PDA

View Full Version : We need more 'good' toddlers with guns



David G
04-19-2018, 05:11 PM
To stop these 'bad' toddlers with guns. "No dessert for you tonight, missy!!!"

http://abcnews.go.com/US/year-girl-accidentally-shoots-pregnant-mother-backseat-car/story?id=54552550

3-year-old girl accidentally shoots pregnant mother from backseat of car

webishop14
04-19-2018, 05:17 PM
A while back a 2-year old in the back seat of his mother's pickup got into her purse. The one with the special sewn-in pocket for her hand gun, the one where the little ones couldn't get into. As to be expected, the child got into the child-proof pocket, found the gun and killed his mother.

RonP
04-19-2018, 05:19 PM
Another hose head leaving a loaded firearm unattended with young children. You don't bother policing yourself someone else is going to dumbass.

Bob Adams
04-19-2018, 05:19 PM
Despite the asinine OP, I will say for the 9,457th time, whenever something like this happens, the owner or the weapon involved should go to jail for a long time. The law should be so for the owner of any weapon wrongfully used because it was not properly secured.

RonP
04-19-2018, 05:28 PM
Agreed
Despite the asinine OP, I will say for the 9,457th time, whenever something like this happens, the owner or the weapon involved should go to jail for a long time. The law should be so for the owner of any weapon wrongfully used because it was not properly secured.

Peerie Maa
04-19-2018, 05:31 PM
https://scontent.flhr3-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/30709495_871774239695990_8849632422630020557_n.jpg ?_nc_cat=0&oh=fa6915fa348045eaca90d44c3d212bfc&oe=5B57DB50

David G
04-19-2018, 05:33 PM
Despite the asinine OP, I will say for the 9,457th time, whenever something like this happens, the owner or the weapon involved should go to jail for a long time. The law should be so for the owner of any weapon wrongfully used because it was not properly secured.

Oh Good and Honorable Sir -- didja read the article... are you just knee-jerking? The gun owner WILL be charged: child endangerment.

But the mother is still shot. Still in the hospital. Still bleeding. And the kids are still with Child Services. And their future custody situation is very much up in the air. And one of them gets to live with the fact that she shot her mother.

But it's All Good... because that errant gun owner will be charged?

You used the word 'asinine'. Really?? What happened to that 'high road' attitude we were trying to promote mere hours ago? Or are you just projecting?

Sheesh... with THAT sort of volatility, and mental instability... I'm just glad you're not a gun owner!!! Oh... wait...

Two 3-year-olds shot, injured by toddler (http://abcnews.go.com/US/year-olds-shot-injured-toddler-officials-determine-crime/story?id=50160633)

7-year-old accidentally shot dead by 2-year-old cousin, Nashville police say (http://abcnews.go.com/US/year-accidentally-shot-dead-year-cousin-nashville-police/story?id=47886882)

4-year-old boy shot in head in apparent road rage incident in Cleveland: Police (http://abcnews.go.com/US/year-boy-shot-head-apparent-road-rage-incident/story?id=49074774)

Bob Adams
04-19-2018, 05:35 PM
https://scontent.flhr3-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/30709495_871774239695990_8849632422630020557_n.jpg ?_nc_cat=0&oh=fa6915fa348045eaca90d44c3d212bfc&oe=5B57DB50

Seriously Nick? Almost as asinine as the OP. So very helpful and caring.

Bob Adams
04-19-2018, 05:37 PM
Oh Good and Honorable Sir -- didja read the article... are you just knee-jerking? The gun owner WILL be charged: child endangerment.

But the mother is still shot. Still in the hospital. Still bleeding. And the kids are still with Child Services. And their future custody situation is very much up in the air. And one of them gets to live with the fact that she shot her mother.

But it's All Good... because that errant gun owner will be charged?

You used the word 'asinine'. Really?? What happened to that 'high road' attitude we were trying to promote mere hours ago? Or are you just projecting?

Sheesh... with THAT sort of volatility, and mental instability... I'm just glad you're not a gun owner!!! Oh... wait...

Two 3-year-olds shot, injured by toddler (http://abcnews.go.com/US/year-olds-shot-injured-toddler-officials-determine-crime/story?id=50160633)

7-year-old accidentally shot dead by 2-year-old cousin, Nashville police say (http://abcnews.go.com/US/year-accidentally-shot-dead-year-cousin-nashville-police/story?id=47886882)

4-year-old boy shot in head in apparent road rage incident in Cleveland: Police (http://abcnews.go.com/US/year-boy-shot-head-apparent-road-rage-incident/story?id=49074774)

I called it asinine because it is. Had storage laws been in place MAYBE this wouldn't have happened.

