It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Woman Accidentally Shot Dead by Two-Year-Old Boy in Wal-Mart

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: DrJunk
This is just one of the 289 people that will be shot in the United States today.


Your point?

How many people will die today because of the "war on terror OR the war on drugs". Pick your poison, but we are all slaves, and as a slave myself, I choose to be able to defend myself!


I'm sorry, I thought this was a thread about someone that was killed by being shot with a gun. I fail to see how your question is relevant to that topic.


It is relevant to the topic due to your initial response to this thread!

Care to address it or deflect it?

Here, let me help you out!

This was your one sentence reply to the OP!


This is just one of the 289 people that will be shot in the United States today.



How is it relevant because of my comment? What about my comment makes "The War on Terror" or "The War on Drugs" relevant?




posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: DrJunk
This is just one of the 289 people that will be shot in the United States today.


Your point?

How many people will die today because of the "war on terror OR the war on drugs". Pick your poison, but we are all slaves, and as a slave myself, I choose to be able to defend myself!


I'm sorry, I thought this was a thread about someone that was killed by being shot with a gun. I fail to see how your question is relevant to that topic.


It is relevant to the topic due to your initial response to this thread!

Care to address it or deflect it?

Here, let me help you out!

This was your one sentence reply to the OP!


This is just one of the 289 people that will be shot in the United States today.



How is it relevant because of my comment? What about my comment makes "The War on Terror" or "The War on Drugs" relevant?


Ummmmm, I was addressing your one sentence comment?

You can choose to put out one sentence comments on ATS, but it is kinda like throwing out a bone without any meat on it?

So yea, I was addressing your comment, and you are still choosing to not address my comment but deflect!

Have a good one! Your agenda is quite transparent.......



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963
Ummmmm, I was addressing your one sentence comment?

You can choose to put out one sentence comments on ATS, but it is kinda like throwing out a bone without any meat on it?

So yea, I was addressing your comment, and you are still choosing to not address my comment but deflect!

Have a good one! Your agenda is quite transparent.......


Care to mention how it was a one sentence comment a few more times instead of answering how your comment addresses mine? I said more in one sentence than you have said in multiple posts at this point.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 05:42 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Grimpachi



Yes having a gun in a handbag is an acceptable/permitted way to conceal a firearm. It is out of site nothing says it needs to attached to your person. 


Permitted and acceptable are two different things. As a trainer, concealed and open carrier, and trained professional I find purse carry unacceptable. It is not secure, it is not easily accessible to the authorized operator of the weapon, and it is simply tactically negligent.



My wife has had her CHL in Texas since 1996. She has always carried her weapon in a purse specifically designed for concealed carry. Her weapon is secured in a hidden pocket between the larger compartments of her purse. The hidden pocket can only be opened by ripping open the Velcro sealed pocket. Although you personally find purse carry unacceptable, many women in Texas, and probably other states as well, will disagree with you. She is extremely small, so body carry just doesn't work for her.

If this mother had her weapon just thrown inside her purse, that is negligence. If she had it concealed properly in her purse, we wouldn't be having this discussion. My prayers go to this woman's family, and especially to this child.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: seeker1963
Ummmmm, I was addressing your one sentence comment?

You can choose to put out one sentence comments on ATS, but it is kinda like throwing out a bone without any meat on it?

So yea, I was addressing your comment, and you are still choosing to not address my comment but deflect!

Have a good one! Your agenda is quite transparent.......


Care to mention how it was a one sentence comment a few more times instead of answering how your comment addresses mine? I said more in one sentence than you have said in multiple posts at this point.


QUESTION?

Can you at least answer my question as to your response?

Do you have more opinion than one sentence to something "I" and many other Americans hold as a right and is important in our lives?

If not then I am done replying to you!

Here is your chance to be a hero or zero!

So address me or deflect me.........



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: DrJunk

I see you are anti gun or anti rights but let me ask you a simple question, when t.v's or book cases fall on a child (about 1 every 30 min) do you call for stricter laws on televisions or other furniture that causes these kids harm or do you blame bad parenting?



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Interesting that gun owners here are sticking up for the right to carry guns in open places but they are quick to ignore the rights of those who are at risk from those who do carry.

This accident sounds like it could have been anybody in the surrounding area of the store who might have been shot, and do THEY not have a right to be safe in public from a two year old who gets their hands on their mothers gun?



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: nerbot
Interesting that gun owners here are sticking up for the right to carry guns in open places but they are quick to ignore the rights of those who are at risk from those who do carry.

