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

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


None of those articles suggest that prison doesn't deter at all. And of course it deters in the most obvious way - that it is impossible to commit a crime while you are there.

If you are in prison for ten years for armed robbery, say, by definition it is almost impossible to commit that crime during those ten years. Likewise a hefty fine that has a chance of being enforced almost certainly deters.

Which is why you're doing your best not to answer my question about whether you would flout a law that you knew had a decent chance of landing you with a large fine. I suspect you would not. Most people do not. And the odd example of someone who does is not proof that the law and penalty are useless.

reply to post by JuniorDisco


So then lets lock everyone up for life. Cant commit a crime if you're in jail, right? Except for all that killing, assaulting, raping and drug use that goes on in prison anyway. But at least they arent doing those things on the outside, right?

As far as would I or have I that's easy: I have, I do and I will. Most people in fact do. Between seatbelts, speed limits, eating behind the wheel, online copyright infringements, trespassing, there isnt a single one of us who hasnt commit some crime punishable by at least a fine.[

I recall some years ago in a classroom of dullards the question was asked "why is killing wrong?" and some moron actually answered "because it's against the law." That moron has since been locked up. Obviously there was no deterrent for him and given his moronic answer he apparently lacked some key empathetic understanding on the value of life.

If there are children in my home my gun is unloaded and locked up not because I'm afraid of getting a ticket but because I'm not a dullard who cannot recognize danger. If I were such a dullard the likelihood is very high that the threat of a ticket would prove equally useless to guide my behavior.

The thing I do not understand...is how anyone can give a child a gun?

When all you have to do is go to YouTube or Porn sites to see how responsible children can be. You got all the videos of kids doing stupid crap on YouTube....got teen flashing themselves and other crap on porn sites.

These are the people you want to have guns? I know there will be people saying, well not my child...but doesn't every parent say that until something stupid is done?

reply to post by kerazeesicko


Children lack "Executive Function"...Impulse control...the Frontotemporal lobe...It's a physical fact......and doesn't really even start to develop until 15/16 and doesn't fully develop until our 20's.

Giving children guns is stupid.

Originally posted by Raist
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

And that is certainly something that should be addressed. If someone is capable of passing NICS background checks and is of good mental health, gets some NRA training and a certificate to prove competancy then they should be able to buy automatic weapons.

Didn't the first assault weapons ban expire and thats why they wanted a second more strong one? People could only transfer used ones in the second hand market thus the supply side of the market was choked and prices were sky high.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
Are you suggesting we limit cars to statutory speed limits?

I'm wondering where the consistent reasoning is.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

I think it's safe to say that the legality of guns kills more kids than it saves. But anyway, all I'm asking is that those who advocate wide gun ownership acknowledge that their choice means some children will die unnecessarily.

Many are unwilling to do this, even with other objects. Look how worried Butcherguy became above when I brought home this truth to him, and how defensive he became. It's not everyone's idea of a good time, the truth, but it remains impossible to refute.

we get into automobiles knowing full well the risk we take on the way to buy soda pop. talk about unnecessary deaths

reply to post by JuniorDisco


I would chose a gun. If push comes to shove I could feed myself. With a car I cannot.

Walking never hurt anyone. I walk miles a lot when I am out collecting fossils, it is not a big deal.

Raist

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

So then lets lock everyone up for life. Cant commit a crime if you're in jail, right? Except for all that killing, assaulting, raping and drug use that goes on in prison anyway. But at least they arent doing those things on the outside, right?

Well, yes!

But no, obviously I don't mean lock everyone up for life. There's no need to exaggerate what I'm saying. My point is that prison, fines etc do deter people from committing crimes when properly applied.

As far as would I or have I that's easy: I have, I do and I will. Most people in fact do. Between seatbelts, speed limits, eating behind the wheel, online copyright infringements, trespassing, there isnt a single one of us who hasnt commit some crime punishable by at least a fine.

Look, I've already pointed out that people obviously flout laws all the time. But are you really saying that if there was no penalty whatsoever for lawbreaking there would be the same amount of crime?

I recall some years ago in a classroom of dullards the question was asked "why is killing wrong?" and some moron actually answered "because it's against the law." That moron has since been locked up. Obviously there was no deterrent for him and given his moronic answer he apparently lacked some key empathetic understanding on the value of life.

I'm not ignoring the moral element to law breaking. But if you think morality is enough to keep people from doing bad stuff then you need your head checked.

