Skip to main content

View Diary: Father accidentally shoots 7 year old son (368 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  the odds were greater he'd run over his kid (10+ / 0-)

    in the parking lot of the gun store.   why use a legitimate accident to make an argument for gun control?  you know, accidents happen in life.  it's terrible when they do, but if you take away everything dangerous in life you are left with nothing.  

    i don't get these arguments about gun control.   i grew up with guns.  nobody ever got hurt.  nobody was ever going to get hurt unless a freak accident like this happened and you can't live your life trying to avoid every kind of freak accident.

    you know what should be the big outrage instead of guns?  traffic accidents.  put a kid behind the wheel of an automobile and then you have a dangerous situation in which the chances of serious injury and death are high.  not to mention all the drunk and high driving kids do.  and let's talk about tired adults who are texting and eating and late for work who are killing people and driving away scott free from it.  hell, even Canada has that problem.  last year there were 2,300 hit and runs in BC (just north of me).  and let's talk the fucking idiots who insist on saving the planet by riding their bikes in the middle of 6 lane traffic and put everyone at risk.  i watch a man in a truck holding the hand of a biker stuck under his front wheel with one hand while talking to 911 on his cell with the other.  and let's talk about saving the planet... from oil that is used by cars.  guns have nothing on the deaths that driving will cause not only in accidents but in making the planet uninhabitable for life.

    but anyway, let's chase the gun control issue, cause we wouldn't want the tea party to be only activists who are too focused on the trees to see the forest.

    so long and thanks for all the fish

    by Anton Bursch on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 08:18:22 PM PST

    •  Are you for real? (12+ / 0-)

      That was humor, right? Your comment was irony, correct?

      I deal in facts. My friends are few but fast.

      by Farugia on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 08:28:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, he's serious (10+ / 0-)

        and spot on.
        Guns are not magical objects imbued with evil.
        They are tools, and like any tool, can cause injury or death if not used responsibly.

        "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

        by kestrel9000 on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 05:29:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And actually, there are issues more important - (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mindful Nature

          except maybe to that dead kid's mom - that get less attention and support than GUNSGUNSGUNSGUNS!!!!

          Correcting voter irregularities, food stamps, infrastructure deficiencies, etc., etc., etc.

          But people keep mentioning kids getting killed, and RBKAers swarm in a feeding frenzy like sharks after chum.

          "I believe more women should carry guns. I believe armed women will make the world a better place. Women need to come to think of themselves not as victims but as dangerous." Anna Pigeon

          by glorificus on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 06:26:19 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  who are you (7+ / 0-)
            RBKAers swarm in a feeding frenzy like sharks after chum.
            and what have you done with glorificus?

            And perish the thought that an interest group should respond in  adiary concerning their area of interest.
            This is unheard of.

            "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

            by kestrel9000 on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 07:22:28 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  And to me (4+ / 0-)

            the sharks in a feeding frenzy are those to rush to whip up the antis into a lather by screaming about teh eeeevil guns every time a person does something stupid with one.

            "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

            by kestrel9000 on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 07:25:32 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  So why doesn't your interest group immediately (5+ / 0-)

              condemn the morons? Sure, you say the guy was acting stupidly but that's not your first response.

              You all are usually fiercely on the defensive in these comments, saying all the rules and regs gun owners have to follow. And yet kids and other innocents get killed by guns on a regular basis.

              After all this time too many opinions may have formed on DK for you to change anyone's mind about RKBAers, but all you do now is pour lead on top of concrete.

              And the car or knife comparison is inappropriate, imo.

              Guns are legal. Maybe being less nasty in comments would help. You know there are morons on the other side, too, whom you will never convince. Let them think what they will.

              I don't consider myself a moron, but I do think there are too many guns out there and dangerous people can get their hands on a gun way too easily.

              Why doesn't RKBA start a push for better mental health screening? Or even better coordination between law enforcement and medical records (Virginia Tech, Aurora guy).

              Or, in fact, SOMETHING other than "DON'T TOUCH MY GUNS!!!"

              Pick a state or region or specific bill, do the research, ID the public officials involved and start lobbying? You might form a coalition, even.

