quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
Right. So any concern about vehicle safety or inebriated driving equates to an argument for banning all vehicles.

"We don't have our 'smart cap' on today, do we?"

You don't read well do you?
I said IF that would make reporting on accidents being used the same way this tragedy is being used. You don't seem to understand the difference the IF makes.

You don't understand the OP, much less any preposition of the English language.

How is the 'tragedy being used'? By simple reporting of facts? Was it mentioned in the OP or in fact in any post herein that "all guns should be banned"?

Clearly, you lack the most basic reading comprehension skills, and so have no grounds whatsoever for calling out anyone else's understanding of the word "IF."

IF the OP or anyone else had mentioned banning of all guns, you might have had a point.

IF wishes were fishes, you'd have a net full of clues.

But alas ...

You don't get it do you?
No there wasn't a call to ban all guns.
Just the claim that this "proves" that guns in the home puts kids in danger.
And of course that we must do "something" to keep parents from exposing kids to guns.
Once again you are basing your whole argument on pretending I said something I didn't say.
Do you deny that this thread isn't merely about reporting what happened but is rather an attempt to put gun owners in a bad light?
Can you really be that stupid?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
Right. So any concern about vehicle safety or inebriated driving equates to an argument for banning all vehicles.

"We don't have our 'smart cap' on today, do we?"

You don't read well do you?
I said IF that would make reporting on accidents being used the same way this tragedy is being used. You don't seem to understand the difference the IF makes.

You don't understand the OP, much less any preposition of the English language.

How is the 'tragedy being used'? By simple reporting of facts? Was it mentioned in the OP or in fact in any post herein that "all guns should be banned"?

Clearly, you lack the most basic reading comprehension skills, and so have no grounds whatsoever for calling out anyone else's understanding of the word "IF."

IF the OP or anyone else had mentioned banning of all guns, you might have had a point.

IF wishes were fishes, you'd have a net full of clues.

But alas ...

You don't get it do you?
No there wasn't a call to ban all guns.
Just the claim that this "proves" that guns in the home puts kids in danger.
And of course that we must do "something" to keep parents from exposing kids to guns.
Once again you are basing your whole argument on pretending I said something I didn't say.
Do you deny that this thread isn't merely about reporting what happened but is rather an attempt to put gun owners in a bad light?
Can you really be that stupid?

The OP mentioned nothing about 'guns in the home,' but thanks for indemnifying your lack of comprehension skills one again, as in every one of your posts.

IF you read carefully, the post reported an incident occurring in public, in a crowded store, nothing to do with 'guns in the home.'

There was no intention of putting 'gun owners in a bad light,' that is simply a matter of your own paranoia. Which brings to question how your own paranoia and its potential harm to society commiserates with that of the poor woman who carried a loaded and ready-to-fire piece in easy reach of her toddler into a public place.

The OP only intended to point out stupidity, of one particular variety. In this particular case, someone carried a gun into a public place for purpose of 'protection,' while failing to take into account that her stupidity was her own worst enemy, from which, as it turns out, there was no protection.

She took her paranoia to the level of endangering society, while lacking the mental process to avoid otherwise, and you seem to be all in with that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Again you miss what happened, it wasn't that she carried in a public place, it was that she did something stupid. This is not the natural outcome of carrying it is the outcome of being careless.
You just admitted that this is being used to attack concealed carry so your whole objection to my saying this tragedy is being used for political gain just went out the window.

quote:

This is not the natural outcome of carrying it is the outcome of being careless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Then how can you be so sure gun ownership is a large enough deterrent to crime with no proof to back it up... at least enough proof to say the proliferation of conceal and carry is worth the carnage of children's loss of life. I am not necessarily against gun ownership but perhaps the type of weapons and where they should be allowed and penalties for carelessness resulting in injury or death may need to be weighed against the hundreds of children killed or injured each year to accidental gun accidents... Is it worth it?

