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: 20
22
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2013 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Very nice photos sir!

Those of you who are so hung up on this, saying “Another child tragically killed! Why, we just have to do something! This is telling us that we must enact more gun laws”
--- here is why I will oppose/fight any new gun laws:

Because, frankly, it wouldn't matter. The problem is, to put it bluntly, stupidity.
Stupid people end lives all of the time because they attempted to text while driving, or they forget that they left their kid in the backseat of their parked cars in 100°F weather, etc…
You would be better off getting your panties in a twist campaigning to make stupidity illegal.

It is an unfortunate corollary of Darwinism, however, that you just can't fix stupid.




posted on May, 3 2013 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag

So we should give up our constitutional right and lay off thousands of people so that one stupid jackarse doesn’t leave guns unattended? What do you do with the 300,000,000 guns out there already??


Perhaps not. Like I say, I don't have the answer. But you will have to deal with the fact that since there will always be idiots and nutters out there, the correlative of your current stance is that kids will be shot.




There you go, folks. The truth is out! Some people truly believe they have more wisdom than our founding fathers and they have no problems with sharting on the constitution.


I just have no problem not fetishising a document written by people that long ago.Their priorities were naturally different. And they weren't prophets or deities.

Take the situation with widespread ownership of rifles. You can see why that might be a good thing if you risked being invaded by an army of foreign riflemen. Not so effective now.




Would rocks and sling shots be a better alternative?


No. You need IEDs and RPGs and suchlike. Perhaps you should make those legal as well? After all, they are just objects that can be handled with common sense also.




The SCOTUS has upheld a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms for self defense, recreation, etc. Why do you feel your ideas are superior everyone else’s?


Everyone else's? That's a huge exaggeration. Gun control is supported by around half of Americans, more if you're talking about the kind of control I'd advocate.

In fact unbridled gun freedom advocates are in a minority. Add to that the collateral fallout of needless child deaths and perhaps you should ask yourself the same question.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


That was a long time ago. But sure, guns were pretty useful then. I'm not saying that there's no upside at all to widespread gun ownership. Just that if you acknowledge that you should also have the courage to admit the downsides, which includes a certain number of dead children.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Cabin
 

did you read about the drunk mom who crashed and killed all her kids? that was a sad one too



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by Cabin
 

did you read about the drunk mom who crashed and killed all her kids? that was a sad one too


Yes. But we use cars in the full knowledge that they can be dangerous and that idiots will sometimes misuse them.

We do this with on eye on their extraordinary utility (which is much greater than firearms) and with another on legislating to make deaths/injury less likely. For example the drunk mother in your example would be breaking the law.

There is a (mostly) sensible and continuous discussion between how to allow for their usefulness and prevent their disadvantages. With guns this usually goes out the window.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 




We do this with on eye on their extraordinary utility (which is much greater than firearms)

We could pass a law against automobiles tomorrow and ban them completely.
They are a luxury.
They didn't exist a little over 100 years ago.
It is a privilege to be allowed to drive them.

Automobiles are useful, but NOT necessary. They kill thousands of people every year and they pollute our environment.

Why support such a luxury that is so detrimental to our health and the health of the planet?



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


That was a long time ago. But sure, guns were pretty useful then. I'm not saying that there's no upside at all to widespread gun ownership. Just that if you acknowledge that you should also have the courage to admit the downsides, which includes a certain number of dead children.


The only reason that there are a number of dead children due to gun ownership is because there are a number of idiots that cause that situation by being stupid and irresponsible.

Just as there are an even bigger number of idiots that cause a even bigger number of children to be dead because of cars for the same reason.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


That was a long time ago. But sure, guns were pretty useful then. I'm not saying that there's no upside at all to widespread gun ownership. Just that if you acknowledge that you should also have the courage to admit the downsides, which includes a certain number of dead children.


Well, if this idiot parent had left a skill saw plugged in and sitting on the kitchen floor, the kid could very easily have picked it up, pulled the trigger to start it and ..well, I have too good an imagination at times for just how easily the weight would take his own leg off, as it came back at him. Perhaps the blade guard would save him? (many remove those, by the way) ... reciprocating saws don't have those ...and chop saws don't function that way. Either of the last two could also take off an appendage in the time it takes to realize that's a power tool you hear and only your kids are close enough to have turned it on..