If there are children in my home my gun is unloaded and locked up not because I'm afraid of getting a ticket but because I'm not a dullard who cannot recognize danger. If I were such a dullard the likelihood is very high that the threat of a ticket would prove equally useless to guide my behavior.

edit on 7-5-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)

I disagree. People miscalculate the consequences of their actions all the time. The parents in this news story did, tragically. What they don't tend to do is continually break the law if there's a good chance they will be fined or imprisoned for it. That's not true of absolutely everybody, sure, but it is true of most people.

If there was no speed limit would you speed more or less? In Germany on the autobahn there is no limit and people speed more. It's pretty simple.

And you still ignored my question, I note.

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

I would chose a gun. If push comes to shove I could feed myself. With a car I cannot.

Walking never hurt anyone. I walk miles a lot when I am out collecting fossils, it is not a big deal.

Raist

You would be in a minority, I suggest. Which is presumably why you declined to discuss the other part of the question.

Did you buy your gun before your car? If you lost both would you replace the gun first? Perhaps so - although I frankly doubt it. But the fact remains that for most people a car is, under current circumstances, an almost indispensable part of life. A gun is not.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

I'm wondering where the consistent reasoning is.

Whose reasoning?

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

we get into automobiles knowing full well the risk we take on the way to buy soda pop. talk about unnecessary deaths

I'm talking about the wider issue of car ownership in society. We accept the deaths and injuries of innocents and others because of the utility of cars. Gun owners often seem unwilling to accept that their advocacy of wide firearm ownership will also result in deaths like the one of the child in the news story.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco


You would be in a minority, I suggest. Which is presumably why you declined to discuss the other part of the question.

Did you buy your gun before your car? If you lost both would you replace the gun first? Perhaps so - although I frankly doubt it. But the fact remains that for most people a car is, under current circumstances, an almost indispensable part of life. A gun is not.

I suppose I would, why is that an issue?

I grew up with guns, I handled guns before I drove a car. I have cars now. I have guns now, what does it matter. You are not accepting that a car cannot help to feed my family while a gun can.

As for why I did not bother to answer the other part of the question it is because I do not care. See unlike you I do not care what you want or do as long as it does not affect me. My guns do not affect you so why do you care if I want a gun or not? Why do you care if I would rather have a gun than a car and what does that have to do with this story?


I car does a job. A gun also does a job. A gun once again can feed my family if I am for some reason found to be without a job. A car cannot. Sure a car can get me from place to place but I cannot take it out and kill food to feed my family.

So what is it with all the pointless questions? I wish to own firearms. Why is that an issue? I wish to teach my son responsible firearms safety. Why is that an issue? The story is about some stupid piece of crap parents who did not care about their kids enough to store a firearm correctly let alone keep an eye on their kids. Who gives a crap whether people would chose a car over a gun? Our society has both, so what is the point of the question?

Raist

reply to post by crazyewok


I am not sure there will be a civil war. The government and media (their mouth piece pawns) seem to make people believe guns are bad. I suspect that by the time I have great grandkids there will be very few firearms in the U.S. Not because the government took them mind you but because they will have convinced the public that they are bad and they are doing a public service to turn them in.

I openly say that in the future the people will willingly hand over guns. There will be no need for the government to confiscate them.

Raist

I have no problem with background checks as I said. I also have no problem with not letting them into the hands of the mentally ill. The bad part is this. Who is to say who is mentally ill and what makes them that?


If you get pulled over they run enough of a check on you that they would be able to tell if you should own a gun or not. They know if you are a felon if they are coming to visit you or pull you over. Felons cannot own a gun. And yes I do not want registration or records kept of my purchase because of confiscation. Though honestly I do not think that the near future hold confiscation at hand (aside from a few states or cities). I think in the future people will willingly hand over their guns and give up their second amendment rights.

They already could lose them and be placed in jail if the laws work as they are currently written. Letting someone of a young age run around with a gun they can get into trouble for child endangerment and neglect. What more laws do you need? They can go to jail for those. If they go to jail for those they are at risk of losing their guns depending on the judges rulings.

No I am not for big government. I am for the Constitution. I find many of the state laws that ban certain firearms to be infringing on Constitutional rights. It has nothing to do with big government it has to do with the Constitution. As I said the residents of Illinois cannot keep or transport firearms without a FOID card. As an out of state driver I have to pull over and unload my gun and place it with an empty magazine in the rear of my car. I cannot carry concealed there as I can in almost every other state because Illinois does not recognize my Missouri CCW. I have had hunter safety firearms training as a kid. I have had the CCW training as an adult. I think more people should get as much firearms training as they can. They do not need to own or carry a gun, just take the training so they know what they are talking about and dealing with. I see a lot of stupid arguments on here and watching politicians when it comes to guns. If you have no idea what you are talking about you should not be opposing others from owning it (not saying you are BTW this is just an in general sort of thing).

