Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Sure was. (11+ / 0-)

    It was preventable by the adults in the equation behaving 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 05:28:10 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  What eventually is going to happen (5+ / 0-)

      with people like yourself? I figure that one day you'll just say enough, too many people are getting killed by guns, we really do need to do something. I can't imagine you'll be able to witness the carnage every day til you die without ever reconsidering your position. For now though, this is just another child who died because it was somebody's right to have a handgun.

      •  You continue to ignore the elephant in the room. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PavePusher, ban nock

        Road crashes worldwide:  

        Kill 260,000 children a year and injure about 10 million. They are the leading cause of death among youths ages 10 to 19, and a leading cause of child disability.
        A report released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) this week [December 2008] finds that car and other transportation-related accidents are the leading cause of death for children and teens in the U.S. About 8,000 child and teen deaths each year in the U.S. involve a motor vehicle occupant, pedestrian, or cyclist, with the highest fatality rates being among occupants of motor vehicles.
        As you said:  
        I can't imagine you'll be able to witness the carnage every day til you die without ever reconsidering your position.
        •  Strawman - or is it snark? (11+ / 0-)

          This point actually argues passionately FOR gun control.  Vehicle safety regulations have been consistently and aggressively applied with support from the populace.

          Let us count the ways...

          1. Commercial Drivers License - FEDERAL licensing of individuals who pilot vehicles that endanger lives.  Gee... sounds alot like like a FEDERAL gun license.  I mean after all, trucks don't kill people, drivers do.

          2. Safety belts - originally installed in vehicles by federal mandate.  States take that further and require usage (which I think is encouraged by federal funding?

          3. Door locks - Mandatory on vehicles because they save lives.  In fact, modern cars AITOMATICALLY lock their doors during a crash to prevent opening from impact.

          That's just a start.  Google or check out

          •  Not snark, not straw man. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BlackSheep1, theatre goon

            As you well know, having just posted a series of straw man points yourself.  You're failing to acknowledge that the majority of gun owners are actually in favor of common sense rules.  (Note:  "Common sense" doesn't equal "banning.")

            1.  Licensing:  Driving is not in the Constitution.  That's inconvenient for some, but it's a fact.  In terms of how this equates to gun ownership:  (A) In several states, and in quite a few more cities, it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon.  In virtually every place concealed carry is legal, it is restricted to permit holders only.  And, (B) NICS.

            2.  Safety belts in cars, as with safeties on guns, are helpful only if you use them.  Stupid people do stupid things.  And if you've a mind to play tit-for-tat news clipping bingo, you'll only be proving the point.

            3.  Most gun owners, and probably 100% of the RKBA community here at DKos, advocate for gun safes and trigger locks.  One note on locks, though:  A car drives equally well with the doors locked or unlocked.  Guns, not so much.  While some might like that just fine, anybody who thinks permanently locking a trigger in order to prevent operation of a gun is an acceptable plan, has jumped with both feet directly into self-parody.

          •  Actually, I think it'd be great to regulate cars (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            IndieGuy, theatre goon, greengemini, Smoh

            more than we already do.

            Let's create a sustainable public transportation infrastructure, like Japan's maglev trains, for long-distance travel. We could put a lot of people to work building it. For short-range travel let's do trolleys, like NOLa has. Or el trains like you find in NY and Chicago. Or subways.
            Let's make it feasible NOT TO NEED A CAR.

            Meanwhile, we should make sure NOBODY texts while driving. Ever.
            That's deathly serious, by the bye. If you get caught doing it you should lose your driver's license FOR LIFE.

            And if you ever get caught driving drunk or drugged, you should LOSE YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSE FOR LIFE before you kill somebody.

            LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

            by BlackSheep1 on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 10:08:32 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Huh? (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rockhound, theatre goon, oldpunk, splashy
            3. Door locks - Mandatory on vehicles because they save lives.  In fact, modern cars AITOMATICALLY lock their doors during a crash to prevent opening from impact.
            Got a cite for that one?  I haven't heard of any federal regulation on that.  And all the automatic door locks I know of engage as soon as one starts driving, not during an actual crash.  I always thought is was a security issue due to the increasing occurance of car-jackings.

            The parallel regulation for firearms would be some kind of locking system that only recognizes the authorized user.... but no-one has yet developed such a system that fits into the standard handgun (or long-gun, AFAIK) that is reliable enough to trust your life to.  Note that no police or military  or government agency will accept manditory use of these systems alongside civilians.  This is telling....

          •  Air bags, anti-lock brakes, better suspension (0+ / 0-)

            The list of changes brought about because insurance corporations pushed to make them safer so it doesn't cost them so much.

            Let's have each and every gun insured, and open carry. That way the damages would be covered, the insurance corporations would push for safer guns, and everyone could see who has a weapon so they can decide for themselves if they want to be around them.

            No need to take any guns away, just do those things for the rest of us.

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

            by splashy on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 02:37:27 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I worry about being injured in an automobile, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          splashy

          How are you justifying significantly ratcheting up all our risk for death and mutilation by adding guns to the mix?

          •  So... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PavePusher, theatre goon

            Are you saying automobiles should be banned because you're afraid of them?  Good luck with that.

            •  I think any auto that is designed (6+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Duckmg, cany, blueness, splashy, ZenTrainer, Smoh

              expressly to kill people should be banned. Yes. Guns are designed to kill. When is that going to sink into your skull? Guns. Are. Designed. To. Kill.

