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

What a trivial thing to go on and on about, everyone fighting amongst each other over firearms ...

Meanwhile, United States work-related deaths top 150 a day. What if it was guns killing 150 people a day (Guns kill 18 people a day) or maybe terrorism killing 150 Americans a day?

Why is it ok that people are literally dieing in droves on US soil to make a pay check just to survive and feed their family and we argue over guns?

What a crazy world we live in ...

Originally posted by Raist
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

They get paid to push a script a certain way. It is biased and full of holes. Smart people stopped watching the news a long time ago or at the very least know its cheap "entertainment". The people who make fun of alex jones don't have a leg to stand on and I am putting it as mildly as I possibly can. Cheap $10 drug addicted, venereal diseased prostitute is closer.

Originally posted by Raist
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.

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.

I brought it up because you said you should be allowed to own anything you want, no questions asked. And yet you are able to find lots of reasons why that's not true with regard to nuclear weapons. So your absolutism is clearly not genuine: you are weighing up the disadvantages of nuclear weapons and pronouncing that I cannot own them. You are infringing my freedom.

As it turns out I agree absolutely with your - in fact the state's - right to do this. And so do you. But don't pretend that you are an absolutist with regard to freedom when you are willing to categorise objects that people should not be allowed to own.

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.

And meanwhile - if forced to choose - you and your family are reliant on public transport to get anywhere.

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. But you can regulate stupid people's access to stuff that will kill them.

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.

But if there are five threats to the kid's life, isn't it better if that is reduced to four? In terms of pure probability, if these people don't have a gun just left by their door then the chance of the kid being hurt gets less. Maybe it isn't extinguished, but it is mathematically reduced.

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.

Nonsense. A ban on guns would almost certainly have stopped it.

Originally posted by Raist
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.

But in most of those examples the laws are actually being rolled back and gun ownership is becoming more possible!

An appetite to control gun ownership more (which a majority of Americans seem to favour) - but which doesn't actually manage to enact any laws - is not the same as an actual program to take away people's guns. And that appetite isn't even that pronounced.

Originally posted by Tazkven
What a trivial thing to go on and on about, everyone fighting amongst each other over firearms ...

Meanwhile, United States work-related deaths top 150 a day. What if it was guns killing 150 people a day (Guns kill 18 people a day) or maybe terrorism killing 150 Americans a day?

Why is it ok that people are literally dieing in droves on US soil to make a pay check just to survive and feed their family and we argue over guns?

What a crazy world we live in ...

That's pretty bad. But how about malaria?

The point is you don't stop discussing something just because there are other concerns out there.

reply to post by JuniorDisco


I didn't mean to imply to stop discussing ... It just blows my mind how passionate people are about the subject of firearms, mostly people getting killed by them and that this thread could go on and on for 34 pages over an accident, percentage wise the amount of children who own guns in Kentucky and kill someone, accidently or otherwise is ridiculously low.

While this thread was going on another accident happened in Kentucky, a father tried to save the life of his two year old son during a fire caused by a failure of an electrical receptacle in the living room. The wife was begging her husband to come out, He told her he wasn't coming out without him and he didn't.

Yet, no threads started, points argued or 34 pages of debate over the faulty receptacles or the father who gave his life trying to save his son.

Also, while this thread was going on 750 people died trying to draw a paycheck to survive and feed their family in the United States. During this time 90 people died from a bullet in the United States. Zero people died from Malaria ...

If the big debate is over people being killed, I believe we are being focused onto the wrong topic is all I am saying ...

reply to post by JuniorDisco


Actually I said

I have it because I can, because I want it that is all that matters.

pertaining to the current conversation of firearms. I was not absolute on that. But to clarify since you have to nit pick I am discussing firearms. That is what I have been trying to discuss the whole thread, yet somehow keep getting side tracked to cars, nukes, and what have you. I am not in a thread about a rifle causing a death to discuss things other than firearms as nothing else is relevant. if you look back all of my discussions were about firearms unless directed otherwise. My claims of I should be able to own it without other people putting their nose in what I have pertains to firearms. And I should be able to own any FIREARM that I wish without someone putting their nose in on it, so long as I pass my background checks.

