RE: Another "successful" carry story

RE: Another "successful" carry story (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

thishereboi -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/20/2015 1:04:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic when you can take a swimmming pool into a walmart it might be relevant try addressing the actual death of a nine month old baby by gun not try and derail And not even a decent insult. pathetic This one happened at home and yes people do have pools at home. Now anyone wanna guess the chances that Lucy would have linked the story if the brother had pushed him in the pool and he died that way? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/20/accidental-shooting-missouri-boy_n_6506956.html

Musicmystery -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/20/2015 1:05:07 PM)
Ooo. A tangent to a tangent to a tangent. Y'all are really getting good at dodging the issue.

Lucylastic -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/20/2015 1:17:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic when you can take a swimmming pool into a walmart it might be relevant try addressing the actual death of a nine month old baby by gun not try and derail And not even a decent insult. pathetic This one happened at home and yes people do have pools at home. Now anyone wanna guess the chances that Lucy would have linked the story if the brother had pushed him in the pool and he died that way? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/20/accidental-shooting-missouri-boy_n_6506956.html you want me to search out all kid deaths just for you to ignore the problems? yeah ill get right on that, twit

Lucylastic -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/20/2015 1:34:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic considering I didnt and HAVENT mentioned the gun thats being passed around, OR anything to do with safety modifications assumptions make you look bloody stupid Aww now Lucy, I didn't say you had. I was just trying to make you happy. [:)] K. bollocks

ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/21/2015 2:22:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail there is a lock and a cock safety by your thumb (2) on that side, the squeeze safety, lockback safety, firing pin safety (for dropping the gun) and the half cock trigger safety. Thats six, and I cannot recall the other, have to look at it. You later added and single action. Ok, I was thinking of active safeties, I wasn't thinking about the passive ones. But would any of those have done anything to prevent this shooting from happening? The actual manual safety. Some are too tight for a child to disengage, I have a Springfield 1911a1 that I can barely move, but others are easily loose enough. The squeeze safety, maybe. It depends on whether the child had a grip on the gun, or just got it's finger through the trigger guard, and how hard you need to squeeze. Lock back, no. Who carries a pistol with the slide locked open? Firing pin interlock bar, no. Half-cock, no, not unless the child was pushing on it hard enough to take the slide out of battery. Single action, not really relevant as far as I'm concerned. Sure, single action means it can't be fired if the hammer is down, but the manual safety also can't be engaged if the hammer is down. So the only one really relevant to a discussion about child-proofing guns is the manual safety. (And maybe the grip safety.)

ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/21/2015 2:36:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Exactly. One of my friends works in NYC a lot, and carries a firearm in his truck--ready, but secured. He doesn't saunter down the street thinking he's in Tombstone. You have a friend who brings a loaded gun into NYC? Does he have a permit for that? Cause if not, he's breaking the law every time he rolls across the bridge. I'm no law expert. But according to http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/newyorkcity.pdf, you need to meet two criteria: It is illegal to carry any loaded firearm in any vehicle in NYC without a Permit/License endorsement issued by the City of New York. It is illegal to carry any loaded firearm in any motor vehicle without a valid New York Permit/License to Carry. Ummmm, and? I'm a bit unclear what your explanation had to do with what I asked, since part of what I asked was "Does he have a permit for that?" I'm well aware that it's illegal to have a loaded gun in your car in NYC, if you don't have a carry permit. I'm also aware that it's just about impossible to get a carry permit in NYC. So, it sounds like your friend is breaking the law, but I suppose he could be one of the very few carry permit holders. Even if he is though... since you keep pointing out how irresponsible this mother was in leaving her gun unattended and allowing a child to get it, why don't you think your friend is irresponsible for leaving a loaded gun in his car? You praised him, for not carrying it on his hip like he was sauntering through Tombstone, but see nothing wrong with it being left in his parked car? If his car is stolen, congrats, there's another weapon on the streets. If it's on his hip, you know like he's sauntering through Tombstone, then he knows where it is and can prevent it's being stolen. Just out of curiosity, where is your friend coming from when he goes to NYC with his loaded weapon in his car? I'm wondering just how many laws this buddy you're praising is breaking? I'm betting it's several. But this is the guy you held up as an example of responsible gun-ownership, right?

ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/21/2015 2:43:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 So you would use that same standard for a woman that was in the store alone, with no children? Just curious. I don't know, since I wasn't there, but I doubt that she was more than about an arm's length away. To say that that is "unattended" is a bit of a stretch to me. Like I said, though, I can definitely see negligence. I just don't feel that she was far enough away to call it unattended. If the woman was there all alone, explain how the firearm leaped up and shot her? Which is to say that....SOMEONE ELSE....would be in....POSSESSION....of the firearm. Which would further mean, that the woman was....NOT....in control of her firearm. That the person holding the firearm can range in age from two years of age to near death; is not enough of an excuse to maintain control of the firearm at ALL TIMES! Well, she was far enough away, and without observation of said gun, to know her demise was close at hand at the time. That would be far enough to be defined as 'unattended'. If you place your gun on the coffee table and walk out to get the morning paper, is your gun unattended? If you lock your gun in your car, and its stolen, is it unattended? If you place your gun in the drawer of the nightstand, when your kids know its there, is it unattended? The answer is 'yes', since there are hundreds of examples of firearm deaths. If you have a firearm, you are RESPONSIBLE for it. No "If's", "Ands", or 'Buts" about it. If you can not handle that sort of responsibility, then turn it in at the local police station. He didn't say that the woman was there all alone. He asked, "So you would use that same standard for a woman that was in the store alone, with no children?" In regards to your questions, if you have kids in the house, and you leave a loaded weapon on your coffee table or unsecured in a drawer, then you're an idiot. If you lock your gun in the car, then you've secured it behind a lock. (Personally I have a lock-box in my trunk to be extra safe, but still.) If someone steals your car, you're no more responsible then if a thief broke in and stole them from your house while you weren't home. Or if you're mugged and it's stolen from your holster. At that point, you're responsible for reporting them stolen. Now personally I don't like leaving a gun in the car, but sometimes you have no choice.

ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/21/2015 2:53:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery A toddler should not be able to pick up a gun and fire it. However you want to debate it practically, there are any number of safety features which could be added, any one of which would do. And a toddler shouldn't be allowed to run into traffic, or get into a pool, or play with chemicals, or put toys in his mouth, etc. Yet in spite of all the laws and safety features put in place to prevent it from happening, kids still get killed. The world isn't a perfectly safe place. It never was, and it never will be. You're taking a single incident, blowing it our of proportion, and insisting that "Something Must Be Done!"

ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/21/2015 3:02:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery We re-call cars with unsafe design features. Are there recalls of unsafe guns? Actually, yes. For example: http://www.remington.com/pages/news-and-resources/safety-center/safety-warning-recall-notice-remington-model700-modelseven.aspx

ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/21/2015 3:23:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic A 9-month-old northwestern Missouri boy is dead after his 5-year-old brother playing with a handgun accidentally shot him in the head. Nodaway County Sheriff Darren White says the baby was pronounced dead at Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas City just before noon on Monday. The Kansas City Star ( http://bit.ly/1zsiSLP ) reports that emergency responders were called to a home in Elmo around 9 a.m. Monday after a 5-year-old found a loaded .22 caliber handgun and apparently was handling it when it fired. White says the bullet struck the 9-month-old, who was in a playpen. The sheriff says there is no reason to believe the shooting was anything other than an accident. Elmo is located 120 miles north of Kansas City, Missouri. Tragic....stupid...but its another killer toddler...gun had nothing to do with it. edited because I posted the wrong link http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/20/accidental-shooting-missouri-boy_n_6506956.html No, it's stupid parents allowing a child to get his hands on a loaded gun. Amazingly enough, prior to the intervention of the child, the gun didn't leap up and commit murder on it's own. And, we ALREADY have laws dealing with this. That's why all new guns are sold with gun locks. They're required, especially in homes with children. And in other threads where this is brought up, people ask why the parents aren't being prosecuted for breaking the law, and the reply is generally, "They already lost a child, haven't they suffered enough?" And the answer to that is no. They failed to properly secure a firearm, a death resulted, their asses should be in jail. Otherwise, the law is pointless. But then it's not really about the laws. It's about wringing your hands an insisting that something has to be done, ignoring that something already has. If a parent is texting while driving and their child dies as a result, you don't see people saying that they've suffered enough. They're prosecuted and probably go to jail. Same with any number of other things, but for some reason when a gun is involved we give the parents a pass and blame the gun. I wonder why?

