Another tragedy brought about by yet ANOTHER "responsible" gun owner

[cawacko]

WB, you hit the nail on the head. When you insult your 'audience' don't be surprised (or upset) when you get it back in return. There are ways to ask or phrase questions that foster good discussion. There are also ways to ask or phrase questions or comments that are more aggressive and accusatory and lead to that type of discussion. I'd say the OP was definitely towards the latter.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Oh maybe..."Are you stupid enough to give an item whose sole functioning purpose is to kill, to your 5 year old child"?

First of all, the sole purpose of a firearm is to send a projectile downrange. Many, many guns are designed for target shooting and make very inefficient "killing machines".

Second of all, are you asking them if they would give a 5 year old the gun and ammo and no supervision? Or are you asking them if they would buy the gun as a gift and take the 5 year old shooting? (supervision does make a difference)

And you expect that the parents from the OP would have said "Yes"?

 

[zappasguitar]

Well, I guess we could ridicule you for not being willing to have an honest discussion on the matter. I have asked several questions that you have steadfastly refused to answer.

One thing is certain, you certainly won't ridicule each other for the bile that's been spit my way.

 

[zappasguitar]

First of all, the sole purpose of a firearm is to send a projectile downrange. Many, many guns are designed for target shooting and make very inefficient "killing machines".

Second of all, are you asking them if they would give a 5 year old the gun and ammo and no supervision? Or are you asking them if they would buy the gun as a gift and take the 5 year old shooting? (supervision does make a difference)

And you expect that the parents from the OP would have said "Yes"?

Oh come on...what a bullshit dodge!

Send a PROJECTILE downrange TO DO WHAT?

Strike and KILL it's target.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

WB, you hit the nail on the head. When you insult your 'audience' don't be surprised (or upset) when you get it back in return. There are ways to ask or phrase questions that foster good discussion. There are also ways to ask or phrase questions or comments that are more aggressive and accusatory and lead to that type of discussion. I'd say the OP was definitely towards the latter.

I think his comments that accompanied the article told us he was not interested in an actual discussion.

"When will these gun nuts learn? All the sadness that family must endure from this day forth...and all because they just HAD to prove a point to us "gun grabbers""

That shows a lot.

 

[SJJRSJJS]

So this was just poor parenting and no actual law could have prevented this? As a non gun owner I am curious about the storage and trigger lock requirements. I'm not a gun guy. I don't own one and I don't go shooting them. If I ever did own a gun however it would be for safety reasons for my family. How long does it take to go from your bed while sleeping (as an example) to your storage locker and take off your safety clip? I'm thinking if you are awaken at night by a burglar in your house and you need to grab your gun quick.

On my semi-auto 9 mm, I keep the magazine(Clip) out of the gun, but near the gun. I have practiced and I can now put the Magazine into the pistol and chamber a round in about 2 to 3 seconds. The keys to self defense have more to do with using your head, like having a small "watch" dog inside the house, and that may be the best alarm as to a possible intruder roaming around outside your home. Strategically placed Outside motion detecting lights are good. Deadbolts, Window locks, and leaving lights on at night, etc. will help. You should own a gun, if just to have one during the worst possible scenario situation, like a riot for instance. Keep it hidden away unloaded if that makes you feel better.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Oh come on...what a bullshit dodge!

Send a PROJECTILE downrange TO DO WHAT?

Strike and KILL it's target.

I see you decided to avoid the other 2 points I made.

To do what? To hit the target where you aimed it. My daughter has fired thousands of rounds and never killed a single thing. Her rifle was designed to be a target rifle. It is designed to be accurate at a shooting range when shooting at paper targets.

 

[zappasguitar]

Zappa, the problem here is that you address us as "gun nuts" and then expect us to take you seriously.

Those of us who are serious gun buffs take firearm safety very seriously. There are some very basic rules that must be followed. When idiots ignore these rules and misuse a firearm or neglect to store it safely, you want to blame all of us.

These parents are guilty of negligent homicide. Nothing short of banning all privately owned firearms would have prevented this tragedy. I looked into buying one of these Cricket .22 rifles when my daughter was younger, but decided she could do better with another type of rifle. The gun involved is about as safe as they come. It is a small, single shot rifle that requires you manually cock it after you load it. I doubt very seriously that a 5 year old could have cocked it, so I am betting they left it, not only loaded, but cocked as well.

I have bought numeroud new firearms over the years. Not one single gun I have purchased in the last 15+ years did not come with some sort of lock mechanism. Not a single one.

Wrong...either a biometric lock that renders the gun non-functioning or a trigger lock would have prevented this.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

One thing is certain, you certainly won't ridicule each other for the bile that's been spit my way.

I have posted many times calling for less vitriol on these forums. I was ridiculed for it. And, as I recall, you took part in that ridicule.

But the posts you have made in this thread were not about having a rational discussion. Your post of "...and all because they just HAD to prove a point to us "gun grabbers"" showed that quite clearly.

Nothing in that article even hinted that they bought that gun to prove anything to anyone.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Wrong...either a biometric lock that renders the gun non-functioning or a trigger lock would have prevented this.

test those policies out with law enforcment. if they work for them, then maybe we can accept them for us.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Wrong...either a biometric lock that renders the gun non-functioning or a trigger lock would have prevented this.

Only if they used it. And nothing in that article shows that they would have used it. In fact, their careless storage of the gun and the fact that they never checked to see if the single shot rifle was loaded before leaving it easily accessible to a pair of small children shows extreme neglect on their part. If they were that neglectful, expecting that they would take the time to put a lock on the rifle is lunacy. They had already ignored one law. You think an additional law would have helped?

