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.

 

5-year-old Kentucky boy fatally shoots 2-year-old sister with gift rifle

page: 16
22
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2013 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


It sounds as if you have taken a very careful and thoughtful approach to teaching your child about guns and gun safety. It also sounds as if you raised him in a home where gun safety was paramount....good on you for that.

From what you explained you also seem to believe that there is an age at which no amount teaching equals "responsible" when it comes to handling guns?

Would you agree that letting a 5 year old child own and "play" with a .22 caliber rifle is a bad idea whatever the circumstances?

My issue with children and guns...which expands to gun ownership at large...is the assumption that gun owners at large are homogeneous in thier commitment to safety and responsible gun ownership...obviously they are not.

It is the same reason we do not allow drunk driving...not because everyone who owns a car drinks and drives on a regular basis, but because some car owners drink and drive on a regular basis....and laws aimed at preventing those drunk drivers do not impact those that safely drive.

So Background Checks...Legal gun owners...what's the issue? I know the NRA's issue...it reduces sales and shortens the distribution/re-sale chain. They can't argue about how much money they will lose if background checks are conducted, so they engage in the un-credible and false fiction of "Confiscation" despite thier being no legal or logical premise to that propaganda.

Children and guns...You appear to be a safe and responsible gun owner...do you assume everyone to be as safe and responsible with guns and children as you are? You can say that is not your problem...it's on a per family basis...contained...but school shootings show otherwise...ditto the 4 year old that shot and killed his neighbor next door last month...etc. etc.

Could we not take measures to effect those that are not as responsible and safe with thier guns? If not for the safety of thier own children, then the safety of ours? who are also at risk?


If the majority of gun owners that have children were to act as these parents did with their children, then you would be reading many, many more tragic stories in the news such as this one.

However, while these stories do appear in the news, they are no where near the amount that they could be considering the amount of gun owners in the US that have kids.

Based on that alone, I would have to say that in my opinion, the majority of parents that are gun owners are at least as responsible as we are when it comes to gun safety and our children.

You don't "give" a child a gun. You do not hand it to them like a remote control car to take to their room. You do not let them run around with it like a toy.

When you "get a gun" for your child, it's normally purchased by you the adult. YOU the adult are responsible for it and the safety of your child. That means that while the child can take a look at and start learning how to operate it (if you feel that they are old enough to do so), they can under your supervision which means you are siting/standing right there with them with absolutely NO ammo near by.

If instead, you are allowing them to run around with it like a toy gun, then you are being extremely stupid in my humble opinion.

As for teaching a child how to handle a gun turns them into killers who want to go on a mass shooting spree:

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree here. If that were true, then it means a large amount of Americans are pychotic killers bent on mass shootings, considering how many of us have been taught the use of guns at an early age.

And as far as I can remember, I can not recall one time that I wanted to bring a gun to school and start shooting anyone.
Plenty of times I wanted to punch someone in the face, or throw eggs at a teacher's car.....but no, never did think of bringing a gun to school and kill people. Sorry.

If I even suggested to my son that he take his gun to school, he'd get upset with me and "go tell mom! Guns are not toys dad!".




posted on May, 2 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Curio
As a Brit living in the US, it makes no sense to me. I understand the significance of the 2nd Amendment, but don't understand the reluctance to touch something that is already, by its very definition, an amendment. You have to progress and move on.....or else women still wouldn't be able to vote and blacks would have to sit at the back of the bus. Nobody is talking about taking guns away even.....just trying to figure out a good way of regulating them. Maybe the measures would or wouldn't work, but I really don't get the rabid reaction to any suggestion of even TRYING.


Also, for those comparing a gun to a car or plastic bag because they have the potential to be dangerous. Seriously? A gun has ONE purpose - and I don't remember playing cops & robbers by suffocating the cops with plastic bags or trying to run the robbers over with a toy police car. Kids know, from a very early age, gun = shoot stuff. There is NO ambiguity. You think the little kid in this story was trying to brush his sisters hair with the rifle? Pretending it was a puppy maybe? Nope - he was pretending to shoot the cr4p out of stuff and it went off for real. God bless America.

And for those of you "patriots" thinking "well go back to Britain, you limey scum"........as soon as I can fellers, as soon as I can.


Well. I'm going to be nice to you. I don't think you understand completely. You see the first 10 amendments were made as part of the original forming of the Constitution. The founding fathers realized they had set up how the government would work and function but did not include anything for the people.

This is what makes the first 10 amendments different than the rest. The first 10 are the bill of rights. Those 10 should never be touched no matter the consequences as they set forth all rights allotted to humanity within the borders of the US.

You're a brit. I don't know what the deal is with brits but for some reason firearms are absolutely repulsive to the lot of you. The result of media probably... I don't know what it is.. but you all see to hate the things...