Here is an interesting read BTW.
www.bbc.co.uk...

The federal Bureau of Justice Statistics said firearms-related homicides had dropped to 11,101 in 2011 from 18,253 - a reduction of 39%.

Meanwhile, the Pew Research Center found gun homicides fell to 3.6 per 100,000 people in 2010 from 7 in 1993.

The reason people think gun violence has increased is because the media and politicians pick up on every story and run it into the ground. It is their agenda. If they ran stories about every car crash, or knifing, or child drowning in a swimming pool or what ever like that people would be looking to ban all sorts of things.

Raist

reply to post by Raist


I could make a pretty good case for no gun laws but it would be beyond what 99% are capable of comprehending so I choose to keep my opinions as mainstream as possible. Just saying! In the meantime SOME gun laws are necessary.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I agree, it seems a lot of people on ATS, on other boards, much of the media, and politicians would rather critique something they know little or nothing about. I would have no problem with listening to their arguments if they had even the slightest of clues. It would be like me trying to argue the aspects of flight or the details of clouds. I do not know enough about them to make a reasonable argument.


Raist

reply to post by Raist


That's quite a rant.

I'm just making the point that for most of society a gun is of more immediate use than a car. And as such when deciding about how much society is willing to put up with to continue using them, cars will get a bigger pass. The likelihood of you being unable to feed your family except with a gun is remote.

Note that - not for the first time - you've made the assumption that I am against gun ownership. I am not. Why are you guys always so quick to jump to conclusions about this?

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
reply to post by Raist

 

That's quite a rant.

I'm just making the point that for most of society a gun is of more immediate use than a car. And as such when deciding about how much society is willing to put up with to continue using them, cars will get a bigger pass. The likelihood of you being unable to feed your family except with a gun is remote.

Note that - not for the first time - you've made the assumption that I am against gun ownership. I am not. Why are you guys always so quick to jump to conclusions about this?

A rant perhaps, I do get a bit ruffled when anyone questions my rights.

I was not pointing you out saying you were a gun grabber in the last reply, not certain I did before either. Regardless there are reasons people on here assume that or may be seen to insinuate that. Look at our politicians, they always start of with "why do you need that, this is better" sort of stuff and then work to cut away at our rights. Even our fantastic POTUS said "I do not want to take your guns", but then turns around and him and his crew try to get bans and crazy legislation to go through.

Yep my trust for anyone questioning my rights has left the building long ago. If they are questioning why I need something or what I would rather have I just do not trust them. I have it because I can, because I want it that is all that matters.

You say my needing a gun to feed my family is remote, but look at the economy. Sure I might have a job that is comfortable, that I feel is somewhat safe, but that is no guarantee. A lot of people work there, if I went back tomorrow (actually on vacation now so that is not happening ) and the doors were shut the job market would be flooded. Finding a job would be hard. If I can hunt to feed my family I am not depending on having all my eggs in one basket. I have made the mistake of having all my eggs in one basket early on. I will not do that again.

While my posts might seem a bit rantish to you, they are not meant to be that way. They are meant to express why I feel so strongly about this and all my rights. To be honest I feel as though I had more freedom when I was younger. Of course I had freedom (what my parents allowed) as a child but as a young adult I felt more free than now. Now I constantly feel I have to defend my rights from people. No one has should be concerned with what I have or what I want and why. As long as I am not hurting anyone I should be left alone.

This is the kind of stuff that pisses me off (admittedly he should have stayed off social media with the photo, but to be honest he should not have to).

www.theblaze.com...

The young man in the photo is the 11-yr-old son of Shawn Moore. The gun is a .22 rifle, a copy of the AR-15, but a 22 caliber. The photo was posted on Facebook by a proud father. That Facebook posting apparently triggered an anonymous call to New Jersey’s Department of Youth and Family Services (DYFS). On Friday night, March 15th, two representatives from the state’s social services office (along with four local police officers) came to the Moore home and demanded to see the family’s firearms.

That is why I do not do the social media craziness (aside from ATS or a few forums).

Not trying to rant just showing my passion for my rights. Not many show passion for their rights any more, most willingly hand their rights over it seems.

Raist

Originally posted by Raist

A rant perhaps, I do get a bit ruffled when anyone questions my rights.

I was not pointing you out saying you were a gun grabber in the last reply, not certain I did before either.

