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: 6
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jrod
This is tragic, but accidents happen like this happen.


Why do you say "accident"? He BOUGHT a rifle *for* the kid. The rest is adding 1+1 together, whether there was a shell lying around by mistake etc. is almost irrelevant.




posted on May, 1 2013 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by crazyewok
 



Well being that 99% of the population cannot afford one I guess it does not matter.

You just completely missed the point with your fear of firearms. I did not say anything about who should own one did I? I did say there should be training, with training comes education. If you cannot pass basic common sense (i.e. following the said rules above) you should most likely not own a firearm.

Your argument claims you are not saying ban them but you turn around and compare them to weapons of mass destruction. The argument is a fallacy. I do not care about nuclear weapons and that is not what this thread is about. Now if you have a logical argument comparing apples to apples then we can proceed. If you wish to compare nuclear weapons though to firearms you might as well find someone else to try and argue with. They are not the same and should not be placed on the same level. Further more a nuclear weapon does not even have the same rules applied to it as a firearm because bombs are not firearms.

Raist



Think you missed the point of my point. It doesnt matter anyway.

But I agree with you the fact that training and classes would be a good idea.
edit on 1-5-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Cabin
 



You lose your driver´s licences after being caught under influence while driving. In many states you are still able to own a gun...


I live in the commonwealth state called Pennsylvania!!!! Believe it or not, if you get a DUI, you end up on probation, which also means you are NOT ALLOWED to own a weapon!!!!!

See the agenda????



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by retirednature
 


The same law applies here basically, which is why I do not have loaded firearms around my son.

The one in the story though was basically a parent asking for this to happen. The rifle in question is a single shot bolt action with a locking mechanism that keeps the gun from doing anything but being used as a club unless it is unlocked. Secondly the firing pin has to be pulled back and in my opinion would be to difficult for a five year old to pull back and set on his own.

This story tells me the parent loaded the firearm and cocked it while not setting the safety device (which should not be relied on anyway). It tells me the parent was being extremely negligent in not locking the firearm and allowing their child to handle it unsupervised. It tells me these parents should be prosecuted for negligence and endangerment of a child X2.

Raist



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Ok I have been searching for some real statistics and this is the best I could do.......
www.thetruthaboutguns.com...


Have at it if you will, remember this boy died from an accident not murder.
I hope this adds to the thread.
Regards, iwinder



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iwinder

Originally posted by retirednature
This is in response to every individual who starred responses or made the responses suggesting that there is nothing criminal about leaving a loaded weapon around children.




Firearms retailers are required to provide every buyer with a written warning stating, "If you leave a loaded firearm within the reach or easy access of a child, you may be fined or imprisoned or both if the child improperly discharges, possesses or exhibits the firearm." Statute 175.37


en.wikipedia.org...

I live in Wisconsin, so yes.. this is the law of my land. Also, I'd suggest checking to see if you have similar laws in your states.



I take it you live on a cheese farm or in a Condominium with your every whim looked after?

Laws are all good and fine until you realize that they were not made to help us but to control us indeed........I see lots of posters here playing the child angle but yet ignore the fact that thousands of children die every year in car accidents but only a few hundred at most die due to gun accidents.

Regards, iwinder


So? Only a few hundred die so what? Negligence is still negligence.

It not about control it about punishing neglect of simple safety precaution! . Throwing these idiotic parents behind bars wont impact the 99.9% of responsible gun owners,

If someone knowly got behind the wheel of a car without brakes would you not demand that person to be punished? It should be the same with leaving a LOADED gun in a place where a child can use it.

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



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 

Yes it would be quite normal to have firearms on a farm and ready to go......you should get out of your condo more often.
Regards, iwinder



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


What point is it you were trying to make?

Nuclear weapons do not have the same set of rules.
1. Always Keep The Muzzle Pointed In A Safe Direction (nuclear weapons do not have a muzzle)

2. Firearms Should Be Unloaded When Not Actually In Use (I assume a warhead can be unloaded from a rocket but aside from that I do not believe a nuclear weapon can be unloaded)

3. Don't Rely On Your Gun's "Safety" (do they even have a safety?)

4. Be Sure Of Your Target And What's Beyond It (well I guess this could apply, however anything around what you aim at is also going to be destroyed so it a way it does not matter)

5. Use Correct Ammunition (they do not use ammunition)

6. If Your Gun Fails To Fire When The Trigger Is Pulled, Handle With Care! (They do not have a trigger to pull)

7. Always Wear Eye And Ear Protection When Shooting (I guess this could apply but only in the area of launching a rocket, other than that if you are near enough to one you will die)

8. Be Sure The Barrel Is Clear Of Obstructions Before Shooting (nuclear weapons do not have a barrel)

9. Don't Alter Or Modify Your Gun, And Have Guns Serviced Regularly (I guess in a way this could be a rule not entirely sure about how they are put together though)

10. Learn The Mechanical And Handling Characteristics Of The Firearm You Are Using (okay this would be a good thing to know when using a nuclear weapon I guess)

Overall I would only apply one of those rules to a nuclear weapon and that is the last one.