That young? Leg or arm off? How long would it take to bleed out? Certain'y less than the 5-10 an ambulance takes getting there. So..the gun had nothing whatsoever to do with this, IMO, beyond being the tool the parent left out where it never..EVER..should have been.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

We could pass a law against automobiles tomorrow and ban them completely.
They are a luxury.
They didn't exist a little over 100 years ago.
It is a privilege to be allowed to drive them.

Automobiles are useful, but NOT necessary. They kill thousands of people every year and they pollute our environment.

Why support such a luxury that is so detrimental to our health and the health of the planet?


Because cars are more useful than guns. I would have thought that was pretty obvious.

That's why the decision is played that way. But that's not my point. I'm saying that there is a mature argument of the risk/reward situation around the dangers vs the utility of cars, that for some reason gun advocates (and often detractors) seem unable replicate.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 





Because cars are more useful than guns. I would have thought that was pretty obvious.

Wow, you must have read the whole thing, eh??? Because I said this...


Automobiles are useful, but NOT necessary.

They are not necessary.

That means that every death caused by automobiles is unnecessary.
But it is okay with you.... because you like automobiles. They are useful.

Morphine is useful.... that doesn't mean everyone should carry some in their pocket.

Do you really support the pollution of our planet because you want to get somewhere quickly in your very own conveyance???

edit on 3-5-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful


The only reason that there are a number of dead children due to gun ownership is because there are a number of idiots that cause that situation by being stupid and irresponsible.

Just as there are an even bigger number of idiots that cause a even bigger number of children to be dead because of cars for the same reason.


Yes, I know. I say this above. But the idiots aren't going to disappear and so we have to make a decision about an object's utility vs its risks and then legislate. You may disagree with me about the usefulness of guns but I doubt you disagree with notion of acting that way.

Put it another way, if you don't entertain this system then that's an argument for legalising anything. We do not allow people to have their own nuclear warheads, and yet they are simply neutral objects and only idiots and the insane would damage themselves and others with them.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 





Because cars are more useful than guns. I would have thought that was pretty obvious.

Wow, you must read the whole thing, eh??? Because I said this...


Automobiles are useful, but NOT necessary.

They are not necessary.

That means that every death caused by automobiles is unnecessary.
But it is okay with you.... because you like automobiles. They are useful.

Morphine is useful.... that doesn't mean everyone should carry some in their pocket.


I'll write this one more time, but after that I'm not going to continue to repeat myself.

The discussion around the legalisation of objects allows for their risks and weighs this against their utility. If you think that the utility of cars is not worth one death then you should lobby for them to be made illegal. Society has reached a different decision and accommodates a certain number of fatalities because they are deemed worth it.

I happen to agree with this. Although I am far from happy with it, I think some dead children are worthwhile for me to be able to drive a car, albeit that this is strictly speaking unnecessary. All I'm asking is that gun advocates try to recognise this dynamic (and ongoing) debate that exists for literally every other good and

1 enter into it
2 acknowledge that their use of weapons will engender risks to life that will sometimes be borne out

Your example about morphine goes for guns too, by the way. At least logically.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 



I think some dead children are worthwhile for me to be able to drive a car,

Ok.



I'll write this one more time, but after that I'm not going to continue to repeat myself.

After admitting that you are willing to sacrifice children's lives for the luxury of driving a car, I would give up too.





Your example about morphine goes for guns too, by the way. At least logically.


Morphine and automobiles don't have their own amendment in the US Constitution, do they?



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

After admitting that you are willing to sacrifice children's lives for the luxury of driving a car, I would give up too.


Do you drive a car? If so you are also willing to do that.

Just like if you use a gun or a band saw or fly in aeroplane you are willing to let some kids die or be injured to let you do so.

I'll assume you don't in fact drive a car or do anything whose use or production might endanger a life?







Morphine and automobiles don't have their own amendment in the US Constitution, do they?



