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: 18
22
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Believe in a gun owners right to choose?

Or having government take that choice away?




posted on May, 2 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


In any case, looks like you attempt at diffusion which i had issue with has been ruled as "Off Topic" and hopefully the thread can proceed unabated for at least a few pages.

As per you link to your original comment some pages back, I will agree with you. Here is excerpt for people


I agree this is a SEVERE parenting failure.


Perhaps an examination of parenting in relation to gun control should be examined. Parenting at is very base level is a set of rules and guidelines to guide a youth or inexperienced mind. Now, please do not infer that I mean gun laws are to protect the youth/inexperienced minds of America, but perhaps a correlation between the two.

How is the principles similar to gun control, if any? Does the failing of these peoples parenting mirror the US government attempts to implement gun control?

I pose these questions to get this discussion back on track.

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



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Believe in a gun owners right to choose?

Or having government take that choice away?


Still two different arguments...

One involves a choice of what a woman does with her own body...and whether or not a clump of cells is a "person".

The other involves the indisputable life of anyone within shooting range.

Let me know when you feel like debating the issue and I will respond...
edit on 2-5-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   
dp


edit on 2-5-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by MDDoxs
 





How is the principles similar to gun control, if any? Does the failing of these peoples parenting mirror the US government attempts to implement gun control?


Last time I checked the US government is one giant "huge parenting failure'.

Government says, 'No No you can't have this, you can't have that behave or they will send them to their room'.

Much like a kid most people don't listen to them, and do what they want anyway.

Spent 18 years trying to get out from underneath my own parent's house, far too many people(pro gun control advocate's) are trying to put me right back under one.

So thanks, but no thanks.
edit on 2-5-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 



Spent 18 years trying to get out from underneath my own parent's house, far too many people(pro gun control advocate's) are trying to put me right back under one.

So thanks, but no thanks.


Nor do I, or i presume many others want to put you there.

I am suggesting that this, as you have alluded to already with your personal story, is the source of the disconnect.


Last time I checked the US government is one giant "huge parenting failure'.


Again, i am glad to agree with you, star for you
. To continue with my parenting analogy, we can assign the US government, or many western governments for that matter, the role of dysfunctional parents, or parents with certain vices that allow for these disconnects to grow and perhaps the “children” or the populations of said countries are to busy have tantrums to understand any benefit of such restrictions or lack thereof, if any.

Please note I have no position on the gun control debate, merely the parties involved.

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



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Believe in a gun owners right to choose?

Or having government take that choice away?


Even the republicans believe in mild gun control. Some gun control is necessary because it affects everyone to a degree whereas abortion only affects the person who does not want a child. Its not really an honest arguement.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by MDDoxs
 





Nor do I, or i presume many others want to put you there.


Many others do presume to put us all there.

They want to feed us,cloth us,educate us,make all the bad people go away, and get rid of all the things that can hurt us(guns).

Every action taken takes away the inherent power of the people way past time American's grew up.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 





Even the republicans believe in mild gun control. Some gun control is necessary because it affects everyone to a degree whereas abortion only affects the person who does not want a child. Its not really an honest arguement.


Please there is nothing mild about government they use their best weapon laws that are nothing but weapons of mass destruction, and care little for the collateral damage.

Both Blue's and Red's. I have never beleived in the supremacy of the state. I believe in the supremacy of the people.

I will oppose any, and all laws that seek to disarm the American people.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 




Many others do presume to put us all there.

Haha, please excuse me, i forgot i am on ATS, i should have been a bit more specific. "Those of use of the common rabble"


I will agree that there are those that wish to do as you fear, but I would say the majority of us are just looking to go through life in safest and most comfortable way possible for themselves and their future generations.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Believe in a gun owners right to choose?

Or having government take that choice away?


Even the republicans believe in mild gun control. Some gun control is necessary because it affects everyone to a degree whereas abortion only affects the person who does not want a child. Its not really an honest arguement.


The authors of the 2nd Amendment believed in moderating gun ownership.

The second amendment written in 1791.

Dictionary of the English Language 1792...


Regulate [regula latin]
1. To adjust by rule or method
2. To direct

books.google.com...

edit on 2-5-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-5-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 





Even the republicans believe in mild gun control. Some gun control is necessary because it affects everyone to a degree whereas abortion only affects the person who does not want a child. Its not really an honest arguement.


Please there is nothing mild about government they use their best weapon laws that are nothing but weapons of mass destruction, and care little for the collateral damage.

Both Blue's and Red's. I have never beleived in the supremacy of the state. I believe in the supremacy of the people.

I will oppose any, and all laws that seek to disarm the American people.


I can see why people are suspicious with what happened the past 6 months. I think the laws were overkill and that is why both parties rejected the proposals, but mostly republicans did. Government is necessary, it is just that people should take voting more seriously from now on; study what parties and candidates stand for ahead of time.

Government this and government that gets old.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by Iwinder
 


Its very late here and im about to crash, it was on BBC radio news.

i just found this though.



edit on 1-5-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-5-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)


That is a fairly selective chart, but I thank you for providing it.

It really does not pertain to this thread as I see it, I see no data for gun related injuries at all let alone deaths.

Again thanks for tossing that into the mix here.
I am seeing just over 5000 injuries in the 1 to 24 year range and that is it......

