quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

This is where knee-jerk gun-nuttery defense rolls in. It's a toddler. A toddler! With no safety provisions but a toddler can just reach in and fire. Rambo ready gun

.

I've got to say - as someone who finds this kind of tragedy utterly alien to him and his non-gun-culture - if they can make cheap plastic bottles with caps that toddlers can't get off, how come something similar can't be done effectively and economically with the safety catches of much more expensive firearms?

They can, and do. But (1) the gun nuts don't like to use them and (2) the NRA opposes them.

These are not issues that come up for responsible gun-owners, vs. the knee-jerk defend-guns-at-all-costs crowd here.

But just as traffic laws exist largely for the irresponsible, and hate speech for those unable to use free speech wisely, so too sensible safeguards help make society safer from those who handle such dead force irresponsibly.

Love how anybody that opposes the anti-gun crowd gets labeled a knee jerk gun defender.

There are sensible laws in place. Enforce them. Tragedies occur, whether it is a parent who lets their kid drive with a cellphone anywhere on their person...where ARE all the folks calling for a ban on teenagers having a cellphone while in a car?...or a busy, stressed mother who sets her purse down and let's her attention wander...to one of the other children, perhaps? They can't all be stopped without the state assuming complete control. Most people don't want that.

what would have happened if the toddler shot and killed someone else in the store? Would you be ok with the present laws if you were in that store and shot dead and bleeding all over the floor instead of the mother, ya know, cuz tragedies just occur? (no big deal?) and if there are sensible laws in place that could have prevented this incident, then why didn't this mother abide by them? It is because of people like her that more and more laws come into being..

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

And you don't have to prove that you have a spotless record to buy a car.
If we had the same restrictions on cars we do on guns half the people out there couldn't own one. What federal agency routinely checks the sales records of car dealers to make sure the have crossed every t and dotted every i?
Then you must favor gun classes in schools like we have drivers education.
you only know the propaganda about gun regulation, not the truth.

Oh brother.. [8|] Actually... You don't even need a DL (or vehicle insurance) to buy & register a car, you just can't legally drive a car without a valid DL (but someone else with a valid DL & insurance can). That is how corporations (that obviously cant qualify for a DL) can own vehicles.. and that is how you can go to a car rental place an rent a car you do not own..

What I do know about guns is there are too many brainless idjots that own/use them.. I would actually favour a minimum IQ requirement on gun ownership/use!..

Were does the law tell you what size gas tank you can have?
Or how many cylinders?
Or require a governor?
And you won't answer about firearms eduction in schools like they used to do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

And you don't have to prove that you have a spotless record to buy a car.
If we had the same restrictions on cars we do on guns half the people out there couldn't own one. What federal agency routinely checks the sales records of car dealers to make sure the have crossed every t and dotted every i?
Then you must favor gun classes in schools like we have drivers education.
you only know the propaganda about gun regulation, not the truth.

Oh brother.. [8|] Actually... You don't even need a DL (or vehicle insurance) to buy & register a car, you just can't legally drive a car without a valid DL (but someone else with a valid DL & insurance can). That is how corporations (that obviously cant qualify for a DL) can own vehicles.. and that is how you can go to a car rental place an rent a car you do not own..

What I do know about guns is there are too many brainless idjots that own/use them.. I would actually favour a minimum IQ requirement on gun ownership/use!..

Were does the law tell you what size gas tank you can have?
Or how many cylinders?
Or require a governor?
And you won't answer about firearms eduction in schools like they used to do.

FYI.. a vehicle and a gun have 2 very different purposes.. honesty, I am going to have to block you cuz your brand of "logic" is just too much..

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

This is where knee-jerk gun-nuttery defense rolls in. It's a toddler. A toddler! With no safety provisions but a toddler can just reach in and fire. Rambo ready gun

.

I've got to say - as someone who finds this kind of tragedy utterly alien to him and his non-gun-culture - if they can make cheap plastic bottles with caps that toddlers can't get off, how come something similar can't be done effectively and economically with the safety catches of much more expensive firearms?

They can, and do. But (1) the gun nuts don't like to use them and (2) the NRA opposes them.

These are not issues that come up for responsible gun-owners, vs. the knee-jerk defend-guns-at-all-costs crowd here.

But just as traffic laws exist largely for the irresponsible, and hate speech for those unable to use free speech wisely, so too sensible safeguards help make society safer from those who handle such dead force irresponsibly.

