Boy kills himself with family gun


AyameTaylor
#31
I am slightly confused as to how this belongs in the Jokes section. x.x
 
shadowshiv
+1
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by skookumchuckView Post

This shows as being posted under "fun and jokes" am i missing something?

That's a good obversation. I'm certain that it was unintentional. I'll move the thread to the In The News subforum.
 
Colpy
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

You so funny, you must be on city council.

The 'punch holes in targets' is a derivative use, using targets instead of people. To kill game is a pathetic attempt; tell me, who hunts deer or ducks with a handgun in North America?

The third is stupid - the whole point is to kill people, and you hope the intruder runs away first. That's the whole point of a handgun, if it wasn't meant to kill people, you wouldn't carry it for self defense, you'd carry a banana. The whole point of a handgun is that it is for killing people, and you hope people are scared off by it. That's the point of it.


About THIS you shouldn't argue with me.....it is one of the few subjects I know something about.



You really thing this was made for killing people?



Or this?????

Handgun hunting is extremely popular in the USA.........with every major company making guns specifically for the hunter's market......



Now, do you think this was made to kill people?? Or as a derivitive of any killing machine?? This is a free pistol, a single shot .22 rimfire used in paper punching competitions.

As for killing people, if you want to kill someone, you take a rifle or a shotgun. Pistols are ONLY useful because they are easy to carry, and then you have it when you are attacked, and you can use it to STOP your attacker. Usually, such things work out with no shots fired, the display is enough, but if you do need to shoot an attacker, whether he dies or not is besides the point.
 
Ocean Breeze
#34
Another young life taken via family gun.

So the operative question now is: Will this family get rid of all their weapons to ensure a gun free zone. There are enough situations around the home etc where kids can hurt themselves without having guns accessible to the children. If a home or family car is not safe for kids.......that leaves a lot to be desired.

or will gun lovers excuse this as just another "one off"???
 
AyameTaylor
+1
#35
Honestly Ocean Breeze I think this while sad is something that people will use as an example as to why guns are bad.

They are tools just like anything else, it's the parents fault for having the gun in the car within the reach of a child in the first place. If the parent was responsible then they would not have done so, even if it was just for a second. It's like letting a kid loose in a wood shop and hoping they won't loose a finger or their life.

Go after the parents not the weapons in this case as it is completely they're fault.

As for "one Off" no sadly it's not a one off, Most incidences where guns kill minors are because of negligence with the weapon in one manner or another. If you own a gun it's your responsibly to teach your child that it is dangerous just like anything else and your responsibility to ensure the gun is in safe keeping AWAY from children fingers.
 
earth_as_one
+3
#36
I agree with Colpy regarding proper handling of a firearm.

IMO, If you illegally store or handle a firearm, then you should be held responsible for the consequences. I would support negligent homicide charges, similar to the homicide charges resulting from a death resulting from DUI.
 
Colpy
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean BreezeView Post

Another young life taken via family gun.

So the operative question now is: Will this family get rid of all their weapons to ensure a gun free zone. There are enough situations around the home etc where kids can hurt themselves without having guns accessible to the children. If a home or family car is not safe for kids.......that leaves a lot to be desired.

or will gun lovers excuse this as just another "one off"???

Virginia Tech was a gunfree zone.

The ╔cole Polytechnique (external - login to view) was a gunfree zone.

The island of Ut°ya (external - login to view) in Tyrifjorden (external - login to view), Buskerud (external - login to view), Norway was a gunfree zone.

In the USA, firearms are used well over a million times a year in self-defense. How many lives do youy think have been saved in that statistic????

Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck, Ph.D. (external - login to view)

Just to back up Mr. Kleck, here is an irrefutable statistic.....in the USA gun legislation has radically EASED access to firearms. Beginning in 1989, laws allowing the carry of handguns in the USA, have been passed in 80% plus of the states.
The murder rate has dropped 40%.
The accident rate for firearms in the USA is dropping as well.

Your attitude is driven by emotion, and is factually unsupportable.
 
Ocean Breeze
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

I agree with Colpy regarding proper handling of a firearm.

IMO, If you illegally store or handle a firearm, then you should be held responsible for the consequences. I would support negligent homicide charges, similar to the homicide charges resulting from a death resulting from DUI.


when guns are sold........how do the sellers determine if the potential owner is going to be "responsible" or not?? OF course gun owners should be held responsible for any incidents their guns are involved in. (and the victims they kill or maim for life) Not all shootings leave victims dead. Sometimes the wounds are such that their life is permanently disabled leaving them dependant on others and the medical system.

Seems the owner of the gun causing this should be made to pay all expenses for recovery too. But they will claim "self defense" and ignore that .....unless they are sued.

It is not in all places that folks need a gun to make their point. Most places are safe to live in .....or safer by comparison. Seems that the mere presence of so many weapons on so many of the population creates an environment for potential disaster .

This is also an example of human neglegence. and plain carelessness. Even a professional sharp shooter is human and can momentarily leave his weapon exposed , thus creating the potential for disaster. so shooting skills have very little to do with momentary carelessness.
 
karrie
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

Ridiculous. Honestly, there needs to be some sort of selection in life. I would like to think that people survived to become adults not because other people dulled all the sharp edges to life.

