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.

 

Police chief on trial for child's death at gun show

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Newbomb Turk
 



When was the last time you heard/saw on the local news where a legal law biding citizen carrying a concealed firearm robbed the liqueur store down the street?


Well, never, by definition, because if you robbed a liqueur store you weren't a law abiding citizen


reply to post by SnakeShot
 


While some of your points are valid, there are many self defense mechanisms which incapacitate just as effectively as guns without killing or maiming. In fact, due to the accuracy required with a gun to incapacitate anyone determined to do you harm - especially if they also have a gun - something like a stun-gun which can incapacitate someone regardless of where you hit them with it is often a much safer defensive weapon, provided that they are set to a sufficient level to knock even the beefiest of assailants out.

Guns, for being effective at a considerable distance from the body, are by definition offensive, not defensive.

When it comes to hunting:

1) when guns and bullets are readily available (society ticking over) hunting often represents either a cruel elitist "sport" or an unwarranted threat to native species (although I must admit that I did thoroughly support their use in wiping out invasive species such as goats on Isabella, in the Galapagos)

2) When the situation arises that society is not functioning normally, and domesticated animals aren't a more readily available meal for people to walk up to and kill by more direct means, placing a greater value on each life taken, then the explosive powders used to fire guns are unlikely to be readily available for any significant period of time, and so hunting will eventually have to resort to more traditional methods.

So either guns are unnecessary, or they won't last.
edit on 7/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by GammaRayBurst
Where's the link to the video?
2nd line


The Major cannot fully describe the disgust and contempt that the recruit's request has illicited. A link to the video with a child suffering an accidental gunshot wound to the head replete with a "part of the boy's skull appears to fly off" is the sum total of salient contribution the recruit can make?

The Major isn't well versed in sociopathic diagnosis, but the Major is sure that there is an entire page dedicated to the recruit's disorder.

On the sad topic of the article, this should have never happened, and the father and police chief are wholly and completely responsible for this horrific incident. The stockade at hard labor is too good for them.

Dismissed.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   

"While some of your points are valid, there are many self defense mechanisms which incapacitate just as effectively as guns without killing or maiming. In fact, due to the accuracy required with a gun to incapacitate anyone determined to do you harm - especially if they also have a gun - something like a stun-gun which can incapacitate someone regardless of where you hit them with it is often a much safer defensive weapon, provided that they are set to a sufficient level to knock even the beefiest of assailants out."


--You would have to be super close and more than likely will only get one shot at it.



"Guns, for being effective at a considerable distance from the body, are by definition offensive, not defensive."


-- Guns are effective at all distances. They are both defensive and offensive so I don't understand that statement.



"when guns and bullets are readily available (society ticking over) hunting often represents either a cruel elitist "sport" or an unwarranted threat to native species (although I must admit that I did thoroughly support their use in wiping out invasive species such as goats on Isabella, in the Galapagos)"


-- I agree... I hate sport hunting. Isn't that last Galapagos statement a bit hypocritical though?



"When the situation arises that society is not functioning normally, and domesticated animals aren't a more readily available meal for people to walk up to and kill by more direct means, placing a greater value on each life taken, then the explosive powders used to fire guns are unlikely to be readily available for any significant period of time, and so hunting will eventually have to resort to more traditional methods. "


-- Agree again. But what are you going to do in the time it takes to learn those traditional methods and fashion the instruments needed?



So either guns are unnecessary, or they won't last.


Yes, in a eutopia world, guns, prisons, government etc... would not be necessary.
I wish it was like that but its not.

Anyways, my beliefs in gun rights isn't really about the SHTF since I doubt that ever happen, but more about self defense and the right to go hunting if thats part of what you rely on to feed your family.
And of course keeping the status qou when governement goes rouge, which is what our forefathers intended. That doesn't seemed have helped though. You never know in the future though.
edit on 7-1-2011 by SnakeShot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by SnakeShot
 


The reason that I define guns as offensive weapons is that, within the distances that use of a weapon (in a hypothetical and sadly absent gunless society, note) could be considered self defense, there are a great many weapons that could be used with much greater accuracy.

And yes, the goats bit was (more than a bit) hypocritical - hence "I must admit..."



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   


The reason that I define guns as offensive weapons is that, within the distances that use of a weapon (in a hypothetical and sadly absent gunless society, note) could be considered self defense, there are a great many weapons that could be used with much greater accuracy and safe.