If a tragedy happened I have land to hunt on. Creeks within walking distance. Fish in those creeks and a pond. In am not reliant on public transport because it does not come out that way. I would be self reliant.

You cannot regulate stupid people from stuff. They are the ones who end up getting things that are illegal now. Look at the drug problems, look at the number for drivers who have lost their license due to DUI and still driving. You cannot regulate stupid people from rope and water, or ladders and everything else that causes them to kill themselves and others. Stupid people will cause death regardless it is a part of life and a part of my freedom I have come to accept. Hell we have stupid people with iPods on and walking into traffic causing accidents, you cannot regulate stupid people from things.

What would have kept these people from owning a gun? What law are you going to put in place and how would you enforce it. A background check did not work because they had a gun and could pass it. What would have stopped it. You keep saying if they did not have a gun, but you are not saying how you would have kept them from getting one that would not infringe on my rights.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
Nonsense. A ban on guns would almost certainly have stopped it.

So in your final statement you are about gun bans after all? I thought you were not for gun bans?

You are starting to sound like a politician. Do you work for someone in DC?

Raist

reply to post by JuniorDisco


Some of them are being rolled back while others are being put in place. Again, if I had the gun before and it was destroyed not being able to replace it because a law says I cannot buy or own it now is taking it from me. If I have to register my guns in a certain time or be a criminal than they are in a sense taking it from me if I am caught with it even though prior to the law I was a legal owner of the weapon. Just like in Illinois, until the law changes anyone living there with guns and not having a FOID card is a felon if caught with the guns.

Like I said, they will limit the type of guns and in the future the remaining will be handed in by free will of a public that has been taught to fear guns.

Raist

reply to post by Tazkven


Just to point out that this is brought on by media, nosey people, and politicians. If they worried less about what guns people have there would not be a debate.

I agree with your points, but I do have to defend my rights as no one else will.

Raist

reply to post by Raist


I know bro, personally I don't own a gun and I even live in Kentucky, I know right?

But I hang out with many who carry and we are all still alive

Generally, I stay away from the gun debate threads, even this one for awhile, although it is my home state which is usually my trigger, I said what I had to say months ago ... It is your right to own and carry legally. All more laws will do is hurt law abiding citizens not the people who do not care about laws.

Carry on!

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

Actually I said

I have it because I can, because I want it that is all that matters.

pertaining to the current conversation of firearms.

So you are allowed stuff you want simply because you want it. But if others want stuff they have to conform to your rules about what they can and can't own?

You cannot regulate stupid people from stuff. They are the ones who end up getting things that are illegal now. Look at the drug problems, look at the number for drivers who have lost their license due to DUI and still driving. You cannot regulate stupid people from rope and water, or ladders and everything else that causes them to kill themselves and others. Stupid people will cause death regardless it is a part of life and a part of my freedom I have come to accept. Hell we have stupid people with iPods on and walking into traffic causing accidents, you cannot regulate stupid people from things.

Are you saying that laws and regulation don't work at all? Perhaps we should just abolish all of them.

You keep coming back to this point, but it's incorrect. You can prevent stupid people from doing things that endanger others by legislation - this is, for example, why drink driving is illegal. It doesn't stop DUI, but it stops some of it.

What would have kept these people from owning a gun? What law are you going to put in place and how would you enforce it. A background check did not work because they had a gun and could pass it. What would have stopped it. You keep saying if they did not have a gun, but you are not saying how you would have kept them from getting one that would not infringe on my rights.

I have repeatedly said how it could be done. If they saw effective penalties for poor firearm storage I believe they would have been far more likely to store their weapon correctly. Note I am not saying this would definitely have averted the tragedy, but it would have significantly reduced its likelihood. And not impinged on your rights.