David G
04-19-2018, 05:39 PM
I called it asinine because it is. Had storage laws been in place MAYBE this wouldn't have happened.

You didn't answer the questions... just repeated the insult. Is that because you incapable of responding to those issues rationally.

* did you read the article?

* it's all good because he will be charged?

* what happened to the high road approach?

But at least we agree that better laws need to be in place.

S.V. Airlie
04-19-2018, 05:44 PM
I called it asinine because it is. Had storage laws been in place MAYBE this wouldn't have happened.The point is, it wasn't. Some people consider them toys and not lethal weapons. Bottom line, they may lose with that callous attitude.

Bob Adams
04-19-2018, 05:46 PM
You didn't answer the questions... just repeated the insult.

But we agree that better laws need to be in place.

For what its worth, here is the most important part of my post. "The law should be so for the owner of any weapon wrongfully used because it was not properly secured" I take gun safety very seriously and promote law changes that might really help, as opposed to tasteless snarkery you seem to think will help.

skuthorp
04-19-2018, 05:48 PM
Price of freedom doncha know……………...

David G
04-19-2018, 05:49 PM
For what its worth, here is the most important part of my post. "The law should be so for the owner of any weapon wrongfully used because it was not properly secured" I take gun safety very seriously and promote law changes that might really help, as opposed to tasteless snarkery you seem to think will help.

So... more insult, and still no answers. One more time --

* did you read the article?

* it's all good because he will be charged?

* what happened to the high road approach?

Bob Adams
04-19-2018, 05:54 PM
And I will continue to call it as I see it long as the asinine OP exists. One more time S L O W L Y. You can't legislate common sense, but a law with teeth concerning responsible gun storage might have prompted the owner of this gun to store it properly and the incident might not have happened. I have stated that basic concept over and over.

RonP
04-19-2018, 05:55 PM
Talking points from mass murders don't really apply to this. Clever sayings about good kids with guns when there is no bad person with a gun is stupid in my opinion but what do I know. Terrible thing to happen no doubt. Caused by careless stupidity on the part of one person. One, it wasn't the fault of millions of Americans.

Bob Adams
04-19-2018, 05:58 PM
So... more insult, and still no answers. One more time --

* did you read the article?

Yes

* it's all good because he will be charged?

Another stupid remark, where did I say that?

* what happened to the high road approach?

Given your OP, that's precious.

S.V. Airlie
04-19-2018, 05:59 PM
And I will continue to call it as I see it long as the asinine OP exists. One more time S L O W L Y. You can't legislate common sense, but a law with teeth concerning responsible gun storage might have prompted the owner of this gun to store it properly and the incident might not have happened. I have stated that basic concept over and over.Why would it? No one is going to be checking, the guy is still treating it like a toy and teaching his kids about guns the way he probably learned (or didn't) You can't fix stupid. You can take a horse to water but, damn'd you can't make it drink.

David G
04-19-2018, 06:00 PM
And I will continue to call it as I see it long as the asinine OP exists. One more time S L O W L Y. You can't legislate common sense, but a law with teeth concerning responsible gun storage might have prompted the owner of this gun to store it properly and the incident might not have happened. I have stated that basic concept over and over.

I have already agreed that we need better laws, and enforcement. I don't know why you keep rehashing that point.

What about the other points?

ETA - Cross post -- I see you broke down and answered the questions. Sorta.

What ABOUT the kids? What about the potentially broken family? Or is that all ok, just a regrettable byproduct... collateral damage... of our desires for our gun-toys? I posed that question AS a question... because you didn't directly state it... you just implied it. It could be inferred. But I asked to confirm your meaning. Say... is English not your native tongue?

Under the heading of 'better laws' - how about we make it harder for the irresponsible to own guns in the first place?

Bob Adams
04-19-2018, 06:00 PM
You want to know why many gun owners resist ANY change in laws? Bull**** like this.

Bob Adams
04-19-2018, 06:01 PM
I have already agreed that we need better laws, and enforcement. I don't know why you keep rehashing that point.

What about the other points?

Go read 17.

David G
04-19-2018, 06:07 PM
Go read 17.

Go read #19.

David G
04-19-2018, 06:11 PM
You want to know why many gun owners resist ANY change in laws? Bull**** like this.

It is my experience that the reactionary become MOST reactive when they find themselves on shaky ground. When they have staked out territory that conflicts with own values, and they haven't figured out how to reconcile. The truth hurts - esp. when presented as ridicule.

S.V. Airlie
04-19-2018, 06:11 PM
I have already agreed that we need better laws, and enforcement. I don't know why you keep rehashing that point.