I believe studies should be made by neutral entities to find answers to this question. There may very well be solutions without repealing conceal and carry but this will require new laws and regulations that will not happen without statistics to show a need.

Butch

"proliferation of conceal and carry is worth the carnage of children's loss of life. "

Please tell me that you want to outlaw backyard pools in order tp prevent the death of children.

Once again you introduce a strawman argument to defend what is indefensible
Way to be consistent [8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
You guys are so worried about the children, why not worry about all the other things that are dangerous to children.

Missed by a mile. No, actually, you missed the point by 1,000 miles.

No one mentioned "child safety" in particular. The issue is about public carry vs. public safety. The bullet could have hit anyone in that Walmart, child or adult.

Some of us are not nearly so worried about the children as we are about fuckwit adults putting the public in harm's way by availing toddlers of loaded weapons in a crowded public place. The fact that it was an inadvertent 'woops!' in this case all the more argues the point against the mentally inept being allowed public carry. But we only require one or two lessons at the firing range for a PC license, no instructions to the child who happens up
on the same weapon. No IQ test for the PC parents, just put the bullet somewhere within two yards of the target and here's your license.


The OP was about the irony of some adult buying and carrying a gun in public, "for protection," when this incident points out that there was no protection at all of this particular adult from her own stupidity. And the observant reader sees that this unfortunate incident also points out the fact that there is no protection from such idiots when they public carry that idiocy into a crowded public place, much less any "safety."

Child or adult; stupid is stupid, and dead is dead.

Keep it in your house, don't bring it into public. Simple as that.

quote:

Neither is the natural outcome of driving tossing back one tall boy after another, but we have precautions against that and against 12 yr. olds driving, somehow avoiding the banning of all vehicles in the process.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Again you miss what happened, it wasn't that she carried in a public place, it was that she did something stupid. This is not the natural outcome of carrying it is the outcome of being careless.
You just admitted that this is being used to attack concealed carry so your whole objection to my saying this tragedy is being used for political gain just went out the window.

The 'political gain' aspect is all yours. I don't get into that crap at all, so just can it.

If that's all your shallow mind is capable of, then you're incapable of anything resembling rational discussion.

quote:

This is not the natural outcome of carrying it is the outcome of being careless.

Neither is the natural outcome of driving tossing back one tall boy after another, but we have precautions against that and against 12 yr. olds driving, somehow avoiding the banning of all vehicles in the process.

But your 'argument,' such as it is, seems to be that we shouldn't take away the license from a drunk driver unless and until he/she kills someone. Otherwise, we are putting all drivers and vehicle manufacturers 'in a bad light,' and, moreover, doing so 'for political gain.'

You are too funny. 'Have a nice day.'

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

quote:

Neither is the natural outcome of driving tossing back one tall boy after another, but we have precautions against that and against 12 yr. olds driving, somehow avoiding the banning of all vehicles in the process.

Speaking of which ...

We don't allow 12 yr. olds to drive, but that doesn't stop us from putting an Uzi into the hands of a 9 yr. old.

Here's how that worked out;

http://wtvr.com/2014/08/27/arizona-girl-fatal-shooting-accident/


I won't mention the mention in that article referring to the 8 yr. old boy who, while supervised, shot himself in the head, lest I be accused of seeking anything resembling 'political gain,' which the reporters of both incidents were clearly seeking as their only motive.

All the other news was/is just side show.

But thanks for teaching all of us about that 'political gain' thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

quote:

Neither is the natural outcome of driving tossing back one tall boy after another, but we have precautions against that and against 12 yr. olds driving, somehow avoiding the banning of all vehicles in the process.

Speaking of which ...

We don't allow 12 yr. olds to drive, but that doesn't stop us from putting an Uzi into the hands of a 9 yr. old.

Here's how that worked out;

http://wtvr.com/2014/08/27/arizona-girl-fatal-shooting-accident/


I won't mention the mention in that article referring to the 8 yr. old boy who, while supervised, shot himself in the head, lest I be accused of seeking anything resembling 'political gain,' which the reporters of both incidents were clearly seeking as their only motive.

