Gun law

yah I know the purpose but common who cares?


Karl Marx actually had it right when he said religion was simply an opiud for the masses


I wanted to punch santorum so bad when he said he thought obama was a cathlolic like he was paying him a compliment by telling him his time in office was actually sanctioned by the church I think America has actually become more extreme in religion the past decade or so except a more deluded scary kind of way not the same as our forefathers who were mostly diests not evangelists he Gdp really has lost its way idk if any of you people have been to anything like life teen or stuebenville or some goofy retreat but those places are fucked up bad its like a cult people who get touched by the holy spirit somehow cant stop laughing or crying in a maniacal fashion ohhh shiver me timbers I fear the worst for America when my generation takes over

Fiscally conservative are what makes libertarians stupid. Not empowering the masses is what leads to devastation to the masses. A weaker federal government keeps people from being empowered, it keeps them stupid, and so the libertarian party is stupid. Not quite as bad as the repugnant party, but eh... still caters to the problem class of the United States/world.

If people were more educated they would take on better interests than guns. People simply aren't challenged and don't realize that happiness comes from the amazing feats we accomplish. Criminals have the seen the rewards of their efforts and what they see is the quickest best way to make a buck, those habits move into the other faucets of their lives. We need to breed and nurture productive members of society than guns won't even matter.

But as of now of it does, and you can't take a baseball bat into a theator and kill dozens before they get taken down. And for those of you say criminals will find a way to get a gun; we are playing an economic simulation game, if you lower supply what happens to price, what happens to access? If you increase the power the fed you can limit the supply from outside the country. Thus limiting access further, and to reiterate what I said earlier handguns are the problem moreso, you can make large strides limiting which guns are allowed to be sold.

Cars kill most people and govenments

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

...those habits move into the other faucets of their lives...<!-/Quote-!>

Lovely quote Drew, I just couldn't resist repeating that, sorry...

When's the last time that hair went near a faucet? lol.

Lorelei, can you see a different avatar for me? You mentioned it above. There should be one but I still see the pink poodle.

how does having a small federal government make people stupid i do not understand just because a government is small doesnt mean it cant provide good education....and btw i know many people who are educated and productive members of society and STILL like guns so im wondering what world you live in

btw shooting up a theatre doesnt get you any money it gets you put in jail...it is simply a result of our sad society and people

Crafty..Pink poodle is now bulldog on steroids.

Drew...Put the bong away for a few days.

The chances of being killed in a mass shooting is as likely as being killed by a falling piano. I find it odd that all these shootings start at one time. First my hometown in Tuscaloosa, then Colorado, now this temple shooting. Your a hundred time more likely to die in a car accident but we still have cars, and bars who serve idiots that plan to drive home. This is typical scare a thon. Something happens then omg lets run to the goverment and have them protect us. Yea sure, let the cops and milatary only have guns....see where that leads too. People only talk about whats going on at the moment. Why arent more people smart enough to see what will come in the future. Only the goverment has guns, only the goverment has power. Only the goverment has the ability to kill, at least so easily anyway. Well when that happens the same people will be on forums complaining about that, and how we need our guns back. What happened after 9/11. Because of one event its now much harder to even board an airplane. We got TSA agents fondling people. Scans that give people cancer. Rude agents that search three year olds, that spill a mans fathers cremation remains. Wow thanks for keeping us safe Mr. Goverment. Whos gonna protect us from the goverment when the guns are taken away? Were all fucked anyway you look at it. And only temp rioting? Try to take away these guns and see how temparary that shit stays. Keep the guns out of hands of Crazy folks. No one should be able to buy a gun without going thru certain evaulations. But here you can buy one with only a background check as long as you have no felonies. You can carry it in your car or in your home. When two big men break into a home of a young girl ( possibly your wife or daughter ), she should not only be able to defend herself but also know how. If she does nothing but call the police and they take on average 20 minutes to get there, sometimes longer depending on certain situations, the men breaking in will have plenty of time to do what they want. I have guns, my girl was agaisnt it but i changed her mind. Now she knows how to use the guns i have and even enjoys it to blow off steam sometimes. Bottom line this argument can go on forever, at the end of the day were going to have people for guns and agaisnt guns. But anyone who says only police and military should have guns obviously hasnt seen how these corrupt ass cops and soldiers can loose it and cause more harm than a regular citizen. Cops and Soldiers have personal lives too. A soldier in Iraq gets a letter from his girl saying shes leaving him, he looses it and takes his guns to all those around him then to his self. And cops? Please half of those bitches deserve to be shot. Anyone who doesnt know what i mean should get out the suburbs for a few days

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

The laws are to prevent drunken fights getting out of hand (e.g. glassings). People who are drunk tend to do these things regardless of their normal state. Nothing to do with criminals or mentally unstable people.<!-/Quote-!>

The first thing alcohol effects is judgement, I've never seen a "mean drunk" that didn't carry that trait in the first place.