What about the other points?

ETA - Cross post -- I see you broke down and answered the questions. Sorta.

What ABOUT the kids? What about the potentially broken family? Or is that all ok, just a regrettable byproduct... collateral damage... of our desires for our gun-toys? I posed that question AS a question... because you didn't directly state it... you just implied it. It could be inferred. But I asked to confirm your meaning. Say... is English not your native tongue?

Under the heading of 'better laws' - how about we make it harder for the irresponsible to own guns in the first place?Because you seem to be the only one! Others don't want gun control for any reason apparently.

skuthorp
04-19-2018, 06:13 PM
Bob's been caught out standing in it, again.

RonP
04-19-2018, 06:14 PM
I just saw an article the other day on yahoo about a father who accidentally backed over his kid in the driveway and fatally injured the poor child. This horrible tragedy is not an isolated incident and occurs far to often. Let's take away the cars.
I have already agreed that we need better laws, and enforcement. I don't know why you keep rehashing that point.

What about the other points?

ETA - Cross post -- I see you broke down and answered the questions. Sorta.

What ABOUT the kids? What about the potentially broken family? Or is that all ok, just a regrettable byproduct... collateral damage... of our desires for our gun-toys? I posed that question AS a question... because you didn't directly state it... you just implied it. It could be inferred. But I asked to confirm your meaning. Say... is English not your native tongue?

Under the heading of 'better laws' - how about we make it harder for the irresponsible to own guns in the first place?

Bob Adams
04-19-2018, 06:16 PM
If you really can't see how immature and tasteless the thread title and opening post is there is no use reasoning with you. You are arguing with me, I think, just to deflect attention from your poor taste and lack of maturity. Do me a favor, push the black triangle and tell Scot I'm hurting your feelings.

S.V. Airlie
04-19-2018, 06:17 PM
It wasn’t the first photo that the 43-year-old Concrete, Wash., resident had taken with his gun. But it would be the last.
The Skagit Valley Herald (http://www.goskagit.com/all_access/man-accidentally-kills-himself-while-taking-photos-with-gun/article_9d800601-988c-5ba7-b898-3cd211eb874a.html) reported Wednesday that the man, who officials did not name, fatally shot himself in the face while attempting to take a selfie with what he thought was an unloaded gun.
The man’s girlfriend, who was with him when the gun went off, told authorities that the pair had taken several selfies with the gun throughout the day. The man unloaded the gun before each photo session, then replaced the bullets when they were done.

David G
04-19-2018, 06:20 PM
Talking points from mass murders don't really apply to this. Clever sayings about good kids with guns when there is no bad person with a gun is stupid in my opinion but what do I know. Terrible thing to happen no doubt. Caused by careless stupidity on the part of one person. One, it wasn't the fault of millions of Americans.

Couple of points --

There WAS a bad person with a gun. Even Bob agrees. A lawbreaker who should be punished. Maybe, if we follow Bob's thinking, even more than he probably will be.

And it WAS the fault of millions of Americans (U.S. citizens, that is) who have refused to instruct their lawmakers to correct this situation.

RonP
04-19-2018, 06:21 PM
Playing with weapons like little children will get you or a friend dead. Stamp that on all firearms.
It wasn’t the first photo that the 43-year-old Concrete, Wash., resident had taken with his gun. But it would be the last.
The Skagit Valley Herald (http://www.goskagit.com/all_access/man-accidentally-kills-himself-while-taking-photos-with-gun/article_9d800601-988c-5ba7-b898-3cd211eb874a.html) reported Wednesday that the man, who officials did not name, fatally shot himself in the face while attempting to take a selfie with what he thought was an unloaded gun.
The man’s girlfriend, who was with him when the gun went off, told authorities that the pair had taken several selfies with the gun throughout the day. The man unloaded the gun before each photo session, then replaced the bullets when they were done.

CWSmith
04-19-2018, 06:21 PM
The boyfriend, Menzo Brazier, was taken to Lake County jail where he was held on child endangerment (http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/children/child-abuse.htm) charges, Petruch said. Police said the expect to meet with the prosecutor's office Thursday to determine additional charges. The prosecutor's office did not immediately respond to ABC News' request for comment.

Petruch called the shooting a "careless, dangerous act," adding that Brazier is "directly responsible for this."

"When you take on a responsibility of gun ownership, you have to be a responsible adult," he said. "Especially you don't leave a loaded gun around when children are present."



At least someone realized who the problem was.

