9 dead in motorcyle gang gunfight at Texas restaurant

[lustindarkness]

You people suck.

[Admiral Yi]

At some point in the near future HuffPo and The Onion will be indistinguishable.

[Berkut]

So, can we state with certainty that there was even any felony committed here?

According to the gun nuts, it is entirely possible that everything that happened in respects to a bunch of people engaging in a out and out gun battle could be perfectly legal. Everyone has the right to carry heavy weapons, and defend themselves as long as they felt threatened. Hell, we've determined that you are allowed to shoot people who are not even armed, as long as you think they might hurt you, so shooting people who ARE armed is surely reasonable self defense.

Really, as soon as any of them saw another armed gang member who they felt was potentially threatening them, they had the right to try to kill them first. At that point, pretty much everyone there had a right to pull out their piece and start shoooting each other in an attempt to lawfully defend themselves (assuming, of course, that their weapons were all legal).

Now it may turn out that this is not the case, that in fact there was some conspiracy or something. But on the bare face of it - a meeting between heavily *but potentially legally* armed club members that escalates to even potential violence, then in fact it is entirely possible given the existing gun crazies interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, that you could have several dozen people get into a pitched gun battle resulting in mass casualties, all while legally defending themselves, and with no legal demand to even back down or try to get away.

[Ed Anger]

My sarcasm detector exploded

[Berkut]

The funny thing is that it sounds sarcastic, but it is actually perfectly logically consistent.

The combination of the idea that everyone has the right to be armed to defend themselves along with the idea that there is no legal demand to ever back down or de-escalate means that you can have people shooting one another perfectly legally. Hell, it happens already, just not in large groups.

But the legal ideas involved, so far as I am aware, do not change when it is 50 people all exercising their rights at the same time.

Of course, as a practical matter, they are going to charge a bunch of people with crimes anyway.

But if nobody shot each other that day, then certainly the gun nuts would argue that large "clubs" of men are allowed to openly carry their weapons about with them, right?

And there is a claim that if you feel threatened with potential bodily harm, you are then allowed to take out that weapon and shoot someone with it.

So as along as one person, at some point, felt so threatened, they had the right to shoot someone else who they thought was threatening them. And it could certainly be the case that the threat in question doesn't even have to be an illegal act or crime.

Once that happens, pretty much everyone there is just as justified in concluding that their person or lives were in danger, and then THEY all had the right to start shooting as well.

[derspiess]

I'm a gun crazy.

[Ed Anger]

I'm a gun crazy.

I named my guns.

[derspiess]

I name each round of ammo.

[Ed Anger]

I name each round of ammo.

Every round is scared.

[derspiess]

I also wear a protective sheath to catch brass.  That's what being Protestant is all about.

[lustindarkness]

I draw smily faces on my ammo.

[Ed Anger]

I also wear a protective sheath to catch brass.  That's what being Protestant is all about.

That explains all my extra ammo. 

[garbon]

You people suck.

That's not all I do.

[Darth Wagtaros]

I'm a gun crazy.

I named my guns.

Charlene?


Berkut does make a good point.  It could be argued that everyone there did stand their ground.

[lustindarkness]

You people suck.

That's not all I do.