Love how anybody that opposes the anti-gun crowd gets labeled a knee jerk gun defender.

There are sensible laws in place. Enforce them. Tragedies occur, whether it is a parent who lets their kid drive with a cellphone anywhere on their person...where ARE all the folks calling for a ban on teenagers having a cellphone while in a car?...or a busy, stressed mother who sets her purse down and let's her attention wander...to one of the other children, perhaps? They can't all be stopped without the state assuming complete control. Most people don't want that.

what would have happened if the toddler shot and killed someone else in the store? Would you be ok with the present laws if you were in that store and shot dead and bleeding all over the floor instead of the mother, ya know, cuz tragedies just occur? (no big deal?) and if there are sensible laws in place that could have prevented this incident, then why didn't this mother abide by them? It is because of people like her that more and more laws come into being..

No it is because people like you think another law will cure careless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

And you don't have to prove that you have a spotless record to buy a car.
If we had the same restrictions on cars we do on guns half the people out there couldn't own one. What federal agency routinely checks the sales records of car dealers to make sure the have crossed every t and dotted every i?
Then you must favor gun classes in schools like we have drivers education.
you only know the propaganda about gun regulation, not the truth.

Oh brother.. [8|] Actually... You don't even need a DL (or vehicle insurance) to buy & register a car, you just can't legally drive a car without a valid DL (but someone else with a valid DL & insurance can). That is how corporations (that obviously cant qualify for a DL) can own vehicles.. and that is how you can go to a car rental place an rent a car you do not own..

What I do know about guns is there are too many brainless idjots that own/use them.. I would actually favour a minimum IQ requirement on gun ownership/use!..

Were does the law tell you what size gas tank you can have?
Or how many cylinders?
Or require a governor?
And you won't answer about firearms eduction in schools like they used to do.

Actually, in every state I've lived in (I've lived in a few) Proof of insurance is MANDATORY to register a vehicle.



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

This is where knee-jerk gun-nuttery defense rolls in. It's a toddler. A toddler! With no safety provisions but a toddler can just reach in and fire. Rambo ready gun

.

I've got to say - as someone who finds this kind of tragedy utterly alien to him and his non-gun-culture - if they can make cheap plastic bottles with caps that toddlers can't get off, how come something similar can't be done effectively and economically with the safety catches of much more expensive firearms?

They can, and do. But (1) the gun nuts don't like to use them and (2) the NRA opposes them.

These are not issues that come up for responsible gun-owners, vs. the knee-jerk defend-guns-at-all-costs crowd here.

But just as traffic laws exist largely for the irresponsible, and hate speech for those unable to use free speech wisely, so too sensible safeguards help make society safer from those who handle such dead force irresponsibly.

Love how anybody that opposes the anti-gun crowd gets labeled a knee jerk gun defender.

There are sensible laws in place. Enforce them. Tragedies occur, whether it is a parent who lets their kid drive with a cellphone anywhere on their person...where ARE all the folks calling for a ban on teenagers having a cellphone while in a car?...or a busy, stressed mother who sets her purse down and let's her attention wander...to one of the other children, perhaps? They can't all be stopped without the state assuming complete control. Most people don't want that.

what would have happened if the toddler shot and killed someone else in the store? Would you be ok with the present laws if you were in that store and shot dead and bleeding all over the floor instead of the mother, ya know, cuz tragedies just occur? (no big deal?) and if there are sensible laws in place that could have prevented this incident, then why didn't this mother abide by them? It is because of people like her that more and more laws come into being..

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

FR
could someone make sure that tj444
I don't want to be commenting on what she says it she can't see it.
In fact I will return the favor to avoid temptation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Has the question of whether the gun's safety was on or off been clarified? It seems so obvious to insist that the safety mechanism should have been on, though it seems just as obvious that (a) the gun was fired; and (b) an infant wouldn't be able to release the safety before firing the weapon, both of which suggest that the mechanism wasn't in position.

If the safety wasn't in position, then it would appear that this woman's errors were twofold - leaving the gun in a position where a child could access it and failing to ensure that the safety was on. While I personally feel that these errors are deplorable, the second is the kind of thing that a stressed busy mother with an infant could so easily overlook.

No amount of training or education will guarantee prevention of the first of these errors, while anyone who fails to ensure that loaded guns have their safety mechanisms deployed, (especially when there are children around) is clearly not a person responsible enough to be handling firearms. Eliminating these levels of incompetence and/or negligence seems impossible so tightening gun laws seems the only viable option if we wish to stop repetitions of this tragedy occurring.

