“…no matter what shifty logic you use it remains a gun issue…”

Is the fact that he beat his wife a “gun issue”?

Is the fact that he actually drove over there to check up on her a “gun issue”?

Is the fact that he didn’t even trust her to have a glass of wine with someone a “gun issue”?

Sounds to me like a classic case of a controlling, possessive, jealous partner.

Domestic violence / spousal abuse (emotional or physical) is not a “gun issue”.

Even the strictest of gun laws (which, btw I’m all in favour of) will not change that.

To suggest otherwise is “shifty logic”.

Well said, thanks

The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
-Wayne Dyer

I told ya before, Jack, come and take em.

you gonna need nukes!

“a guy find his wife in the night with another man ..... that woman has a lot explaining to do”

Wow, I’m glad I’m not married to someone who doesn’t trust me to invite a friend or colleague over for a glass of wine, unless chaperoned!!!

It might well have been perfectly innocent.
After all, she was working for a firearms manufacturer, in sales.
To me, their business connections make this sound like a perfectly plausible scenario -- and 10.30 p.m. is a perfectly civilised hour for a glass of wine.

But even IF the husband DID have grounds for his jealous suspicions – that still does not in ANY way justify his actions, as your comment seems to suggest.

The man who trust women is insane.

The End.
P.S.(MMMMMMMMMEEEEEEEEOOOOOOWWWWWW....stay thirsty my friends drink XXs)

The man who trust women is insane . I tell you one thing , I never invite any of my friends to my house, the house is a place to enjoy with your family only. If you want to talk about business with your friends from work, do it on a public place like a restaurant. I don't want to find my wife sitting in the sofa drinking wine with another guy, are you freaking kidding me.
By the way, every man has to set rules in a relationship with his girlfriend or with his wife, that's all I have to say.
Discussing business very late at night ......you can tell that story to an idiot not to me.

Thank you.

The End.
P.S.(MMMMMMEEEEEEOOOOOWWWWW...stay thirsty my friends drink XXs)

May be the husband found his wife dress in sexy lingerie and the other guy with his pants down, that picture tells everything.

The End.
P.S.(MMMMMMEEEEEEEEOOOOOWWWWW....stay thirsty my friends drink XXs)

“I never invite any of my friends to my house” – Sounds strange to me, but maybe that’s just a cultural difference.

“I don't want to find my wife sitting in the sofa drinking wine with another guy”. -- I see no reason why she shouldn’t.

“…every man has to set rules in a relationship…” -- It’s not a “relationship" if only one party gets to "set the rules”.

“Discussing business very late at night ......you can tell that story to an idiot not to me”.

Lots of business deals are clinched in informal environments. Especially big business deals, and especially when they involve well known personalities who might not want to be seen with a company rep in some public restaurant where waitstaff might tattle or fans interrupt.

Molli, the truth is she was having an affair with that guy since last fall. It was not a business meeting, at all. That would be like Bill Gates flying into town and meeting up with a cashier from Target to talk about computer sales. Wayne was never violent in the least towards her up until that night. She was busted, and what happened happened. No it was not good in any way, but please know that what he discovered that night is that the woman he loved had his son with her, making out with another man.

And.. while we are at it lets rewrite the first amendment! Or better still lets just say that the first only applies to verbal speech and hand written speech since the internet, television, and the radio had not been invented at the time of the penning of the Constitution.

The internet, television and radio doesn't kill people Guns do!

Why not rewrite the 2nd admendment.

To say what?

You could move to a country that doesn't have a second amendment. Don't let the door hit ya in the ass.

How about starting with background checks including gun shows. Ban sale of automatic weapons and most of all ban magazines with more then ten rounds.

I'll just stay here and hope our country has better gun laws like other countrys such as Australia..

The prime minister, John Howard, said, “We do not want the American disease imported into Australia.” The laws have worked here..

Well said!

You will be allowed to have a gun for defense, so the constitution is respected but not a AR-15, that's all.

Ah yes, Australia, the land where armed criminals are free to prey on an unarmed population. Does it matter to you that violent crime has actually risen since the government disarmed the population?

So, you're saying you don't own guns, but you wanna take away 30 million AR-15s from freedom loving Americans? Ahahaha! Let me know how that works out for ya!

so owning a AR 15 is a sign of been a "freedom loving American"!

poor America...

a country that doesn't have a second amendments!!!
Well, as the US constitution is only for the USA, it means every single other countries do not have a second amendment, i mean, just saying, for info...

