3-Year-Old Colorado Boy Dies From Accidental Gunshot

NUDE ZOOK'EM! said:
All that needs to be said.

No one thinks they're anti-freedom, but many many people are. Bad precedent, good intentioned or not, will not magically lead to good precedent in the future, and you openly advocate for bad precedent.
This is the mantra of all anti-freedom thinkers the world over. That that actions of the few should be the condemnation of all. And yet you do not propose limiting the 1A rights of other because of the irresponsibility of this individual. Yet that is, indirectly, exactly what you fight for. Rights that we as a people have won do not exist in individual vaccums where you can infringe upon one with impunity and expect that similar infringements will not occurs to others. They exist together as a whole and what you do to one will inevitably befall others. It is no coincidence that Diane Feinstein, one of the most fascist members of Congress our country has ever seen, not only supports 'gun control' but supports the idea of the government determining who is and is not a 'legitimate journalist'. And such precautions are individual in nature, or do you pretend that a singular model for a country of over 300,000,000 people can possibly exist?
Click to expand...

Feinstein is a left wing idiot that thinks its the governments place to "determine" just about everything in everyones lives....
 
The Dude said:
10,000 gun murders annually is the price.
Thousands are minors
Click to expand...

Companies recall strollers, cribs, swings etc. if a handful of kids are killed because these items lack proper safety measures. Parents can get a hefty ticket if their child isn't in a proper car seat. But we're supposed to accept child gun deaths without a peep of complaint.
 
Tom, what say you? Is this true?

"Actually, the UK is more developed...in the area of lying to the public. It was recently disclosed that for the last several years, crime reporting in the UK has been systematically manipulated and altered in order to show the results that they wanted gun control to show."
 
christiefan915 said:
Tom, what say you? Is this true?

"Actually, the UK is more developed...in the area of lying to the public. It was recently disclosed that for the last several years, crime reporting in the UK has been systematically manipulated and altered in order to show the results that they wanted gun control to show."
Click to expand...

Yes, more or less. UK doesn't count a murder as a murder unless there is a CONVICTION for starters. But they also under-inflate crime statistics to keep tourism attractive.
 
NUDE ZOOK'EM! said:
All that needs to be said.

No one thinks they're anti-freedom, but many many people are. Bad precedent, good intentioned or not, will not magically lead to good precedent in the future, and you openly advocate for bad precedent.
This is the mantra of all anti-freedom thinkers the world over. That that actions of the few should be the condemnation of all. And yet you do not propose limiting the 1A rights of other because of the irresponsibility of this individual. Yet that is, indirectly, exactly what you fight for. Rights that we as a people have won do not exist in individual vaccums where you can infringe upon one with impunity and expect that similar infringements will not occurs to others. They exist together as a whole and what you do to one will inevitably befall others. It is no coincidence that Diane Feinstein, one of the most fascist members of Congress our country has ever seen, not only supports 'gun control' but supports the idea of the government determining who is and is not a 'legitimate journalist'. And such precautions are individual in nature, or do you pretend that a singular model for a country of over 300,000,000 people can possibly exist?
Click to expand...
There is not much more I can say. People who advocate rights without responsibilities always argue for their position. The publisher of gun owners' addresses in New York got what they deserved. The editor's address and phone number were published, and she had to go into hiding. I think there were a couple of lawsuits by single/divorced women who were already in hiding and were on that published list of gun owners. I badmouth Gannett publishing whenever I can, and their local TV affiliate is off my cable guide.

A person who allows a dangerous thing they own to be used recklessly due to gross negligence, should have the maximum power of the law and civil system brought down upon them.

Diane Frankenstein has a concealed carry permit but doesn't think you should have one. Everywhere in America where gun ownership has gone up, crime has gone down. I have one and think everyone should have an equal opportunity to get a concealed handgun license.

All rights have offsetting responsibilities, and that includes both the 1st and second amendment rights. The parents of the two other kids in the car taken and rolled over should sue the parents of the 14 year old driver, and if I'm on the jury, the 14 year old's parents will be poor for the rest of their lives. Rights and responsibilities go together. You let your underage or mentally challenged offspring get your gun and shoot someone, you'd better hope I'm not on your jury. I'll convince the other eleven of your criminal negligence, and you'll be poor and go to jail. OTOH, you shoot someone who broke into your home, then you want me on your jury. Not guilty, and the perp's family should pay for your defense costs plus pain and suffering.
 
bowserb said:
There is not much more I can say. People who advocate rights without responsibilities always argue for their position. The publisher of gun owners' addresses in New York got what they deserved. The editor's address and phone number were published, and she had to go into hiding. I think there were a couple of lawsuits by single/divorced women who were already in hiding and were on that published list of gun owners. I badmouth Gannett publishing whenever I can, and their local TV affiliate is off my cable guide.

A person who allows a dangerous thing they own to be used recklessly due to gross negligence, should have the maximum power of the law and civil system brought down upon them.

Diane Frankenstein has a concealed carry permit but doesn't think you should have one. Everywhere in America where gun ownership has gone up, crime has gone down. I have one and think everyone should have an equal opportunity to get a concealed handgun license.