Here's the problem. Firearms have been readily available in the US since our beginning. Not long ago you could literally have a weapon sent to your home without any need for an FFL holder (I beleive in Britian this was also the case for a long time. Sad really). You could even purchase a fully automatic assault rifle until the Regan administration..(yup we already have a gun ban...) Yet back then guns were far more available for everyone and we can all agree there was far less gun violence back then than there is now (I'm talking from the the 1920's to the 1980's).

So what it boils down to is what changed?

People changed. Our society changed. Perhaps we should be more apt to address the problems that people are having rather than get rid of a tool that we've essentially always had.

Limiting the bill of rights is not the answer. Addressing the issue of mental health care would be far more effective IMHO.

But I'm babbling now... Back on topic...

I'm sure even you could realize how a tragedy like this could have been prevented with the use of this little guy.



$10.00 - $50.00 American. Gun safety is important.
edit on 2-5-2013 by DaMod because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 01:06 PM
link   
I hope this boy is taken away from his parents, if they are this irresponsible, they are incapable of being trusted with the rest of his upbringing



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by crazylexxi
 



I was not taught how to drive before i got a license.


Who cares? Is there a federal requirement for having a driver license? How about for owning a gun?

Have you read the constitution?


And your point is



As passed by the Congress:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Not everything is an infringement! Just because you appear to dislike liberals does not mean they are not running the government and have authority over you.

I respect the second amendment as is. I don't pick and choose stuff, that is called cherry picking.
edit on 2/5/13 by EarthCitizen07 because: fixed tag



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 



But is does not say this can not be amended to allow for safe storage or training courses.

We have hundreds of laws already that DON’T WORK! Can’t you see that? Stay away from the 2nd amendment!



It idiots like you that are making responsible gun owners look like self righteous trigger happy rednecks.

Like me??? You don’t know me! I was a Primary Marksmanship Instructor in the US Marine Corps and spent several YEARS training Marines for combat with firearms. I think I know a little something about gun safety and proper operation and storage.



Just cause its a supposed right does not mean training and safe storage should not be enforced.

This isn’t the job of the federal government. Can’t you take care of yourself without nanny wiping your butt??



Like I said how is training and safe storage going to hurt a responsible gun owner?

I advocate for responsible gun ownership. I just don’t think it should be mandated as a condition of gun ownership. Read the constitution again and point out where it says the government has this authority.



Grow up and get with the moden times or the goverment really will come and try and take your guns.


Pfft….




edit on 2-5-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cabin

I have no comments. Very sad story.

Seriously, what is wrong with the people... Gifting a 5-year-old a rifle, that can kill a person. 5 year-olds is seriously too young for a gun... Maybe 12-15 year-old when one can already think about the consequences of their actions. Even when it is meant as a first rifle for kids, it should definetely be only used at trainings and never held in a place where children can get it, even when there are no bullets inside... Guns are not a toy and it should be taught by every parent.

In my opinion, these parents should be taken criminally accountable for murder. Even though they directly did not murder somebody, their carelessness led a person who is not even able to think straight yet to murder somebody else.

Here for example, you will never get a licence (or maybe after some 5-10 year-old-period) if you lose your gun, even when it is stolen. Nobody cares, the fact is you owned and had to keep it in a place, where it can not be gotten by other people. If murder is made with the gun, you are also held accountible as somebody who helps with the murder, although the punishment is still 1-5 years.

rt.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 1-5-2013 by Cabin because: (no reason given)



Dude, are you seriously provoking people to get mad or something? You post this thread, then with a follow up message you have no comments.

Here, let me comment it for you.

The parents should be locked up for first degree murder. The child should go to foster home or social services to find a better home.

Are you friggin' kidding me?

"Kept in the corner of the house." Didn't mention trigger lock, didn't mention bullets were kept separately. Parents should be locked up.

"No one realized that a shell had been left inside." Well, parents needs to go to jail again.

If this topic moves on to gun control, I think I may be permanently banned from ATS because I'm gonna start breaking the T&C very often.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



And your point is
As passed by the Congress:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



There is no militia requirement. Try and keep up to date on the issue.


On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller (PDF), the United States Supreme Court issued its first decision since 1939 interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense.
link


District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves.
link



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
[
We have hundreds of laws already that DON’T WORK! Can’t you see that? Stay away from the 2nd amendment!

Im not saying do away with it.


Originally posted by seabag
Like me??? You don’t know me! I was a Primary Marksmanship Instructor in the US Marine Corps and spent several YEARS training Marines for combat with firearms.

So?


Originally posted by seabag
This isn’t the job of the federal government. Can’t you take care of yourself without nanny wiping your butt??

Well obviolsy people cant as they are letting there kids shot each other.

Originally posted by seabag
Read the constitution again and point out where it says the government has this authority.

