Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Another "successful" carry story


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Another "successful" carry story Page: <<   < prev  19 20 [21] 22 23   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Another "successful" carry story - 1/20/2015 1:04:15 PM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 401
RE: Another "successful" carry story - 1/20/2015 1:05:07 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
Ooo. A tangent to a tangent to a tangent.

Y'all are really getting good at dodging the issue.

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 402
RE: Another "successful" carry story - 1/20/2015 1:17:01 PM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
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


< Message edited by Lucylastic -- 1/20/2015 1:18:01 PM >


_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 403
RE: Another "successful" carry story - 1/20/2015 1:34:48 PM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline

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


_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 404
RE: Another "successful" carry story - 1/21/2015 2:22:17 AM   
ThirdWheelWanted


Posts: 391
Joined: 4/23/2014
Status: offline

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.)

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 405
RE: Another "successful" carry story - 1/21/2015 2:36:13 AM   
ThirdWheelWanted


Posts: 391
Joined: 4/23/2014
Status: offline

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?



(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 406
RE: Another "successful" carry story - 1/21/2015 2:43:51 AM   
ThirdWheelWanted


Posts: 391
Joined: 4/23/2014
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 407
RE: Another "successful" carry story - 1/21/2015 2:53:26 AM   
ThirdWheelWanted


Posts: 391
Joined: 4/23/2014
Status: offline
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!"

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 408
RE: Another "successful" carry story - 1/21/2015 3:02:32 AM   
ThirdWheelWanted


Posts: 391
Joined: 4/23/2014
Status: offline
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

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 409
RE: Another "successful" carry story - 1/21/2015 3:23:16 AM   
ThirdWheelWanted


Posts: 391
Joined: 4/23/2014
Status: offline

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?

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 410
RE: Another "successful" carry story - 1/21/2015 3:24:32 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

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)

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to ThirdWheelWanted)
Profile   Post #: 411
RE: Another "successful" carry story - 1/21/2015 3:40:14 AM   
ThirdWheelWanted


Posts: 391
Joined: 4/23/2014
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 412
RE: Another "successful" carry story - 1/21/2015 4:11:03 AM   
smileforme50


Posts: 1623
Joined: 1/24/2013
From: DelaWHERE(?)
Status: offline

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.


_____________________________

“Give it to me!” she yelled
“I’m so fucking wet! Give it to me now!”

She could scream all she wanted…..I was keeping the umbrella.

(in reply to ThirdWheelWanted)
Profile   Post #: 413
RE: Another "successful" carry story - 1/21/2015 4:22:27 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to ThirdWheelWanted)
Profile   Post #: 414
RE: Another "successful" carry story - 1/21/2015 4:24:50 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

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.



(in reply to smileforme50)
Profile   Post #: 415
RE: Another "successful" carry story - 1/21/2015 4:27:56 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
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


_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 416
RE: Another "successful" carry story - 1/21/2015 5:15:59 AM   
ThirdWheelWanted


Posts: 391
Joined: 4/23/2014
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 417
RE: Another "successful" carry story - 1/21/2015 5:34:10 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
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?



< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 1/21/2015 5:52:35 AM >

(in reply to ThirdWheelWanted)
Profile   Post #: 418
RE: Another "successful" carry story - 1/21/2015 5:45:28 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to ThirdWheelWanted)
Profile   Post #: 419
RE: Another "successful" carry story - 1/21/2015 5:56:38 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 420
Page:   <<   < prev  19 20 [21] 22 23   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Another "successful" carry story Page: <<   < prev  19 20 [21] 22 23   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094