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

reply to post by freedomSlave

K seriously how do you compare that to theft

Armed theft…I don’t know their intentions but they aren’t making me feel better being ARMED!!

also no I wouldn't kill the guy but nothings stopping be from beating him till the cops get to my house . There are many objects in my house that could be classed as a weapon causing bodily harm.

Tough guys finish last…

Guess unlike you I do not wish death upon my enemies

You are correct in that regard!

reply to post by seabag

you cant say nothing could have prevented it..the only kind of gun control im for is some mandatory common sense saftey training..i dont think its unreasonable for a first time new owner, who knows some people are really fawkin stupid and need to be shown
the article says the 5 yr old was given the rifle as a gift a year ago..so maybee 4 yrs old..wtf

Originally posted by freedomSlave
reply to post by neo96

 

where they shooting at her ? if they wanted her dead they would of opened fire at the counter .
Yes it was armed robbery and that isn't punishable by death , only killing another human being is punishable by death .

Actually, no, that isn't the case, depending on the state you live in...and some would say, inherent rights as a human being for self defense.

In Missouri, for instance, you need only have the reasonable fear of death OR great bodily injury ..OR a sexual crime of any kind in the act of happening against yourself -OR- others to use deadly force. Reasonable fear is the key and it's a serious thing. A little old lady being menaced by a teenager with a knife can plant the punk where he stands. The same kid menacing a 6ft 210 pound cage fighter won't justify the same use of force in all likelihood.

However, the law is actually quite clear on the point and they don't have to "fire first". Just give reasonable fear that they intend to or may very well do so. ...or great bodily harm, which need not necessarily involve a weapon at all. Imagine the same little old lady being menaced by the 6ft cage fighter. Bare handed. Granny can shoot him, too.

Personally? I hope I never, ever have to use a firearm against another human being in that way. I know it's often as hard for the person who fired the shots, justified or not, as anything can ever be. On the other hand, I'll damn sure not take a fatal shot to simply return fire in my last few seconds of life ...to say I was all 'nice and fair' about it, either.

reply to post by vonclod

you cant say nothing could have prevented it..the only kind of gun control im for is some mandatory common sense saftey training..i dont think its unreasonable for a first time new owner, who knows some people are really fawkin stupid and need to be shown
the article says the 5 yr old was given the rifle as a gift a year ago..so maybee 4 yrs old..wtf

Safety training doesn’t override free will or stupidity. I saw a story once about a highly trained police officer who accidently blew his brains out cleaning his weapon.

Besides, none of what you advocate has been proposed.

Originally posted by seabag


Armed theft…I don’t know their intentions but they aren’t making me feel better being ARMED!!

k that was funny

I am for eye for an eye not a head for and eye. It is rather shocking and intruding the gun culture down there and house some of the most rabid people who defend their gun culture .

its sad this boy killed his sister due to the neglect of the parents are beyond belief from a lax gun culture who see nothing wrong with giving children a fire arm or teaching children how to operate one there is a time and a place . this poor kid is gonna be scarred for life. i realize not all owners of fire arms are not as idiotic as these parents but really in all honesty it really doesn't surprise me

"law abiding gun owner"

Just think of this story whenever gun advocates say that.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


yeah I know wrabbit , i was appealing to an unethical and illogical and reasoning of it all . sadly i am aware of many of the ridiculous laws there concerning fire arms .
if people are so afraid of criminals with guns and what they will do with them and fear them so bad to the point they feel the only option is to arm themselves . Still insisting on lax gun laws that people don't need to register or get background checks at gun shows or online for purchasing firearms. How does adding more guns into the pool help anything , how is that any the slightest logical. if people fears guns and criminals with guns so bad there ban them all together . look at japan they virtually have no gun violence they don't live in fear like how the pro gun culture does in america japan gun violence virtually a thing of the past

I am not against the right to bear arms but I am for commonsense not a free for all frenzy that happens down there.

reply to post by freedomSlave


Well, I can see where you are coming from ...and in all fairness, it's what I've come to realize in talking to my British friends. It really is a divide and gap that cannot BE crossed in some cases. That is, the radical mindset difference between a nation where both good and bad guys alike grew up with firearms as natural as a gallon of milk or a power tool ....vs. societies where firearms are so strictly controlled, they're rarely seen in public, even on the hips of a Police Officer. (One COPS show was stunning in that way for the comments of an American cop who immigrated from England and had been a cop there....talking about how it's night/day different for the very basic thinking involved)

Here though? I'll say this. If the bad guy drops his weapon or stops menacing or assaulting? The justification for deadly force 100% ENDS. Right there. On the spot. There is no 'better safe than sorry -bang -bang-'. It's valid only to the second the threat exists. No "judge and jury". (and some have been sent to prison for life precisely because they believed they were Dirty Harry to settle something beyond that point)

While they ARE a threat though? The point of threat to the point of grievous injury or death can be less than a second, depending on circumstances. Shooting first to a confirmed threat is about the only option there is. Confirmed...being 100% operative there, of course.

reply to post by Cabin


There is nothing wrong with a 5 year old having a .22 rifle as a gift. The problem here is that it wasn't secured from the child.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


exactly we do come from different cultures even though we share a border and share many interests and goals . we are miles apart on this issue . just a concerned world citizen as to what I see happening in the usa .