They just don't hide it as well.

Sounds to me like Australia should consider banning alcohol at public gatherings.

That's selective listening, small government by definition limits investment in public civil institutions. How doesn't small government limit education? That is what it means, don't have the government intervene spend less yaddi yadda. If we invest less (smaller gov) we give a lower quality. Very simple.

Philosophy really should be taught to everyone, about the people wanting guns thing, people give into simple pleasures because they are addicted to it, if people understood (or were educated correctly) they would move away from simple pleasures like gun, and enjoy their lives being in the service of others or the community they live in.

Don't downplay gun violence, cars are a big difference. Gun violence is intentional, cars are accidents. Don't forget it

Don't over rate gun violence, firearms are no where near the tool of choice when committing murder in the U.S.

Now if you educated correctly in history, you would more likely than not, have different views.

■Murders total – 13636
■Murders with handguns – 6452 (47.32%)
■Murders with rifles – 348 (2.55%)
■Murders with shotguns – 418 (3.07%)
■Murders with unknown firearms – 1928 (14.14%)
■Murder with knives or cutting instruments – 1825 (13.38%)
■Murders with other weapons – 1864 (13.67%)
■Murders with hands, fists, feet etc.. – 801 (5.87%)
2009 - US

=)

Take the guns away and those rates would rise in other areas. Guns are easier to murder, duh! It takes a real man to gut someone but a bitch could pull a trigger. And the main reason those stats are so high.....the murder rates come from slums and projects. Its not innocent people being killed even tho that happens sometimes. It over drug turf. Half of those statistics are people who probally deserve to die in the first place. You think banning guns will change that. People will just be taking weed eaters to peoples faces, setting people on fire, stabbing people. The murder rates are risen because the world is becoming godless and obcessed with gangbanging.

I myself am a Gangster Disciple. Cousins and affiliates of the LA Crips. Theirs 100,000 of us all around the country. My set is 974 and my rank is Knight, soon to become Set Prince. My organization started over drug trade but its since become a brotherhood. The 6 Point Star stands for love, life, loyalty, understanding, knowledge, and wisdom. Nothing in there about murder. However the Bloods are not my friends we called a truce along time ago. I dont see myself as a gang banger i see myself as brother of the star. Were more polictical these days.

The real voilence comes from the drug cartels which brings up another issue. The borders. The bottom line is guns will not end voilence or murder. And i doubt the rates would decrease. I mean even if they were illegal do you think that would wipe them all out the country. hell no. For God sakes you could possibly build your own gun. These argument is crazy. Cus no matter who likes it, guns are here to stay. They made be made illegal cus thats what the goverment really wants, then we'll watch all the anti gun activist wish they had guns to fight the oppression of tyranical goverments across the world.

I agree with the original point that guns should be harder to get, and impossible for people who are not willing to undergo physcolgical anaylisis or however its spelled.....but i will NEVER agree that guns are bad. Once again...guns dont kill people...crazy ass people kill people. If someone wants someone dead, they'll find a way. People are only looking at what happened recently in Colorado and what not.....think outside the box for a minute.

James Holmes could had just as easily threw a molotiv cocktail into a group and kill them easier then use a battery operated nail gun hit a few people. Then threw some gasoline on a few and sthrew a match. All this is crazy im just saying to stop thinking about what happened and think about what could had happened.

A crazy person wanting blood could get in a car, go to a populated street and ran over 40 or 50 people going 70mph.

Your numbers are off Drew ... where did you get the information I'd like to see a link.

2009 murders in the U.S. was several thousand higher, but at any rate have been dropping since 1997 as crime in all categories has.

First, I resent the notion that drunk driving is an accident.