David G
04-19-2018, 06:22 PM
I just saw an article the other day on yahoo about a father who accidentally backed over his kid in the driveway and fatally injured the poor child. This horrible tragedy is not an isolated incident and occurs far to often. Let's take away the cars.

That's just a silly deflection. If you're serious about addressing this topic, you wouldn't have thrown it out there. If you ARE serious... show us. Correct your own work.

RonP
04-19-2018, 06:24 PM
What law do you think would correct this situation? Exactly what law do you want. The bad guy wasn't even present so how can that apply.
Couple of points --

There WAS a bad person with a gun. Even Bob agrees. A lawbreaker who should be punished. Maybe, if we follow Bob's thinking, even more than he probably will be.

And it WAS the fault of millions of Americans (U.S. citizens, that is) who have refused to instruct their lawmakers to correct this situation.

David G
04-19-2018, 06:28 PM
If you really can't see how immature and tasteless the thread title and opening post is there is no use reasoning with you. You are arguing with me, I think, just to deflect attention from your poor taste and lack of maturity. Do me a favor, push the black triangle and tell Scot I'm hurting your feelings.

Hmmm... so your beef is my immaturity and lack of good taste? So, to address that issue you start flinging insults? A tantrum? Sounds a bit counter-productive to me. Could we even say... immature?

But hey... say that charge is true, True, TRUE!!! Say I'm the most immature and tasteless human to ever walk the earth. Let's say that. Are you with me? Izzat too much of a leap? No, didn't think so.

Now... so what? How is my almost-incomprehensible level of failure as a human being germane to the issue at hand?

RonP
04-19-2018, 06:32 PM
That's just a silly deflection. If you're serious about addressing this topic, you wouldn't have thrown it out there. If you ARE serious... show us. Correct your own work.
There is nothing to correct and I'm very serious. My post is a silly deflection but " good kids with guns " is not? Double standard there David. I agree with gun security legislation but I do not believe in trying to disarm law abiding citizens.

S.V. Airlie
04-19-2018, 06:38 PM
They are only law abiding until they shoot and kill someone.

David G
04-19-2018, 06:40 PM
There is nothing to correct and I'm very serious. My post is a silly deflection but " good kids with guns " is not? Double standard there David. I agree with gun security legislation but I do not believe in trying to disarm law abiding citizens.

What I did in the OP is called 'parody' or 'ridicule'.

What you did with your automobile comment is called 'bad logic'. To be more specific, in case you need/want to look it up a 'false analogy'.

There is a difference. I hope you can see it. But that's all the hint you're going to get. Go ahead and man up. Correct your own work. Or not. But you said you were serious. If that's true, and you want to engage in serious conversation, then act serious.

Ron Williamson
04-19-2018, 06:41 PM
https://scontent.flhr3-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/30709495_871774239695990_8849632422630020557_n.jpg ?_nc_cat=0&oh=fa6915fa348045eaca90d44c3d212bfc&oe=5B57DB50

Any chance of a grammar or spelling lesson instead?
R

RonP
04-19-2018, 06:47 PM
If your trying to outlaw guns, then why is outlawing cars not also a parody or ridicule. Another double standard David. Correct your own work

David G
04-19-2018, 06:50 PM
What law do you think would correct this situation? Exactly what law do you want. The bad guy wasn't even present so how can that apply.

What laws?

Truthfully - I don't know. Well... ok... I have some ideas. But I'm no kind of policy-wonk expert on gun-control policy. Not many ordinary citizens are, eh?

What I can do... and what I want all my responsible fellow gun owners to do... is to insist that our lawmakers enact good policy - whatever shape that takes. To take steps to dramatically reduce the amount of gun violence we suffer, compared to the rest of the Western Democracies.

If it WERE my job to develop new policies, I'd take a 'best practice' approach. I'd look at other countries, to see how much success they'd had, and try to understand why/why not. Then I'd formulate an 'ideal' set of policies. Then I'd modify that set to suit the ways that the U.S. is different (in several relevant ways) from Belgium, or Australia, or Italy, or Great Britain. That modified package would be my proposal. You may have noticed that I left out tweaking the proposals to reflect the political realities of the day. It could be argued that's a step that should be included.

How about you? Let's start at the beginning --

Do you see that there is a problem, or are you happy enough with the status quo?

David G
04-19-2018, 06:56 PM
If your trying to outlaw guns, then why is outlawing cars not also a parody or ridicule. Another double standard David. Correct your own work

I hate people putting words in my mouth. I never said I wanted to outlaw guns. I'm trying to take you seriously, because you say that's your intent. But that sort of dishonest tactic is not one someone serious would use. And it's not acceptable.