Fair enough, I didn't make it clear - I meant that others have done, not you. Apologies.

Regardless there are reasons people on here assume that or may be seen to insinuate that. Look at our politicians, they always start of with "why do you need that, this is better" sort of stuff and then work to cut away at our rights. Even our fantastic POTUS said "I do not want to take your guns", but then turns around and him and his crew try to get bans and crazy legislation to go through.

But they haven't tried to take away guns, really, have they? They have suggested some limits to ownership.

I absolutely agree with your point about politicians tending to curb freedoms, and its healthy to have a knee-jerk distrust of that, but I don't see any great appetite in the US to "grab" all the guns. In fact as I see it a majority of Americans want more severe gun control than they're getting.

Yep my trust for anyone questioning my rights has left the building long ago. If they are questioning why I need something or what I would rather have I just do not trust them. I have it because I can, because I want it that is all that matters.

But it's more complicated than that. If you are allowed anything you want, then why can't anyone who fancies it buy a nuclear weapon? It's not an absurd question - if your tenet is as above then you have no business telling me I can't own smallpox virus or child porn. But surely we can agree that an absolutely open market for everything based on desire is not, well, desirable? Because there are nasty people out there, and also idiots.

As such we have to weigh items by their utility against their risks. We accept dead people on the roads because we really need cars. We accept dead kids in schools because we need guns. People get scared when you point this out - look at butcherguy's answers to me above - but it remains true.

At some point items' utility is outstripped by their risks or downsides. I would argue that smallpox virus would fall in that category, wouldn't you? Others think guns do, and when you have situations like Sandy Hook and others I can at least sympathise with their POV.

You say my needing a gun to feed my family is remote, but look at the economy. Sure I might have a job that is comfortable, that I feel is somewhat safe, but that is no guarantee. A lot of people work there, if I went back tomorrow (actually on vacation now so that is not happening

) and the doors were shut the job market would be flooded. Finding a job would be hard. If I can hunt to feed my family I am not depending on having all my eggs in one basket. I have made the mistake of having all my eggs in one basket early on. I will not do that again.

It was just a thought experiment. You are quite unusual I think in favouring your gun over your car. Most wouldn't, because to them a car is more useful, that's all I was trying to show.

While my posts might seem a bit rantish to you, they are not meant to be that way. They are meant to express why I feel so strongly about this and all my rights. To be honest I feel as though I had more freedom when I was younger. Of course I had freedom (what my parents allowed) as a child but as a young adult I felt more free than now. Now I constantly feel I have to defend my rights from people. No one has should be concerned with what I have or what I want and why. As long as I am not hurting anyone I should be left alone.

I completely agree. The problem is that your freedom comes at a price - the price of people not as responsible as yourself misusing weapons and so on. If you are prepared for kids to be shot in the manner above to continue your freedom then that's fine. It will continue to happen as long as ownership is as widespread as it is. The idiots aren't going to disappear. So as long as you are honest about it I have no problem with that. Personally though I think there's a third way which makes it less likely for fools to get guns, while not hugely impinging upon the rights of people like you.

reply to post by JuniorDisco


Actually yes they are taking our guns. Not in the literal sense of coming to your house to take them but in the sense that you cannot buy them. Natural disaster and other forms of tragedy happen that destroy homes and cars. If you lose a firearm in such a case you cannot replace it. If it happens to be stolen you will not see it again even if the police see it.

Here are several examples of how they are taking our guns in the sense of not being able to buy them.

www.nytimes.com...

Not a single gun shop can be found in this city because they are outlawed. Handguns were banned in Chicago for decades, too, until 2010, when the United States Supreme Court ruled that was going too far, leading city leaders to settle for restrictions some describe as the closest they could get legally to a ban without a ban. Despite a continuing legal fight, Illinois remains the only state in the nation with no provision to let private citizens carry guns in public.
And yet Chicago, a city with no civilian gun ranges and bans on both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, finds itself laboring to stem a flood of gun violence that contributed to more than 500 homicides last year and at least 40 killings already in 2013, including a fatal shooting of a 15-year-old girl on Tuesday.

en.wikipedia.org...

Illinois does not issue licenses for the concealed carry of firearms, nor does it recognize licenses issued by other states. Illinois is the only state that does not allow concealed carry in some form. Open carry is also prohibited in most areas. When a firearm is being transported, it must be unloaded and enclosed in a case. On December 11, 2012, these blanket restrictions were struck down as unconstitutional by a federal appeals court, which gave the state 180 days to change its laws.

www.cnn.com...

