Rajon Rondo Allegedly Pulled Gun On Mom Of Kids

[PAOBoston]

Overrated as a player. Definitely overrated as a person. Hope he gets punished accordingly.

[ozgod]

Perfect example of a person who shouldn't have a license to carry. I hope they took it, and the gun, away from him for his own good as well as that of his family.

[Kernewek]

Silver lining: accurate shooting was never Rondo's strong suit.

[ozgod]

Silver lining: accurate shooting was never Rondo's strong suit.

TP for truth 

[Neurotic Guy]

Perfect example of a person who shouldn't have a license to carry. I hope they took it, and the gun, away from him for his own good as well as that of his family.

Honestly, I don’t really trust people to own guns. That doesn’t mean I don’t think people should have the right to own one. I just don’t trust people enough generally speaking.   That includes all of my gun-owning friends on CStrong. I think people are volatile and, in the case of a deadly protection circumstance I don’t trust their capacity to respond effectively.  I wouldn’t vote to eliminate guns because I know that they are important to so many people - but in my favored world we’d have very few guns.

No guns for Rondo. But a few months in prison sounds good.

[celticsclay]

Feel like people are really jumping to conclusions in a case that has even had any charges filed from what I understand. I also don't believe Rondo has any criminal correct either. Please correct me if I am wrong on either of these. But if not seems a bit much to just start calling him a bad person and saying he should go to prison.

[Neurotic Guy]

Feel like people are really jumping to conclusions in a case that has even had any charges filed from what I understand. I also don't believe Rondo has any criminal correct either. Please correct me if I am wrong on either of these. But if not seems a bit much to just start calling him a bad person and saying he should go to prison.

I'll just speak for myself -- mistakenly left out the "if he's guilty" part.  Hope there's nothing to it and I do not presume he did it despite my comment above.  Lots of false rumors in the world, shouldn't jump to conclusions.  But in general if someone does pull a gun on an ex-wife in front of a child -- that's sounds like jail time to me, but certainly could be minimal or no jail with anger management supports... But again, hope it's false.

[Kiorrik]

Feel like people are really jumping to conclusions in a case that has even had any charges filed from what I understand. I also don't believe Rondo has any criminal correct either. Please correct me if I am wrong on either of these. But if not seems a bit much to just start calling him a bad person and saying he should go to prison.

I'll just speak for myself -- mistakenly left out the "if he's guilty" part.  Hope there's nothing to it and I do not presume he did it despite my comment above.  Lots of false rumors in the world, shouldn't jump to conclusions.  But in general if someone does pull a gun on an ex-wife in front of a child -- that's sounds like jail time to me, but certainly could be minimal or no jail with anger management supports... But again, hope it's false.

Smoke, fire

Also, least surprising person to have that happen to

If 10% of this is true, yeah, I'm just done with him

[ozgod]

Perfect example of a person who shouldn't have a license to carry. I hope they took it, and the gun, away from him for his own good as well as that of his family.

Honestly, I don’t really trust people to own guns. That doesn’t mean I don’t think people should have the right to own one. I just don’t trust people enough generally speaking.   That includes all of my gun-owning friends on CStrong. I think people are volatile and, in the case of a deadly protection circumstance I don’t trust their capacity to respond effectively.  I wouldn’t vote to eliminate guns because I know that they are important to so many people - but in my favored world we’d have very few guns.

No guns for Rondo. But a few months in prison sounds good.

I don't blame you, there's a lot of people carrying guns I don't trust to carry them either. I think it's human nature not to trust that someone knows how to operate their firearm, and more importantly when they can operate it. I practiced for over a year in the range so I knew how to use it, and took probably 24 hours worth of classes to make sure I knew when I could use it or even take it out, from a legal perspective, before I even felt confident carrying it around. I didn’t trust myself till then and I wasn’t going to carry it around if I didn’t trust myself.  And there are parts of the country where nobody has to undergo any training to carry one. I wonder if Rajon did, because if he did he would know you never pull out a firearm unless your life is in danger, and you never aim it at anyone you're not prepared to shoot. You don't wave a gun around or brandish it because you're mad or want to scare someone.