              I'd like to see a specific issue taken up and followed through on here besides a specific election. I can admit that I've seen a few RKBAers make what I consider substantive comments in other areas, which sounds snottier than I mean it to sound.

              And you keep asking "who are you" like you think you should know.

              Pay attention, people can surprise you.

              btw, glad The Baculum King is back. His piece on driving makes me pay more attention on the road.

              "I believe more women should carry guns. I believe armed women will make the world a better place. Women need to come to think of themselves not as victims but as dangerous." Anna Pigeon

              by glorificus on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:01:03 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  ummmm..... (3+ / 0-)
                So why doesn't your interest group immediately (0+ / 0-)
                condemn the morons? Sure, you say the guy was acting stupidly but that's not your first response.
                Yes. It was.

                "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

                by kestrel9000 on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:05:37 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Thanks for your nice comment above. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                glorificus

                And they are fiercely defensive, just follow Pete Cortez.  I don't think I've ever read a comment of his that wasn't rude, condescending, and denigrating.  Oh, but that's okay - "You made me do it".

                Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

                by Smoh on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 10:34:13 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Petey, the goon, pavepusher - they may be the (0+ / 0-)

                  smartest people on the planet per k9k but they are hateful, mean, vindictive SOBs whenever I see them here - which is the only place I see them.

                  I don't follow any of them, life's too short to waste the time, space or oxygen.

                  "I believe more women should carry guns. I believe armed women will make the world a better place. Women need to come to think of themselves not as victims but as dangerous." Anna Pigeon

                  by glorificus on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 02:37:18 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No, I wouldn't think of actually following (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    glorificus

                    any of them.  It's just just that we end up in the same diaries and it has seemed to me that Petey has the worst manners I've ever seen.

                    Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

                    by Smoh on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 04:13:35 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  He seems to be consistently the worst, although (0+ / 0-)

                      I think PavePusher is in the competition. Pete hasn't been here that long, either.

                      I like kes, KV seems ok, but the other regulars (including Robobagger) are just assholes.

                      kes tells me different, but I'm believing my own eyes, lyin' though they may be.

                      "I believe more women should carry guns. I believe armed women will make the world a better place. Women need to come to think of themselves not as victims but as dangerous." Anna Pigeon

                      by glorificus on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 04:23:38 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Kes and KV are the only ones I have any faith in. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        glorificus

                        Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

                        by Smoh on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 05:03:44 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  This should be hide rated (5+ / 0-)

                        Calling out several kossacks by name, and calling others unnamed to be assholes too, is what's called being a dick.
                         I'm not gonna HR, because, sometimes, I think others SHOULD see the way people act on a daily basis towards the RKBA Group here on DKOS. Not to mention the disrepect for DKOS with obvious deviations from general norms of conduct.
                         

                        "The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." -Zappa My Site

                        by meagert on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 10:02:52 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Sadly, however... (4+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          meagert, KVoimakas, gerrilea, happy camper

                          ...no one will see it -- this thread is largely dead now.

                          In fact, I believe that Kos has made a ruling that this sort of thing in a dead-thread is even more unacceptable than at other times -- but I can't find the specific ruling.

                          Say, surely you don't think that's the very reason it was done here and now, because someone thought they could get away with flagrantly breaking site rules, but where no one would see it...?

                          No, surely not -- that would be rather hypocritical...

                          Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                          by theatre goon on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 10:34:35 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  ROFL (4+ / 0-)

                    Asking people to support their assertions, pointing out when they are factually wrong, calling out personal attacks and insults as what they are...

                    Yep, these are certainly "hateful, mean, vindictive" actions.

                    But you are oh-so-above the fray, aren't you?

                    Oh, no -- you called three different Kossacks in good standing "SOBs."

                    Hypocrisy alive and well on DKos, isn't it?

                    Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                    by theatre goon on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 05:20:52 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

        •  They may not be imbued with evil (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Farugia

          But let's go back to the primary purpose of guns.

          It's to kill.

          Not to get people and goods around like a vehicle is, not to cut veggies, fruits and meats like a knife is, not to hit a ball like a bat is.