You're running out of rope here. Either buckle down, and GET serious - or I'll decide you're JAFT... or innately incapable of living up to your own pronouncements.

OTOH - you could SHOW me where I said, or even implied, that I wanted to 'outlaw guns'. In which case I will apologize sincerely, profusely, and eloquently. Show me the quote.

RonP
04-19-2018, 06:59 PM
Am I happy with the status quo, no I am not. Problem, of course. As I stated earlier I believe in weapon security legislation. That's not going to stop mass shootings though.That is going to take more than just laws. Some laws will surely help but only if enforced. I think this is the biggest concern, enforcement of existing laws and maintaining the data base for people flagged on the background checks.
What laws?

Truthfully - I don't know. Well... ok... I have some ideas. But I'm no kind of policy-wond expert on gun-control policy. Not many ordinary citizens are, eh?

What I can do... and what I want all my responsible fellow gun owners to do... is to insist that our lawmakers enact good policy - whatever shape that takes. To take steps to dramatically reduce the amount of gun violence we suffer, compared to the rest of the Western Democracies.

If it WERE my job to develop new policies, I'd take a 'best practice' approach. I'd look at other countries, to see how much success they'd had, and try to understand why/why not. Then I'd formulate an 'ideal' set of policies. Then I'd modify that set to suit the ways that the U.S. is different (in several relevant ways) from Belgium, or Australia, or Italy, or Great Britain. That modified package would be my proposal. You may have noticed that I left out tweaking the proposals to reflect the political realities of the day. It could be argued that's a step that should be included.

How about you? Let's start at the beginning --

Do you see that there is a problem, or are you happy enough with the status quo?

David G
04-19-2018, 07:11 PM
Am I happy with the status quo, no I am not. Problem, of course. As I stated earlier I believe in weapon security legislation. That's not going to stop mass shootings though.That is going to take more than just laws. Some laws will surely help but only if enforced. I think this is the biggest concern, enforcement of existing laws and maintaining the data base for people flagged on the background checks.

OK... so you see a problem. That's encouraging.

Next question -- how much of a reduction in gun-related injuries do you think we should aim for? Should we pick a certain country to match... as a goal? Or maybe just a % reduction? I think we should aim for a 90% reduction - but I'm willing to imagine how it might be a phased goal. 100% in 20 years. 40% the first year, and so on.

Once you've answered that -- then how much imposition of regulations, hassle, and expense are you willing to put up with to achieve it? Just as examples - do you think it's reasonable to require storage in a safe? How about the automobile parallel? Would you be willing to study for and take a test to determine whether you are licensed to own a firearm? How about requiring liability insurance. But those are just examples to stimulate your thinking. Just in general... how much? None? A little? Lots? What? I'd be willing to put up with a lot.

RonP
04-19-2018, 07:27 PM
Seeing the same problem and agreeing on how to fix it doesn't always fly. I'm am not looking for any specific number at this point but I can see the need for some action as the problems are grossly obvious. I don't think 100% is achievable. Bad guys who want guns will be able to get them no matter the laws in place. Gun parts can be machined in any garage and can be 3d printed even faster. So do we create a black market of untraceable weapons? I don't know, I do know that growing weed was a serious felony and that did not stop people from growing it. I truly believe disarming the country is not even possible.
OK... so you see a problem. That's encouraging.

Next question -- how much of a reduction in gun-related injuries do you think we should aim for? Should we pick a certain country to match... as a goal? Or maybe just a % reduction? I think we should aim for a 90% reduction - but I'm willing to imagine how it might be a phased goal. 100% in 20 years. 40% the first year, and so on.

Once you've answered that -- then how much imposition of regulations, hassle, and expense are you willing to put up with to achieve it? Just as examples - do you think it's reasonable to require storage in a safe? How about the automobile parallel? Would you be willing to study for and take a test to determine whether you are licensed to own a firearm? How about requiring liability insurance. But those are just examples to stimulate your thinking. Just in general... how much? None? A little? Lots? What? I'd be willing to put up with a lot.

David G
04-19-2018, 07:30 PM
Seeing the same problem and agreeing on how to fix it doesn't always fly. I'm am not looking for any specific number at this point but I can see the need for some action as the problems are grossly obvious. I don't think 100% is achievable. Bad guys who want guns will be able to get them no matter the laws in place. Gun parts can be machined in any garage and can be 3d printed even faster. So do we create a black market of untraceable weapons? I don't know, I do know that growing weed was a serious felony and that did not stop people from growing it. I truly believe disarming the country is not even possible.

I'm not suggesting 100% reduction in # of guns. I'm suggesting 100% reduction in number of gen-related injuries. And yeah, I agree that such a goal is not likely to be achieved. But that's not the whole point of goals, eh?