Australia.” The laws have worked. The American Journal of Law and Economics reported in 2010 that firearm homicides in Australia dropped 59 percent between 1995 and 2006. In the 18 years before the 1996 laws, there were 13 gun massacres resulting in 102 deaths, according to Harvard researchers, with none in that category since.

Similarly, after 16 children and their teacher were killed by a gunman in Dunblane, Scotland, in 1996, the British government banned all private ownership of automatic weapons and virtually all handguns. Those changes gave Britain some of the toughest gun control laws in the developed world on top of already strict rules. Hours of exhaustive paperwork are required if anyone wants to own even a shotgun or rifle for hunting. The result has been a decline in murders involving firearms.

In Japan, which has very strict laws, only 11 people were killed with guns in 2008, compared with 12,000 deaths by firearms that year in the United States — a huge disparity even accounting for the difference in population. As Mayor Michael Bloomberg stressed on Monday while ratcheting up his national antigun campaign, “We are the only industrialized country that has this problem. In the whole world, the only one.”

Americans do not have to settle for that.

unless he plans on eating the cat he should get his ass kicked for killing just for the sport of killing. I'm a hunter when I go out with a gun it is to put food on my table. Not just to shoot something because it's there.

Agreed. If you're not killing it for food or protection, you're just in it for the blood lust.

I am pretty sure the Cat is tranquilized so that he could be tagged and tracked for research purposes. Notice no blood.

Naw, he shot it.

http://archives.petersenshunting.com/print/2402

I am pretty sure the Putz killed it just because he was a dunb ass.

He was a trophy hunter. Why try to whitewash it?

And that's the sad part about it! His disrespect for life.

I am an AVID Hunter, but I NEVER shoot anything that I or someone else does not eat.

I respect that Radical C.

Yep. Sad all the way around.

Those big cats are border extinctions, hunting such rare animals is a crime, eating is not an excuse, their is no justification possible.

yeppers.

Yup. If there is such a thing as bad karma, that guy built up a LOT of it.

"...this tragedy is a direct result of the culture of the gun..."
I disagree.
This tragedy is a direct result of the culture of power in relationships.

The two ("the culture of power in relationships" and "the culture of the gun") are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, in this case, they go hand in hand.

To say the culture of the gun has nothing to do with this tragic episode is to deny a painfully obvious truth.

Yes, the two are indeed mutually exlusive, unimatrix.
There are many, many excellent reasons to argue for stricter gun control.
But this particular incident is not one of them.
To say that the culture of the gun is the reason for this tragic episode is to deny an even more painfully obvious truth: controlling, abusive relationships.
Any attempt to frame this story as nothing but a “gun control” issue is merely deflecting from that even deeper societal ill, to the detriment of all who suffer under such circumstances and can see no escape.

No, they are not mutually exclusive, both ("the culture of power in relationships" and "the culture of the gun") play a role in this tragedy. I am not sure why you would want to argue this rather simple point of fact.

I am not arguing it is one or the other, I am arguing it is both. To remove either from the equation is to paint an inaccurate and false picture. Both are factors in this tragedy.

Then we shall have to agree to disagree.
I live in a country where gun control is so strict that even the Olympic shooting team had to travel abroad to train and where even the police are unarmed (and we LIKE it like that!) – yet this type of crime — this exact same scenario of jealous partner kills (alleged) lover -- nevertheless occurs. And not infrequently. People just use other weapons.

(Granted: duelling with swords has fallen out of fashion somewhat)

You analogy would apply if this man were a proponent of murder. People who die of lung cancer from smoking have only themselves to blame. Your analogy may even hold a little water if he were killed with his own weapon or was even armed at the time. Otherwise it is a logical fallacy at best.

lung cancer kills slower than a jealous husband

there is always a better gunslinger

duelling with swords has fallen out of fashion somewhat
and isn't that a pity, at least those required some skill, and you had to get right up close and personal.

It is *indeed* very sad and tragic, Jan.
You bring up an excellent point about kneejerk rage being the first reaction rather than talking; it shouldn't be that way but I don't know if it'll ever change.

I'm not sure it's about society "now". After all, this kind of thing has been going on for centuries. We all know the story (if not personally, then from fiction or film):

Jealous guy kills (alleged/suspected/real) lover, beats wife, places child with (his own) relatives...

It's very easy to make this about "guns" (simply because that was the weapon used).

But it would be just as easy to make it about "religion" or "class" or whatever your particular bugbear might be.

Fact is, it's all about control and power.

Mostly patriarchial (though I acknowledge that there are abusive women,too).