Who chooses not to make arrangement to have someone else drive (or to drink in a situation where there is a need to drive)?
Who chooses to drink in this situation?
Who chooses to get behind the wheel?

Drew, I think you need to reevaluate your notion of personal responsibility.

Second, I resent the notion of philosophy leading to people "enjoy[ing] their lives being in the service of others or the community they live in." If there is one thing that philosophy leads to, it is questioning things.

Why should I serve others?
Why should I let society determine whether or not I own guns?
Why should I allow the government to maintain compulsory education?
Why should I consent to be governed?

If I don't think I should do any of these, what happens?
I think you'll find the answer down the barrel of a gun.

lol scarlet those answered questions are answered with John Stuart Mill, I know I use him a lot but with reason. Anyways I'll break it down real quick. Take your most awesomest day (you all seem to be pretty straight edge [no disrespect] but I'll use this argument anyways.) Take the most awesome day while completely off your rocker drunk/high/tripping no doubt an incredible experience. But when you look back what are you filled with? maybe not regret but it isn't anything positive. Some of you may argue that you look back at times of indugence with happiness however you are being tricked if you are not sharing that experience you aren't happy about it you are only remeniscent. I mean if you were given an invisible royles royce is that better then an invisible fast not million dollar car? Think about it, how much do we really do in the service of others? Is it the drunken escapade that fills us with happiness or is it the enjoyment of sharing it? Scarlet I think you'll find its the latter, but if you look back at your service to a soup kitchen you'll be filled with different emotions. It's all about TRUE happiness here.

@Kasper the scary ghost, my post was in regards to "Don't over rate gun violence, firearms are no where near the tool of choice when committing murder in the U.S." Yankee in which I OWNED!

@ Yankee I google searched murder by weapon and went to the sight that said FBI on it. So umm the FBI's statistics. However they could be off but they'd have to be pretty far off to justify your statement and in all liklihood it is probably pretty close to 70% for firearms. And the statistics also show that argument I said again and again its handguns, all practical non murdery uses of a gun are better without a handgun.

FINALLY to defend the intention drunk driving comment. Drunk driving isn't an act of murder, it's stupid true. I never said it was a good idea I merely implied that driving while drunk is not an act of homicide. People make stupid decisions all the time, drunk driving while stupid isn't an act of intentionally killing somebody. So scarlets idiots drink and drive, you want to outlaw idiocy, because if that's true I'm all for it, no more repugnants, no more NRA, no more homophobes, rednecks, many others gone.

(Post deleted bu author as being probably inflammatory, and redundant)

Many people have guns and they have not commited murder. That should be the argument we all use. If your not going to take alcohol away, or other things away then dont tell me you want guns taken away just because you dont own one or care to own one. Other people just like hunting and shooting. Most people have them to defend themselves and their family. Its the Great equalizer, if alot of theives break into your house, well one man cant fight them all and he has a right to defend them. Or if a woman is home alone, she must defend herself. Theres many cases where guns have saved lives and protect innocent people.

My advice is just know and understand the worlds changing and theres crazy shit going on. All you can do is be careful and protect your own. I for one, feel alot safer with guns in my home. Because i know i have a fighting chance agaisnt anything that may happen. Im not a sitting duck.

Im getting out of this conversation, its gone on long enough and we can agree to disagree before a mass war gets started.

One more thing, i believe if guns never existed and the knowledge was well hidden then i beleive only then should we never produce them in the first place. Just fortify homes better but that ship has long sailed. There here and will be here tommorow. If you ban them, it will only take them away from law abiding citizens, however criminals will still own them and im sure they'll be happy as hell to know the house they break into has no weapons, but plenty of goodies and young woman.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

@ Yankee I google searched murder by weapon and went to the sight that said FBI on it. So umm the FBI's statistics.<!-/Quote-!>

Funny since I also go to the FBI for stats. I still have to wonder where those came from. Since like I said, your total numbers are low once again I think you picked just what you wanted.

Anyway you cut it, crime in the U.S. in all categories has been dropping since 1997. So take your pick, either the economy, poverty levels, education, drug related crime is being interdicted better by the police, or concealed carry combined with the "castle laws" are having an effect.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

FINALLY to defend the intention drunk driving comment. Drunk driving isn't an act of murder, it's stupid true.<!-/Quote-!>

Then why is it drunk drivers, at least around here when fatalities are involved are first charged with 2nd degree Murder? Granted they are usually plead down to 1st degree and sometimes 2nd degree Manslaughter, but not always.