This accident sounds like it could have been anybody in the surrounding area of the store who might have been shot, and do THEY not have a right to be safe in public from a two year old who gets their hands on their mothers gun?


Because we are using logic and not emotion. How does taking my driver's license away because you got drunk and plowed into a minivan protect the rights of the innocent bystanders? We do that by crucifying you and make you an example of what happens when you are irresponsible, not by taking the license away from every driver that is responsible.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: seeker1963
Ummmmm, I was addressing your one sentence comment?

You can choose to put out one sentence comments on ATS, but it is kinda like throwing out a bone without any meat on it?

So yea, I was addressing your comment, and you are still choosing to not address my comment but deflect!

Have a good one! Your agenda is quite transparent.......


Care to mention how it was a one sentence comment a few more times instead of answering how your comment addresses mine? I said more in one sentence than you have said in multiple posts at this point.


QUESTION?

Can you at least answer my question as to your response?

Do you have more opinion than one sentence to something "I" and many other Americans hold as a right and is important in our lives?

If not then I am done replying to you!

Here is your chance to be a hero or zero!

So address me or deflect me.........


I guess your question was...


Your point?


My point was to relay relevant information in a thread about someone being shot by a gun in the United States. Why are you taking umbrage with the information I am relaying?
edit on 30-12-2014 by DrJunk because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: DrJunk

I see you are anti gun or anti rights but let me ask you a simple question, when t.v's or book cases fall on a child (about 1 every 30 min) do you call for stricter laws on televisions or other furniture that causes these kids harm or do you blame bad parenting?


When a television or bookcase is used for it's intended purpose, no one is killed.

When a gun is used for it's intended purpose, someone is shot with lethal force.

I generally feel that if a consumer products stated purpose is homocide, the product should be regulated.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: seeker1963
Ummmmm, I was addressing your one sentence comment?

You can choose to put out one sentence comments on ATS, but it is kinda like throwing out a bone without any meat on it?

So yea, I was addressing your comment, and you are still choosing to not address my comment but deflect!

Have a good one! Your agenda is quite transparent.......


Care to mention how it was a one sentence comment a few more times instead of answering how your comment addresses mine? I said more in one sentence than you have said in multiple posts at this point.


QUESTION?

Can you at least answer my question as to your response?

Do you have more opinion than one sentence to something "I" and many other Americans hold as a right and is important in our lives?

If not then I am done replying to you!

Here is your chance to be a hero or zero!

So address me or deflect me.........


I guess your question was...


Your point?


My point was to relay relevant information in a thread about someone being # by a gun in the United States. Why are you taking umbrage with the information I am relaying?



Why are you taking umbrage with the information I am relaying?


So you chose to be a zero instead of backing up your statement? Also who are you "relaying" a statement for?

So you do your thing my friend! I can't and won't stop you. But I just have to say WTF? That instead of addressing my questions, you just chose to keep deflecting from answering them!

No worries! Been around long enough to know who and what I am dealing with......



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: seeker1963
Ummmmm, I was addressing your one sentence comment?

You can choose to put out one sentence comments on ATS, but it is kinda like throwing out a bone without any meat on it?

So yea, I was addressing your comment, and you are still choosing to not address my comment but deflect!

Have a good one! Your agenda is quite transparent.......


Care to mention how it was a one sentence comment a few more times instead of answering how your comment addresses mine? I said more in one sentence than you have said in multiple posts at this point.


QUESTION?

Can you at least answer my question as to your response?

Do you have more opinion than one sentence to something "I" and many other Americans hold as a right and is important in our lives?

If not then I am done replying to you!

Here is your chance to be a hero or zero!

So address me or deflect me.........


I guess your question was...


Your point?


My point was to relay relevant information in a thread about someone being # by a gun in the United States. Why are you taking umbrage with the information I am relaying?



Why are you taking umbrage with the information I am relaying?


So you chose to be a zero instead of backing up your statement? Also who are you "relaying" a statement for?

So you do your thing my friend! I can't and won't stop you. But I just have to say WTF? That instead of addressing my questions, you just chose to keep deflecting from answering them!

No worries! Been around long enough to know who and what I am dealing with......




I answered your question, you are the one deflecting.

Like now, when I asked you why you are taking umbrage with the information I presented.

Do you believe it is in error?



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: DrJunk

I see you are anti gun or anti rights but let me ask you a simple question, when t.v's or book cases fall on a child (about 1 every 30 min) do you call for stricter laws on televisions or other furniture that causes these kids harm or do you blame bad parenting?