          There is no other designed purpose to a gun that I know of, except to injure and kill the living.

          That being said, I would just like to see insurance being required, and open carry. Mainly the insurance is about them pushing for better safety features, like they did with vehicles. The open carry is so that people have the freedom to choose whether they are around guns or not.

          Why wouldn't gun owners not want others to be able to make an informed choice? Who is it that pushes for concealed carry, and why? I would think that even if you had a stalker, it would be a big deterrent for them to see you have a gun.

          Women create the entire labor force. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

          by splashy on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 02:51:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  We do regulate cars... (15+ / 0-)

      The wolfpack eats venison. The lone wolf eats mice.

      by A Citizen on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 08:38:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  A"legitimate accident?" (34+ / 0-)

      Yours is without doubt the dumbest comment I have ever read anywhere, anytime, any topic.

      I own a LOT of guns -- pistols, rifles, and shotguns.  I am 68 years old and have hunted and plinked at tin cans and groundhogs since I was big enough to hold a rifle.

      I have NEVER accidentally fired a firearm.  I have NEVER come close to having an accident with a firearm.

      But when you get cowboys with carry permits who feel they must strap on a loaded weapon every time they step out of their front door, "accidents" will happen and someone will die.  

      This "accident" was not "legitimate" and was entirely preventable.

      And please stop the stupid business of equating automobile accidents to firearms.  Cars are a necessity, guns are not.

      •  You also learned safe handling (18+ / 0-)

        At a guess, in really emphatic terms. Including never, ever letting a muzzle point toward something you can't afford to shoot.

        The number of unbreakable safety rules that person had to break is remarkable.

        Nobody would ever know it from listening to the NRA, but a surprising number of gun owners would be OK with requiring people who want to carry in public to pass a test proving that they can do so with a minimum of danger to bystanders.

      •  That was my first thought. Why was the gun (12+ / 0-)

        loaded and no safety on. And this guy could just walk out with a gun without proving he had a brain in his head. But it is so important he can kill if his butt puckers up and he is scared... or angry at his wife, his boss, the president, the representative, the race of someone, the driver who cut him, the kids with too loud music, the guy whose dog crapped on his lawn,... the list goes on apparently for valid reasons to be armed and willing to kill either accidentally or because the smaller guy you were following got nervous and then confronted you or maybe your wife left you or...There is always some rationalizing about the shooting after but there wouldn't have to be if there were simply better licensing requirements and NO GD Castle defense. You can already defend yourself in your home but to defend your ears at a gas station against loud noise and disrespectful younguns is damn stupid and the shooter should be locked up for homicide.

        Driving a car is very different. First off you don't need a gun to get to work. You don't need a gun to haul 5 bags of groceries home.You don't need a gun if you are absolutely clueless about safety. You can't get a license if you haven't at least met basic minimal knowledge about drivingand having a person with eyes on evaluate you. In CA you can't drive until you are 18. Course if the gun lovers had their way we would all go around armed to the teeth, bandoliers of ammo across our chests proving whos the most dangerous one in the area (WHY???)... Wonder if we reach that saturation point if the number of deaths  by gun would escalate to the point they surpass auto deaths (many of which have to do with cells, distractions and inebriation- even by legal drugs ).

        Fear is the Mind Killer...

        by boophus on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 09:17:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  No, cars are not a "necessity"... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oldpunk

        they are a convenience.  

        Get a horse, cowboy.

    •  Stop conflating traffic accidents and guns. (18+ / 0-)

      He didn't run over his kid.  He was carrying a loaded gun while he was putting his child in the car.  

    •  in response to the comments above (7+ / 0-)

      1. yes i am for real and i have my own opinions and everything.  gasp!

      2. sure and maybe if we regulate guns as well as we do cars guns will actually be involved in as many injuries and deaths as cars.

      3. my comment is worse than calling sandra fluke a slut?  really?  or how about calling half of Americans victims?  really?  is it worse than saying that pregnancies caused by rape are god's will?  really?  well, if YOU say so, it MUST be true.

