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: 29
22
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2013 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


If I could make that happen I would. It seems most of the ones wanting to get rid of guns also want to say what I can eat, drink, how I can talk, joke, what I can watch, listen too, and what I can read.

I do have a question though it is meant to be genuine and not anything else.
squarehead666 wants an M4 why not let him have one? Those who don't want guns do not have to get them, but as long as squarehead666 is responsible I am not sure where the argument is that squarehead666 cannot own one.

I can understand regulation I suppose but I do not get the whole limit on types of firearms. If the system is good enough to keep the guns out of the hands of the bad people it should work no matter the type of weapon.


Anyway I am not trying to be snide or obtuse just trying to understand your mindset on this. Because I take it that there are a few like squarehead666 that feel differently.

Raist




posted on May, 5 2013 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 



Wait a minute but I thought you said guns should be a right for ALL? Now your makeing exceptions....mmmm


I will clarify – All LAW ABIDING Americans. Convicted criminals gave up there rights when they committed felonious acts. That was their choice....not mine!




Actually I do have the rights to apply and own a hunting rifle and shot gun.


In America, RIGHTS don’t come from government; rights are inherent. That’s what’s so hard for you to grasp!

I feel bad for you…it must suck to have to ask permission from nanny for everything.





And I would say out of the 15 countrys I have visted the USA has got to be one of the most opressive countrys I have been too. It the only country that has taken by finger prints and retana scans for just stepping into it (In EU you need a warrent or be arrested foe such things).


Right, because we all know that TSA pat downs are much more oppressive then getting your hand chopped off for stealing or getting stoned to death for adultery!


WEAK!!



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag


Right, because we all know that TSA pat downs are much more oppressive then getting your hand chopped off for stealing or getting stoned to death for adultery!


WEAK!!




err yeah cause we do that here in the UK,France,Spain and Germany......yeah ok




Poor Poor Redneck. Thinks everyone outside the USA is the same


No the USA is not the most opressive in the world. Of course not it is just the most opessive I have visted so far.
As I said the USA is no more better or worse than most westen countrys.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by crazyewok
 


If I could make that happen I would. It seems most of the ones wanting to get rid of guns also want to say what I can eat, drink, how I can talk, joke, what I can watch, listen too, and what I can read.

I do have a question though it is meant to be genuine and not anything else.
squarehead666 wants an M4 why not let him have one? Those who don't want guns do not have to get them, but as long as squarehead666 is responsible I am not sure where the argument is that squarehead666 cannot own one.

I can understand regulation I suppose but I do not get the whole limit on types of firearms. If the system is good enough to keep the guns out of the hands of the bad people it should work no matter the type of weapon.


Anyway I am not trying to be snide or obtuse just trying to understand your mindset on this. Because I take it that there are a few like squarehead666 that feel differently.

Raist


It a fair quetion. I think our mind set is why would a law abiding citzen need one? Ok they are pretty cool but apart from that why have one. The more we restrict them the less chance of them falling into the wrong hands.

In most of Europe Gun crime is much lower than else were. Most of us think that a reasonble sacrifice to make to trade the simply cool factor of owning a machine gun in for the vastly increase on saftey.

Plus you got to keep in mind how densly populated alot of Europe is. If you have people running through the wood shooting at things at will then accidents will go up.

Ok that not how things in the USA are done. Fair enough. But its how we do things. The worlds a big place with many diffrent people, no ones really right or wrong just diffrent.
edit on 5-5-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


And the government does not represent the people? Did Obama not win POTUS? The government acts as proxy of the people.



The government regulates via the peoples will. If the people want stricter gun laws they get them, if not then things remain the same or can even go backwards. Its not rocket science!!


If it’s not rocket science then why is it so damned hard for you to grasp that there is to be NO TEST OR MANDATORY TRAINING to exercise a fundamental right.

This isn’t a democracy…it’s a constitutional republic. Just because people want something doesn’t mean they can shart on the constitution to get what they want!

Most of us don't look to nanny-government for our every need. This isn't UK....we are more self-reliant here! Well, most of us!



Isn't that why we have NICS for; to filter to out the criminals from getting guns legally? Sure someone can buy a gun illegally because of some prententious colllecter.