Sanity -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/21/2015 3:24:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery A toddler should not be able to pick up a gun and fire it. However you want to debate it practically, there are any number of safety features which could be added, any one of which would do. And a toddler shouldn't be allowed to run into traffic, or get into a pool, or play with chemicals, or put toys in his mouth, etc. Yet in spite of all the laws and safety features put in place to prevent it from happening, kids still get killed. The world isn't a perfectly safe place. It never was, and it never will be. You're taking a single incident, blowing it our of proportion, and insisting that "Something Must Be Done!" If we can save just one life we should ban everything (I am 'liberal' hear me roar)

ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/21/2015 3:40:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery This is a red herring, and you know it. Of course it's a concern. That's why safety regulations exist for it. But then there's not a national association fighting it, one that isn't really concerned with the safety of children. If we're going to play that game. Must we? The safety regulations are BS and everyone knows it. Kids climb fences. I've climbed over fences. I'm sure you've climbed over fences. By your own argument, if a child dies in a pool that's got a fence around it, the safety design is flawed.

smileforme50 -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/21/2015 4:11:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery This is a red herring, and you know it. Of course it's a concern. That's why safety regulations exist for it. But then there's not a national association fighting it, one that isn't really concerned with the safety of children. If we're going to play that game. Must we? The safety regulations are BS and everyone knows it. Kids climb fences. I've climbed over fences. I'm sure you've climbed over fences. By your own argument, if a child dies in a pool that's got a fence around it, the safety design is flawed. I think the point of that argument is that pools and other things that may injure or kill children (and adults for that matter) aren't designed and produced with their primary or sole purpose being to kill people. That is exactly what guns are made for. That's the problem gun control people have with guns. At least other things in this world that can kill another person have a different primary purpose to them, and if they are used right, won't kill anyone. You can't say that about guns. With guns, if you kill the person you're shooting at, then you HAVE used it the way it was intended. When mistakes are made with guns, the issue isn't that someone got killed....because that's exactly what the gun is for. The issue is the the wrong person got killed. Either way you look at it....someone gets killed, regardless of whether you use the gun correctly or not.

Lucylastic -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/21/2015 4:22:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic A 9-month-old northwestern Missouri boy is dead after his 5-year-old brother playing with a handgun accidentally shot him in the head. Nodaway County Sheriff Darren White says the baby was pronounced dead at Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas City just before noon on Monday. The Kansas City Star ( http://bit.ly/1zsiSLP ) reports that emergency responders were called to a home in Elmo around 9 a.m. Monday after a 5-year-old found a loaded .22 caliber handgun and apparently was handling it when it fired. White says the bullet struck the 9-month-old, who was in a playpen. The sheriff says there is no reason to believe the shooting was anything other than an accident. Elmo is located 120 miles north of Kansas City, Missouri. Tragic....stupid...but its another killer toddler...gun had nothing to do with it. edited because I posted the wrong link http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/20/accidental-shooting-missouri-boy_n_6506956.html No, it's stupid parents allowing a child to get his hands on a loaded gun. Amazingly enough, prior to the intervention of the child, the gun didn't leap up and commit murder on it's own. And, we ALREADY have laws dealing with this. That's why all new guns are sold with gun locks. They're required, especially in homes with children. And in other threads where this is brought up, people ask why the parents aren't being prosecuted for breaking the law, and the reply is generally, "They already lost a child, haven't they suffered enough?" And the answer to that is no. They failed to properly secure a firearm, a death resulted, their asses should be in jail. Otherwise, the law is pointless. But then it's not really about the laws. It's about wringing your hands an insisting that something has to be done, ignoring that something already has. If a parent is texting while driving and their child dies as a result, you don't see people saying that they've suffered enough. They're prosecuted and probably go to jail. Same with any number of other things, but for some reason when a gun is involved we give the parents a pass and blame the gun. I wonder why? see my post 348 the relevant part is A GUN was the weapon used, just like knives, just like bats. Death of a nine month old, and you wanna place blame and deny everything else. Remember i actually SAID Stupid people are the problem as well as what they do with their guns and the justifications used so it can be ignored Id like you to point out where ANYONE in this forum has stated "people ask why the parents aren't being prosecuted for breaking the law, and the reply is generally, "They already lost a child, haven't they suffered enough?" because that is bullshit, no one pushes that agenda. I will apologise if you come up with ONE link to a post in this fora. otherwise you divebombing the thread and putting words in peoples mouths again, is more bullshit.

