Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 09 Mar '16 22:46
    "The only people that have a problem with carrying firearms are crooks who want unarmed victims."
    --Normbenign (8 March 2016)

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3484064/Pro-gun-poster-girl-shot-four-year-old-son-driving-Florida-boy-pistol-seat-truck.html

    Jamie Gilt, a 'high-profile pro-gun activist', was shot in the back by her son (age 4).
    She already had begun teaching him how to shoot at targets on a range.
    She may face criminal charges for allowing her child to have access to a loaded gun.

    If her child had shot and killed himself, then to what extent should she be blamed?
  2. 09 Mar '16 23:05
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    "The only people that have a problem with carrying firearms are crooks who want unarmed victims."
    --Normbenign (8 March 2016)

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3484064/Pro-gun-poster-girl-shot-four-year-old-son-driving-Florida-boy-pistol-seat-truck.html

    Jamie Gilt, a 'high-profile pro-gun activist', was shot in the back by her son (age 4).
    S ...[text shortened]... aded gun.

    If her child had shot and killed himself, then to what extent should she be blamed?
    I stand by my statement, and those same people will make a big deal of a tragic accident. Each of us, ought to reflect on our own sometimes careless handling and storage of guns. Leaving a loaded .45 on the backseat with a 4 year old wasn't smart or careful. On the other hand, most of us will recognize that we've done that sort of thing, and "got lucky" that there weren't deadly consequences. What I think all thoughtful people will agree on is that locking up guns in cases will not stop this accident from repeating.

    To be of use as an implement of self defense, guns have to be readily available to respond to emergencies, but under control of a responsible adult. Loose and loaded on the back seat with a 4 year old isn't either.
  3. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    10 Mar '16 03:42
    Originally posted by normbenign
    What I think all thoughtful people will agree on is that locking up guns in cases will not stop this accident from repeating.

    .
    Your probably right.
    Four year-olds will pick any lock on a gun-case.

    Kids will be kids.
  4. 10 Mar '16 06:59
    Originally posted by normbenign
    What I think all thoughtful people will agree on is that locking up guns in cases will not stop this accident from repeating.
    But it cant be denied by any rational person that it would definitely reduce the number of such accidents significantly.

    I agree with you that there is of course no point having a gun if it is locked up at all times. That leaves us with the choice of being a lot more careful with your gun or not having a gun at all. Given that we know humans are not careful (you fully admit this yourself), it seems that not having guns might be the safer option. Certainly there is no doubt that fewer gun accidents and gun related violence happens in countries with very strict gun control laws.
  5. 10 Mar '16 07:01
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Your probably right.
    Four year-olds will pick any lock on a gun-case.

    Kids will be kids.
    Makes you wonder why child proof medicine bottles were invented. Only children can ever open them anyway.
  6. 10 Mar '16 09:28
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    "The only people that have a problem with carrying firearms are crooks who want unarmed victims."
    --Normbenign (8 March 2016)

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3484064/Pro-gun-poster-girl-shot-four-year-old-son-driving-Florida-boy-pistol-seat-truck.html

    Jamie Gilt, a 'high-profile pro-gun activist', was shot in the back by her son (age 4).
    S ...[text shortened]... aded gun.

    If her child had shot and killed himself, then to what extent should she be blamed?
    "If her child had shot and killed himself, then to what extent should she be blamed?"
    child negligence. perhaps even manslaughter.
  7. 10 Mar '16 09:34
    Originally posted by normbenign
    I stand by my statement, and those same people will make a big deal of a tragic accident. Each of us, ought to reflect on our own sometimes careless handling and storage of guns. Leaving a loaded .45 on the backseat with a 4 year old wasn't smart or careful. On the other hand, most of us will recognize that we've done that sort of thing, and "got lucky ...[text shortened]... ntrol of a responsible adult. Loose and loaded on the back seat with a 4 year old isn't either.
    "I stand by my statement"
    even though it's demonstrably false. color me surprised.

    "those same people will make a big deal of a tragic accident."
    yes, you are supposed to make a big deal of a tragic accident. so it doesn't happen again.

    "Each of us, ought to reflect on our own sometimes careless handling and storage of guns"
    some of us do. and decide it is too much of a risk to have a gun in a home with children. so we don't get guns.

    "Leaving a loaded .45 on the backseat with a 4 year old wasn't smart or careful."
    that's our point.

    "What I think all thoughtful people will agree on is that locking up guns in cases will not stop this accident from repeating. "
    that too is our point.

    "To be of use as an implement of self defense, guns have to be readily available to respond to emergencies, but under control of a responsible adult."
    while at the same time be the opposite of readily available so that children don't find and use them.

