Jump to content

Another tragedy that will be on mainstream media..


Recommended Posts

Here's another on that happened this week out of Western Village, Alaska. Mountain Village boy shoots, kills sister with Ruger 10/22. Keep in mind it's bush Alaska. Though I still don't understand what's an unsupervised 8 year old doing with a firearm? I wouldn't let my girlfriend's 7-year old alone with a pocket knife. This irresponsibility plays into gun grabbing hands.

Edited by HighPlainsDrifter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont worry. Guy in houston goes to ticket line at bush intercontinental airport in houston and shots 2 rounds out of a ar-15!!! Then shoots himself. One person shot. (Bet it was by the cops trying to protect everyone. He shots twice in the air then himself and had 2-3 warning shots fired at him. More bullshit!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guy in houston goes to ticket line at bush intercontinental airport in houston and shots 2 rounds out of a ar-15!!! Then shoots himself.

 

We can't do shit about crazy. The point being made is gun owners need to be responsible by storing firearms under lock and key all while training your children how to properly handle and respect them. If Nancy Lanza, Adam's mother, would have done this there would have never been a tragedy that set gun legislation in motion.

 

Edited: Remember she loved firearms and even had a Saiga-12.

Edited by HighPlainsDrifter
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dont worry. Guy in houston goes to ticket line at bush intercontinental airport in houston and shots 2 rounds out of a ar-15!!! Then shoots himself. One person shot. (Bet it was by the cops trying to protect everyone. He shots twice in the air then himself and had 2-3 warning shots fired at him. More bullshit!

Put me down for the Flaming Liberal Martyr theory on that one.

 

Ever seen the movie, The Life of David Gale? An annoyingly self righteous storyline, but it does explore the mindset.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw that article yesterday and thought all the exact same thoughts...

 

My <someday> children will probably learn to shoot somewhere around that same age, and will likely have "their own" gun, but NEVER in a million years would I leave unsecured firearms around kids.

 

That incident is about STUPID people, not guns.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama supporter discharged two rounds from an AR15 into the air, then commit suicide with a handgun he was also carrying.

Bingo!

 

I didn't even have to read the article.

 

Kind of like what this Jabba the Slut did...

 

http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4731

 

Or this allegedly batshit crazy lesbian did...

 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/21/justice/nebraska-hate-crime/

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This offends me on levels so profound that I'm having a hard time grasping all of it...

 

"Lanker-Simons was in the news in 2010 when she was a plaintiff in a successful lawsuit against UW after it retracted its invitation to have Bill Ayers speak on campus."

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't let my girlfriend's 7-year old alone with a pocket knife. This irresponsibility plays into gun grabbing hands.

 

Well, that's what not having a dad in the picture will do for you. My dad gave me my first pocket knife at the age of 5, and I don't recall ever having given him reason to regret it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't let my girlfriend's 7-year old alone with a pocket knife. This irresponsibility plays into gun grabbing hands.

 

Well, that's what not having a dad in the picture will do for you. My dad gave me my first pocket knife at the age of 5, and I don't recall ever having given him reason to regret it.

 

Obviously you don't know enough about the situation or my relationship with the child to be making any judgements about it. You are welcome to make comments on the difference between a nuclear family and cohabitation but keep mine out of it.

Edited by HighPlainsDrifter
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviously you don't know enough about the situation or my relationship with the child to be making any judgements about it. You are welcome to make comments on the difference between a nuclear family and cohabitation but keep mine out of it.

 

If you want something kept private and not commented upon, then keep it private. Don't post about it on a public forum, or use it as an example of how people ought to behave. Duh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweetcostarica pinned you as a racist in an earlier thread. Remember that one? Now I'm calling you out as a bigot. Do Alaskans a favor. When you have something controversial to say, don't.

 

You clearly missed my point behind the knives comment. I won't explain. You wouldn't understand anyways.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sweetcostarica pinned you as a racist in an earlier thread. Remember that one? Now I'm calling you out as a bigot. Do Alaskans a favor. When you have something controversial to say, don't.

 

You clearly missed my point behind the knives comment. I won't explain. You wouldn't understand anyways.

 

He was wrong then, and you are wrong now. Maybe you should join him on a plane the hell out of Alaska. I understood exactly what you were saying, which was what is appropriate for one 7 year old, is appropriate for all of them, in your opinion. I found that to be offensive to everybody who has ever managed to raise a well-behaved kid, who could be trusted with responsibility. Lots of us on here grew up in homes with firearms and other objects that would be considered less than secure by some modern PC bullshit standard. We always knew where the key to dad's gun cabinet was. And that was after he had one; they used to hang in a rack on the wall.