So in your final statement you are about gun bans after all? I thought you were not for gun bans?

I said a ban on guns would almost certainly have prevented this from happening. That is objectively the case. Nowhere did I say I favoured banning guns.

Put simply, I'm prepared to understand the consequences of my beliefs.

reply to post by Tazkven


Everybody dies at the end. Of course most people die from accidents, their own stupidity, diseases all kinds of causes of death.

The reason why guns get pointed out is because they are weapons, which at the end serve only one purpose - to kill or harm, whether as self-protection or plannedly, whether an animal or a person.

Some people point out cars. In many states, it is actually easier to get hold of a firearm than a car... Getting a car requires driving school, tests, registration etc. At the end the main purpose of car is transportation, nothing more.

Getting a gun should be same. Here any normal person can get a gun, although the background checks, requirements of hardcore safety training of several months,required weapons safes registration are also required.

If somebody wants, anything even a TV, computer or cellphone can be used as a weapon, although gun is a weapon and one of the most efficient ones available for public. There is a difference of "can be used "and "is". Because of the efficiency of a gun, it should be strongly regulated, although not banned.

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

Some of them are being rolled back while others are being put in place. Again, if I had the gun before and it was destroyed not being able to replace it because a law says I cannot buy or own it now is taking it from me.

Agreed. But only a very small handful of guns seem to fall into this category. And high-profile attempts to expand that have notably failed.

If I have to register my guns in a certain time or be a criminal than they are in a sense taking it from me if I am caught with it even though prior to the law I was a legal owner of the weapon.

That's a big stretch. Nothing is forcing you to give up the weapon. No one is coming to your house and taking it away. It's just an alteration to paperwork. Did cars become illegal when drivers licenses came in? No.

Just like in Illinois, until the law changes anyone living there with guns and not having a FOID card is a felon if caught with the guns.

But they are changing the law to make it easier to own guns! Its the exact opposite of what you are claiming is happening.

Like I said, they will limit the type of guns and in the future the remaining will be handed in by free will of a public that has been taught to fear guns.

I very much doubt it. But it's possible, I suppose.

reply to post by Tazkven


Fair enough, there's obviously a massive issue with health and safety in the US workplace that I didn't know about, so thanks for enlightening me.

I think the reason people are emotive about guns is because of the reasons I pointed to earlier - they don't see their utility and therefore any death caused by them is a waste. Also those deaths tend to be terrifyingly violent, sadistic and pointless. They have a sort of negative aesthetic currency, if you see what I mean.

I think guns are useful and one should be able to buy them. But I don't think the widespread ownership culture you seem to have in the US is working.

For those thinking that banning guns automatically stops them from being used in crimes, consider this statistic from the U.K. (where guns have been banned for ages).

Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months to last April, up from 7,362.

And, if you consider that about 3% of homicides in the UK were due to guns, it just proves that gun laws or no, if someone wants to kill somebody, they WILL find a way, regardless of the legality of firearms...

Originally posted by Gazrok
For those thinking that banning guns automatically stops them from being used in crimes,

I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that. It would be pretty stupid. What most people are suggesting - in the context of this thread anyway - is that some form of control of gun ownership, or at least weightier strictures on storage and use, might be beneficial.

consider this statistic from the U.K. (where guns have been banned for ages).

Incorrect. Or inaccurate, anyway. I own guns and am in the UK.

Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months to last April, up from 7,362.

And, if you consider that about 3% of homicides in the UK were due to guns, it just proves that gun laws or no, if someone wants to kill somebody, they WILL find a way, regardless of the legality of firearms...

Except that the murder rate is still around a quarter that of the US. So it's not like the shortfall is being made up with other weapons.