Kirata -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/21/2015 4:24:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: smileforme50 designed and produced with their primary or sole purpose being to kill people. That is exactly what guns are made for. Well then they're a spectacular design failure, because only 1 in 3 gunshot wounds are fatal. But, of course, you're just making shit up. Self-defense firearms are designed to inflict injury, fatal injury if necessary, but not necessarily, and in the best case to present a threat sufficient to retire the need to use it. K.

Lucylastic -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/21/2015 4:27:56 AM)
if only 1 in 3 gunshot wounds are fatal, then theres triple the number of idiots out there who are shooting up other humans .YAY[8\|]

ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/21/2015 5:15:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic see my post 348 the relevant part is A GUN was the weapon used, just like knives, just like bats. Death of a nine month old, and you wanna place blame and deny everything else. Remember i actually SAID Stupid people are the problem as well as what they do with their guns and the justifications used so it can be ignored Id like you to point out where ANYONE in this forum has stated "people ask why the parents aren't being prosecuted for breaking the law, and the reply is generally, "They already lost a child, haven't they suffered enough?" because that is bullshit, no one pushes that agenda. I will apologise if you come up with ONE link to a post in this fora. otherwise you divebombing the thread and putting words in peoples mouths again, is more bullshit. I hadn't seen where you made the comment about stupid people when I posted that. As to the rest people have said exactly that. Don't remember who, or exactly where, I just remember seeing it the last time an incident where a child got hold of a parent's gun and killed someone came up. Since threads deteriorate it could be damn near anywhere. If I can find it, I will, but I'm not killing myself looking.

Musicmystery -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/21/2015 5:34:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Exactly. One of my friends works in NYC a lot, and carries a firearm in his truck--ready, but secured. He doesn't saunter down the street thinking he's in Tombstone. You have a friend who brings a loaded gun into NYC? Does he have a permit for that? Cause if not, he's breaking the law every time he rolls across the bridge. I'm no law expert. But according to http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/newyorkcity.pdf, you need to meet two criteria: It is illegal to carry any loaded firearm in any vehicle in NYC without a Permit/License endorsement issued by the City of New York. It is illegal to carry any loaded firearm in any motor vehicle without a valid New York Permit/License to Carry. Ummmm, and? I'm a bit unclear what your explanation had to do with what I asked, since part of what I asked was "Does he have a permit for that?" I'm well aware that it's illegal to have a loaded gun in your car in NYC, if you don't have a carry permit. I'm also aware that it's just about impossible to get a carry permit in NYC. So, it sounds like your friend is breaking the law, but I suppose he could be one of the very few carry permit holders. Even if he is though... since you keep pointing out how irresponsible this mother was in leaving her gun unattended and allowing a child to get it, why don't you think your friend is irresponsible for leaving a loaded gun in his car? You praised him, for not carrying it on his hip like he was sauntering through Tombstone, but see nothing wrong with it being left in his parked car? If his car is stolen, congrats, there's another weapon on the streets. If it's on his hip, you know like he's sauntering through Tombstone, then he knows where it is and can prevent it's being stolen. Just out of curiosity, where is your friend coming from when he goes to NYC with his loaded weapon in his car? I'm wondering just how many laws this buddy you're praising is breaking? I'm betting it's several. But this is the guy you held up as an example of responsible gun-ownership, right? Ah. The nit-pick brigade. OK, let's cover every inch of every example as a tangent to the main issue. As you point out, the point was securing a gun rather than the "ready to shoot someone" attitude. 1) I have no idea what permits he holds. 2) Personally, I wouldn't carry a gun in the truck. It's why I don't. Even when I go to NYC (which I used to a lot). 3) Even if he wanders through the streets randomly shooting shit, it doesn't make the mother responsible. Or alive. He also, incidentally, keeps loaded guns in the house. I think that's dangerous, that you're just as likely to get shot with your own gun. Several people here say no, you have to be ready to shoot. There are sad stories at both ends of that, and nothing including divine revelation is going to change that thinking. But he doesn't have children in the house, and the other occupant is also well acquainted with firearm use. Did I cover everything? Or is anything else still stuck in your panties? Is the mom smarter now?