You do understand that evolutionary pressure as it applies to a species IS what what drives us to try to protect as many young as possible and not see it as okay to lose those that someone deems 'lesser' than them, right? It drives me nuts when people start throwing out pop culture 'science' as a reason to throw your hands in the air over the horror of someone's child dying.
 
Ocean Breeze
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post


Your attitude is driven by emotion, and is factually unsupportable.

My attitude is driven by the fact of having to deal with the results of these shootings in ER and intensive care. If that is "emotional" so be it. Maybe the gun loving crowd should attend ER during a shootout and deal with the victims injuries. Give them a different perspective . All the laws and debates matter little when one is striving to save a gunshot victim. In fact it should be a requirement as part of gun purchasing that the potential buyer attend both, the ER following a shooting AND attend an autopsy of a gun shot victim. Only then will they have the "total" experience of gun ownership.
 
DaSleeper
+2
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean BreezeView Post

My attitude is driven by the fact of having to deal with the results of these shootings in ER and intensive care. If that is "emotional" so be it. Maybe the gun loving crowd should attend ER during a shootout and deal with the victims injuries. Give them a different perspective . All the laws and debates matter little when one is striving to save a gunshot victim. In fact it should be a requirement as part of gun purchasing that the potential buyer attend both, the ER following a shooting AND attend an autopsy of a gun shot victim. Only then will they have the "total" experience of gun ownership.

You realize that you just reinforced Colpy's statement about using emotion instead of your brain.......
 
Ocean Breeze
#42
Question to all gun supporters for self defense.

after you shoot whoever you were protecting yourself from, what do you do?? Let the victim bleed to death, call 9-11 to report a shooting , call an ambulence ?? and/ or try to control the bleeding resulting from your shot???
 
Colpy
+1
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean BreezeView Post

when guns are sold........how do the sellers determine if the potential owner is going to be "responsible" or not?? OF course gun owners should be held responsible for any incidents their guns are involved in. (and the victims they kill or maim for life) Not all shootings leave victims dead. Sometimes the wounds are such that their life is permanently disabled leaving them dependant on others and the medical system.

Seems the owner of the gun causing this should be made to pay all expenses for recovery too. But they will claim "self defense" and ignore that .....unless they are sued.

It is not in all places that folks need a gun to make their point. Most places are safe to live in .....or safer by comparison. Seems that the mere presence of so many weapons on so many of the population creates an environment for potential disaster .

This is also an example of human neglegence. and plain carelessness. Even a professional sharp shooter is human and can momentarily leave his weapon exposed , thus creating the potential for disaster. so shooting skills have very little to do with momentary carelessness.



You REALLY don't deal with the facts, do you?

Careless? Yes.......criminally negligent? Well, maybe, but I think they have been punished enough.

The rest of the post?? BALONEY.

Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck, Ph.D. (external - login to view)
 
Ocean Breeze
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

You REALLY don't deal with the facts, do you?

Careless? Yes.......criminally negligent? Well, maybe, but I think they have been punished enough.

The rest of the post?? BALONEY.

Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck, Ph.D. (external - login to view)

thank you for your point of view.
 
karrie
+2
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean BreezeView Post

Another young life taken via family gun.

So the operative question now is: Will this family get rid of all their weapons to ensure a gun free zone. There are enough situations around the home etc where kids can hurt themselves without having guns accessible to the children. If a home or family car is not safe for kids.......that leaves a lot to be desired.

or will gun lovers excuse this as just another "one off"???

They might do what most parents do whose children get injured and killed by items in their home do.... rearrange the way they 'child proof'.

 
Colpy
+4
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean BreezeView Post

Question to all gun supporters for self defense.

after you shoot whoever you were protecting yourself from, what do you do?? Let the victim bleed to death, call 9-11 to report a shooting , call an ambulence ?? and/ or try to control the bleeding resulting from your shot???

Depends on the situation......ALWAYS dial 9-11, but in a place where you might have to expose yourself to further attack to offer first aid, you retreat and leave him there. In a situation where you are certain you are secure you are ethically, if not legally, required to help in any way possible.

Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

They might do what most parents do whose children get injured and killed by items in their home do.... rearrange the way they 'child proof'.

Yep.

I notice firearms don't even make the list.

I looked it up, in 2007, in the UNITED STATES, firearms accidents were the sixth largest cause of death in children (0 to 19 yrs) at 138 deaths. Terrible, but to put that in perspective, the FIFTH largest cause of death was suffocation/strangulation........at 1,263 deaths....well over 9 times the gun accidents........

www.childdeathreview.org/nati...talitydata.htm (external - login to view)

Risk is inherent in freedom.

Being free is dangerous.

So are people that want us to be risk-free.
Last edited by Colpy; Mar 17th, 2012 at 11:46 AM..
 
gerryh
#47
Try to kill em, and then try to save their life......hmmmm


Ya, I shot him, but it's ok, I tried to save his life afterward....all is good.
 