 

I don't personally care what your living arrangements are. But when you trot them out as some sort of standard of comparison, don't be shocked when they get compared and found to be less than ideal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I understood exactly what you were saying, which was what is appropriate for one 7 year old, is appropriate for all of them, in your opinion. I found that to be offensive to everybody who has ever managed to raise a well-behaved kid, who could be trusted with responsibility.

 

Yawn. As I suspected you are incorrect. Again, you can never explain anything to a bigot. Have a good day sir...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yawn. As I suspected you are incorrect. Again, you can never explain anything to a bigot. Have a good day sir...

 

Perhaps not, but if you can't get a liberal to throw such labels around, then you aren't trying hard enough. 021.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yawn. As I suspected you are incorrect. Again, you can never explain anything to a bigot. Have a good day sir...

 

 

Sorry I didn't comment earlier on this HighPlainsDrifter. Just been busy at work (new job). Whenever I see Netpackrat commenting on something I do not engage in any form of intelligent dialog because of what you just experienced. In his mind he is always right as he seems unable to see another point of view. He also prejudges people which in this day and age is unbelievable but this is Alaska. I love it here but in Alaska there is so much freedom in almost all things you can be a good man or a bad man 011.gif. Most folks are very good though biggrin.png (IMO).

HighPlainsDrifter said:

"The point being made is gun owners need to be responsible by storing firearms under lock and key all while training your children how to properly handle and respect them. If Nancy Lanza, Adam's mother, would have done this there would have never been a tragedy that set gun legislation in motion."

So to your point HighPlainsDrifter, you a totally correct. In this case the kid was unstable so the mother should have locked up her firearms to protect him and others. If anyone disagrees with me on this point... I will listen to them (except one person).

Edited by sweetcostarica
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

HighPlainsDrifter said:

"The point being made is gun owners need to be responsible by storing firearms under lock and key all while training your children how to properly handle and respect them. If Nancy Lanza, Adam's mother, would have done this there would have never been a tragedy that set gun legislation in motion."

So to your point HighPlainsDrifter, you a totally correct. In this case the kid was unstable so the mother should have locked up her firearms to protect him and others. If anyone disagrees with me on this point... I will listen to them (except one person).

 

 

And yet, you guys can't help but keep responding to me. It's almost pavlovian.

 

So yes, lets lock up all guns where nobody under the age of 18 can ever get at them without an adult present. Because nothing good could ever come of leaving unsecured firearms out where children could get ahold of them.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/pheonix-teen-thwarts-home-invasion-shooting-gun-wielding-intruder-article-1.1101484

 

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/01/10/assault-rifle-saves-teenagers-from-home-invasion-burglars/

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/home-girl-12-shoots-intruder-article-1.1188229

 

http://now.msn.com/teen-babysitting-siblings-shoots-armed-intruder

 

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/10553140/

 

http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/crime/Girl-loads-rifle-to-spook-burglars

 

There are many more. By your statements, you would prefer each of those kids to have been left helpless, and at the mercy of criminals. Certainly, not all kids can or should be trusted around unsecured firearms. That was my point, that not all kids are equal in responsible behavior. I would far rather the parents be allowed to decide, than promote some idiotic one size fits all policy based on the presumption that because some children are irresponsible, that none of them can be trusted. That speaks of a liberal mindset, where all guns are evil and just having them around is an invitation to disaster. The end game of that mentality is a situation like you have in Canada, where you can own many firearms, but they have to stay locked up, and cannot be used for self defense. There are even guns up there that are legally owned by Canadians, that have to stay locked up, and can never legally be taken to a range and fired. Fuck that.

 

Adam Lanza is not even applicable to this topic at all. First, at 20 years of age he was an adult, and second, he killed his own mother in order to take her guns. No amount of locking them up would have prevented that, or what happened afterward. To suggest so is intellectually dishonest, and an attempt to bolster your failing argument by bringing up an unspeakable tragedy that has little to do with what is being discussed.

Edited by Netpackrat
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree Netpackrat on this one. I grew up in a house where firearms were always available, but we were all thoroughly instructed in their use, and forbidden to touch them without a parent present.

