Shot fired in brawl over parking spot near [University of Cincinnati] campus

a reply to: badw0lf

Plenty of places have lots of guns but do not have school shootings the problem is more than just guns.

Having lived here my whole life, I'm disappointed yet again however not surprised.

-Alee

a reply to: NerdGoddess

I'm glad we in the UK can not walk about with handguns there would be mayhem it would be like the purge on day 1.
I know what our society is like we like a drink and add guns into that.....

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: badw0lf

Plenty of places have lots of guns but do not have school shootings the problem is more than just guns.

People are the problem. So lets just give them the means to be a real problem.

even seasoned ex cops lose their mind and shoot people. Hell lets, arm them with anything.

**snip** (removed needlessly inflammatory remarks)

a reply to: Flatcoat

As laid out in the OP, I have absolutely no issue with the use of a firearm for self-defense. However, implying that guns are the answer to "[going] through life letting everyone bully you into getting their own way" is more than a slippery slope.

If the details are correct, she didn't pull her gun because she was being "bullied," she pulled it because she was being actively assaulted by two women intent on doing grievous bodily harm.

Anyone who thinks a gun is going to make them tough is probably not somebody who should be carrying a gun.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Who said it makes all men equal?.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey


It's a parking spot, Kaylaluv, not the last dose of, say, a life-saving medication that all three people involved needed.

That’s right. It’s just a parking space. An argument ensued before it came to blows. The argument would have been enough to make me say, “screw it, you can have it”.

Would you also advocate that the kid in the cafeteria at school get up and move to a different lunch table because two bullies got mad at him for sitting there, and if they started kicking his ass, it would be his fault for not moving?

You’re right. He should have brought a gun to school so he could shoot it and scare them off.

a reply to: Martin75

There are estimates that it happens as many as 2.5 million times per year in America, although it's damn near impossible to get an exact number. Even if the actual number is 1/10th that estimate, making it 250,000 times, that far outnumbers the 10,000 times a year that guns are used in non-suicidal violence.

For that ratio to be 1:1, that 2.5-million estimate would need to be an inflation by 250 times, and I can't imagine at all that the estimate would be off by that much.

This Politico piece is written by Dr. Gary Kleck, who published the report and research that came to the conclusion that there are up to 2.5 million Defensive Gun Uses (DGU) per year. That article discusses those who counter his claims, and includes a rebuttal at the bottom by those who penned the rebuttal to his research.

But I assume that the 2.5-million number mark is quite inflated, but I would fully believe that DGUs occur as often, if not more than, offensive gun uses for illegal reasons in the United States. But like I noted, there is no way to know for sure, so like you, I would like to know the actual number or accurate annual average, but for now, it seems like it's all speculation, although some is educated speculation.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

That’s right. It’s just a parking space. An argument ensued before it came to blows. The argument would have been enough to make me say, “screw it, you can have it”.

And again, you're making up what happened. You don't know if there was an argument prior to the physical assault, or if the two women just ran up and blind-sided the victim and started beating the hell out of her without giving her a chance to respond.

making things up and just discuss the reported things thus far.

You’re right. He should have brought a gun to school so he could shoot it and scare them off.

Awww, that's a cute tactic you got there.

So, basically what you're verifying is that you're going to bring not a single bit of substance to this discussion, you just want to make things up and then purposefully misinterpret the meaning of things said to make your stance of let-the-criminals-have-their-way-because-they're-scary-people seem valid.

Thanks for your participation?

originally posted by: badw0lf
a reply to: SlapMonkey

shot at over a parking space. THAT IS ALL THERE IS TO IT.

# a brick you people are retarded.

And your reading-comprehension skills are glaringly lacking.

You realize that the use of the firearm was to protect her from an ass-whooping, right? The illegal assault was from the two...ladies?...who decided to gang up on a person over a parking spot.

You and Kaylaluv should have a nice coffee together and discuss your inability to grasp this reality. No one else is interested in your willfully ignorant opinions.

But, hey, thanks for demonstrating that your understanding of the situation is not retarded in the least. Here's your participation medal for trying:

originally posted by: NerdGoddess
Having lived here my whole life, I'm disappointed yet again however not surprised.

-Alee

Disappointed in what, that someone had the right to defend themselves against two "very brutal" attackers, or that two people would attack someone over a little ol' parking space?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

And again, you're making up what happened. You don't know if there was an argument prior to the physical assault, or if the two women just ran up and blind-sided the victim and started beating the hell out of her without giving her a chance to respond.

From one of your links:

At approximately 2:15 p.m. at 260 Calhoun St., a group of two females attacked a third female — the victim — after an argument over a parking spot broke out, according to CPD director of communications Tiffaney Hardy

The attack happened AFTER an argument broke out. So no, I'm not making anything up.