Ocean Breeze
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Depends on the situation......ALWAYS dial 9-11, but in a place where you might have to expose yourself to further attack to offer first aid, you retreat and leave him there. In a situation where you are certain you are secure you are ethically, if not legally, required to help in any way possible.



.

sounds reasonable.
 
karrie
+1
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean BreezeView Post

Question to all gun supporters for self defense.

after you shoot whoever you were protecting yourself from, what do you do?? Let the victim bleed to death, call 9-11 to report a shooting , call an ambulence ?? and/ or try to control the bleeding resulting from your shot???

Well, I don't own a gun, but, the time's hubby's been out of town and I've gone to bed with a knife on my nightstand, should I have had to use it, it would be so that I could get away from a threat, not so I could stick around. I'd be calling 911 for sure, but not going anywhere back near someone who posed a threat to my safety. I'd assume a gun owner would be much the same. The only difference is, with a knife in my hand, I'd be close enough to an attacker to make sure it wasn't hubby coming home unexpectedly. Guns don't afford that surety.
 
Ocean Breeze
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Depends on the situation......ALWAYS dial 9-11, but in a place where you might have to expose yourself to further attack to offer first aid, you retreat and leave him there. In a situation where you are certain you are secure you are ethically, if not legally, required to help in any way possible.



Yep.

I notice firearms don't even make the list.

what is the source of that graph?? Does it come from police reports, health agencies ??/ Or???
 
skookumchuck
+1
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean BreezeView Post

My attitude is driven by the fact of having to deal with the results of these shootings in ER and intensive care. If that is "emotional" so be it. Maybe the gun loving crowd should attend ER during a shootout and deal with the victims injuries. Give them a different perspective . All the laws and debates matter little when one is striving to save a gunshot victim. In fact it should be a requirement as part of gun purchasing that the potential buyer attend both, the ER following a shooting AND attend an autopsy of a gun shot victim. Only then will they have the "total" experience of gun ownership.

Perhaps we should compare per capita deaths or injury caused by medical professionals (including cleanliness which a lack of has caused huge issues) to those of legal firearms owners? Wait, lets throw in drug companies.
You seem quite selective in your damning.
 
Ocean Breeze
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by skookumchuckView Post

Perhaps we should compare per capita deaths or injury caused by medical professionals (including cleanliness which a lack of has caused huge issues) to those of legal firearms owners? Wait, lets throw in drug companies.
You seem quite selective in your damning.

the TOPIC is guns and a child killed by one. IF you want to talk about hospital incidents and toss in everything else you can think of.....please be kind enough to start a thread for that. In the meantime......lets not divert into irrelavent territory. thanks.

Important to note: stats and graphs are just numbers. They totally omit the HUMAN FACTOR. Seems the HUMAN FACTOR is the important one.
 
Colpy
+1
#53
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean BreezeView Post

what is the source of that graph?? Does it come from police reports, health agencies ??/ Or???

Read my reply to Karrie again....I added US stats, and the source.
 
gerryh
+1
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by skookumchuckView Post

perhaps we should compare per capita deaths or injury caused by medical professionals (including cleanliness which a lack of has caused huge issues) to those of legal firearms owners? Wait, lets throw in drug companies.
You seem quite selective in your damning.


squirrel
 
Ocean Breeze
#55
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Yep.

Risk is inherent in freedom.

Being free is dangerous.

So are people that want us to be risk-free.

Has little to do with "freedom". But everything to do with life . Life is a risk Life is crap shoot. Yet all the more important to treasure it .No such thing as "risk free". That is the reality of life.
 
karrie
+1
#56
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean BreezeView Post

what is the source of that graph?? Does it come from police reports, health agencies ??/ Or???

^ a (external - login to view) b (external - login to view) "BBC NEWS | Special Reports | UN raises child accidents alarm" (external - login to view). BBC News. December 10, 2008. Retrieved May 8, 2010.
 
Ocean Breeze
#57
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

^ a (external - login to view) b (external - login to view) "BBC NEWS | Special Reports | UN raises child accidents alarm" (external - login to view). BBC News. December 10, 2008. Retrieved May 8, 2010.


thanks. Karrie. ( thanks Colpy too )
 
Colpy
#58
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Try to kill em, and then try to save their life......hmmmm


Ya, I shot him, but it's ok, I tried to save his life afterward....all is good.

No Gerry, if a police officer or an armed citizen shoots an attacker, he should immediately approach him and deliver a coup de grace into the brain pain, thus relieving society of any expense of a trial.
(sarcasm alert)

(and insert rolled eyes here)
 
gerryh
#59
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

but if you do need to shoot an attacker, whether he dies or not is besides the point.


I just love this one..... yup... because taking a life is really no big deal and is inconsequential.
 
Colpy
#60
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

I just love this one..... yup... because taking a life is really no big deal and is inconsequential.

Why you gotta be like that? Please see the post below.
 

Similar Threads

118
Montreal family kills daughters
by damngrumpy | Feb 3rd, 2012
18
GW Kills Science
by Scott Free | Jun 30th, 2008
0
Man Kills Family With Carbon Monoxide
by sanctus | Oct 21st, 2007
no new posts