Getting behind the wheel after having even one drink is a choice. It's an easy one too, been making it for decades.

If I've had one drink, I don't drive until well past the one hour per drink it takes to clear out my system, if I can't avoid driving, I don't drink.

Anyone operating a motor vehicle under the influence is making a decision that the lives of those they may injure or kill are not important.

Since judgement is the first thing effected by alcohol all you need to do is make your choice before you start.

Oh god, a utilitarian. A top-down philosophy if there ever was one.

First, I'd like to issue a three pronged challenge:

1. How is it that we share experiences? I do not see what you see. I do not feel what you feel. I do not hear what you hear. I do not taste what you taste. In fact, we each have independent subjective experiences because we are not part of a shared consciousness. Experience is tied solely to a conscious entity... and we are each independent conscious entities. (Note: the point here is best decribed by number of experiences... two separate experiences or one shared experience... not saying we taste the same thing different.) Perhaps you meant that we experience events in the world with each other? If so:

2. If we do not share experiences, how can the value of an action be determined outside an individual subjective judgement? You're arguing that actions can possibly have intrinsic value. I'd like to propose this series of questions:
How can we determine whether or not some object is good? In other words, something that is good must be good for something. It's fairly easy to determine whether a hammer is good. If it's good for hammering, then it is a good hammer. However, here we're measuring the object (hammer) to the task (hammering). In such a situation, it is indeed true that there is an objective means of determining whether the object is good, but let's take a step up. Nobody is foolish enough to deny the objectivity of instrumental value (your invisible car), but here my ultimate goal is to deny intrinsic value. So let's take a step up.
How can we determine the value of a task beyond relating it toward some other task? In other words, consistently applying instrumental value undoubtedly does not reach some end. A hammer is has value if hammering has value, hammering has value if (for example) building a house is necessary, building a house is has value if having shelter has value, having shelter has value if meeting needs of self preservation has value, (here going into serving other as the higher goal) meeting needs of self preservation has value if serving others has value, serving others has value if... well, that's the end of the road for you isn't it.
My question is: what gives this task of serving others value? More abstractly, what gives something enough value to live for... let's include every task we do. What standard of value is worth choosing over any other standard? Here, one cannot rely on instrumental value to give the answer... you have two choices:
First, claim that goals can only be evaluated according to an intrinsic standard of value.
Second, claim that goals can only be evaluated according to a subjective standard of value.
These are mutually exclusive... claiming one rules out the other.
To be clear, we've ruled out attempting to judge objectively under either standard according to instrumental value. It leads to circular reason as every end is also a means. Here we concern ourselves ONLY with the ends.
So, the big question is... is there any difference between the two claims? There is no notion of intrinsic value that can be demonstrated without resorting to self-evidence or axioms. To claim an intrinsic standard of value is valuable without resorting to an endless reduction via arguing through instrumental value is to make the essentially subjective evaluation that such a standard has value.
There is no essential difference!