All the other news was/is just side show.

But thanks for teaching all of us about that 'political gain' thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn


The police have training on use of weapons in public.

But far be it from me to suggest that civilian public carriers should suffer the same thing, just because it might be for political gain and would only feed the 'nanny state' mentality to even mention such a thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
Right. So any concern about vehicle safety or inebriated driving equates to an argument for banning all vehicles.

"We don't have our 'smart cap' on today, do we?"

You don't read well do you?
I said IF that would make reporting on accidents being used the same way this tragedy is being used. You don't seem to understand the difference the IF makes.

You don't understand the OP, much less any preposition of the English language.

How is the 'tragedy being used'? By simple reporting of facts? Was it mentioned in the OP or in fact in any post herein that "all guns should be banned"?

Clearly, you lack the most basic reading comprehension skills, and so have no grounds whatsoever for calling out anyone else's understanding of the word "IF."

IF the OP or anyone else had mentioned banning of all guns, you might have had a point.

IF wishes were fishes, you'd have a net full of clues.

But alas ...

You don't get it do you?
No there wasn't a call to ban all guns.
Just the claim that this "proves" that guns in the home puts kids in danger.
And of course that we must do "something" to keep parents from exposing kids to guns.
Once again you are basing your whole argument on pretending I said something I didn't say.
Do you deny that this thread isn't merely about reporting what happened but is rather an attempt to put gun owners in a bad light?
Can you really be that stupid?

The OP mentioned nothing about 'guns in the home,' but thanks for indemnifying your lack of comprehension skills one again, as in every one of your posts.

IF you read carefully, the post reported an incident occurring in public, in a crowded store, nothing to do with 'guns in the home.'

There was no intention of putting 'gun owners in a bad light,' that is simply a matter of your own paranoia. Which brings to question how your own paranoia and its potential harm to society commiserates with that of the poor woman who carried a loaded and ready-to-fire piece in easy reach of her toddler into a public place.

The OP only intended to point out stupidity, of one particular variety. In this particular case, someone carried a gun into a public place for purpose of 'protection,' while failing to take into account that her stupidity was her own worst enemy, from which, as it turns out, there was no protection.

She took her paranoia to the level of endangering society, while lacking the mental process to avoid otherwise, and you seem to be all in with that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn


Answer this;

However much carrying in public makes you feel 'safer,' how does that make me or anyone else in the proximity of the trajectory and travel of any bullet from that implement 'safer'?

Is everyone else in the subway station or the Walmart or the grocery store expected to take your word on that? But even though we believe you (honest, we twuley believes!), there is, unfortunately, some panicked man or woman right beside you claiming the very same thing.

So while we're at it, answer this;

What is the purpose of a gun? And then, what is the purpose of a motor vehicle?

Your equation of a weapon of death with a means to get to work, a 'right to travel,' or make a delivery, and Aylee's equation of a weapon of death to a backyard swimming pool has me (and I'm sure I'm not the only one on this score) wondering about the gun carrying public, as regards the rest of the public.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I have more training than most cops.

quote:

every word you say promotes a nanny state, your just too blind to see it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
And yet accidental drownings are on the top of the list of cause of death. But I have yet to hear anyone seriously suggest we do away with them.

Heaven forbid anyone seriously suggest we do away with accidental drownings.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


"Gun" and "Toddler"

Will the NRA get behind this too?

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

For Gods sake just keep ignoring the issue, NOTHING is wrong with guns..
let them die, to teach their parents a lesson.

will it be the same hand wringing and denial when the numbers of people being shot overtake drowning deaths?
Of course it will

Of course this has really NOTHING to do with the numbers of kids drowning per year or any safety stuff that is demanded by some states...it has to do with a toddler killing its mother with a gun in a walmart.
How many adults die of being drowned by a toddler?

Well then, what's the point of bringing up a toddler killing its mother with a gun in a walmart ?