Sorry, but like 90 per cent of the world I don't really care about the US Constitution. Or at least I don't think it's beyond examination and, um, amendment.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 




Sorry, but like 90 per cent of the world I don't really care about the US Constitution.

That explains it fairly well.



Do you drive a car? If so you are also willing to do that.

I am playing devil's advocate.
The FREE dictionary: Devil's Advocate
edit on 3-5-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag




Shall not be infringed!!!

Shall not be infringed!




Get over yourself. The world is changing. Your marine mind set does not work in the real civilian world

And no the majority dont want guns banned but I see the majority so want tighter saftey! And that is going to happen by the looks of it so I suggest you get used to it or bug out with you guns. Maybe you can take the irresposinible parents with you, you can give them a medal for being true patriots why you are at it :lol


And Infringe? A saftey course and laws on saftey wont INFRINGING. You will still get your gun(s)....unless you are a redneck who wants to do what he wants in which case a few they dont derseve a gun no more than a criminal does.

edit on 3-5-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy



Do you drive a car? If so you are also willing to do that.

I am playing devil's advocate.
The FREE dictionary: Devil's Advocate
edit on 3-5-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)


Not very well, since you've clearly misunderstood what I'm saying. It's really not that complicated either.

The reductio ad absurdum of 'we should limit the use of things we consider dangerous based on an evaluation of their usefulness' is not 'we should ban cars'. And it's not very clever to imply someone is callous for doing something you do yourself.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 



Get over yourself. The world is changing. Your marine mind set does not work in the real civilian world

My "Marine mindset" provided the so-called "real world" and freedom you enjoy today. You're welcome!





And no the majority dont want guns banned but I see the majority so want tighter saftey!



“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
― Benjamin Franklin





And that is going to happen by the looks of it so I suggest you get used to it or bug out with you guns. Maybe you can take the irresposinible parents with you, you can give them a medal for being true patriots why you are at it

I won't be going anywhere.




And Infringe? A saftey course and laws on saftey wont INFRINGING.

Do you have to pass a test before you exercise your fist amendment rights???? Maybe you should!




You will still get your gun(s)....unless you are a redneck who wants to do what he wants in which case a few they dont derseve a gun no more than a criminal does.

So people you disagree with are rednecks and they don't deserve the same constitutional protection you enjoy? Why is that? Are you special? I know YOU think you are.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Originally posted by butcherguy



Do you drive a car? If so you are also willing to do that.

I am playing devil's advocate.
The FREE dictionary: Devil's Advocate
edit on 3-5-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)


Not very well, since you've clearly misunderstood what I'm saying. It's really not that complicated either.

The reductio ad absurdum of 'we should limit the use of things we consider dangerous based on an evaluation of their usefulness' is not 'we should ban cars'. And it's not very clever to imply someone is callous for doing something you do yourself.

Yep, that's right.
It all comes down to this...
I shouldn't have guns because they are dangerous....
But you can have other dangerous things because you want to.


Didn't you say that you were done with this several posts ago?




And it's not very clever to imply someone is callous for doing something you do yourself.

Funny, you admit to be willing to sacrifice a child for your frivolities, and I point it out. So you point at me and say.... oh, you are not clever.
Are you capable of stepping back and seeing the slightly bigger picture?
edit on 3-5-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by crazyewok
[


“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
― Benjamin Franklin





Bollocks.

No one is saying ban guns. Just make a mandatory saftey course.


Ok so you think everyone should have guns without any restrictions or responsibilty?

So should they give US prisoners guns while in prison? Or hand them our as they leave prison?

Should you allow them on aircraft? Allow them unrestricted in factorys where there is volitile material?


Unless you are a dumbass redneck who likes to leave his guns lying around the house loaded I cant see how any training course or storage restrictions will hurt you!

I repeat you sir are a fool and it people like you that will end up getting a complete 100% ban.

It dangrous iresponsible americans like you that are ruining the USA. You allow children to shot each other and cough it up to a "accident" while you kill hundreds in drone attacks and invade foriegn countrys on false evidence and knee jerk reactions.

edit on 3-5-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-5-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join