      4. as opposed to the latest guy who was carrying a cell phone and a drink and ran over and killed a pregnant lady in the cross walk a few days ago?

      remember when Obama won his two elections and gun sales in this country went through the roof?  yeah?  because the right is afraid that the left is going to ban guns.  of course, the truth is that the left is never going to ban guns.  never ever ever.  but because some of the left vocally advocate for banning guns (and don't deny that control is just a step towards a ban) the right flips out every time someone on the left wins an election and stocks up on guns and ammo.  especially when a minority wins an election.  so, congratulations, you are responsible for scaring up gun sales.

      sometimes you just have to let people do things you don't approve of or you just push them into doing it even more, because they resist being controlled.  and let's be honest, it's not gun control.  it's controlling people.  and it's just as dumb as trying to keep kids from getting stds or pregnant by shaming them into abstinence instead of teaching them to be responsible with sex, because they just refuse to accept that kids will fuck whether parents want them to or not.  

      same thing with pot.  my state just legalized pot.  there will probably be maybe a 0.1% increase in the number of people using pot now that it's legal, because everyone who wants to use it was using it already.  they just did it in the shadows.  well, the same thing will happen with guns.  you can't put the fucking jack back in the box once it's come out.  you can't get rid of guns and you can't treat adults with guns like the right treats teenagers with sex or you just make things worse.

      but anyway, you are the experts, so, i should stop thinking about this for myself and just jump on your mostly empty bandwagon.

      so long and thanks for all the fish

      by Anton Bursch on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:02:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  On what planet (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mathazar, blueoasis, cany

      does this post make sense?

      •  on planet earth, where the vast vast vast majority (6+ / 0-)

        of people in the USA think that the anti gun left is ultimately needlessly obsessing over guns

        and i agree with them, because it's the truth.  

        so long and thanks for all the fish

        by Anton Bursch on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:48:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Please stick to facts, and don't make crap up. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sponson, Sandino, gramofsam1
          Record-Low 26% in U.S. Favor Handgun Ban

          Source:  http://www.gallup.com/...

          The "vast vast vast majority" is presumably more than 74%.  74% not favoring a gun ban also does not mean 74% think a gun ban is "ultimately needlessly obsessing over guns".
          •  you think that 74% isn't a vast vast vast majority (6+ / 0-)

            in the united states of america?  the only thing that polls better is stuff like supporting the troops and being against terrorism and believing in god.  things that are basically inarguable.  if you have 74% support for your issue then you own the issue, period.  you don't want to call that having a vast vast vast majority, fine.  it's a completely subjective term anyway.  the point is... the anti gun left is way out on a limb on the issue.  right or wrong.  and my point in saying that the vast vast vast majority of people in the US agree with me is to respond to the bullshit attempt to dismiss me as being out on a limb by asking 'what planet i am from'.  so, i was answering a tactical question that was asked in the form of mocking hyperbole with a little bit of a rhetorical flourish myself: vast vast vast majority.  

            so long and thanks for all the fish

            by Anton Bursch on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 11:15:10 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Belief is god is certainly not inarguable... (0+ / 0-)

              But it is at over 90% in the US, from the latest polls I've seen.  Seems reasonable to call that a vast majority.  Maybe even if it were at 85%...

              But while 74% is certainly a majority (Though, again, I see no evidence that the entire 74% thinks that the rest are "ultimately needlessly obsessing over guns"), it's not the "vast majority", and most definitely not the "vast vast vast majority".

              •  74% is almost a 50 point difference (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                glorificus, PavePusher, oldpunk

                51% is a 1 point difference and I would call it a slight majority.  a 50 point difference is beyond a majority.  it's beyond strong majority.  beyond super majority.  it's in blow out territory.  50 points is a gulf of difference between two positions.  a vast gulf in my opinion.  is it a vast vast vast gulf?  fuck if i know.  but it's a goddamn lot more than just a majority.  in any case, i said it was a flourish in response to the question 'what planet are you from' that suggested i was out on some limb with my opinion.