Bottom line: this won't change until social attitudes change.
Gun laws won't alter this.
It could have been a knife. Or a brick. Or a baseball bat.
The motivation would have been the same. And so would the outcome.

Yes, I know all about crimes of passion and that they do not possess the quality of rational thought at any time. In general however, I do also see it as a reflection of society as a whole. Road rage, knee jerk reactions that are violent to things you would not previously see such reactions to. You even see it here and on other venues on the Internet. People are filled with rage (perhaps because yes they do see a loss of control over their lives) and I do see it as a reflection of our culture and the times we live in. My comment was also not in regards to guns or gun control. My comment had more to do with what I perceive as a general malfunction in society based on the culture we have made where regardless of the weapon used to hurt be it words to knives or guns people seem less inclined to care about who it hurts in relation to their selfish wants.

Yes. Good point -- perhaps that rage you describe in terms of a sense of "loss of control" has indeed increased in our society/culture. One to ponder over, certainly.

"People that hold different world views than you are still people too at the end of the day."

Yes, indeed! That says it all, AmericanStandard.

Thanks for reposting. I read that comment, and responded to it. I was astonished to see it had been removed. Contentious/controversial? To some, perhaps (but certainly worthy of discussion). Abusive / in violation of TOS? Surely not.

and they are both
DEAD RIGHT

Well said, Scrapner!

Cars are meant for transport, Guns are made for killing---REPEAL the second Amendment.

REPEAL the second Amendment.

Then "ONLY" Jackholes would have Guns! :-))

I would have a sling shot.

you got a good point

well said

Agree!

Did he really "glorify gun culture"?

My impression from what I have read is that he glorified hunting. Now, I'm not at all into hunting, but I do know some people who are (I admit I enjoy being invited to dinner afterwards!). And none of them are "gun nuts" by any stretch of the imagination.

Isn't this really more about abusive relationships than gun culture?

It is a case of jealous rage and a failed relationship. The husband could have killed him with a knife or a car.

The poster wouldn't have posted the story if this guy had been killed with a knife.
To the "peace loving" gun-grabbers' its always about the gun, gloating every time someone dies by a gun. They celebrate death and violence more than the so called gun culture they vilify.

I really love your pragmatic approach to... well everything!

"...It is a case of jealous rage and a failed relationship. The husband could have killed him with a knife or a car..."

Exactly.

"pragmatic"?
When it comes to good food, yes, absolutely!
As for the rest -- it beats "dogmatic" hands down every time, imo.
;-)

Well said Leen!

they weep because
a unfaithful man was suppose to be
their lone ranger

Thanks, nanac!

You're welcome, Leen!

I will love to see that.

"I will love to see that."

Say what? You'd *actually* like to see someone get shot and killed?

nobody wasn't talking about getting killed, I was laughing at baliey's comment.

What part of "Why couldn't it happen to some A'Hole like ted(hide your little girl)nugent" was funny?

Why would anyone want it to HAPPEN to *anyone*?

It seems that someone on this forum doesn't like your joke.

that clown (nugent) always talking about being a hero, but he's nothing but a big fat zero.

I really don't care. they neither pay my bills or feed me so they really don't have an effect on my world.

"What is going on?"

Pretty much what has being going on for centuries, and has been immortalised in literature throughout the ages: the scorned lover, the controlling partner, consumed by rage, kills object of (rational/irrational) jealousy, bringing tragedy and grief to many.

Karma in the sense that he was boning some other guy's wife and got shot over it perhaps. What kind of karma were you thinking? If your spiritual god thinks people should be killed for being a firearms enthusiast then I wonder about the world you want to create.

Actually, it sounds like the crazy husband might have just assumed they were having a relationship:

"(Police) said that Rodriguez and the woman, who works for a firearms manufacturer in the Flathead Valley, met at a trade show and struck up a casual relationship that police do not believe was romantic."

http://www.masslive.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2013/03/outpouring_follows_death...

I was referring to fate/destiny, or the law of the universe. Nowhere in my comment did I refer to a spiritual God. I would like to create a world without lunatics who are afraid of their own shadow, who paranoia creates an unsafe environment for all.
Rodriquez may or may not have been caught with his pants down. It is an extremely sad case regardless to why he was shot!

I wonder if that woman's husband, was drinking? Alcohol can do some strange things to people.

Yes, I think you nailed it there with “crazy husband…assumed…relationship”

No matter what the weapon, this is about abusive relationships, jealousy, possessiveness, partners with anger management issues, etc.

It’s not about guns.

Where I live, this would probably be a knife crime. A fatal one too.