Mandatory training for what? I would support mandatory training for people wanting to buy automatics weapons only. Currently there is NO mandatory training for anything. If you know otherwise please tell us.

Who said anything about sharting on the constitution? No one is implying such thing, but you folks don't even comprehend what the amendments mean. You folks as in the "extreme right" fringe group!



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 


I will also add about why we dont need guns for the defence against tyranny ect.

Thing is in the UK that arguments pointless. We are a small island. A armed citzenry has nowhere to hide. If the govement turned on us they could splat us like bugs with there big helicopeters and Aircraft.

Instead we have gone down other avenues to protect us like makeing a very complex legal system.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Buying a fully automatic firearm in the U.S. while not impossible is out of reach for many simply because of costs. There is a ton of paperwork and background checks (all of which the person buying them pays for) as well as extra taxes.

There are very few legally owned functional full automatic firearms in the U.S.

Raist



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


There is plenty of open space in the U.S. People could do guerrilla warfare in small factions, but large factions trying to take the government on in the open would be crushed.

As far as trusting the legal system though I think that is a mistake since they run the legal system. None of the powerful ever seem to face real justice.

Raist



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by crazyewok
 


There is plenty of open space in the U.S. People could do guerrilla warfare in small factions, but large factions trying to take the government on in the open would be crushed.

As far as trusting the legal system though I think that is a mistake since they run the legal system. None of the powerful ever seem to face real justice.

Raist


Thats diffrence between us. You have lots of space and places to hide we havent. Guerrilla warefare would fail in the UK hence why guns for protecting us is pointless.

As for trusting the legal system? Well it most likley can be corrupted but its the only thing we got......Still our legal system seems to have delayed at least some of the more oppresive things that have been implemented in the US, like searching without warrents,dentention without trial, takeing finger prints of non criminals and haveing govement agents practley rapeing people at airports.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


Hahahaha this lil whiny dude’s still going, huh?
So, let me get this straight, you think guns are pointless for defending against tyranny because the people in costumes will destroy you anyway?
LMAO – Why?
If you are BOTH armed, then the only difference between the two of you is, like I mentioned, that they have costumes on, while you do not (which, in terms of guerilla warfare -- puts them at a disadvantage), because ‘lil dude, wars aren't won with helicopter gunships.

No joke, that's a pitiful, fearful attitude to have –and being British isn't an excuse.
Not only that – but you're here trying to defend your defeatist attitude … talk about funny, mate!



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3mperorConstantinE
reply to post by crazyewok
 


Hahahaha this lil whiny dude’s still going, huh?
So, let me get this straight, you think guns are pointless for defending against tyranny because the people in costumes will destroy you anyway?
LMAO – Why?
If you are BOTH armed, then the only difference between the two of you is, like I mentioned, that they have costumes on, while you do not (which, in terms of guerilla warfare -- puts them at a disadvantage), because ‘lil dude, wars aren't won with helicopter gunships.

No joke, that's a pitiful, fearful attitude to have –and being British isn't an excuse.
Not only that – but you're here trying to defend your defeatist attitude … talk about funny, mate!





You sir are a fool and a ass.

It is not that simple. Gurillia warfare only works in certain situations.

Usa it may work, uk it wont. Diffrent countrys.

So take you guns and fck off bck to were ever you live in the usa.
As i said before your guns dont seem to be protecting you anyway. I never saw anyone resisting when your police stormed peoples homes without warrents in boston?



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 06:54 AM
link   
I heard about this story via The Young Turks youtube channel.
there is an actual company that makes guns for children, "my first rifle" i think they are called.
Now, i understand the idea of "people will make it if there is a market for it" so i won't complain about the company producing these...but the parents?! how can you think it's appropriate for a child to handle a deadly weapon?
For what, just to take some "cute" pictures of the kid holding the gun like a little soldier?
A child that age should get a nerf gun or a super liquidator not a gun that can actually kill people.
And for what other reason than the amusement of his parents?
I'm sure the kid didn't want to stop bullies from taking his lunch money at school.
The parents should be thrown in jail for life.
horrible parenting that will cause who knows what problems to the poor child growing up.
I'm sure he had no real idea of what he was doing, and just think how horrible it must be to come to the realization that he killed his own sister.
It just blows my mind, how much some people do not deserve to be parents.
just know that ideally this rant would have at least 20 F bombs thrown here and there, that's how angry this story makes me



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by IShotMyLastMuse
 


Well, let me see. The story is about the rifle you looked up. Cricket rifles slogan is "My first rifle", the same gun used in the OP and the same gun that has been gone over by myself and another member more than once in this thread so that people can see the rifle and understand its safety features that were not being used.