Just curious... have you ever done any recreational shooting? If not, you should try it some time.
If your talking about someone that just bought a pistol and put it in they night stand without ever firing a shot
out of it at the range for practice, then yes, they aren't going to be accurate. And they shouldn't probably even own a gun because that would be iresponsible.

For people that take owning a firearm seriously and actually get out there and practice often, they can be extremely accurate.

Can you please tell me what is more accurate weapon? Yes, a bow can be on par at limited range.



And yes, the goats bit was (more than a bit) hypocritical - hence "I must admit..."



lol. I sense some rational. ... I don't mean to be offensive... just messing with you.

]
edit on 7-1-2011 by SnakeShot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by SnakeShot
 


Yes, I have done recreational shooting.

More accurate at close range? Everything - knives, tazers, hockey sticks, baseball bats, golf clubs, scissors... the list goes on A gun has a kick which none of these do, and when you're panicking and someone's coming at you, that's going to throw your aim off. Over a long distance (beyond the reach of the afore-mentioned), it is only truly defensive if they have a similar projectile weapon.

as to


I sense some rational.


What is the meaning of this sentence? You sense some rational what, exactly?



edit on 7/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWill
reply to post by SnakeShot
 


Yes, I have done recreational shooting.

More accurate at close range? Everything - knives, tazers, hockey sticks, baseball bats, golf clubs, scissors... the list goes on A gun has a kick which none of these do, and when you're panicking and someone's coming at you, that's going to throw your aim off. Over a long distance (beyond the reach of the afore-mentioned), it is only truly defensive if they have a similar projectile weapon.

as to


I sense some rational.


What is the meaning of this sentence? You sense some rational what, exactly?



edit on 7/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)


Heres my understanding, pulling the trigger and a bullet coming out at 1000fps is going to be alot quicker than anything... so that would be first strike capability.

If I didn't get first strike and was first stabbed with scissors, more than likely I'll just be wounded and stunned at first, then when they get hit with a .45, its going to be game over.

Anyways, no sense running this into the ground. We can agree to disagree but thanks for the discussion.
edit on 7-1-2011 by SnakeShot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
...per the article - this annual shooting event had been going on for 7yrs when this boy was killed in 2008 and nothing bad had happened to participants prior to that time...

...the father signed waivers acknowledging that he understood the potential negatives, including death, and agreed to hold no one responsible but himself...

...after the kid shot himself in the head, the father told reporters that it was just an accident - but - later, he chose to not take full responsibility himself and, instead, ruin the lives of those who were not responsible, imo, for the kid's death...

...a parent having a hard time coming to terms with the reality that they are responsible for their child's death is understandable - but - this father has gone too far down the road of denial and this is a frivalous lawsuit, imo...

...his money wouldve been better spent getting counseling to help him deal with reality and personal responsibility, especially since he's a doctor...



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Major Discrepancy
 


Begging your permission to speak freely Major, this recruit does not understand how The Major can hold the Police Chief to same level of accountability as you would the Father. The Police Chief was simply a co sponsor to the event. From my perspective, that would be the equivalent of attending an event where race cars are promoted. The Major may help sponsor such an event, but that does not make The Major responsible if a salesman attending the event allows an 8 year old child to get behind the wheel does it?

The Father and the Vendor, who were both there at the moment that this child picked up a firearm, are solely to blame. Both had many opportunities to take the gun away from the child. They made a conscience decision to not remove the firearm from the child and in fact encouraged the child to use such a weapon.

It is my opinion that this situation now is nothing more than a way to deflect responsibility to someone else and cash in. Sadly, if found guilty the Police Chief's career would be destroyed. I would imagine there would be no way he could continue his career in Law Enforcement with this type of conviction. Meanwhile, the father who was too busy videotaping his child firing a weapon his child had no business having in his hands, failed at the ultimate job of a parent. Protecting you child when they are unable to protect themselves. The Father and the vendor, who were both there, should have known better.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
Guns in society save more lives then they take that is the true fact and they protect society from those who ignore the norms of society and would trample it rob you and kill you.


Your logic is messed up and to say guns protect society is ignorant.