RonP
04-19-2018, 07:45 PM
If there are guns there will always be gun related injuries. That being said mandatory classes with each and every gun purchase would help in my opinion.I already live in a state with waiting periods and background checks and yet loads of felons are caught with guns every day. Most stolen so that goes back to securing your weapons. I agree that the higher the goal the more achieved but the approach to that goal is not so easy as just passing more laws.
I'm not suggesting 100% reduction in # of guns. I'm suggesting 100% reduction in number of gen-related injuries. And yeah, I agree that such a goal is not likely to be achieved. But that's not the whole point of goals, eh?

George Jung
04-19-2018, 07:55 PM
Bob and Ron love their guns... actually, they are addicted to their guns. They love them more than life. If you realize that, and picture ‘discussing ‘ tighter laws for drugs, with an addict, and the reception that would get, you have a clearer idea of how that’s going to go.

David W Pratt
04-19-2018, 08:00 PM
I believe that Indiana requires that the owner have a concealed carry permit to carry a loaded gun in a car.
If the guy had a permit, why did he not have the gun on his person?
If he did not have a permit, it was illegal to have the loaded gun in the car.

RonP
04-19-2018, 08:08 PM
That is a lie George, I don't have a single gun in my house. You are not nearly as clever as you think you are. What are you addicted to. Making false claims about people you do not now? Sounds Trumpian.
Bob and Ron love their guns... actually, they are addicted to their guns. They love them more than life. If you realize that, and picture ‘discussing ‘ tighter laws for drugs, with an addict, and the reception that would get, you have a clearer idea of how that’s going to go.

George Jung
04-19-2018, 08:15 PM
100% reduction is impossible? Maybe- at first. Afraid everyone (who’s addicted) will be machine their own, for their ‘fix’? Doubt it. Depends on the laws. Afraid criminals will stil get guns? Maybe- but they don’t seem to be the ones murdering school kids.
Why is it that you always use ‘perfect’ to destroy ‘pretty good ‘?

George Jung
04-19-2018, 08:18 PM
Ya talk like ‘an addict’, ya get thrown into that part of the conversation.

RonP
04-19-2018, 08:20 PM
Who's afraid George? Dude you are blatant liar. Did you read just one post and decide to pop off with your self gratifying lies? If you don't think people build their own guns your a fool.

David G
04-19-2018, 08:27 PM
Was someone mentioning toddlers?

Bob Adams
04-19-2018, 09:01 PM
Bob and Ron love their guns... actually, they are addicted to their guns. They love them more than life. If you realize that, and picture ‘discussing ‘ tighter laws for drugs, with an addict, and the reception that would get, you have a clearer idea of how that’s going to go.

WTF? You don't have a clue do you?

ron ll
04-19-2018, 09:08 PM
This is going well.

David G
04-19-2018, 09:31 PM
This is going well.

On this topic, at any rate, Bob can be relied upon. Calm. Thoughtful. Educated. Respectful. Detailed. Convincingly articulate with his well thought out arguments. A joy. A pure joy. If only we could bring back Slug, Thud, and Hank Reardon to join him... we could all just sit back and be educated... basking in the pure brilliance of their rhetoric... and getting a suntan.

George Jung
04-19-2018, 10:14 PM
I do, bob. I see addicts often enough, I know the drill. Do anything- except address the problem. Million excuses. Deflection. Yeah, I know.

ishmael
04-19-2018, 10:30 PM
The OP was meant to be provocative, and it worked.

My prescription for our problem with guns remains pretty much the same. Two basic things.

Universal training at a young age. Teach young people just what guns are about. Teach them well.

Stiff and strictly enforced penalties for miss-use of a firearm. Lock 'em up, and keep them there.

gypsie
04-19-2018, 10:45 PM
Universal training at a young age. Teach young people just what guns are about. Teach them well.

Presumably that training would end with some kind of assessment as to the persons capacity or how successfully they absorbed the training? Like a test?
Then, they couldn't get a gun unless they showed evidence of passing said test?
Maybe different training/tests for different types of weapons? say if you want a machine gun you have to sit the highest standard training and achieve the highest results in your assessment?

gypsie
04-19-2018, 10:55 PM
One [person], it wasn't the fault of millions of Americans.

I'm not sure you can confidently say that.

Millions of Americans appear to have the final say on lax gun laws and a general gun worshiping culture.
Millions of Americans preserve the conditions where this kind of incident is possible and far from unique. This has happened in the past, will happen again - yet millions of Americans actively (and often abusively) fight to maintain easy access to weapons by anyone.

webishop14
04-19-2018, 10:57 PM
The OP was meant to be provocative, and it worked.