When a television or bookcase is used for it's intended purpose, no one is killed.

When a gun is used for it's intended purpose, someone is shot with lethal force.

I generally feel that if a consumer products stated purpose is homocide, the product should be regulated.


That's incorrect. When used for it's lawful intended purpose, quite often a threat to a law abiding citizen leaves without a single shot being fired from said gun. It is the gun's presence that can deter crime.

Secondly, if a law abiding citizen kills a rapist or a criminal breaking into a house, it has achieved it's intended purpose appropriately. While sad, the death of a criminal or a rapist is a justifiable homicide and in keeping with the intended lawful purpose of said firearm and could easily be avoided if the criminal did not make the decision to be a criminal. It is not an evil thing unless your sympathy lies with rapists and criminals.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: DrJunk

I see you are anti gun or anti rights but let me ask you a simple question, when t.v's or book cases fall on a child (about 1 every 30 min) do you call for stricter laws on televisions or other furniture that causes these kids harm or do you blame bad parenting?


When a television or bookcase is used for it's intended purpose, no one is killed.

When a gun is used for it's intended purpose, someone is shot with lethal force.

I generally feel that if a consumer products stated purpose is homocide, the product should be regulated.


That's incorrect. When used for it's lawful intended purpose, quite often a threat to a law abiding citizen leaves without a single shot being fired from said gun. It is the gun's presence that can deter crime.


Guns are designed and engineered to kill humans. That is their intended purpose, and that is why their presence can deter crime. It is also why 2 year olds are able to kill their mothers in a Wal-Mart.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: DrJunk

I see you are anti gun or anti rights but let me ask you a simple question, when t.v's or book cases fall on a child (about 1 every 30 min) do you call for stricter laws on televisions or other furniture that causes these kids harm or do you blame bad parenting?


When a television or bookcase is used for it's intended purpose, no one is killed.

When a gun is used for it's intended purpose, someone is shot with lethal force.

I generally feel that if a consumer products stated purpose is homocide, the product should be regulated.



I generally feel that if a consumer products stated purpose is homocide, the product should be regulated.


Do you eat meat?

If you do, how will you get it if the SHTF and you can't saunter yourself to the grocery store to get it?

Also, have you been paying attention to the police state in the US? Where "some" coppers are shooting people or beating the hell out of them and getting away with it?

What would your world be like if the average citizen had no means to protect themselves from that kind of brutality?

Are you trying to say that only police and government goons should have the right to hold a tool created for the sole purpose of "HOMICIDE"? Kinda tickles the hell out of me that you anti gun fools NEVER mention the fact of lives saved because of an armed citizen.....

Good luck in your vision of the perfect world! But as long as I am alive, I will be one of the guys that protects your misdirected political ideology from being a victim of what you seem to ignorantly advocate!



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

Yup, I eat meat. In your vague SHTF scenario, I guess I will be going without meat or whatever because I don't have a gun..? It doesn't make sense, and I don't understand what that has to do with my question.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: DrJunk

I see you are anti gun or anti rights but let me ask you a simple question, when t.v's or book cases fall on a child (about 1 every 30 min) do you call for stricter laws on televisions or other furniture that causes these kids harm or do you blame bad parenting?


When a television or bookcase is used for it's intended purpose, no one is killed.

When a gun is used for it's intended purpose, someone is shot with lethal force.

I generally feel that if a consumer products stated purpose is homocide, the product should be regulated.


That's incorrect. When used for it's lawful intended purpose, quite often a threat to a law abiding citizen leaves without a single shot being fired from said gun. It is the gun's presence that can deter crime.


Guns are designed and engineered to kill humans. That is their intended purpose, and that is why their presence can deter crime. It is also why 2 year olds are able to kill their mothers in a Wal-Mart.


Certainly that is their intended purpose and you obviously agree that they deter crime. Thus, one can only infer that the upset about all homicides is based on a sympathy for the criminals that they deter and stop.

As for a negligent accident? The issue is the negligence, that you seem to disregard, not the object. Had she left bleach in the cart and wandered off, and the kid drank it and died, would you be calling to ban bleach or would that fatality be acceptable to you since, (thank Gawd) it wasn't a gun?
edit on 30-12-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 07:01 PM
link   
i just see it as proof of spirits. Spiritually she was ready to go.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 07:04 PM
link   
You live by the gun, you die by the gun. No sympathy here.




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join