You are left with the conclusion that either wide availability of guns makes murder more probable, in which case reducing gun ownership in america is a good thing, or that Americans really like killing each other. In which case reducing gun ownership in america is a good thing.

reply to post by JuniorDisco


Again I am speaking of firearms. Follow with me please. I want to discuss firearms as this is what the thread is about. It is not about cars, nukes or other possessions.

As for firearms I think people should be allowed any firearms they can afford, no restrictions. As is we can get fully automatic firearms but they are costly and with a lot more paperwork and background checks. I agree with this, I cannot afford one so I will not buy one. If I could afford one and for some strange reason wanted one than I would get one. I do not think fully automatic firearms are worth the money spent on them, that does not mean that I think people should not have them.

Where did I say anything about people should only get things I want? I said I want to discuss firearms, if we cannot do that we should stop now. As is we have pretty much each said all that can be said and we are just repeating our selves.


No laws do not work. People still murder do they not? People still use and sell drugs do they not? We have laws in place not to keep people from doing things (because laws will not stop people). We have laws to punish people for doing things wrong.

How are you going to enforce how people store their weapons? You think I would allow someone in my house to "check that out"? It is not legal to just enter someone's home without a warrant unless certain circumstances allow. Many places do not have registration either which is great, there should never be registration. How would you know they had a weapon to begin with without that?

Your laws fail before they get off the ground for those reasons alone. If you try to force those laws you contradict the Constitution.


What are the consequences of your beliefs? Or should I say what do you believe they are?

Raist

reply to post by JuniorDisco


No some of those laws claim over 100 types of firearms. They also include folding stocks, high capacity magazines, and other "scary" stuff. It is ridiculous the stuff they want to ban.

I said that I would have to register by a certain time if not I am a felon. This is the truth and they will take the firearm if you have it with you and are pulled over and they discover it. You will be in jail because you did not register it by that time. This is the same as those who live in Illinois and do not get a FOID card. They are instantly a felon if they are caught with guns they legally owned before moving there. In fact I know someone who has been waiting for well over three times the amount of time for their stupid FOID card than they should have to wait. They were to have gotten it in 30 days and it has now been over 90. Until they get their card they are a felon if caught. This person bought their weapons legally when they lived in Missouri.

No they are changing the law making it easier to carry a gun, not own one. They will still need the FOID card. However, they will likely be allowed to have some form of conceal and carry very soon, as well as possible open carry.



Raist

reply to post by JuniorDisco


BTW here is an example of making a lawful person a criminal with these stupid laws.

www.thetruthaboutguns.com...

An upstate man was arrested under the state’s new gun law when troopers found him with a legally registered pistol that had a magazine that held nine bullets – two more than the new statute allows

Yep nothing wrong with those laws at all

Raist

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

Again I am speaking of firearms. Follow with me please. I want to discuss firearms as this is what the thread is about. It is not about cars, nukes or other possessions.

One of the reasons you gave for thinking you should be allowed firearms was that it is not the business of others or the government to tell you what you can own. So I explored how committed you were to this notion of freedom of choice,and the answer is apparently: not very.

That's fine. But stop getting annoyed about people who don't ant you to have firearms impinging upon your 'freedom'. You don't support their right to own whatever they like, so why should they support yours?

Where did I say anything about people should only get things I want? I said I want to discuss firearms, if we cannot do that we should stop now. As is we have pretty much each said all that can be said and we are just repeating our selves.

You opened the debate into a general discussion about ownership as a right, not me. I just pointed out that you, like a lot of gun advocates, don't actually believe that. You merely pretend to.

No laws do not work. People still murder do they not? People still use and sell drugs do they not? We have laws in place not to keep people from doing things (because laws will not stop people). We have laws to punish people for doing things wrong.

Are you saying that if murder was legal there would be the same number of murders? That's ridiculous. Laws clearly work to reduce behaviour of a certain kind. So do fines.

Put it this way, if the speed limit was suddenly 40mph and there was a big fine, well enforced, forbreaking it, would you alter the way you drive? Most people would.