So, basically what you're verifying is that you're going to bring not a single bit of substance to this discussion, you just want to make things up and then purposefully misinterpret the meaning of things said to make your stance of let-the-criminals-have-their-way-because-they're-scary-people seem valid.

So basically what you're verifying is, that because I don't agree with everything you say, you are going to accuse me of making things up and not bringing anything of substance to the thread. Got it.

Thanks for your participation?

You're welcome?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: NerdGoddess
Having lived here my whole life, I'm disappointed yet again however not surprised.

-Alee

Disappointed in what, that someone had the right to defend themselves against two "very brutal" attackers, or that two people would attack someone over a little ol' parking space?

The article doesn't give any details on what occurred to spark the incident.

For all we know, the women who fired the shot might be an extremely arrogant little b#... For all we know, she probably cut them off to take the spot, then totally mouthed off when they called her out on it.

Yeah, maybe she had the right under local law to fire her weapon once she felt her safety was at risk... But that doesn't mean she didn't provoke a potentially fatal incident, which probably never needed to occur in the first place.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
The attack happened AFTER an argument broke out. So no, I'm not making anything up.

I'll clarify what I meant, as you're correct, there is indication of an argument (and I did read that, I promise): I meant that we don't know the extent of the argument, the duration of the argument, who claimed that there was an argument, or any of the details. Was it a 5-second exchange right before punches were thrown? Was it a 5-minute exchange that led to the assault?

We don't know--both possibilities, at this point, are possible, and therefore you nor I can assume that the victim had the time to do anything other than start getting beat down by these two "ladies." Hell, for all we know, she was attacked as she was getting trying to get into her car and move it, or maybe she yeld, "Bring it, bitch!," to these ladies.

Again, we don't know. But my apologies for saying that you were making up the argument, but there are still far too many unknowns surrounding the claimed argument to know what the victim could or could not have done to de-escalate the situation (as if she should have had to in the first place).

So basically what you're verifying is, that because I don't agree with everything you say, you are going to accuse me of making things up and not bringing anything of substance to the thread. Got it.

No, you still are not bringing much other than speculation to the table, and you started off by blaming the victim, which is really piss-poor form considering what you knew at the time.

So, no, it has nothing to do with you agreeing or disagreeing with me, it's about you initiating discussion by blaming the victim and subsequently implying scenarios that you do not know actually happened (or to what extent they happened) and then running with them. You also bastardize my examples of blaming victims without acknowledging that you were wrong in doing so. You also state that you see the gun as being pulled over a parking spot and not because she was getting attacked (which was the actual, lawful reason that she did it), and you fail to acknowledge that point as well.


You also conflate a multiple-attacker assault on someone with road rage or black-Friday shoppers, which is a massively false comparison that fails to acknowledge the legality of what this victim did in pulling her firearm and using it.

So, you'll have to excuse me if I say that you're contributing nothing of substance, but you really are not--you're just victim blaming, making false comparisons, and basing comments on assumptions about details that we do not yet have in this instance.

But, yes, there was an unspecified argument--at least you got that right, so there's that.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

The article doesn't give any details on what occurred to spark the incident.

For all we know, the women who fired the shot might be an extremely arrogant little b#... For all we know, she probably cut them off to take the spot, then totally mouthed off when they called her out on it.

Not a single one of those examples of hypotheticals allows anyone to gang up on someone, punch and kick them, and slam them into the window of a nearby shop.

Arrogant or not, when you start getting your ass beat by multiple attackers and you are concerned for your life, you have the right defend yourself with your weapon.

Luckily, nobody was shot over the incident, but considering the assailants were 20- and 41-years-old, there are no excuses for the way that they acted, regardless of the victims actions.

Yeah, maybe she had the right under local law to fire her weapon once she felt her safety was at risk... But that doesn't mean she didn't provoke a potentially fatal incident, which probably never needed to occur in the first place.

Again, the only reason that the incident was "potentially fatal" (but it wasn't, so no need to say that) was due to the actions of those two adults over a parking spot. Just like Kaylaluv notes that the victim could/should have given up the spot because it wasn't worth the resulting incident, the two criminals could have made a better choice as well.

Two people committed illegal acts, one did not. Those are facts that we know at this point.

originally posted by: badw0lf
a reply to: SlapMonkey

shot at over a parking space. THAT IS ALL THERE IS TO IT.

# a brick you people are retarded.

They were shot at because they were attacking her. An attack that put her in the hospital. What would you do when two people attack you? Roundhouse kick em?

lol

this guy...