3. This bring me to the third point. Ultimately, the highest value judgments - the ones answer the question, what is the good life? - as argued previously are essentially arbitrary. Of course, I'd like to call attention to a few things:
First, marginal point: I'm not about to let emotions like happiness determine (used technically; determine is being opposed to influence) how I live my life. If it was unsuitable in one situation, it is unsuitable in another. There is no good reason to consider any emotion as the final word in deciding how to live one's life. To be ruled by "true happiness" is no different than to be ruled by euphoria, but the real problem is that emotions are biological responses to the current situation only. They don't tell you a great deal of things about the future. I'm happy when I get drunk, but that doesn't mean I'll enjoy the next morning. Let's say I'm happy serving others, that doesn't mean I'll enjoy the fact that I sacrificed my time for them later.
Second, you ask, "Is it the drunken escapade that fills us with happiness or is it the enjoyment of sharing it?" Point 1 of this post reflect the conflation here, I enjoy it... We do not enjoy it. Maybe You and I enjoy it which is merely two subjective appraisals as opposed to one. In other words, you merely contrasted quantity of the same essential thing in your question, then moved to an entirely different type of thing. To curtail a possible counter, it is entirely logical coming from a stance of being concerned about my enjoyment to assign instrumental value to your enjoyment. You know, mutual benefit doesn't correspond to service to others. I'm still primarily concerned about my values and what promotes my values in a mutually beneficial situation.
Third, while I'm sure you may be tempted... the proposition that moral value is subjective and arbitrary does not imply the absence of rights or responsibility (although it does rule out moral obligations). This is due to the recognition of each agent as capable of individually determining the value of an object/task/goal. In other words, the structure of the entire position dictates the sovereignty of the individual... so negative rights still exist.
Fourth, the drunk driving thing is actually a big deal. Just because the law says that you aren't responsible for something doesn't mean that you aren't responsible for something. Let me put it like this:
Banning guns is placing all gun owners as responsible for the actions of one man.
Charging a drunk driver with murder is placing one man as responsible for the actions of himself.
The essential issue is who is responsible... the gun/vehicle or the man. I'm not saying we go banning cars or alcohol, I'm saying we don't ban guns. Drunk driving is essentially synonymous to taking a loaded gun and firing blindly a few times at an apartment building.
It's logically consistent to deny the responsibility of the drunk driver and blame the gun for someone being shot, but my position is pretty clear... the man is responsible for his actions: the alcohol, the car, and the gun are not.

Anyway, this all is intended to demonstrate that educating people in philosophy will not cause them to agree with you as though questions of value, morals, responsibility, etc. have all been settled beyond question. I'm modestly educated in philosophy, and I'm not sure how I could disagree with you more.

sorry to get off topic drew but I do t see the logic in your small government argument the way I see it is small government is simply prioritizing what the spend money on better

potential government revenue 100 dollars

big government

30 on military
30 on social security
5 on welfate
10 on education
25 on subsidys

small government

10 on military/ police
20 on social security
10 on welfare (hopefully better utilized)
20 on education
5 on subsidys
25 back into the pockets of consumers to drive the economy in a free market fashion

that's economics

small government also doesn't make decisions that should be made by the individual marijuana use abortion weather to drink a large soda or not consumption of alchohol.....also all of these things transfer into more savings for the government I would rather have a small government that faery's out its duties well and in a stable fashion then a big government that is barely standing about to be overrun by a deficit

the thing that gets me about the gdp is they advocate small government yet they want to make you pray in school they want to tell you what drugs you can.use they want a huge military they want to stick their far reaching hand into a women's uterus yet they don't really give a damn what happens to that child once its born I find it all to be abit hypocritical

democrats on the other hand are weak

@Alexandrov ok I like your list I do. If it was accurate that would be a great but there are many big government (most democrats) that would also like to have that 20% you stole from military, and also you can't lower social security that is many owed to peoople who invested in it, it isn't government money. To think that additional money would be put into welfare or education is twisted also. Libertarians seem to have moved to the third most prominant party but you are ignoring the idea that there is a difference between what parties would want to see those numbers at and what they are actually capable of changing them to. And there is also a big difference between a democrat and a republican. I'm neither or a socialist or a libertarian, despite being called a utilitarian. If you limit the power of the fed you see a divide, you see inequality among different regions, states, and even though the fed is incompotent that's nothing compared to the states. Democrats are weak, why? because they are less agressive and more collaborative the oppisition won't compromise but as they are americans also they can't allow them to be ignored their values to be ignored.

So I kind of trailed off, Libertarians as the republicans want money back in the free market, that's fine but you can't do that the way either party wants to. If you spread money back to the public with the current intent, rich people will just invest more money in already saturated companies and it won't help anyone. The way you "back into the pockets of the consumers" is by raising minimum wage to 15-18$ and make it far to expensive to sell to Americans. Of course not all at once but that's the process. When labor becomes too expensive companies will invest in robotics again moving society forward with positive technology. It's the only way to empower the consumer class, you can't give money to those you spend none tangibly and expect people will sell more. Libs and reps think that tax breaks help, tell that to the interest accumulating debt we have.