Also as I have said I bought one of the rifles. My son age 6 uses said rifle. He only used or handles it if I am there. When he is shooting it I am there with my arms around him. We are out in a very rural area with no chance of harming another person when we are shooting. I am in control and at full attention of the situation.

The gun when not in use is stored in a nonfunctioning manner. It cannot be loaded. and it has its own built in safety lock that is also being used. I actually remove the bolt action of the gun when it is stored. It takes second to activate the lock and pull the bolt.


The fault is parents for sure, but it is the fault of these parents and any like them who store loaded and cocked guns in the corner. Any idiot that does that is breaking every rule of firearms safety. Responsible gun owners do not store their guns in such a fashion and abide by the gun safety rules. The number one rule of thumb is that every gun is handled like it is loaded even if you know it is not. Unless the gun is nonfunctioning (for instance the bolt action removed) it is the best way to be safe.

My son is a great shot, he also knows more about gun safety than many adults and that is proven by this thread. He knows how and when to handle a gun properly. He does not touch the gun without me. Anyone thinking I should not be a parent because I let my son fire a rifle is going to go through me first to get him, and I cannot stress that part enough. The difference between me and those parents is that I act responsibly with firearms were it is obvious they do not.

If you are going to have firearms in your home it is better to get the child used to them and learn about them so that they do not decide it is a good idea to play with them. It should be reinforced that guns are not toys or to be played with. It should also be stressed the importance of the damage they can cause.

Also to make clear something that has already be brought up in the thread multiple time is that this child did not own the gun. I do not care what the parents or the news source said, the child did not own the gun. It is illegal for a child to own the gun because they cannot buy it. You have to be 18 to buy a long rifle/shotgun and 21 to buy a handgun as well as conceal carry (which in most states is a separate thing all its own).

Again before you start attacking all parents for buying such weapons maybe you need to learn about responsible gun owners.


Raist



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Okay, all of that is fine and good. I agree more needs to be done to enforce current laws. I support stronger background checks, but in reality they will not help it other institutions are not doing their job.


I find it uniquely frustrating that after years and years of gutting the ATFs enforcement mechanisms and budget via amendments and bills that specifically LIMIT the ATF enforcing the laws in place ...that the NRA's rhetoric is "enforce the laws we do have!"...

It is a an ugly, dishonest, ironic rhetoric..



So there's no director of the ATF.

So is the ATF like a Montessori agency, where there's no director, but agents are just encouraged to be curious, and regulate weapons at their own pace?

JOHN AVLON, CNN (12/19/2012): The current acting director commutes from Minnesota. He's the U.S. Attorney from Minnesota as well as Acting Director of the ATF.

What?!?

You're telling me this dude, the guy who is the Acting Director of the ATF, has another full-time job. That regulating alcohol, and tobacco, and firearms, is his side gig? He's just moonlighting, pickin' up a little extra dough.

Why?? There's 7.8% unemployment in this country, we could find someone to take that job who doesn't already have another job!

RACHEL MADDOW (6/20/2011): The Senate won't confirm anybody to the full-time job.
The Senate won't confirm anybody? Well, who gives a s*&^? It's the director of the ATF, it's not a Cabinet-level position or a Supreme Court justice. Why is it the Senate's business to even confirm?....
I'm being told the Senate has to confirm the ATF director, because apparently Wisconsin Congressman James Sensenbrenner, for some reason, inserted that provision into the PATRIOT Act in 2006. Sorry, I don't have footage of that, it was apparently done on the Q.T. I do have footage of Sensenbrenner from that very same year accepting the NRA's coveted Defender of Freedom award.


the ATF isn't allowed to inspect dealers for inventory discrepancies more than once a year. And in reality, get to inspect them once every 17 years. 17 years! I'm assuming that's because the ATF doesn't have enough agents, and not that the ATF agents are cicadas.

