (proven false in recent conflicts btw) why does it matter if they're on their turf? Your own reasoning doesn't make any sense and ignores a ton of conflicts. You mentioned Afghanistan, who's in charge there now, is it the US?
The statement wasn't about how many people on whichever side die, but that pretending that "You don't need a gun to defend yourself because the federal government has missles" is an extremely poor, provably false argument. I support stronger gun laws, it's just a really bad take.
It makes sense because they have maps of everything, that's a huge technical advantage over invading a country where no one but the locals know the terrain.
They have satellites and drones that can map everything relatively quickly, recon isn't the hard part. Topographical data doesn't win hearts and minds.
Like I said, I'm not against gun control though. I just feel like blanket "no guns!" statements aren't really productive to the conversation. It'd be like trying to discuss abortion with a Christian and demanding "abortions on demand up to 10 months no questions asked!"
It's just such a dismissive, "my way or the highway" take that it makes reasonable discussion impossible and guarantees gridlock.
like I’m on pure face value argument pro self defense and having a gun if someone is breaking into my house
but imagine your daughter is this bozos baby momma
But he tried to shoot his son? Lmao
so I live around stupid fuckers like this in the deep south
he never intended to kill any of them, he was trying to run them off and was probably not thinking about consequences at all
betting he was also drunk
never intended to kill any of them
“He told police he shot his partner, Heather Hall, until she fell to the ground”
idk, seems like intent to me
probably legally but again stupid + drunk and angry with zero thought beyond the moment
something like ‘they’re not gonna kick me off my own property’ drunk as fuck and was interviewed in shock
I know someone that shot at his own mom cause she wouldn’t give him 20$, they got in a fight and she told him something like ‘shoot me if you don’t believe me I don’t have it’
stupid + redneck + drugs and anger
goddamn I guess it’s gotten crazier since I was last in that region
meth, it’s a fucking mess over lots of rural America and not just the south
yep, that part I knew, unfortunately
Just wanted to make her sit down, duh. If all you have is a gun, every problem becomes a target.
Maybe his intention was just to clear the view, not to kill anyone. He's allowed to clear the view in his home, right? Anything above waist height has to go, I've felt the same many a time polishing my SMG in the garage. Alas, I have neither wife, kids, nor visitors to obstruct my view, for unrelated reasons.
With enough drugs or alcohol involved, this makes sense.
Oh, alcohol and drugs are always involved, very much always.
If you can't see how this happened without blaming it on drugs, it's not my problem
This one’s actually pretty funny. I’ll upvote it.
Seriously tho, grow up, you immature twat(s).
I am also going to bet he's a racist piece of shit and hardline Trump supporter, but that is neither here nor there.
Man did his patriotic duty, shooting his useless kids. Semper fi.
Daughter-in-law? Where’s that coming from?
nope I’m stupid and misread it, totally baby momma not daughter in law
so no clue who the two ladies are
daughter and baby momma?
Let me clear it up. Person 1: Sister / baby-mamma / uncle.
Person 2: Daughter in law/ nephew/ grandmother.
Family relations are kinda interesting in that part of the world.
The two ladies are presumably people who have bothered him about evicting him before. Or they were all in his head.
He mistook his son and baby momma for two ladies, and in shooting at them, he hit neither of them, hitting the child instead.
Hope that clears it up.
ok, back to “so confused”