                in regards to using the term inarguable, i meant it in the sense that there's no arguing against those things and winning enough support to swing the majority your direction.  you can't convince a majority to not believe in god or to not support the troops or to be for terrorism.  it's inarguable for all intents and purposes.

                as for whether a major (vast vast vast or whatever) think the left is 'ultimately needlessly obsessing over guns' i think i am absolutely correct about it.  i think it's in the realm of people who argue about whether love is real or just an chemically delusion our brains induce to get us to propagate the species.  most people just nod along with the conversation and walk away thinking 'um, okay, anyway'.  guns have been around for everyone since we've all been born.  i think most people think being anti gun is an overreaction.  modest gun regulation is of practical use, but the mission that the anti gun people seem to be on just seems like it's taking place in an alternate reality.  kind of like scientists who study whether love is real.  it just doesn't connect with most people.  

                so long and thanks for all the fish

                by Anton Bursch on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 12:03:56 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  ok... that was an anti-biking rant (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sponson, FiredUpInCA, splashy

      What the heck?  You go on for half a paragraph about drivers being idiots ... and then say that cyclists are putting everyone at risk?  In your world is everyone supposed to take public transit?

      Look gun control - I'm for gun control. Not banning guns (deer hunting, yay!) but gun control targeted at the right weapons, areas and situations.  This gun fetish has us accepting the erosion of the first amendment (free speech "zones?" seriously??) to the point where you can carry a gun to any given event much more easily than you can protest it with free speech.

      But back to the cycling.  I agree with you about the sheer number of traffic accidents as an epidemic, but every bike accident I've ever had was the fault of the driver. Being turned in front of in traffic (no turn signal, across 2 lanes) and being doored. The cause of those accidents is the behavior you complained about at the top of your paragraph, NOT the "fucking idiots who...ride their bikes".

      •  that wasn't an anti biking rant (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pete Cortez, glorificus, oldpunk

        i barely mentioned bikes while trying to illustrate that there are things, such as bad drivers, that cause serious injury and death at an alarmingly high rate that are ignored by the left while they chase after bright and shiny gun control.  

        i get it.  the left have their emotional wedge issues just like the right have their emotional wedge issues.  it gives them their emotional fix to get all worked up about it. meanwhile everyone else gets to endure the unending fights that either go nowhere and waste time and money or go to some extreme that causes problems for everyone and has to be fixed.  it's annoying.

        as for bikers who are fucking idiots and ride in the middle of 6 lane traffic... i don't know about the instances that you have gotten into accidents, but i live in a big biking city and every single day i drive across town and see at least a dozen instances of bikers breaking the law in ways that put not only themselves but everyone around them at risk of an accident.  i list them along with automobile drivers who are idiots while on the road.  i'm not singling them out.

        although, i do think bikers are a unique risk in traffic.  they can't keep up with traffic.  they are very difficult to see in traffic a lot of the time.  they fall down because of pot holes unless they are always focusing on the ground in front of them and then they aren't attentive of the cars around them.  honestly, most i encounter don't pay attention past their own goddamn nose.  just like automobile drivers.

        and they have this mix of wanting to be treated like a car but also wanting to be treated like a pedestrian crossing a crosswalk and given the right away.  hell, most i encounter zip between cars with the same kind of finger crossed stupidity of a person running across six lanes of traffic because they don't want to walk to the crosswalk 30 feet away and wait for the light.  

        and they drift back and forth in and out of a lane when they are supposed to be riding to the side (even when there are bike lanes).  or ride with no hands or while holding a fucking cell phone and texting.

        but most of all, my beef with bikers, and i used to be one, is that they don't just put themselves at risk on the road.  they put everyone around them at risk.  most accidents are caused by drivers who don't give themselves and others a margin for error.  they drive too close or too fast and when someone makes a mistake or some outside force causes them to lose control (like a flat tire) there is no buffer to handle the situation before a colliding with someone (or something) occurs.  now throw a biker into that mix and someone is probably going to die.

        for example: a biker drifts over into the lane in front of a car.  the car swerves to avoid the biker.  the biker doesn't get hurt, but the car that swerved caused the truck in the lane next to them to swerve too and they collide with someone.  the biker rides away with a look back breathing a sigh of relief that they weren't on the side of the road that the accident behind them just happened in.