Otherwise....

Originally posted by crazyewok
Im not saying ban gun but you can use the same argumnet for nuclear weapons.

They dont have a will ect ect ect so why dont allow everyone to have a nuke?


.... no your argument is flawed. Compare something that is affordable and attainable to the public. You can get fully automatic weapons but they require a lot of paperwork, background checks, and additional taxes, which is why only a certain few get them. Besides the fact that fully auto is not at all accurate if you just pull the trigger. There is a thing called recoil that will have the muzzle dancing around.

Raist
edit on 5/1/13 by Raist because: Spaced rules for readablitiy



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by flexy123
 


Read this post.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It is not because he bought a rifle for a kid. It happened because he was a negligent sack of flesh that allowed his child to handle a firearm unsupervised. Not only that but he failed to have the firearm secured as I describe in that post.

The firearm if secured properly is only useable as a club at best. Even then if it is secured the child should not have been playing with it unsupervised because 1. it is not a toy and 2. you do not let kids handle guns without a parent there.



Raist



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   
If the girl had been armed with an automatic assault rifle she might have been able to defend herself



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by seeker1963
 


I agree about responsibility. But do you think guns should be as well-regulated as cars? Testing, licenses, registration, a minimum age for ownership and operation and mandatory insurance? If you're comparing them, perhaps we should have similar requirements for gun owners...

Thoughts?



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by seeker1963
 


I agree about responsibility. But do you think guns should be as well-regulated as cars? Testing, licenses, registration, a minimum age for ownership and operation and mandatory insurance? If you're comparing them, perhaps we should have similar requirements for gun owners...

Thoughts?

Sorry I know it was not directed at me. I just wanted to give my view on it.


I would agree to testing. I think there should be training involved. I took the hunter safety course at the age of 8-9 and my wife and I have went through the course for conceal carry. You have to be 18 to buy a long rifle/shotgun, and 21 to buy a hand gun.

I would not agree to registration though and I am thankful I live in a state that does not require it. As for insurance that would be the same as registration. I am not breaking laws, but at the same time I do not want anyone knowing what I have. That is my business and mine alone. As long as I am not breaking laws I see no reason for it to be anyone's business.

Raist



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



I agree about responsibility. But do you think guns should be as well-regulated as cars? Testing, licenses, registration, a minimum age for ownership and operation and mandatory insurance? If you're comparing them, perhaps we should have similar requirements for gun owners...

Thoughts?


Okay, star for your reasonable response!

Here is where I am getting at.........

The gun agenda is a given, right? Blame the guns......

Well, when you look at cars and the fact that those whom drive "irresponsibly" whether they are drunk or just idiots whom drive dangerously, does anyone say that because of those people whom drive cars irresponsible it should mean that those whom DO DRIVE responsibly should lose their privilege because of the irresponsible ones?

That is my point I want to make to those of you whom look at guns as being evil and bad! Can you not see the comparison between the two?

The bottom line is that the Constitution grants us rights. Sure, we will ALWAYS have people whom are irresponsible and can't do the right thing, but is it right to criminalize those whom are responsible??

That's my point, and that is all I am trying to say.....



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   
And our sick, gun-worshiping culture claims the life of another innocent child.



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by seeker1963
 


I agree about responsibility. But do you think guns should be as well-regulated as cars? Testing, licenses, registration, a minimum age for ownership and operation and mandatory insurance? If you're comparing them, perhaps we should have similar requirements for gun owners...

Thoughts?


More people die from cars even with all that regulation.

When it comes to government nothing is "well regulated", and that can be taken to any fiat currency bank.



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by crazyewok

Originally posted by g146541
What a horrible thing that has happened.
I would bet that alot more children were lost today due to hospital acquired infections.
But why do we NEVER hear about those.
Or cps failures where parents neglect or beat their children to death, yet they go after parents under the guise of neglect when these same parents take their child to TWO seperate doctors in one day.
Why do we hear of one tragedy all of the time but not the other much more numerous tragedies that are TOTALLY preventable??
Oh that's right, someone ...or someones has an agenda.


This was a completely preventable death! The parents should have the full force of the law thrown at them publicly.

Have your Guns fine, but bloody well make sure you use them responsibly!


Gun suporters use cars as a example. Welll like cars there should be rules on takeing classes before you handle them and rules on safely handling them.

This was not at all preventable, this is why we call them accidents and not on purposes. Accidents will happen, there is nothing we can do to prevent that! But hospital acquired infections, we can prevent the majority of those!



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
And our sick, gun-worshiping culture claims the life of another innocent child.


Nice try 'Blaming' the rest of us who were not their parents.

Once again the vilification of an entire group for the actions of the one.



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


Clever picture! Pretty pathetic though and proves your agenda OR your lack of knowing the history of your own country!

Try looking up the battle of Lexington Green...............

OR continue to prove you are a student of the Cloward and Piven Strategy.......



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   
I was listening to BBC radio the other day and they said 2nd largest cause of deaths for children in the US is gun related injury



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join