You want research, I'll give you research. Now stop with the "anti-self defense media hype!" acusations and READ:


U.S. Leads Richest Nations In Gun Deaths
BY CHELSEA J. CARTER THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

ATLANTA -- The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations, a government study found.
The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000.
The study, done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is the first comprehensive international look at gun-related deaths. It was published Thursday in the International Journal of Epidemiology.
The CDC would not speculate why the death rates varied, but other researchers said easy access to guns and society's acceptance of violence are part of the problem in the United States.
``If you have a country saturated with guns -- available to people when they are intoxicated, angry or depressed -- it's not unusual guns will be used more often,'' said Rebecca Peters, a Johns Hopkins University fellow specializing in gun violence. ``This has to be treated as a public health emergency.''
The National Rifle Association called the study shoddy because it failed to examine all causes of violent deaths.
``What this shows is the CDC is after guns. They aren't concerned with violence. It's pretending that no homicide exists unless it's related to guns,'' said Paul Blackman, a research coordinator for the NRA in Fairfax, Va.
The 36 countries chosen were listed as the richest in the World Bank's 1994 World Development Report, with the highest GNP per capita income.
The study used 1994 statistics supplied by the 36 countries. Of the 88,649 gun deaths reported by all the countries, the United States accounted for 45 percent, said Etienne Krug, a CDC researcher and co-author of the article.
Japan, where very few people own guns, averages 124 gun-related attacks a year, and less than 1 percent end in death. Police often raid the homes of those suspected of having weapons.
The study found that gun-related deaths were five to six times higher in the Americas than in Europe or Australia and New Zealand and 95 times higher than in Asia.
Here are gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in the world's 36 richest countries in 1994: United States 14.24; Brazil 12.95; Mexico 12.69; Estonia 12.26; Argentina 8.93; Northern Ireland 6.63; Finland 6.46; Switzerland 5.31; France 5.15; Canada 4.31; Norway 3.82; Austria 3.70; Portugal 3.20; Israel 2.91; Belgium 2.90; Australia 2.65; Slovenia 2.60; Italy 2.44; New Zealand 2.38; Denmark 2.09; Sweden 1.92; Kuwait 1.84; Greece 1.29; Germany 1.24; Hungary 1.11; Republic of Ireland 0.97; Spain 0.78; Netherlands 0.70; Scotland 0.54; England and Wales 0.41; Taiwan 0.37; Singapore 0.21; Mauritius 0.19; Hong Kong 0.14; South Korea 0.12; Japan 0.05.


Source for above

Above link/text taken from: Gunsite.com

Like I said...."fact".


"The United States leads the industrialized world in level of gun-related deaths."



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Motor vehicle deaths in Mississippi, 2007, was 31.6 per 100,000.
Thats 2x more than guns.
To be fair, MA had the lowest with 6.7.
This doesn't mean everyone should stop driving.... or maybe the people in MS should since thats twice as many deaths.

By my calculation, assuming the figures in the above post are correct, aproximately 40,000 die per hear from guns in the US? If I recall correctly, about that many die from the flu each year as well.

I would like to know what comparison the death rate is for knives, bats, assaults in general, in these other countries.

Check out the "gun control" genocide chart here and tell me if your better off being in an unarmed society-
jpfo.org...

Like I said, guns are here to stay. We're better off making sure that all law abiding people have access to them rather than just the governments and criminals. Although theres not much difference between the two these days.


edit on 7-1-2011 by SnakeShot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SnakeShot
Motor vehicle deaths in Mississippi, 2007, was 31.6 per 100,000.
Thats 2x more than guns.
To be fair, MA had the lowest with 6.7.
This doesn't mean everyone should stop driving.... or maybe the people in MS should since thats twice as many deaths


Gun deaths are mainly from deliberate actions, "hit and run" would be the equivalent for car usage and would not compare. You are talking about "accidents" from driving.


By my calculation, assuming the figures in the above post are correct, aproximately 40,000 die per hear from guns in the US? If I recall correctly, about that many die from the flu each year as well.


They are figures from a few years back, I imagine there have been many more guns made and sold than destroyed since then. And comparing to an illness is again, not a realistic comparison....unless you consider flu as deliberate action. (flujabs maybe)


I would like to know what comparison the death rate is for knives, bats, assaults in general, in these other countries.


I'd like to know what the survival rate for an attack by one of the methods you mention is compared to that of shootings?


Check out the "gun control" genocide chart here and tell me if your better off being in an unarmed society-
jpfo.org...


Yes I am, because that chart deals with genocide, not something that is happening here at the moment.
edit on 7/1/2011 by nerbot because: spellig mistale



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Yes most gun deaths are from deliberate actions, but we're talking statistics, and your talking about overall ban, so I think its completely relevant.