The new law bans some weapons as well as the sale or purchase of high-capacity magazines like those used in the Newtown shooting in December that left 20 children and six adults dead.

www.npr.org...

Ebong Udoma of NPR member station WSHU in Fairfield, Conn., tells our Newscast Desk that the bill "includes an expansion of Connecticut's assault weapon ban, background checks for all gun and ammunition sales, a new registry of existing high capacity magazines and a ban on the sale of magazines holding more than 10 bullets, starting next year."

en.wikipedia.org...

After the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in December 2012 (where 20 children and 8 adults including the perpetrator were killed), Connecticut passed gun laws that made it amongst the most restrictive in the country.

www.guardian.co.uk...

Key measures of New York's tough new gun law took effect on Monday, with owners of guns now reclassified as assault weapons required to register the firearms and new limits on the number of bullets allowed in magazines.

From the same article, here is another way they "take" them. Either you register or sell them or you are a criminal.

State Police planned to post forms on their website for registration starting Monday. Owners of those guns, now banned from in-state sales, are required within a year to register them. Alternatively, they can legally sell them to a licensed dealer or out of state by next January 15.

www.nytimes.com...

In Colorado, a state of hunters and sportsmen, the Democrats who control state government acted last month not only to expand background checks for gun sales, but also to ban the kind of high-capacity magazines that gunmen have used in recent mass shootings in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., and Tucson.

The president is trying hard to get his people to sign stuff. This one failed but it will not be the last.

A federal assault weapons ban — which the president called for again this week at an emotional rally in Connecticut

As for them coming to take all the guns, that will not happen especially in my life time. I think though that by the time my great grandkids (if I have any) are adults the public will willingly hand in guns. They will do this because the demonization of guns has started to sink into society. So many are afraid of guns (for no reason) that they seem to quiver at the sight of one. No in the future you will be doing your country a honor to turn in your guns (thankfully I will be long dead by then).


Cont.......

reply to post by Raist


Sigh....every time the gun debate is brought up both cars and nukes are also. Neither is what the debate is about. However, to humor you I will answer it.

First nukes when detonated affect anyone and anything around them regardless of it being aimed at or not. With a gun you can only (in theory you can have a pass through shot) hit one target at a time. With a nuke you are going to affect anyone and anything within your target area. They cannot be compared.

Second nukes are expensive. So chances of someone getting one it slim to none.

Third we already have laws against creating explosions without the proper paperwork involved, in which case a nuke would never fly because of issue number one. However, since I just brought up bombs I see no reason why someone should not be able to blow stuff up on their own property if that is what makes them happy so long as they are not hurting others (this is where common sense comes into play).

Fourth nukes require a great deal of care to keep them up without hurting the owner, were as a firearm can just sit in a room collecting dust forever without risk of harm to people around it. Nukes can leak and hurt people, a firearm will not do anything without interaction from a person.

Nukes have no place in the argument, they are not anything like a firearm. Learning a bit more about guns might help people to understand this. Guns will sit (and if conditions are right rust and decay away), nukes will decay and leak and hurt people and the environment.


Well if a natural disaster comes and people cannot get around in their cars and have no means of feeding their families I guess they are screwed. I on the other hand have guns and have the possibility to feed my family.



As for your final thought it would never happen in my home. Like I said many times I have the same rifle. It is stored with the lock on and the bolt action out. The key rests on my key ring which is with me. No amount of anything will make that gun work without me.

No amount of laws will keep fools, idiots, and stupid people from killing each other or themselves. Have you ever watch "worlds dumbest"? You see stupid people doing things on there all the time. You cannot regulate stupid. No amount of laws will have stopped some tragedy from happening in that family. If it had not been a gun it would have been drowning in a pool, falling off a trampoline, getting into the car and backing over them or the kid starting the car and wrecking it.
As much as I hate these shows I seen this pop up in discussion before.


These people did not care enough or have sense enough to watch their kids. If they did they would not have left a loaded and cocked rifle sitting in the corner of their kids room. I do not believe for one second the kid cocked the gun. The firing pin spring has too much tension for that. These parents are to blame and no laws would have stopped this.

We can have background checks that is fine. I would like to see a lot more preemptive mental help though before anything. People should not be getting as bad as they are to start with. We need to be offering help and remove stigmatism from such help. As for who is mentally ill and cannot own a firearm, who is to decide this? Sure some are obvious, but others slip through until the last minute. Instead of any new gun laws we need to enforce what we have and work more on fixing the mental health of the country.

Raist