Many firearms, including most revolvers don't have a safety, they depend on a harder trigger pull to prevent accidental discharge. The real mistake was that, in a thoughtless moment, she allowed the firearm out of her immediate control.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Because what people posted indicated the beating had already stopped, the cops were on their way, and the issue was that the guy became irate toward the husband.

So just back off and let him rant. The gun is just "Oh yeah! I've got a gun! Finally, I get to draw it on someone! Awesome!"

Could have been just as easily handled without a gun and less ego. It's a coincidental carry story, not a "success" because someone had a gun.

This doesn't contradict my account.
No the beating stopped when the guy turned on the husband. He was threatening to attack the husband TILL HE SAW THE GUN that is what stopped the violence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I don't see where what you're posting disagrees.

Argue away yourself. I'm just answering the questions posed.

THAT'S what I mean about knee-jerk defensiveness when whatever the topic is involves guns.

The wagons reflexively circle, and the old tired anecdotes come out yet again.

All while assuming positions I've never held nor voiced.

It's a circus.

It is you who are giving the knee jerk reaction.
You clearly have a dislike of gun owners and will grasp at any straw, no matter how flimsy, to discount anything good they do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Has the question of whether the gun's safety was on or off been clarified? It seems so obvious to insist that the safety mechanism should have been on, though it seems just as obvious that (a) the gun was fired; and (b) an infant wouldn't be able to release the safety before firing the weapon, both of which suggest that the mechanism wasn't in position.

If the safety wasn't in position, then it would appear that this woman's errors were twofold - leaving the gun in a position where a child could access it and failing to ensure that the safety was on. While I personally feel that these errors are deplorable, the second is the kind of thing that a stressed busy mother with an infant could so easily overlook.

No amount of training or education will guarantee prevention of the first of these errors, while anyone who fails to ensure that loaded guns have their safety mechanisms deployed, (especially when there are children around) is clearly not a person responsible enough to be handling firearms. Eliminating these levels of incompetence and/or negligence seems impossible so tightening gun laws seems the only viable option if we wish to stop repetitions of this tragedy occurring.

Many firearms, including most revolvers don't have a safety, they depend on a harder trigger pull to prevent accidental discharge. The real mistake was that, in a thoughtless moment, she allowed the firearm out of her immediate control.

And that's something that could be changed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

This is where knee-jerk gun-nuttery defense rolls in. It's a toddler. A toddler! With no safety provisions but a toddler can just reach in and fire. Rambo ready gun

.

I've got to say - as someone who finds this kind of tragedy utterly alien to him and his non-gun-culture - if they can make cheap plastic bottles with caps that toddlers can't get off, how come something similar can't be done effectively and economically with the safety catches of much more expensive firearms?

They can, and do. But (1) the gun nuts don't like to use them and (2) the NRA opposes them.

These are not issues that come up for responsible gun-owners, vs. the knee-jerk defend-guns-at-all-costs crowd here.

But just as traffic laws exist largely for the irresponsible, and hate speech for those unable to use free speech wisely, so too sensible safeguards help make society safer from those who handle such dead force irresponsibly.

Love how anybody that opposes the anti-gun crowd gets labeled a knee jerk gun defender.

There are sensible laws in place. Enforce them. Tragedies occur, whether it is a parent who lets their kid drive with a cellphone anywhere on their person...where ARE all the folks calling for a ban on teenagers having a cellphone while in a car?...or a busy, stressed mother who sets her purse down and let's her attention wander...to one of the other children, perhaps? They can't all be stopped without the state assuming complete control. Most people don't want that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

I don't know enough about the permit laws and state laws and what not...but this particular accident would not have occurred had the woman in question been allowed to carry her weapon openly.

I have some issues with open carry. Had she been allowed to carry concealed, in a holster, under her arm, this probably wouldn't have happened.

That said, I remember when my asshole brother was first allowed to carry (cage kicker). He went out and got this shiny, nickel-plated, revolver (.44) which he insisted on wearing on his hip. He was a cowboy.

He was at mom and dad's for Christmas. There were four children under the age of five years old and I asked him to secure his weapon in the gun safe (most of my family was on the job). He refused and I left, taking my youngest with me.

That's the kind of asshole we don't need, carrying a weapon. Mine? Was in a special lock box that I had built into the trunk of my car.