And yes, there isn't a genocide here "at the moment", and hopefully never.
Never again is a better possibility as long as we have our gun rights.
edit on 7-1-2011 by SnakeShot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by XLR8R
reply to post by SpaDe_
 


Well there are states with "Familly Fun Centers" as they are called that kids can actualy shoot guns....how grand. Lets rejoys in human kind and it's stupidity.


Lets learn to spell first: rejoys = rejoice.

I learned to shoot when I was eight, with a .22 Marlin rifle. Clearly the parent is at fault for placing this weapon in an unprepared child's hands.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by SnakeShot
Yes most gun deaths are from deliberate actions, but we're talking statistics, and your talking about overall ban, so I think its completely relevant.


I never mentioned "overall ban". Please don't put words in my mouth.

I have been trying to inject perspective into this subject. With bias toward a more passive society, but the extreme action that you mention of an overall ban would be a slow process but I don't realistically think it would ever happen in the U.S.

Why? Because the U.S. government (and others) need soldiers to fk up the rest of the world in plans for total domination and it needs a constant supply of finger trigger fodder brought up with gun culture, whether from a real gun or a FPS game.


And yes, there isn't a genocide here "at the moment", and hopefully never.
Never again is a better possibility as long as we have our gun rights.


But couldn't that same right to bear arms make you one of the primary targets in a possible genocide? Who would the purpetrators shoot first, the passive or the aggressive and defensive?

Better to live to fight another day my friend.

Change the people's perspective, and the guns become obsolete as a result, not the other way round. Unfortunately, so many of the gun owners appear to react as if they would be losing a part of their body where in fact they would be gaining something instead....

A pair of balls (girls included metaphorically) that meant they have to engage brain in the situations where they may have just popped a cap instead. Learning the responsibility of split second decisions and making the best choices with them is one of THE greatest assets a person can have. It takes mental and emotional strength, trial and error. There is little trial and error in shooting a gun at someone, accidents can't be undone and there is no saved game to reload.

Yeah, it's possible to get shot at and having a gun for defence could prove invaluable in a situation like that, but if fewer people had guns then the chance of a confrontation with a shooter lessens so new skills would come into play.

Shooting a gun is EASY...EVEN AN 8 YEAR OLD KID CAN DO IT WITH A VERY POWERFUL MACHINE GUN.

If all the people your know didn't use guns, think how many people would be safer FROM you all. Then consider the same if everyone else was in the same boat. What have you all actually lost?....

The targets you carry on you with a firearm and the need to have a gun because someone else has a gun.

No deadly offence, no deadly defence...........punchups, stitches, maybe a long recovery in hospital, perhaps the loss of property but the thought of knowing tommorrow WILL BE another day would be such a reward compared to death don't you think?

If you're going to continue with a gun culture, at least use them for something useful and take down those rotten apples running that corrupt government. They are spoiling it for the rest of us and they need to be stopped, but please stop shooting yourselves.

peace.
edit on 7/1/2011 by nerbot because: spellig mistale



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by XLR8R
 


That is all good and fine. I am 100% pro gun, but there are limitations. If you have ever fired a full auto rifle you would know that the recoil is considerable and the muzzle climb is quick if you are a weak individual. This kid was firing a full auto hand gun. The muzzle jump and recoil would overcome most weak handed adults let alone a 9yr old child. The person that put that firearm in that child's hands is 100% responsible for the outcome of this tragic accident.

To clarify I am all about teaching children firearms safety and showing them the ins and outs of firearms. I think that everyone should be very familiar with firearms just for the simple fact that if you ever had to use one, you should have at least some idea of their function and feel. I do not however condone stupidity. This is a clear cut case of stupidity based on the fact that a child was left unattended with a loaded fully automatic handgun. I have allowed my son to shoot from the time he was about 8yrs old, but only while under my extremely close supervision. I would have never left him unattended with a loaded firearm.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by SpaDe_
 

The kid wasn't even unattended. It's worse than that.

There was a paid official there, supervising, who allowed the kid to try shooting this automatic without helping him, and his father, a trained doctor, so you'd think he'd have had the brains to know better, was there with his son, videotaping him when it happened.

Obviously the stall-holder was culpable, for not knowing a child is unlikely to be able to handle such a weapon safely, the father was culpable for trusting other people to supervise his son around deadly weapons, and the guy running the show was culpable for allowing incompetants to be stall-holders at his gunshow.

With such supervision the kid may have been better off with none.
The person I pity here is the boy's mother.




top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join