All rights have offsetting responsibilities, and that includes both the 1st and second amendment rights. The parents of the two other kids in the car taken and rolled over should sue the parents of the 14 year old driver, and if I'm on the jury, the 14 year old's parents will be poor for the rest of their lives. Rights and responsibilities go together. You let your underage or mentally challenged offspring get your gun and shoot someone, you'd better hope I'm not on your jury. I'll convince the other eleven of your criminal negligence, and you'll be poor and go to jail. OTOH, you shoot someone who broke into your home, then you want me on your jury. Not guilty, and the perp's family should pay for your defense costs plus pain and suffering.
Click to expand...

Punishing irresponsible behavior is significantly different from legislating to prevent it. The former I agree with, but as to the latter I must utterly oppose it.
 
Jarod said:
Many more people use cars on a daily bases than use a gun on a daily basis.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with anything? People just perceive cars more positively but more people are maimed and killed by them every single day....by far more than guns. And the excuse is...because 'we need them?' If it was me or my kid, that wouldnt make me feel any better.

Here's new vehicle restriction no one would vote for: dont allow minors to drive. Most car accidents are caused by minors. THey kill and maim the most (including each other). WHy not raise the driving age?

Because it would be 'inconvenient.' It's 17 in NJ...one yr closer...and NJ hasnt imploded.

It's just BS and 'perception'....people fear guns in the hands of regular citizens irrationally.
 
Jarod said:
Many more people use cars on a daily bases than use a gun on a daily basis.
Click to expand...

To make another point....tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of concealed carry permit holders are out with their firearms EVERY DAY. The incidences of them injuring or killing anyone is far far less than that of the hundreds of thousands of people out driving.

(Yeah, sorry, there's alot more cc permit holders than you may realize....when you remove minors and convicted felons, other ineligibles from the numbers, it's a higher percentage than most realize).
 
Lorca said:
To make another point....tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of concealed carry permit holders are out with their firearms EVERY DAY. The incidences of them injuring or killing anyone is far far less than that of the hundreds of thousands of people out driving.

(Yeah, sorry, there's alot more cc permit holders than you may realize....when you remove minors and convicted felons, other ineligibles from the numbers, it's a higher percentage than most realize).
Click to expand...

Now add in the states that don't require a CCW, line AZ, and the numbers climb even higher.
 
Ok, having known and watched Topper (The Dude) post here for years, I almost spat coffee all over my iPad when I read bob's post above. Wait till he gets to know Jarod. You know that thing that email that went around a while back where there was this paragraph that you could read but not one word was spelled right...and on some of the words there were only a couple of letters right. Well, that's how I have gotten used to reading Jarod's posts.

You develop several mental filters around here. I have a pretty good foul language filter for desh (evince), Grind and some others, grammar/spelling filter for Jarod and Topper, and then there are those who when I see their name on a post, I just skip over it entirely. We might disagree on the gun safe requirement, but it's good to have you aboard, bob.
 
christiefan915 said:
How many time do we have to have the argument that a gun ≠ bathtub?
Click to expand...

How many times do we have to say that we are not arguing that the two are =?

I am saying quite clearly, that almost ANYTHING, if used irresponsibly can lead to a childs death. That you cannot legislate away irresponsible behavior. No matter how many laws, how many warning labels... a small minority of people will STILL be irresponsible. What part of that is it that confuses you so much?
 
Lorca said:
What does that have to do with anything? People just perceive cars more positively but more people are maimed and killed by them every single day....by far more than guns. And the excuse is...because 'we need them?' If it was me or my kid, that wouldnt make me feel any better.

Here's new vehicle restriction no one would vote for: dont allow minors to drive. Most car accidents are caused by minors. THey kill and maim the most (including each other). WHy not raise the driving age?

Because it would be 'inconvenient.' It's 17 in NJ...one yr closer...and NJ hasnt imploded.

It's just BS and 'perception'....people fear guns in the hands of regular citizens irrationally.
Click to expand...

Cars are required to be registered by the State. To use a car you must be licenced by the state and illustrate a minimum level of competence. TO manufacture a car to sell in the United States it must contain countless safety features and must be designed in a particular way to promote safety. There are countless rules about where you can operate a car and how you can operate a car, we pay billions to enforce these rules. Alas, MADD and other traffic safety groups are fighting for even more such rules and regulations.

As a result of these rules and regulations the number of people maimed and injured in car accidents has dropped drastically.

We need cars to operate in current society in most parts of the country. Some people feel they need guns to live safely in some parts of the country. Both are dangerous if used incorrectly, however, many fight to keep gun ownership and operation fully unfettered and unregulated.

Its a choice as a society we make, we pay a price for our actions. Currently we have a tolerance for regulations on cars and lives are being saved. Currently we do not have much tolerance for regulations on guns and lives are being risked. Its a balance and where we draw that line shows where and what we are willing to pay.

We could ban cars and prevent most car related deaths, but that is a price we are unwilling to pay.
We could stop some percentage of gun deaths via better regulation, but that is a price we are unwilling to pay.
 
Superfreak said:
How many times do we have to say that we are not arguing that the two are =?

I am saying quite clearly, that almost ANYTHING, if used irresponsibly can lead to a childs death. That you cannot legislate away irresponsible behavior. No matter how many laws, how many warning labels... a small minority of people will STILL be irresponsible. What part of that is it that confuses you so much?
Click to expand...

You are correct, but there are regulations on bathtubs.
The level that bathtubs are regulated is based on how willing we are to pay the price of not regulating them more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top