        you know, my wife was at a cross walk once and the light hadn't turned but the lady next to her, who was crossing the other way, told her just to go, because the cars have to stop for her anyway.  my wife told the lady that just because they have to stop doesn't mean they will and she's not going to win an argument with them about it after she's dead.  this was after my wife was almost hit by cars at the crosswalk numerous times within a matter of weeks.  i bring it up, because i stopped biking in traffic because i realized that i don't win an argument with a car over my right of way after i am dead from being hit.  i don't know what keeps other bikers from realizing the same thing.  them again, i don't what keeps people from going to a bar by themselves when they know they are going to probably try to drive home drunk and are too drunk to realize they shouldn't.  but it happens every day and people die because of it.

        my experience is that modest gun control is neccessary, but singling out guns as some great danger to society is misguided.  but, you know, gun control is a hell of a lot simpler to argue about than traffic.  i mentioned canada above and how they have 5 years in a row of 2,300 hit and runs in BC and that was after a 5 year campaign to get people to drive and walk safer.  they spent a ton of money and nothing has changed.  it's very sad.

        so long and thanks for all the fish

        by Anton Bursch on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 12:45:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  "That wasn't an anti biking rant; THIS is an..." (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gramofsam1, Mindful Nature, splashy

          ...anti-biking rant," apparently.

          Your generalizations about cyclists hit a nerve with me  And to wrap this back into gun control, I'd love to come up with a bunch of sentences about gun owners that generalize the way yours did about cyclists. I modified some of your sentences above, with that goal in mind"

          **They leave their guns out in reach of children when they are supposed to be locking up the unloaded guns. Or they hold the gun while holding a fucking cell phone and texting.

          **but most of all, my beef with gun owners, and i used to be one, is that they don't just put themselves at risk.  they put everyone around them at risk.  most accidents are caused by gun owners who don't give themselves and others a margin for error.

          **for example: a gun owner points a gun inside a car.  the occupant instinctively moves to avoid a gun barrel pointed at him.  the gun owner doesn't get hurt, but the 7-year old that moved dislodges the parking brake and the car rolls into traffic.  The gun owner walks away with a look back breathing a sigh of relief that they didn't pull the trigger by mistake when they were getting in.

          **i stopped carrying a gun in public because i realized that i don't win an argument with a gun over mechanical failures, dropping it, being careless, after i am dead from being hit (by a bullet).  i don't know what keeps other gun owners from realizing the same thing.  them again, i don't what keeps people from going to a bar by themselves when they know they are going to probably try to drive home drunk and are too drunk to realize they shouldn't.  but it happens every day and people die because of it.

          Every single time a cyclist is injured or killed in traffic, the trolls come out in the comments section in every major city newspaper, and start second-guessing or saying the cyclist is at fault.  A great illustration of this is here, and this kind of response is typical whenever cyclists come up in public discussion.

          •  I meant to add, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gramofsam1

            that this is why I'm so sad to see this same anti-cyclist, "if you get dead on the road on a bike it's your own damn fault" dreck show up here on dKos.

          •  easy solution (0+ / 0-)

            register all guns.  If anyone dies with a gun registered to you, life sentence.  Strict liability.

            Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

            by Mindful Nature on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 09:32:36 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No. (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              theatre goon, rockhound, Joieau, oldpunk

              I am not responsible for the actions of criminals.  Period.  End.  Dot.

              Unless you want to extend that law to ALL personal property...?  Then at least you'd be consistent.

              •  Don't like it (0+ / 0-)

                keep your gun locked up.

                Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                by Mindful Nature on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 11:32:44 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You can not make me a criminal by fiat/proxy. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  theatre goon, Wordsinthewind, oldpunk

                  Pound sand, totalitarian.

                  •  behave responsibly (0+ / 0-)

                    and there'll be no problem.  endanger the rest of society and expect consequences.  That's the law that applies to much of the rest of society, so it's time for the gun lobby to become adults and take responsibility for their actions.