See laws exist that make it a felony to leave a weapon accessible to a child. These come into play in a home when a accident, or event occurs. I don't have a problem with those laws because nobody outside your home should know what is inside your home, and they help ensure that if you leave a firearm accessible to your children you had better be goddamn sure they ARE responsible enough to be left unattended with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

See laws exist that make it a felony to leave a weapon accessible to a child. These come into play in a home when a accident, or event occurs. I don't have a problem with those laws because nobody outside your home should know what is inside your home, and they help ensure that if you leave a firearm accessible to your children you had better be goddamn sure they ARE responsible enough to be left unattended with it.

 

I do not concur. Supporting laws that will be intentionally selectively enforced smacks of Jim Crow and of third world dictatorships and banana republics. That principle has underlied nearly all gun control laws from the start. Reference the origin of the term "Saturday Night Special", New York's Sullivan Law, and the laws against concealed carry. Originally those laws were only meant to apply to select individuals (mostly on the basis of race), and it was only in recent decades that they came to be applied against everybody, except of course the politically connected.

 

There are already plenty of statutes on the books related to reckless endangerment, child neglect and endangerment, etc. that can and should be made to apply to incidents arising from people leaving guns unsecured around kids that lack the necessary maturity. Given that, it's just a bad idea to pass a law that leaves a potential felony conviction hanging over the head of anyone who has raised and taught their kids how to properly behave around firearms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

See laws exist that make it a felony to leave a weapon accessible to a child. These come into play in a home when a accident, or event occurs. I don't have a problem with those laws because nobody outside your home should know what is inside your home, and they help ensure that if you leave a firearm accessible to your children you had better be goddamn sure they ARE responsible enough to be left unattended with it.

 

I do not concur. Supporting laws that will be intentionally selectively enforced smacks of Jim Crow and of third world dictatorships and banana republics. That principle has underlied nearly all gun control laws from the start. Reference the origin of the term "Saturday Night Special", New York's Sullivan Law, and the laws against concealed carry. Originally those laws were only meant to apply to select individuals (mostly on the basis of race), and it was only in recent decades that they came to be applied against everybody, except of course the politically connected.

 

There are already plenty of statutes on the books related to reckless endangerment, child neglect and endangerment, etc. that can and should be made to apply to incidents arising from people leaving guns unsecured around kids that lack the necessary maturity. Given that, it's just a bad idea to pass a law that leaves a potential felony conviction hanging over the head of anyone who has raised and taught their kids how to properly behave around firearms.

 

At least here in Texas that's how that law works. Merely leaving a weapon available (in your home) isn't a crime until an incident occurs.

Edited by poolingmyignorance
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree Netpackrat on this one. I grew up in a house where firearms were always available, but we were all thoroughly instructed in their use, and forbidden to touch them without a parent present.

See laws exist that make it a felony to leave a weapon accessible to a child. These come into play in a home when a accident, or event occurs. I don't have a problem with those laws because nobody outside your home should know what is inside your home, and they help ensure that if you leave a firearm accessible to your children you had better be goddamn sure they ARE responsible enough to be left unattended with it.

You make some good points poolingmyignorance and so has HighPlainsDrifter. If everyone was clear thinking, honest, wise, responsible, a good citizen, a great parent, etc. we would not have any laws at all. People with children are responsible for everything that happens in and out of their household involving that child. So I say take the wise road since children are children protect them and wait until they can handle the weight of responsibility in regards to deadly weapons. Lock them up when you are not home! Of course the age when they are ready for weapons training is up to you... and the Law. I add the Law in here because of what I said above.

 

Sure many children have defended their life, home, and family with weapons. As a last resort that is right but it's better not to put them in that situation. Buy a Home Security System, get a guard dog, secure your home, have a plan, and so on. Shooting someone is very traumatic why put you kids in that situation? Be wise and prepare because this is more effective that a bullet by a long shot. No pun intended.

 

Also, leaving firearms unsecured in the home is how many criminals get them to use on the innocent hence: "Another tragedy that will be on mainstream media.." Lock them up or disable them is my strong opinion.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have to agree Netpackrat on this one. I grew up in a house where firearms were always available, but we were all thoroughly instructed in their use, and forbidden to touch them without a parent present.

See laws exist that make it a felony to leave a weapon accessible to a child. These come into play in a home when a accident, or event occurs. I don't have a problem with those laws because nobody outside your home should know what is inside your home, and they help ensure that if you leave a firearm accessible to your children you had better be goddamn sure they ARE responsible enough to be left unattended with it.

You make some good points poolingmyignorance and so has HighPlainsDrifter. If everyone was clear thinking, honest, wise, responsible, a good citizen, a great parent, etc. we would not have any laws at all. People with children are responsible for everything that happens in and out of their household involving that child. So I say take the wise road since children are children protect them and wait until they can handle the weight of responsibility in regards to deadly weapons. Lock them up when you are not home! Of course the age when they are ready for weapons training is up to you... and the Law. I add the Law in here because of what I said above.