@ Scarlett now you made things complicated. You are mixing metaphysics with epistemology, makes things really confusing but I’ll bite. Alas no we are not of a single consciousness and everything we do is subjective. But there are universal truths to all of it, when you accomplish something, and accomplish something else they are similar feelings. When you consume something and then consume something else you are filled with a similar feeling. And I liked your argument but it was founded on a misconception. Humans are social beings, and share things with each other, I was referring to this more in regards to stories not both being present, because both entities are sure to interpret things differently, but that has no relevance here. I’m saying you may have a blast flying down a road at 135 miles per hour and not get caught. You may be happy telling the story and sharing it, but when you are in the isolation of your own mind you will not have the same emotion. Because people need to feel progression in their lives if they are not becoming better then they are regressing or they’re stagnant, those things lead to despair. As people grow and accomplish something meaningful, like convincing a single person that the purpose of handguns has 2 predominate traits of killing someone or being part of police justice. That is something that will build you up bring you closer to enlightenment and makes you happy. Though sharing experiences with someone can have the same effect, as you can feel that you built a relationship stronger.

So to respond to your challenge, and the concept of the utility of things, subjectivity is just that subjective. What many view as right or moral are different for other people. I’m not one to question morality on controversial issues (it may seem that way) I will however question morality on the obvious. And there are principles of utilitarianism that I agree with and some that I don’t. It isn’t our job to only seek out positive outcomes, it is our job to not make any intentional decisions that cause negative outcomes. So to answer your first 2 questions the individual has make their subjective decisions without regard to the outside world, but if they are making self-servicing decisions with a negative impact on the rest of society then they are violating the rules, and should be removed.

After you touched on instrumental value is when your challenge got very interesting and you even asked me the meaning of life, regretfully I don’t have the answers as no one does, and I know you issue this challenge to weaken my arguments. Anyways a good hammer will perform hammering good, teleology, the actions we do with those hammers have to be evaluated subjectively, do we perform hammering for good or evil? And when considering instrumental value even there are no intrinsic value, an MRI machine has little to no value to me, despite it’s capabilities I don’t know how to work it. When you move into actions this value is exasperated, and all we are left with is good or bad intentions. This is why I’m an advocate of stronger education so the outcomes of actions are known. However there is only situational value, the outcome is important, but that will generally come with good intentions. So to take the easy way out of this I never believed anyone should utilize the bentham scale (which ended up being the basis of your argument), I just believe people should have good intentions, leading to good experiences, that make their life worth living.

And being ruled by “true happiness� is much different then being ruled by “euphoria.� Euphoria is an addiction, the thirst will never be quenched, just ask drug addicts. What felt better crushing the addiction or taking a hit? So this is long enough for now I can clarify later if need be. But to have this knowledge you have, and not take out pieces that can be valueable to you is so wasteful, squandering resources has 0 value to anyone.

I NEVER said drunk driving was ok, it isn’t the intent to kill. People are responsible for their actions, they just answer to them. Just like those who sell guns illegally, just like those who manufacture weapons, just like those who advocate the use of conceal and carry. And it’s ridiculous to use the argument criminals will still find a way to get guns, if guns get increasingly harder to find.

I find your argument weak and muddled the way I see it is Republicans and democrats just want to control people Republicans socially and morally and democrats economically both make outrageous claims about helping the middle or lower class and fixing the economy (which is not the job of the government how can an entity even attempt to control something as large and complex as the economy) hey they don't really do anything except drive America closer to doom we have a huge military yet people feel more threatened then ever an ever changing foriegn policy a growing debt a growing discontent huge dispartys in access to education and other social programs huge ammounts of crime and a population of mostly bigwigs all as. a result of straying from historical American values

libertarians are the true carriers of what America was meant to be and the idea that having a small government will hurt education or other social programs is silly the government just needs to prioritize what's important most likely less expedidentures will ensue but it shouldn't skimp on such important things

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

And it�s ridiculous to use the argument criminals will still find a way to get guns, if guns get increasingly harder to find.<!-/Quote-!>

As anyone with a desire to obtain a firearm when none is available will tell you:

You get them from the Police, or you get them from the Military.

National Guard Armory's are one of the easiest places to case and rob if you know which one's keep the weapons at. If you have a need for large amounts that's where you go.

If you just need one or two .. take them from a cop.

Either one can get you shot or the law after you if they know where to look, but then criminals generally run that risk anyway.

And as far as drunk driving and intent, we all know the risks and they are pretty straight forward. I suppose the "banger" spraying down the local Chucky Cheese could always claim he didn't intend to hit anyone.