But it doesnt say you cant add that.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Tikitiboo
 





Absolutely ! (btw seen this response alot, its old, and ill go to the good ole USA anytime i feel like it OK)

Oh, so your point about being on the outside looking in isn't entirely accurate?
It doesn't surprise me.
Hey, it's so scary you will come here again and again, eh?




posted on May, 2 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


I've forgotten more about firearms then you've likely ever known!





Well obviolsy people cant as they are letting there kids shot each other.


Wipe your own rear end, Ma’am.




But it doesnt say you cant add that.


Shall not be infringed!!!

Shall not be infringed!



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



And your point is
As passed by the Congress:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



There is no militia requirement. Try and keep up to date on the issue.


On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller (PDF), the United States Supreme Court issued its first decision since 1939 interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense.
link


District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves.
link


And who compromises the militia? Individuals do! Yes for self-defense, for target practice, for protecting against tyranny, for hunting game, etc.

The people are the militia in the broadest of sense, not the police or military; ie the national guard.

*well regulated* means measures can be taken for safety of all. I am quite sick and tired of the slippery slope bs conservatives spew. You guys make exceptions for everything else but not gun control. I am not a big fan of gun control either, just common sense stuff.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



*well regulated* means measures can be taken for safety of all.


And who is going to add to the hundreds of laws we already have? People like Biden?






posted on May, 2 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by crazylexxi
 



I was not taught how to drive before i got a license.


Who cares? Is there a federal requirement for having a driver license? How about for owning a gun?

Have you read the constitution?

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?? Have you??



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Biden is an idiot. I will give you credit for that. I am glad most of the legislation that was attempted to pass failed. The point is its not a black and white issue as most make it. Some people love guns and some people hate them.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

I am quite sick and tired of the slippery slope bs conservatives spew.


You mean like 10 round mag limits one day and 7 round limits the next day? No, no slope there.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful

If the majority of gun owners that have children were to act as these parents did with their children, then you would be reading many, many more tragic stories in the news such as this one.


How many dead kids before it is too many? What's the magic number? For the parent of the dead child, I suspect that number to be 1.


Average of 2 Children Shot to Death Every Week in US

2 Shootings Involve 4-Year-Olds In 3 Days

Not suggesting banning guns or confiscating them...nothing of the sort...

But the idea that the only thing that should be done about it is...nothing...seems an irrational position for you, who appears otherwise a rational person.


Originally posted by eriktheawful
As for teaching a child how to handle a gun turns them into killers who want to go on a mass shooting spree:

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree here. If that were true, then it means a large amount of Americans are pychotic killers bent on mass shootings, considering how many of us have been taught the use of guns at an early age.


Where did I claim that? Did you read my post? I appreciate honest discussion if possible??

I said that parents like Nancy Lanza, who both purchased weapons for her child and brought him to shooting ranges, are often biased and unable or unwilling to spot warning signs that thier child is not fit to own guns.

This seems plain? does it not?

It speaks to my other question...if the "Majority" of the people are law abiding and "responsible" should we not have laws to address those that are not "law abiding" or responsible?

I don't get the argument that since most gun owners are responsible...we should not regulate those who are not responsible.


Originally posted by eriktheawfulAnd as far as I can remember, I can not recall one time that I wanted to bring a gun to school and start shooting anyone.


Me either...so that must mean that no one has or ever will bring a gun to school and shoot children?

I don't see much utilility or logic in citing singular and personal experience when describing the world at large.
edit on 2-5-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

It speaks to my other question...if the "Majority" of the people are law abiding and "responsible" should we not have laws to address those that are not "law abiding" or responsible?

I don't get the argument that since most gun owners are responsible...we should not regulate those who are not responsible.



Regulation of the irresponsible is simply not possible hence regulation only affect the responsible.

Unless of course you want to lop arms off and chain them all to radiators.

This is the fault of all laws. The law of man is essentially useless in all endeavors save petty revenge.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by crazylexxi

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?? Have you??


I sometimes think that folks should plaster bumper stickers to thier forehead in lieu of actual thought.

The 2nd Amendment also says "Militia" and "Well regulated"...and a "right" within the context of the constitution has limits. We regulate those rights all the time and for good reason. We also deprive people of those rights when they break the law.

This doesn't mean that there is not legitimacy in the 2nd Amendment. It is a sound constitutional right that should be preserved, but you should have a deeper understanding of the context of "rights' in the constitution if you sincerely intend to defend them...and I see very little of that amongst the "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" crew who appear to know as much about constitional rights as Wayne Lapierre tells them.
edit on 2-5-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Cabin
 


Really? You think the parents NEED more punishment than losing their daughter? You think that by shuttling them into the prison system to make money for the private corporations that run prisons, taking them away from their remaining child, you will be rehabilitating them and providing a better life for the boy?

You people (punitive, vengeful, self-righteous super-monkeys) make me sick. Seriously.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
The law of man is essentially useless in all endeavors save petty revenge.


And we disagree there...




top topics



 
22
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join