....

we can't rely on self-reported inventories either, because the ATF cannot require dealers to keep track of their own inventory!

You see, about 10 years ago, a Congressman stuck an amendment into a federal spending bill that severely restricted the ATF's ability to do what the NRA says they want them to do, which is enforce existing gun laws!

It allowed dealers to ignore police requests for assistance.
It denied Congress formerly public crime gun data.
It ended the oversight of used firearm sales.
It required the destruction of background check records within 24 hours, you know, to make sure no mistakes could be corrected!


Who did this? What Congressman jammed this amendment into an unrelated spending bill, completely castrating the ATF's ability to enforce existing gun laws?

PETER JOHNSON, JR. (7/19/2011):
EX-REP. TODD TIAHRT (7/11/2007):

That amendment couldn't be worse if the NRA wrote it themselves. (sound of letter arriving via pneumatic tube) Oh boy.

....

(reads message) The NRA did write that law.


www.dailykos.com...

SO you can see how the whole "enforce existing laws" BS gets a little frustrating....



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 



Also as I have said I bought one of the rifles. My son age 6 uses said rifle.


Erase this post!

They’re coming after you now!

People like us will be vilified!! Well, I’m a conservative, a veteran, a Tea Party member, an Oath Keeper, a supporter of the NRA, etc so I’m already on all the lists…but you may still have time to save yourself!!



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 



The fault is parents for sure, but it is the fault of these parents and any like them who store loaded and cocked guns in the corner. Any idiot that does that is breaking every rule of firearms safety.


Have you seen THIS yet?

Is this really the right time to propose something like this???


NRA convention speaker advises parents to store guns in kids' rooms




edit on 6-5-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Guns themselves, even automatics ones are common in third world countries and they like to shoot them at weddings and other ceremonies.

If you want my honest opinion gun laws are too strict in europe and that is not good.


I think that you are discounting the relationship between non-existent gun laws and the state of being "3rd world".



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Why was the admitted strawbuyer for the guns used at the Columbine massacre NOT charged and tried for the crime?

Who gets the blame for that?

Just saying that a high profile massacre such as that was, should have had someone pay the price for an actual crime that she admitted to doing.
edit on 6-5-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Why was the admitted strawbuyer for the guns used at the Columbine massacre NOT charged and tried for the crime?

Who gets the blame for that?

Just saying that a high profile massacre such as that was, should have had someone pay the price for an actual crime that she admitted to doing.
edit on 6-5-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)


GREAT QUESTION....Maybe ask the NRA?

Why wasn't what she did illegal? She bought the guns at a gun show, cash and carry, one rifle, two shotguns and gave them to her underage boyfriend.

Prosecutors would need to prove that she KNEW what they were going to do...but as far as what she did being illegal? Nope...not in the USA.



Denver Post Staff Writers

April 27 - Three guns used in the massacre at Columbine High School were bought last year by Dylan Klebold's girlfriend shortly after her 18th birthday, investigators said Monday.

The woman was interviewed Monday by authorities, but not named as a suspect.

Though police declined to say where she bought the firearms, the manager of the Tanner Gun Show, a weapons market held nine times a year at the Denver Merchandise Mart, confirmed that the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms on Monday asked for a list of recent exhibitors.

The same gun show was the subject of controversy in June when an exhibitor sold an SKS semiautomatic rifle with a 20-round clip to an undercover congressional staffer for $200 cash. The staffer never was asked for any identification for a background check.

In the case of the Columbine weapons, prosecutors said three of the four guns - the woman bought two shotguns and a rifle - fired in the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history may have been purchased legally.

"We think three of them were provided by the girlfriend of Klebold,'' said Mark Paulter, a Jefferson County chief deputy district attorney. "She bought them because she was older. She was 18 at the time. She bought them in November or December.

"We're not sure she committed a crime under Colorado statute. If you provide a handgun to a person under 18, that's a violation of the statute. If you provide a shotgun or a rifle, that's not a violation.''

extras.denverpost.com...



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 





one rifle, two shotguns and gave them to her underage boyfriend.

Oh, so that is legal?



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join