My prescription for our problem with guns remains pretty much the same. Two basic things.

Universal training at a young age. Teach young people just what guns are about. Teach them well.

Stiff and strictly enforced penalties for miss-use of a firearm. Lock 'em up, and keep them there.

In addition to universal training, we need to teach anger management in our schools. That's just part of the gun training protocol.

But consider: the gun lobby argues correctly that guns don't kill people: it's people with guns that kill people. Or wound or maim people. I can accept this, because this also argues the point that there's no such thing as a "gun accident." A someone is responsible. In the event of a person being shot, someone is responsible. That person must be held legally responsible. No such thing as an "accident."

ishmael
04-19-2018, 11:05 PM
Something similar to what the Swiss do. It would have to be modified to fit American gun culture. The Swiss have always had arms, sophisticated ones, and being Swiss emphasize discipline and training, along with safe storage protocols and such.

It's been a long time since uncle Adolf played his losing hand at world domination, but Hitler left the Swiss alone. It wasn't much strategic advantage to do otherwise. Because every yeoman was armed, he called the Swiss the "little hedgehog."

gypsie
04-19-2018, 11:14 PM
Hitler left the Swiss alone. It wasn't much strategic advantage to do otherwise. Because every yeoman was armed, he called the Swiss the "little hedgehog."

I think you're overstating it. That falls under the same heading as Americans keeping their guns at home in case they have to fight the USA government. Armed yeomen were no match for the German military, under any circumstances.

Hitler is far more likely to have seen some kind of kinship with the German Swiss, and probably would have invaded eventually - or otherwise made Switzerland a vassal of Germany.

ishmael
04-19-2018, 11:22 PM
Point well made, and taken, Gypsie.

I do think their model of dealing with firearms is something worth looking at for the U.S.

Peerie Maa
04-20-2018, 05:35 AM
Seriously Nick? Almost as asinine as the OP. So very helpful and caring.

Hey, I did not design the poster.
It demonstrated the stupidity of those "arms the schools" arguments.

Peerie Maa
04-20-2018, 05:41 AM
Any chance of a grammar or spelling lesson instead?
R

Ay, either someone is extracting the urine from Christian Trump supporters, or they really are uneducated mouth breathers.

Peerie Maa
04-20-2018, 05:48 AM
But consider: the gun lobby argues correctly that guns don't kill people: it's people with guns that kill people. Or wound or maim people. I can accept this, because this also argues the point that there's no such thing as a "gun accident." A someone is responsible. In the event of a person being shot, someone is responsible. That person must be held legally responsible. No such thing as an "accident."

The problem with that argument is that someone has to be shot before you do anything about it.
Would it not be better to prevent the shooting?

skuthorp
04-20-2018, 05:57 AM
"Hitler left the Swiss alone."

Had to stash their ill gotten cash somewhere…………… convenient………...

Re guns and the USA. I cannot see a solution frankly. The country, to quote my grannie, has made its bed and now it has to lie in it, and die in it.
Price 'a freedom…………………. thoughts and prayers……………… all that stuff.

RonP
04-20-2018, 06:43 AM
This is the sensible kind of approach I think has actual value. Forget who is in the whitehouse and do something proactive. I know democrats that are gun owners, my mom is one of them. It's not always a red or blue issue. Obama did absolutely nothing on this issue with 8 years in office. You want to own a gun, fine. First take the classes.
In addition to universal training, we need to teach anger management in our schools. That's just part of the gun training protocol.

But consider: the gun lobby argues correctly that guns don't kill people: it's people with guns that kill people. Or wound or maim people. I can accept this, because this also argues the point that there's no such thing as a "gun accident." A someone is responsible. In the event of a person being shot, someone is responsible. That person must be held legally responsible. No such thing as an "accident."

Kevin G
04-20-2018, 07:47 AM
#6 A spelling lesson might help.

Tom Wilkinson
04-20-2018, 08:17 AM
Something similar to what the Swiss do. It would have to be modified to fit American gun culture. The Swiss have always had arms, sophisticated ones, and being Swiss emphasize discipline and training, along with safe storage protocols and such.

It's been a long time since uncle Adolf played his losing hand at world domination, but Hitler left the Swiss alone. It wasn't much strategic advantage to do otherwise. Because every yeoman was armed, he called the Swiss the "little hedgehog."

Swiss gun laws are quite restrictive, but I agree they are a good model. You will never pass those laws in the US unfortunately but please promote the idea.

webishop14
04-20-2018, 09:15 AM
The problem with that argument is that someone has to be shot before you do anything about it.
Would it not be better to prevent the shooting?