    "Loose and loaded on the back seat with a 4 year old isn't either."
    so you agree that irresponsible people cause accidents and therefore we should regulate it? (explosives, driving cars, drugs, power outlets, and yes, guns too)
  8. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    10 Mar '16 12:08
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Makes you wonder why child proof medicine bottles were invented. Only children can ever open them anyway.
    Yeah - we leave all our meds and poisonous cleaning compounds on back seat of car.
    You never know when you might need them.
  9. 10 Mar '16 14:53
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    But it cant be denied by any rational person that it would definitely reduce the number of such accidents significantly.

    I agree with you that there is of course no point having a gun if it is locked up at all times. That leaves us with the choice of being a lot more careful with your gun or not having a gun at all. Given that we know humans are not ca ...[text shortened]... r gun accidents and gun related violence happens in countries with very strict gun control laws.
    It would be safer, except for the occasions when you needed a weapon for self defence. Over the years, I defended my life and property with a gun many times. Recently, I did not renew my permit to carry a concealed weapon, because I no longer had the risk factors which demanded I have it.

    As with anything, the risk/reward factors must be personally evaluated, and care exercised to minimize the risks. The mother in the cited case paid the ultimate price for her carelessness, and the child will pay for decades to come.

    This all has to be weighed against the positives that come with responsible gun ownership. Some will determine that for them it isn't something that they want. But those people can't make the decision for others.

    Your concluding argument is that everything involving guns where they are prohibited is a crime. NRA has been saying that for decades. Outlaw guns and only the outlaws will have them. What goes unsaid in that argument is that where guns aren't available, criminals use other means, which at times can be worse than guns.

    A gun may be used to threaten or intimidate a victim. Other weapons usually must be deployed, often with deadly effect. Personally, I'd rather be robbed at gunpoint, and go home broke and alive, than to be beaten or stabbed by a robber, and end up dead.

    How's that working out downunder with supposedly nobody having guns? I've read that the collection was a farce, with most people just throwing away useless relics and nonfunctioning guns.
  10. 11 Mar '16 09:36
    Originally posted by normbenign
    It would be safer, except for the occasions when you needed a weapon for self defence. Recently, I did not renew my permit to carry a concealed weapon, because I no longer had the risk factors which demanded I have it.

    As with anything, the risk/reward factors must be personally evaluated, and care exercised to minimize the risks. The mother in t ...[text shortened]... lection was a farce, with most people just throwing away useless relics and nonfunctioning guns.
    "Over the years, I defended my life and property with a gun many times."
    and one can still do that with proper gun control laws, proper mandatory training in gun maintenance and usage and a proper ban on all the ludicrous guns americans can buy.

    "Personally, I'd rather be robbed at gunpoint, and go home broke and alive, "
    since everyone has guns, he will probably shoot first or be more inclined to shoot rather than risk you pulling out your gun.

    "than to be beaten or stabbed by a robber, and end up dead."
    yeh, robber would much rather risk someone witnessing the crime and calling the cops by taking the much longer time to beat someone to death rather than shoot him in a second and stealing his wallet in 2. great logic, i am marveled by your intellect.


    "How's that working out downunder with supposedly nobody having guns?"
    wtf are you talking about? australians have guns. they just have better gun control laws.
  11. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    11 Mar '16 10:07
    It's a Darwin award nominee... surely.
  12. 11 Mar '16 11:12
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    "The only people that have a problem with carrying firearms are crooks who want unarmed victims."
    --Normbenign (8 March 2016)

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3484064/Pro-gun-poster-girl-shot-four-year-old-son-driving-Florida-boy-pistol-seat-truck.html

    Jamie Gilt, a 'high-profile pro-gun activist', was shot in the back by her son (age 4).
    S ...[text shortened]... aded gun.

    If her child had shot and killed himself, then to what extent should she be blamed?
    This is what happens when 4 year olds are not given a proper background check.

    We need more gun laws.
  13. 11 Mar '16 11:13
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    It's a Darwin award nominee... surely.
    I'm confused.

    Is this child considered a hero by the left or is the child being used to take away guns altogether.

    The lines are beginning to blur once again.
  14. 11 Mar '16 11:51
    Originally posted by whodey
    This is what happens when 4 year olds are not given a proper background check.

    We need more gun laws.
    you are so smart. this settles the gun dispute in your favor for all eternity. good thing the gun control crowd only had background checks as proposed measures or else somebody might have pointed out the other things that could have been done to avoid this messed up incident.
  15. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    11 Mar '16 15:25
    Originally posted by whodey
    I'm confused.

    Is this child considered a hero by the left or is the child being used to take away guns altogether.

    The lines are beginning to blur once again.
    I'm on about the bloody mother, you dope!

    A kid's a kid is a kid.