In my favored world nobody would have to carry guns either. When I lived in Australia in 2000 I never remotely felt the need to have one. It wasn't until I moved back to Boston that my outlook changed.

[Neurotic Guy]

Perfect example of a person who shouldn't have a license to carry. I hope they took it, and the gun, away from him for his own good as well as that of his family.

Honestly, I don’t really trust people to own guns. That doesn’t mean I don’t think people should have the right to own one. I just don’t trust people enough generally speaking.   That includes all of my gun-gogggggg friends on CStrong. I think people are volatile and, in the case of a deadly protection circumstance I don’t trust their capacity to respond effectively.  I wouldn’t vote to eliminate guns because I know that they are important to so many people - but in my favored world we’d have very few guns.

No guns for Rondo. But a few months in prison sounds good.

I don't blame you, there's a lot of people carrying guns I don't trust to carry them either. I think it's human nature not to trust that someone knows how to operate their firearm, and more importantly when they can operate it. I practiced for over a year in the range so I knew how to use it, and took probably 24 hours worth of classes to make sure I knew when I could use it or even take it out, from a legal perspective, before I even felt confident carrying it around. I didn’t trust myself till then and I wasn’t going to carry it around if I didn’t trust myself.  And there are parts of the country where nobody has to undergo any training to carry one. I wonder if Rajon did, because if he did he would know you never pull out a firearm unless your life is in danger, and you never aim it at anyone you're not prepared to shoot. You don't wave a gun around or brandish it because you're mad or want to scare someone.

In my favored world nobody would have to carry guns either. When I lived in Australia in 2000 I never remotely felt the need to have one. It wasn't until I moved back to Boston that my outlook changed.

To be clear, I have no doubt that many gun owners (like you) are worthy of trust -- even though I don't believe anyone knows with certainty how they'll respond in a high stress/panic situation. I just don't have the general trust in people -- in other words, I believe that for every Ozgod who may act responsibly and with cool head in every situation there is at least one other who THINKS they'll be responsible and cool... but won't be. 

The "Wild West" mentality (fight guns with more guns) that some here seem to think is the way to go, is fantasy.

[GreenlyGreeny]

I have a very hard time understanding why anybody has any issue with what someone owns in their own private home so long as they are not using it to hurt anybody. People should be free to own and do whatever they want on their private property unless they are hurting others or pose an extremely high risk to many (which is why nobody should be able to own a nuclear reactor in their private residence, for example).

Want to decrease gun violence? Increase the punishment for using a gun during commission of a crime, and dramatically expand mental health benefits to all (yes, believe it or not someone can support expansion of health benefits via government intervention while still being extremely right on gun ownership and combating crime). Trying to strip law-abiding people of their freedom is a sure-fire way for nothing getting done to address the problem.

[gouki88]

I have a very hard time understanding why anybody has any issue with what someone owns in their own private home so long as they are not using it to hurt anybody. People should be free to own and do whatever they want on their private property unless they are hurting others or pose an extremely high risk to many (which is why nobody should be able to own a nuclear reactor in their private residence, for example).

Want to decrease gun violence? Increase the punishment for using a gun during commission of a crime, and dramatically expand mental health benefits to all (yes, believe it or not someone can support expansion of health benefits via government intervention while still being extremely right on gun ownership and combating crime). Trying to strip law-abiding people of their freedom is a sure-fire way for nothing getting done to address the problem.

This whole libertarian idea is a bit silly in the real world though, isn't it? Why ought the law be reactive when things like gun ownership is clearly problematic for societies in which it is widespread?

[GreenlyGreeny]

I have a very hard time understanding why anybody has any issue with what someone owns in their own private home so long as they are not using it to hurt anybody. People should be free to own and do whatever they want on their private property unless they are hurting others or pose an extremely high risk to many (which is why nobody should be able to own a nuclear reactor in their private residence, for example).