joether -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/21/2015 5:45:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 So you would use that same standard for a woman that was in the store alone, with no children? Just curious. I don't know, since I wasn't there, but I doubt that she was more than about an arm's length away. To say that that is "unattended" is a bit of a stretch to me. Like I said, though, I can definitely see negligence. I just don't feel that she was far enough away to call it unattended. If the woman was there all alone, explain how the firearm leaped up and shot her? Which is to say that....SOMEONE ELSE....would be in....POSSESSION....of the firearm. Which would further mean, that the woman was....NOT....in control of her firearm. That the person holding the firearm can range in age from two years of age to near death; is not enough of an excuse to maintain control of the firearm at ALL TIMES! Well, she was far enough away, and without observation of said gun, to know her demise was close at hand at the time. That would be far enough to be defined as 'unattended'. If you place your gun on the coffee table and walk out to get the morning paper, is your gun unattended? If you lock your gun in your car, and its stolen, is it unattended? If you place your gun in the drawer of the nightstand, when your kids know its there, is it unattended? The answer is 'yes', since there are hundreds of examples of firearm deaths. If you have a firearm, you are RESPONSIBLE for it. No "If's", "Ands", or 'Buts" about it. If you can not handle that sort of responsibility, then turn it in at the local police station. He didn't say that the woman was there all alone. He asked, "So you would use that same standard for a woman that was in the store alone, with no children?" If she is all alone, then explain how the gun got out of her purse and shot her to death? Scientifically of course.... quote: ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted In regards to your questions, if you have kids in the house, and you leave a loaded weapon on your coffee table or unsecured in a drawer, then you're an idiot. And yet, it happens time and again. There are hundreds of news stories in which tragedy befell a community in which the child got ahold of a firearm and fired one or more rounds. Teen suicide due to depression with a firearm. Two children that thought it was a toy. The special needs child that stumbles upon the firearm the parents thought was hidden. Yes, every single one of them a sad reminder that stupidity and foolishness seem to follow firearms, like a politician seeking re-election. And when these events take place, it shows up on this here forum. The gun nuts defend things in ever increasing levels of insanity; while the gun controllers demanding even further and in-depth restrictions. Common sense as it is.....isn't.....so common. quote: ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted If you lock your gun in the car, then you've secured it behind a lock. (Personally I have a lock-box in my trunk to be extra safe, but still.) If someone steals your car, you're no more responsible then if a thief broke in and stole them from your house while you weren't home. Or if you're mugged and it's stolen from your holster. At that point, you're responsible for reporting them stolen. I'm sure we can say its not your fault for leaving the gun under some stuff in the backseat to the family of the victim, right? Because that too has happened in history. Or from the gun locker. How many individuals, whom owned firearms, went to the victims and apologized after learning their firearm, once stolen, killed someone? Would take some serious courage to 'man up' and beg forgiveness. Yes, legally there is nothing they can do. But does show acknowledgement of responsibility. quote: ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted Now personally I don't like leaving a gun in the car, but sometimes you have no choice. You always have choice. That you choose the wrong one, is where trouble begins. How you made that choice, may determine criminal fault.

joether -> RE: Another "successful" carry story (1/21/2015 5:56:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: smileforme50 designed and produced with their primary or sole purpose being to kill people. That is exactly what guns are made for. Well then they're a spectacular design failure, because only 1 in 3 gunshot wounds are fatal. But, of course, you're just making shit up. Self-defense firearms are designed to inflict injury, fatal injury if necessary, but not necessarily, and in the best case to present a threat sufficient to retire the need to use it. Your so full of shit! Self defense guns are designed to injure and not kill? What drugs have you been taking!?!?!?!?!! The primary purpose of a firearm is to kill. It has many secondary uses. Like self defense, target shooting, hunting, collecting, modding, etc. There are only two types of people that can not admit a firearm's primary purpose: the stupid and the insane. Which one are you? Compare that to say, a car.... The primary purpose of a car is three fold: 1 ) To move one or more people from location A to location B. 2 ) To move objects from location A to location B. 3 ) To move people and/or objects from location A to location B. It too has many secondary uses: collecting, vacationing, racing, modding. And yes, it has been used to kill people. Again, are you stupid or insane?

Page: << < prev 19 20 [21] 22 23 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625