              •  Sorry, friend. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                theatre goon

                Considering that automobiles kill so many people every year, your argument is completely specious.  You're going for cosmetics instead of effect.  You're blaming the implement, while ignoring - as I said - the 800 pound gorilla in the room.  Dead is dead.  

                And when is going to sink into your skull?  Gun. Ownership. Is. Constitutionally. Protected.

                •  Yeah, I know. Whenever you come (5+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  greengemini, cany, blueness, splashy, Smoh

                  to a dead end in terms of rationalizing guns, you revert to the Constitution. Yet if we wanted to rid ourselves of the 2nd Amendment, it is because people like you would oppose us that such an endeavor would fail. In the end, if your best justification for a policy is that some guys who have been dead for 200 years said it should be so, that is just not that compelling an argument IMO.

                  •  I think that we'll need to disagree on this one. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    theatre goon, wishbone

                    You want to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution should count.  I don't.

                    •  Constitution (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      blueness, splashy

                      The constitution also says that slaves only count as 3/5ths of a person.  I suppose we can't possibly change that either huh?

                      •  Article 5 awaits you. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        theatre goon, IndieGuy

                        Go hog wild.

                        •  If this country had enough people with the guts (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          blueness, splashy

                          to do what was right we would.  Instead we will continue to watch people in this country needlessly die at the hands of guns and gun "accidents" as the NRA gleefully laughs its way to the bank while arming all sides to the teeth.  

                          All so a bunch of people can pretend they are going to take to the hills and fight off our military when the government turns on them.  As if their guns would actually do any good against tanks and stealth fighters.

                          •  The Afghanis missed your memo. (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon, oldpunk, wishbone, IndieGuy

                            Would you like to go tell them in person?  I'll help buy your ticket...

                            Hint: tanks and stealth fighters are useless without fuel, ammo or crews.  Things rifles are excellent for.  Note that the factories and raw materials for such are not pre-existing on military bases...  The term here is "asymetrical warfare".  I suggest you study up.

                          •  LOL (0+ / 0-)

                            The Afghanis has the advantage of living in one of the most inhospitable and defensible terrains on the planet and being half-way around the globe from us, thus making it just a bit more difficult to get to them.  They were also hiding from us and not actually protecting anything of real value.  Sure, anyone can sit in the mountains and take pot-shots at people.  To what end?  You're never going to take any actual target of value that way.  Their only strategy was that they knew we would eventually get tired and go home.  That won't work in a civil war against our own military because our army will ALREADY BE HOME.  

                            I'll tell you what.  Take all your guns and we'll give you a week to set up.  You can pick any town or village in the country where you want to "hold off" or  the US armed forces.  I'll go get some popcorn so I have something to munch on while I watch the military blow the ever loving crap out of you in about 5 minutes.  Maybe we can make a reality TV show out of it or something.  Should be good for a few minutes of laughs.  Unless of course they do it all at night in which case the TV images will probably suck.

                          •  There's no "inhospitable and defensible terrain" (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            IndieGuy, theatre goon

                            in the U.S.?  Do you live in central Nebraska?

                            And what about all the urban fighting?

                            Once again, how do those forces fight if they can't get supplies to run the weapons systems?  

                            I'll give you a concrete example, without breaching any security prohibitions:  I'm stationed at Davis-Monthan AFB in southern Arizona, home of the premier ground-attack airplane in history, the A-10.  Some 5000 active duty personnel and surrounded by a population of approx. 1 million.  

                            How long do you think we could last if only a few hundred people decided to cut our supply routes, power, water and communications?  Lots of military vets in this area too, with lots and lots of training, much of it in insurgency/counter-insurgency operations.  City surrounded by up to 9000 foot mountains as rugged and dry as anything in the 'stans.  Hell, we don't have enough people to defend our own perimeter from a large-scale attack.  

                            Now, extrapolate that to the entire military.  Have you ever looked up how far apart most of our U.S. bases are?  How big they are?  How open they are?  What's the total size of the U.S. military?  What percentage are actual combat troops?  Stationed here in the U.S.?  Disregard the Navy, unless you plan to just destroy coastal-zone cities.  

                            Approx. 3% of people took up an actual resistance role during the American revolution.  Using that as a yard-stick, how many hostiles out of the current U.S. population?  Versus how many combat troops again?  And this is assuming the military stays intact and doesn't fragment, not unlikely in a Civil War.

                            You don't seem to know much about this subject, or to have thought it through.  

                          •  Like I said (0+ / 0-)

                            Call me up when your glorious battle goes down so I can be there to watch the fireworks.  Just give me some heads up so I can get the popcorn ready.

                          •  Popcorn.... the last refuge of the ignorant. n/t (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon, happy camper
                          •  Guns have hands? (0+ / 0-)

                            Who knew...

                            "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

                            by happy camper on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 06:19:47 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  And citizens united is A okay. (0+ / 0-)

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

                        by Smoh on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 03:30:11 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

            •  I was attempting to refute the specious (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Smoh

              Argument that since automobiles kill guns should be legal.

          •  Your risk of being injured by a gun accidently.... (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            theatre goon, rockhound, oldpunk, wishbone

            are pretty low.  Where do you get "significantly" from?

        •  Road crashes - need to have insurance (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Smoh

          Because when there is insurance, the vehicles are made safer. Look at what has happened here in the US because of that.

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

          by splashy on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 02:34:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site