No deaths listed and no vehicle deaths or injuries to compare to.



Regards, Iwinder
edit on 2-5-2013 by Iwinder because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

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)


More children die in motor vehicle accidents than by firearms in the US, and by a wide margin.

While even one child's death can be intolerable, the fact of life is: children die.

Even if every single firearm in the world were to suddenly vanish overnight, with absolutely no way to make anymore firearms, children would still die, and the majority of them dying in vehicle deaths would still be true.

Funny how children always seem to be the crux of gun control. I guess it's because everyone knows that children dying will always invoke a much stronger emotional response and much less of a logical one from people.

While I do feel that the death of any child is horrific........how about we make a deal?

You get the government to stop slaughtering the lives of innocent children over in the middle east via drones.......

And then I'll consider giving up any firearm and actually trusting the federal government.

I mean any child's life should be sacred, right? So let's stop killing them on purpose. That's not a 5 year old behind the controls of a combat drone.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by dogstar23
 


Completely agree with most everything. I just want to clarify that the only way you know for fact the gun is unloaded is if you have the chamber open to you.

In this post
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I go over the rifle (the same model from the story). This is the rifle I bought for my son who is 6 going on 7 in August. Of course he really does not own the weapon he can not own it until he is 18. However, I went over the precautions I take and the training he is getting in my first post in this thread. I trust him more with the gun in his hands than many adults already. That being said he has my full attention when it is in his hands and I am standing with my arms around him. I have control of the situation.

I was raised around guns and taught a healthy respect for them. I have had training with firearms. I recommend that anyone even if they are not going to carry a firearm to get training for CCW and even a hunters safety course. Firearms is one thing you can never have enough training in. You should treat every gun as if it is loaded even if you know you just unloaded it. You have to consciously make yourself check everything and make sure you do not become complacent. I take firearms seriously, there is no screwing around with a firearm.

Raist



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful

More children die in motor vehicle accidents than by firearms in the US, and by a wide margin.

While even one child's death can be intolerable, the fact of life is: children die.


And more people die in car accidents than cancer...lets stop fighting to cure or prevent cancer!


Originally posted by eriktheawful
Even if every single firearm in the world were to suddenly vanish overnight, with absolutely no way to make anymore firearms, children would still die, and the majority of them dying in vehicle deaths would still be true.


If murder no longer existed in the world, people would still die of car accidents...let's legalize murder.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   
The gun in question is a "Crickett". It's specifically marketed for young children as their "starter" rifle.




'Murica.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Cabin
 


What's wrong with some people you ask ? Well it's that some people are totally brain dead. It's obvious that these parents fit into that category. They obviously have no respect for firearms and have not had any gun safety training what so ever. You don't leave a gun loaded and lying around the house regardless of who is in the house and especially where there are children.
These people need to have their guns confiscated for sure. This is just what the gun grabbers are looking for, as if there isn't enough problems with them right now. Wait 'til CNN and Pierst Organ get a hold of this story. They will be so excited and push it for all it's worth and then some.
I can't imagine how devastated the parents are feeling right now but I also don't feel sympathetic towards them because of their stupidity.
Can you imagine just 2 years old. My God that poor little thing. How sad is that. uugh



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by eriktheawful

More children die in motor vehicle accidents than by firearms in the US, and by a wide margin.

While even one child's death can be intolerable, the fact of life is: children die.


And more people die in car accidents than cancer...lets stop fighting to cure or prevent cancer!


Originally posted by eriktheawful
Even if every single firearm in the world were to suddenly vanish overnight, with absolutely no way to make anymore firearms, children would still die, and the majority of them dying in vehicle deaths would still be true.


If murder no longer existed in the world, people would still die of car accidents...let's legalize murder.


See?

Gun control people always resort to the same responses, if they can't debate you logically, let's use sarcasm!

Yes, that is always an intelligent and mature way to debate.

Since you are NOT responding in a mature way, let me explain it as I would a child:

Cancer is a disease, which many people have through their genetic code and family line, that can be sometimes triggered by certain substances or by other unknown things. It actually kills people all on it's own in many cases with no help from humans at all.

Cars are objects which, if just sitting there and not being operated by a person, just seem to not be motivated to kill people on their own. However if you put a person in a car, that PERSON can very will kill people accidently or on purpose.

Guns are also object that, if just sitting there also have very little interest in killing someone. However, again, a PERSON operating the gun can in fact hurt or kill someone.

However, unlike Cancer, they just don't seem to act on their own.

And we have laws against murdering people because, well it's just not a nice thing to do. Yet people still murder others. Even if they know that they themselves will be executed or put to death, they. don't. care. And still murder people, because, well kids, CRIMINALS do not obey laws.

However, because we DO have laws about it, it means that if someone does it, we can do something about them. Where as if we didn't have laws about it, then no, we couldn't do anything about them.

Now, do you have a actual, debatable post to make? Or are you going to keep acting sarcastic?

If all you have is sarcastic responses, then we're done here. I have much better things to do with my time.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   
This rifle was a single shot, bolt action .22. The only thing that made it dangerous was the moronic adults that left it loaded. Those of you who fear guns will not understand. Those of you that do not fear guns will likely think as I do that the parents should be beaten with the butt end. This is about being stupid. The right to own a gun is not the question. The right to raise a child is. It is not about guns.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join