                    Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                    by Mindful Nature on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 12:04:23 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  And there's the thing. (4+ / 0-)

                      Gun owners do take responsibility for their actions -- their own actions, not the actions of criminals.

                      A law-abiding, responsible gun-owner does not endanger the rest of society just by being a gun-owner.

                      If they are negligent or intentionally break the law?  Yes, they should be held accountable for their actions.

                      If they do not become negligent or intentionally break the law?  They should not be held accountable for the actions of others.

                      I mean, that's how we treat everything else.  We don't take away driver's licenses from those who do not drive under the influence of alcohol just because someone else does.

                      That would just be silly...

                      Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                      by theatre goon on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 12:31:23 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Not strictly true (0+ / 0-)

                        if you are a shipper of, say, dangerous chemicals, and something goes wrong, one can be strictly liable for the harm without a showing of negligence because the action was inherently dangerous.  Since guns are commensurately dangerous, there needs to be a heightened standard of care here.

                         Certainly, if your gun gets stolen because it wasn't locked away, then the gun owner should be negligently liable for whatever crime is committed with it as a very foreseeable consequence.

                        Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                        by Mindful Nature on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 01:09:48 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  If a criminal has to break into my vehicle... (4+ / 0-)

                          or house, I've taken all the security precautions I need to morally and legally.  

                          Would you be responsible for any damages caused by a criminal who stole your kitchen knives?

                        •  Not at all true. (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          oldpunk, rockhound, Wordsinthewind
                          ...if you are a shipper of, say, dangerous chemicals, and something goes wrong, one can be strictly liable for the harm without a showing of negligence because the action was inherently dangerous.  Since guns are commensurately dangerous, there needs to be a heightened standard of care here.
                          Firearms are not directly comparable to dangerous chemicals.

                          Some chemicals are dangerous by their very existence, and require specialized containment or handling procedures.  They can harm people simply by existing, with no need for an outside agent to use them.

                          Guns are in no way analogous to that -- they are only dangerous if they are used by someone.  They don't, for instance, get up and shoot people on their own.  They require an outside agent -- a person -- to use them before they become dangerous.

                          Apples and oranges -- your comparison is completely invalid.

                          Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                          by theatre goon on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 01:32:55 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  I do, your obvious insinuations not withstanding. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      theatre goon, oldpunk

                      So do the vast majority of gun owners.  Something on the close order of 99.9%.

                      And those same laws already apply to gun owners.

                      How's that sand feel?  I bet it chaffs....

    •  There is no analogy. (4+ / 0-)

      Cars are seen as relatively safe.  Guns are not.  So you would expect to see people taking extra care with a gun.

      The guy was a fucking idiot.

    •  I don't honestly see (5+ / 0-)

      why we can't address BOTH gun safety AND traffic accidents.

      This sounds like the argument that people make to try to get women to stop talking about women's rights in the US -- "well, you shouldn't ask us to be concerned about THAT, because in (insert Middle Eastern country here) women are stoned to death for going to school!"

      Do you not see that it is the grossest idolatry to speak of the market as though it were the rival of God?

      by kismet on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 04:21:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Unlike guns (0+ / 0-)

      the car industry doesn't have a massive and vicious lobby out to defeat and destroy any possible regulation of cars so that we can maintain as much carnage as possible on our roadways.

      Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

      by Mindful Nature on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 09:26:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bwaaaaahahahahahahahaha....!! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theatre goon, oldpunk

        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        The auto industry fights everything. They simply do it much less publically.

      •  Actually, there is a constant battle (0+ / 0-)

        Between auto manufacturers and the insurance corporations. The insurance corps have a vested interest in having vehicles as safe as possible, to avoid payouts, while the manufacturers want to make them as inexpensive as they can get away with, considering the quality they are known for.

        Going with the auto bit: I would like to see all gun owners have insurance for each and every gun they own. That way the insurance corporations would push for safer guns.

        Open carry would be nice too.

        Women create the entire labor force. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

        by splashy on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 05:18:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Arguably, this was NOT an accident... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theatre goon, oldpunk

      it was negligence.

      Which, sadly, has it's own intrinsic punishment.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site