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Has the question of whether the gun's safety was on or off been clarified? It seems so obvious to insist that the safety mechanism should have been on, though it seems just as obvious that (a) the gun was fired; and (b) an infant wouldn't be able to release the safety before firing the weapon, both of which suggest that the mechanism wasn't in position.

If the safety wasn't in position, then it would appear that this woman's errors were twofold - leaving the gun in a position where a child could access it and failing to ensure that the safety was on. While I personally feel that these errors are deplorable, the second is the kind of thing that a stressed busy mother with an infant could so easily overlook.

No amount of training or education will guarantee prevention of the first of these errors, while anyone who fails to ensure that loaded guns have their safety mechanisms deployed, (especially when there are children around) is clearly not a person responsible enough to be handling firearms. Eliminating these levels of incompetence and/or negligence seems impossible so tightening gun laws seems the only viable option if we wish to stop repetitions of this tragedy occurring.

Many firearms, including most revolvers don't have a safety, they depend on a harder trigger pull to prevent accidental discharge. The real mistake was that, in a thoughtless moment, she allowed the firearm out of her immediate control.

And that's something that could be changed.

You can't outlaw careless.
Leaving a firearm unattended in a public place would already fall under reckless endangerment. What do you want them to do to the mother, dig up the body and hang it outside the Walmart?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Has the question of whether the gun's safety was on or off been clarified? It seems so obvious to insist that the safety mechanism should have been on, though it seems just as obvious that (a) the gun was fired; and (b) an infant wouldn't be able to release the safety before firing the weapon, both of which suggest that the mechanism wasn't in position.

If the safety wasn't in position, then it would appear that this woman's errors were twofold - leaving the gun in a position where a child could access it and failing to ensure that the safety was on. While I personally feel that these errors are deplorable, the second is the kind of thing that a stressed busy mother with an infant could so easily overlook.

No amount of training or education will guarantee prevention of the first of these errors, while anyone who fails to ensure that loaded guns have their safety mechanisms deployed, (especially when there are children around) is clearly not a person responsible enough to be handling firearms. Eliminating these levels of incompetence and/or negligence seems impossible so tightening gun laws seems the only viable option if we wish to stop repetitions of this tragedy occurring.

Many firearms, including most revolvers don't have a safety, they depend on a harder trigger pull to prevent accidental discharge. The real mistake was that, in a thoughtless moment, she allowed the firearm out of her immediate control.

And that's something that could be changed.

You can't outlaw careless.
Leaving a firearm unattended in a public place would already fall under reckless endangerment. What do you want them to do to the mother, dig up the body and hang it outside the Walmart?

Of course you can. Several regulations do that for a wide spectrum of things.

A safety would help. And those who leave unattended firearms in public places should not be afforded the chance. Nor should those who leave loaded, ready-to-fire weapons where children, even a toddler, can get them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Has the question of whether the gun's safety was on or off been clarified? It seems so obvious to insist that the safety mechanism should have been on, though it seems just as obvious that (a) the gun was fired; and (b) an infant wouldn't be able to release the safety before firing the weapon, both of which suggest that the mechanism wasn't in position.

If the safety wasn't in position, then it would appear that this woman's errors were twofold - leaving the gun in a position where a child could access it and failing to ensure that the safety was on. While I personally feel that these errors are deplorable, the second is the kind of thing that a stressed busy mother with an infant could so easily overlook.

No amount of training or education will guarantee prevention of the first of these errors, while anyone who fails to ensure that loaded guns have their safety mechanisms deployed, (especially when there are children around) is clearly not a person responsible enough to be handling firearms. Eliminating these levels of incompetence and/or negligence seems impossible so tightening gun laws seems the only viable option if we wish to stop repetitions of this tragedy occurring.

Many firearms, including most revolvers don't have a safety, they depend on a harder trigger pull to prevent accidental discharge. The real mistake was that, in a thoughtless moment, she allowed the firearm out of her immediate control.

And that's something that could be changed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

If you're just going to make up my positions, why do you need me for this discussion?

Yet again (can you read?), no, I don't "want to make sure that guns are not accessible to anyone."

But THIS is why I see you as a knee-jerk defensive gun-nutter. You want to have an honest discussion, fine.

INstead, you're only interested in circling the wagons around anything resembling a gun, whatever the consequences.

At issue here is responsible gun ownership. What exactly is the probably with that for you?

I know MANY gun owners here -- none of whom oppose sensible legislation.