Nick, your point is well taken. By citing the most egregious examples, I have understated my case. A firearm, left to its own devices, does not spontaneously discharge. Whenever a gun is fired, a person is responsible for it. Should that event be in accordance with all legal strictures, then no problem. Otherwise, the person needs to be held accountable.

So someone might argue that if that person, who was not even holding the gun, and did not own it, how then is he responsible? The answer, of course is: who is the adult in the room? If the owner of the gun left it lying about where a child could reach it, the owner is responsible. Always. No free passes. Should the gun be lying about, and the owner (still responsible) is not present, the adult in the room -- assuming he is aware of the gun's presence -- needs also be held accountable in the event a child reaches the gun. Again, no free passes.

Should a firearm discharge upon being dropped, the person dropping it is nonetheless responsible. This is not an "accident." Dropping the gun might be an accident. The gun should have been set on safety prior to handling it in a manner that would allow dropping it.

My point is responsibility. WHENEVER a gun is fired, someone is responsible. WHENEVER a gun is fired, it is not an accident.

I do not own a firearm, nor do I feel a need to own one. I do not object to someone else owning a gun. I do insist, however, that all persons owning a firearm do so responsibly.

Anyone sufficiently immature to speak of "good guys" with a gun should NEVER be permitted anywhere near a firearm. This includes the idiot LaPierre.

Canoeyawl
04-20-2018, 10:29 AM
The Swiss model won't work here because they have mandatory military service for all able bodied male citizens.

That means you have to join the military.
Which is probably OK because when is the last time Switzerland started a war?

David G
04-20-2018, 10:31 AM
Point well made, and taken, Gypsie.

I do think their model of dealing with firearms is something worth looking at for the U.S.

Absolutely worth looking at. Dig into it! What you'll discover is some potentially useful lessons, and a lot of ways it's not transferable. But do go deeper. Please!!

Canoeyawl
04-20-2018, 12:21 PM
If you have heel spurs in Switzerland you cannot have a gun...

edit; https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/soldiers-can-keep-guns-at-home-but-not-ammo/970614

Peerie Maa
04-20-2018, 02:01 PM
Nick, your point is well taken. By citing the most egregious examples, I have understated my case. A firearm, left to its own devices, does not spontaneously discharge. Whenever a gun is fired, a person is responsible for it. Should that event be in accordance with all legal strictures, then no problem. Otherwise, the person needs to be held accountable.

So someone might argue that if that person, who was not even holding the gun, and did not own it, how then is he responsible? The answer, of course is: who is the adult in the room? If the owner of the gun left it lying about where a child could reach it, the owner is responsible. Always. No free passes. Should the gun be lying about, and the owner (still responsible) is not present, the adult in the room -- assuming he is aware of the gun's presence -- needs also be held accountable in the event a child reaches the gun. Again, no free passes.

Should a firearm discharge upon being dropped, the person dropping it is nonetheless responsible. This is not an "accident." Dropping the gun might be an accident. The gun should have been set on safety prior to handling it in a manner that would allow dropping it.

My point is responsibility. WHENEVER a gun is fired, someone is responsible. WHENEVER a gun is fired, it is not an accident.

I do not own a firearm, nor do I feel a need to own one. I do not object to someone else owning a gun. I do insist, however, that all persons owning a firearm do so responsibly.

Anyone sufficiently immature to speak of "good guys" with a gun should NEVER be permitted anywhere near a firearm. This includes the idiot LaPierre.

Problem is the world is full of the incompetent, the complacent, the thickos, the irresponsible et al so that if you do continue to allow them all to have guns just because they can, whether they need one or not, the accidents will continue.

David W Pratt
04-20-2018, 02:13 PM
I have not been able to find any follow up on the initial story, but it seems likely that the guy was already in violation of the law by having a loaded gun in the car

webishop14
04-20-2018, 06:01 PM
Problem is the world is full of the incompetent, the complacent, the thickos, the irresponsible et al so that if you do continue to allow them all to have guns just because they can, whether they need one or not, the accidents will continue.

But with appropriate laws in place, it won't be an accident but an unlawful discharge of a firearm. Now if such discharge should happen to kill the responsible party, the State will not incur the cost of a trial, now will it?

Our problem here is our Second Amendment to our Constitution. With it in place, we can't just ban firearms. We can only establish specific conditions which disqualify one from gun ownership. And were we to attempt to repeal the Second Amendment, the NRA would promptly tell every nitwit in the country that the government was going to seize their manhood.