ETA sorry about the edit on the last post i meant it be a separate reply

reply to post by seabag


Hold your applause.
You (plural) are politicizing and polarizing as much if not more so than the anti-gun advocates.
This poor girls death shouldn't be a platform for either side of the debate.

reply to post by Kali74


seems anything to do with violence turns into a gun debate . but really in instances like this it cannot be helped but to be brought up . It is truly sad what happened to this girl and what this boy has to live with the rest of his life could of been prevented on a different outlook with gun culture

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by vonclod

 

you cant say nothing could have prevented it..the only kind of gun control im for is some mandatory common sense saftey training..i dont think its unreasonable for a first time new owner, who knows some people are really fawkin stupid and need to be shown
the article says the 5 yr old was given the rifle as a gift a year ago..so maybee 4 yrs old..wtf

Safety training doesn’t override free will or stupidity. I saw a story once about a highly trained police officer who accidently blew his brains out cleaning his weapon.

Besides, none of what you advocate has been proposed.

Ha! Like the GOP would ever introduce such a bill A Democrat bill would never even reach the floor and a bi-partisan one would get voted down by the NRA-bought Senate.

Originally posted by danneu89

Originally posted by Cabin


The boy had received the rifle as a gift. It was usually kept in a corner of the house, and no one realized a shell had been left inside.

You F#$%ing serious? That's a great place to keep a gun in house with children.

If these are the people reproducing, I give humanity another 500 years, tops.

500 years! HA! we'll be lucky to last 100 the way we are going and if we do i doubt things will be running anything like they are now

This is a horrible and unfortunate story. I believe for the 5 year old to have any chance in life, he needs to be removed from that home and the grieving parents. I know that this sounds harsh, but this family is headed for a great deal of trouble, not only with the law, but with the grieving process.

At the age of 5, the child could be placed in a loving, balanced home and possibly turn out OK. But if he is subjected to constant reminders and the grief of his parents for years to come, he doesn't stand a chance.

Sgt. Cursed

sad story, 5 years old is stupidly young for a rifle... even a pellet gun would be out of the question if i had a kid that young, sucks they had to fiqure that out the hard way

reply to post by Cabin


Stories like this always get me thinking a little like a New World Orderly, as I like to call "Them", which, then I have to check myself. By this I mean, I start thinking, "maybe licenses to procreate would be a good idea." - don't get me wrong, it WOULD NOT, but if God were the one deciding who was worthy, then it might be.

Point being, this is an example of parent(s) too stupid to own a gun or to raise a child. If you can't keep yourself together enough to not leave a loaded gun (really, any gun as a failsafe from "accidental" aka idiotic leaving of ammo loaded) within reach of a 5-year old child, then you shouldn't own a gun. Further, it is abundantly clear that they are nowhere near the minimum capability to raise a child.

Now they've killed their 2-year old daughter - I can't even begin to grasp that one beyond words on a page it is so horrible, and in the meantime, likely ruined their 5-year old's life, who will either never forget what happened, or only forget because of his mind splintering from the trauma.

There is absolutely no excuse, there really isn't. "I didn't know it was left loaded." - ok, so you were at best 99.99999% sure it wasn't loaded. Anything less than 100%, and as far as i'm concerned, you chose to kill your child. My opinion isn't about gun control - i'm pro-gun ownership. I just wish we could somehow have the omniscient power to know who out there is simply too much of an idiot to own guns or raise children.

God bless both children. And may the dimwit parents find peace - and stop trying to kill their children.

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

NO .. I think NOT ...

A /THE parent(s
) allowed for a situation where this type crap could happen.

Plain & Simple. !

Accidents happen ... and even mOar frequently when you have a situation of IMPROPER GUN SAFETY and/OR CONTROL on the part of the ADULTS

again..

PLAIN & SIMPLE.


ROGER & OUT!!
:shk:

reply to post by Cabin


Private gun ownership in America brings death and misery yet again.

What drives your obsession with guns ?

( For that is what it is. )

Who are you Americans afraid of ?

Just each other, it appears to me. Sad state of affairs, don 't you think ?

Maybe the mom did it and she's blaming the 5 yr. old...I think this because nobody is stupid enough to give a 4 yr, old a rifle and then just prop the damn thing in the corner of the living room...and is it even possible a 5 yr. old is capable of lifting that size of gun and arms long enough to pull the trigger all by his self???