 

Sure many children have defended their life, home, and family with weapons. As a last resort that is right but it's better not to put them in that situation. Buy a Home Security System, get a guard dog, secure your home, have a plan, and so on. Shooting someone is very traumatic why put you kids in that situation? Be wise and prepare because this is more effective that a bullet by a long shot. No pun intended.

 

Also, leaving firearms unsecured in the home is how many criminals get them to use on the innocent hence: "Another tragedy that will be on mainstream media.." Lock them up or disable them is my strong opinion.

 

 

 

Okay, I understand your point, but I don't think you understand mine entirely, or at least my position as a whole. The law should be applied only in my opinion in the event of a foul where a child is harmed, or wrongfully takes the life of another human adult, or child. Like say shoots the UPS guy mistakenly. I don't think that broad spectrum laws forbidding eligible adults to deem weather their own children are suitable or mentally capable to defend themselves in the event of a bad actors appearance. It would be the same as an adult being charged with a weapons crime for defending their home. Where is the justice in that?

Secondly your argument for "why put them in that situation?" isn't really valid. We as law abiding citizens cannot choose when a criminal decides to select us beyond our reasonable measures. Homes with alarm systems and dogs get broken into all the time. I myself was a latch key kid where my parents weren't able to get home from work before I got off the school bus. I came home to an empty house (in southern California greater los angels area) at the age of 8 alone. We lived in an apt, so a dog wasn't really an option at that time. Alarms then were expensive to install and require expensive monthly monitoring subscriptions as well as licensing in many areas.Today as well, many people find themselves in the same situation. Should we deem the right to self defense be only allotted for those above a certain income level that can afford layers of protection? Now don't think I'm saying we should leave every 8 year old home alone with a fire arm, but don't think that it's a certain death sentence for everybody around either. I don't believe a panel of legislators complied of well off politicians are in a place to dictate to us our levels of household protection, for us as individuals or families.

Our laws should be reactionary consequences in response to poor judgment, not limitations of our abilities written by people who can no longer relate to those they represent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

I saw that article yesterday and thought all the exact same thoughts...

 

My <someday> children will probably learn to shoot somewhere around that same age, and will likely have "their own" gun, but NEVER in a million years would I leave unsecured firearms around kids.

 

That incident is about STUPID people, not guns.

 

I was beginning shooting a .22 Rifle under Fathers supervision at age of 5. Dad was a Korean and WWII Vet. Although I never recall my Dad EVER talk about the wars he fought in, but he wanted my brother and I to know how to shoot responsibly at an early age. When I was around 8 (brother was 4 years older) I recall dad having a couple .22's and a 12 gauge in the closet at home. He did hide the ammo, but I could had got the guns out when he was at work but never did. I think one reason was because he taught us at an early age. So it was kind of a "been here - done that" thing, so I was never tempted to get the guns out and mess with them in the home. The 1960's were quite different than now. I think many firearm disaster result because kids ARE NOT trained in how to shoot and handle a gun. So, their curiosity and/or peer pressure gets the best of them. And when the cats away the mouse will play. Then - next thing ya know the "thought it was unloaded" gun hurt or killed someone.

I saw that article yesterday and thought all the exact same thoughts...

 

My <someday> children will probably learn to shoot somewhere around that same age, and will likely have "their own" gun, but NEVER in a million years would I leave unsecured firearms around kids.

 

That incident is about STUPID people, not guns.

I was beginning shooting a .22 Rifle under Fathers supervision at age of 5. Dad was a Korean and WWII Vet. Although I never recall my Dad EVER talk about the wars he fought in, but he wanted my brother and I to know how to shoot responsibly at an early age. When I was around 8 (brother was 4 years older) I recall dad having a couple .22's and a 12 gauge in the closet at home. He did hide the ammo, but I could had got the guns out when he was at work but never did. I think one reason was because he taught us at an early age. So it was kind of a "been here - done that" thing, so I was never tempted to get the guns out and mess with them in the home. The 1960's were quite different than now. I think many firearm disaster result because kids ARE NOT trained in how to shoot and handle a gun. So, their curiosity and/or peer pressure gets the best of them. And when the cats away the mouse will play. Then - next thing ya know the "thought it was unloaded" gun hurt or killed someone.

 

Ooops! Not sure what happened but my reply is shown twice...

Edited by saiga12-er
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×
×
  • Create New...