Want to decrease gun violence? Increase the punishment for using a gun during commission of a crime, and dramatically expand mental health benefits to all (yes, believe it or not someone can support expansion of health benefits via government intervention while still being extremely right on gun ownership and combating crime). Trying to strip law-abiding people of their freedom is a sure-fire way for nothing getting done to address the problem.

This whole libertarian idea is a bit silly in the real world though, isn't it? Why ought the law be reactive when things like gun ownership is clearly problematic for societies in which it is widespread?

Advocating for expansion of mental health benefits is suddenly a libertarian idea?

Violent and ill people are the problem, not the guns themselves. Violent people belong locked up so long as they are violent. Ill people deserve treatment so they do not harm themselves or others.

Last year in the US, more people died from automobiles than firearms - should we ban automobiles because some people cannot handle them, or because someone ill or violent may use an automobile to kill many people (drive into crowds, transport something ultra threatening like McVeigh did, etc.)? How absurd is that?

More children died in accidental pool deaths than from firearms - should we ban pools next because some people cannot responsibly parent their children around pools?

The media blows the gun problem out of proportion in the US. They could care less about conversations to fix the problem of violent and ill people which is expansion of mental health benefits and throwing the book at violent criminals. They do not want people to actually discuss how to solve the problem because that would lead to lower ratings, which means lower equity for shareholders. Don’t get me started on how we should replicate the BBC model in the US so we have a media that reports the news completely independent of commercial and political interests. 

And a good check on authoritarianism is many law-abiding people owning firearms to defend themselves. That’s just a logical conclusion when one considers how the US military was brought down in Vietnam and Iraq…

[Docmattic]

No gun problem here! Because they aren't freely available.

[gouki88]

I have a very hard time understanding why anybody has any issue with what someone owns in their own private home so long as they are not using it to hurt anybody. People should be free to own and do whatever they want on their private property unless they are hurting others or pose an extremely high risk to many (which is why nobody should be able to own a nuclear reactor in their private residence, for example).

Want to decrease gun violence? Increase the punishment for using a gun during commission of a crime, and dramatically expand mental health benefits to all (yes, believe it or not someone can support expansion of health benefits via government intervention while still being extremely right on gun ownership and combating crime). Trying to strip law-abiding people of their freedom is a sure-fire way for nothing getting done to address the problem.

This whole libertarian idea is a bit silly in the real world though, isn't it? Why ought the law be reactive when things like gun ownership is clearly problematic for societies in which it is widespread?

Advocating for expansion of mental health benefits is suddenly a libertarian idea?

Violent and ill people are the problem, not the guns themselves. Violent people belong locked up so long as they are violent. Ill people deserve treatment so they do not harm themselves or others.

Last year in the US, more people died from automobiles than firearms - should we ban automobiles because some people cannot handle them, or because someone ill or violent may use an automobile to kill many people (drive into crowds, transport something ultra threatening like McVeigh did, etc.)? How absurd is that?

More children died in accidental pool deaths than from firearms - should we ban pools next because some people cannot responsibly parent their children around pools?

The media blows the gun problem out of proportion in the US. They could care less about conversations to fix the problem of violent and ill people which is expansion of mental health benefits and throwing the book at violent criminals. They do not want people to actually discuss how to solve the problem because that would lead to lower ratings, which means lower equity for shareholders. Don’t get me started on how we should replicate the BBC model in the US so we have a media that reports the news completely independent of commercial and political interests. 

And a good check on authoritarianism is many law-abiding people owning firearms to defend themselves. That’s just a logical conclusion when one considers how the US military was brought down in Vietnam and Iraq…

Pretty dishonest to try and misrepresent what I was saying in that way, but I don't really expect anything else. If you cannot tell that the libertarian idea I was referring to was your "hard time understanding why anybody has any issue with what someone owns in their own private home". You cannot know someone use something for harm until the harm (in this case, violence) is already done. Not too hard to understand why the US is the only developed nation with this gun violence crisis is it?

Your last line is baffling. Impossible to take seriously, actually. If you truly believe that...