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Wrong...either a biometric lock that renders the gun non-functioning or a trigger lock would have prevented this.

So would not leaving the gun within reach of an unattended 5 year old.

So would not leaving the gun loaded (and probably cocked).

Those are two basic safety rules that the parents ignored.

 

[zappasguitar]

Only if they used it. And nothing in that article shows that they would have used it. In fact, their careless storage of the gun and the fact that they never checked to see if the single shot rifle was loaded before leaving it easily accessible to a pair of small children shows extreme neglect on their part. If they were that neglectful, expecting that they would take the time to put a lock on the rifle is lunacy. They had already ignored one law. You think an additional law would have helped?

Aaaaaaaaand we're done.

According to gun nuts, since we can't know for certain whether or not a gun lock would ever be used, that means it's a stupid idea...

 

[Bonestorm]

honestly who cares if they are not redundant with federal laws? they are still unenforceable. unless you of course, have the storage police randomly check in.

lowest firearm death in the country, might have a lot more to do with demographics than anything pertaining to storage.

trigger locks can exist but again, unless you have the trigger lock police constantly monitoring your guns if you are irresponsible enough to leave your gun in a corner you are irresponsible enough not to use a trigger lock

This "unenforceable" angle is fucking stupid. Laws against drunk driving aren't unenforeceable because people drive drunk. Laws against murder aren't unenforeceable becuase people kill other people. And laws mandating trigger locks and storage requirements aren't unenforceable becuase people might not follow them.

And given the discussion as to what penalties should the parents face, trigger lock and storage laws shoudl impose very harsh penalites for non-compliance where the gun ends up being accessed by a minor and death or serious bodily injury results. It shouldn't be a question as to what the charges and penalties shoudl be . These harsh penalities might result in more people complyign with the trigger lock and safe storage requirements.

 

[zappasguitar]

I see you decided to avoid the other 2 points I made.

To do what? To hit the target where you aimed it. My daughter has fired thousands of rounds and never killed a single thing. Her rifle was designed to be a target rifle. It is designed to be accurate at a shooting range when shooting at paper targets.

But not designed to be accurate when shooting at a human being?

Why has she fired those thousands of rounds? So she's prepared when and if it become necessary to hit something other than a paper target?

Guns are designed to KILL.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Aaaaaaaaand we're done.

According to gun nuts, since we can't know for certain whether or not a gun lock would ever be used, that means it's a stupid idea...

"Gun nuts"? Really? Please share with me exactly what I have said to earn that little moniker? Especially since you claim to want to have a discussion.

Now, what I am actually saying is that if you have people who blatantly ignore basic safety rules and federal laws, adding another law to the books would not change anything.

If they bought the gun new, there would have been a lock of some sort with it. Trigger locks cost very little, but they did not buy and use one. But you expect a new law would have changed that?

The problem is not a shortage of laws. It is criminal neglect by the parents. Additional laws would not have changed that at all.


Now, if you want to call this done and stop posting, that is fine. But don't even try and pretend that you wanted a rational discussion and everyone else started calling names and spewing bile. I tried repeatedly to explain my position and question you about yours. You simply resorted to ridicule and over simplification. When that didn't work, you ignored every point made by anyone else and resorted to calling names yourself.

Let me know when you want to have a real and rational discussion. I would be happy to participate in one for a change.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

But not designed to be accurate when shooting at a human being?

Why has she fired those thousands of rounds? So she's prepared when and if it become necessary to hit something other than a paper target?

Guns are designed to KILL.

She has fired those thousands of rounds because she enjoys target shooting. Her rifle was designed for just that task and hobby. If it were designed for killing humans it would be designed much differently. It would not be as heavy, as awkwardly long, and would (probably) be in a bigger caliber.

No, not all guns were designed to kill.

 

[zappasguitar]

This "unenforceable" angle is fucking stupid. Laws against drunk driving aren't unenforeceable because people drive drunk. Laws against murder aren't unenforeceable becuase people kill other people. And laws mandating trigger locks and storage requirements aren't unenforceable becuase people might not follow them.

And given the discussion as to what penalties should the parents face, trigger lock and storage laws shoudl impose very harsh penalites for non-compliance where the gun ends up being accessed by a minor and death or serious bodily injury results. It shouldn't be a question as to what the charges and penalties shoudl be . These harsh penalities might result in more people complyign with the trigger lock and safe storage requirements.

FINALLY...another voice of reason.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

This "unenforceable" angle is fucking stupid. Laws against drunk driving aren't unenforeceable because people drive drunk. Laws against murder aren't unenforeceable becuase people kill other people. And laws mandating trigger locks and storage requirements aren't unenforceable becuase people might not follow them.

And given the discussion as to what penalties should the parents face, trigger lock and storage laws shoudl impose very harsh penalites for non-compliance where the gun ends up being accessed by a minor and death or serious bodily injury results. It shouldn't be a question as to what the charges and penalties shoudl be . These harsh penalities might result in more people complyign with the trigger lock and safe storage requirements.

I think negligent homicide is a pretty serious charge. Add to that the death of their two year old child and I am thinking that these people face a lifelong punishment.

But the only way to enforce these laws would be to enter people's homes to check. Otherwise we are not preventing tragedies like this. We are simply adding to the list of charges we can file against them.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

And why should I...just re-read the vitriol spewing from you and the others.

blow it out your ass... you've been inflammatory since the start of this thread.

You've been repeatedly asked very basic simple questions and you continue to dodge them, because you simply don't have any answers for them. Man up.