If only the mom had been armed to protect herself.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

Toddler shoots, kills mom during video call after finding gun, Florida police say

A toddler in Florida fatally shot a woman during a video call after finding an unsecured handgun, police said Thursday.

Someone on the work-related Zoom conference called 911 and reported that they had seen a toddler and heard a noise before the woman, Shamaya Lynn, fell backward, police said in a statement.

Lynn, 21, was killed Wednesday in Altamonte Springs, near Orlando.

"Investigators determined that the injury was caused by a toddler who found a loaded handgun, which was left unsecured by an adult in the apartment," Altamonte Springs police said in a statement. Police said Lynn was shot in the head. /snip

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/toddler-shoots-kills-mom-during-video-call-after-finding-gun-n1276722?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma

This is sad on so many levels and just another indicator that something needs to be done.

[airmid]

1. I can't even imagine what this child will go through when they grow up and

realize what happened.

[aeromanKC]

2. The owner of the gun (the father) should be arrested for a felony murder/manslaughter offense.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

3. That would certainly be a step in the right direction.

There used to be a time when if stopped driving while intoxicated would end up with the cop driving you home. MAD changed that.

[Bluethroughu]

4. This is exactly what needs to happen.

[Dial H For Hero]

6. I'm not overly familiar with the laws in question, but wouldn't criminal negligence be the most

likely charge?

[USALiberal]

20. I assume you would prefer no charges! Nt

[Dial H For Hero]

30. I assume you didn't read response #5!

[LanternWaste]

57. Goodness gracious.

Still at it, eh?

[Scrivener7]

27. If it is the most likely charge, that is a problem. That man murdered his wife and

ruined the life of his child. And he should pay accordingly.

[Ligyron]

50. I agree completely

But he could contend it was safety locked away and so his wife had to be the one who took it out and left it unsecured. Since the wife cannot be deposed this will be hard to disprove hence reasonable doubt is now in place.

You just watch.

[Scrivener7]

70. It should be that, if your gun is used to kill someone, no matter who took it out or

how it came about, you should be charged with murder.

If someone's gun is used to kill someone else, that is incontrovertible proof that they did not secure that gun effectively.

[NutmegYankee]

74. That will never happen here.

Not with our Constitution and common law system. We'd have to be overthrown by the Trumpzis and turned into a fascist state first with a new system of law.

[Scrivener7]

75. Sure. Requiring responsibility is fascist.

Anyone who holds a gun owner responsible for making sure others are not damaged by their hobby is fascist. Every country with responsible gun laws is fascist.

[NutmegYankee]

76. Our legal system does not hold someone responsible for another's actions.

If someone steals your car and mows down a bus stop of kids, you don't face charges for that crime. The person who took the car faces that charge. It's the same across the board, no matter what property is taken.

So yeah, your view is well beyond our system of law.

[Scrivener7]

78. Gosh. You brought that to thhe moronic "gun equals car" argument much faster than usual.

Everything in our legal system wasn't in our legal system until it was.

[NutmegYankee]

81. So in other words, you can't defeat that point.

Our legal system operates on principles that are hundreds of years old. They are not going away. No snarky response on an internet board is going to change that.

[ShazzieB]

126. In this case, it's a solidly valid analogy.

If someone takes my property without my permission and uses it to kill someone, the legal system isn't lying to hold me liable.

Unless it can be proven that their getting hold of my property was due to negligence on my part. And even then the charge wouldn't be murder.

That's not how this stuff works.

[Scrivener7]

134. If they were able to take your gun, as opposed to any other kind of property, without

your permission, you were not securing that gun responsibly. If they were able to steal your gun, you were negligent with it. When you buy a gun, you should take responsibility for it and the things it can do.

The charge wouldn't be murder, but it should be.

And that's not how this stuff works because there is money to be made and the lives those profits cost do not matter to those who make guns, nor to those who insist that the deadly ramifications of their hobby should not be subject to any restrictions.

[NutmegYankee]

140. No gun lock is completely unbreakable, no safe uncrackable.

If someone defeats a securing technology allowed by law, there is no further liability. Period.

[Straw Man]

179. Because ...

... everyone knows that there are no valid analogies when it comes to guns, because ... GUNZ!

[Mr.Bill]

131. Some states, mine included

have specific laws about securing weapons and specific legal liability if something like this happens. The father would not be charged with murder, but could be charged with letting a loaded weapon be available to the child. Might be difficult to prove, though. There was another adult there. Maybe it was her who left the gun out where the child could get it.

[NutmegYankee]

141. I was referring the the theft discussion.

Any standard securing device to protect children can be defeated with a little time or the proper tools. Not likely by a child, but surely an adult. Legally, the defeat of the theft device is not considered negligence. You locked it according to law, and someone came and intentionally defeated that device. You would not be in legal jeopardy for what happened after that.

[Mr.Bill]

143. You are correct.

The laws I was refering to are written specifically to deal with guns falling into the hands of minors.

[Jedi Guy]

77. So...

Let's say Bob has a handgun and he keeps it in a portable gun safe. Someone breaks into Bob's home and steals the case, then either opens it himself or finds someone to do it for him, via lockpicking or a cutting torch or whatever. He then uses Bob's handgun to kill someone. In that circumstance, you'd support Bob being charged with murder? That really doesn't seem reasonable at all, honestly.

[Scrivener7]

80. Yep. Especially if the burgler is a toddler.

[Jedi Guy]

83. Well, thanks for agreeing that you're not reasonable, at least... N/T

[Ligyron]

87. Wrong.

Weapons are stolen all the time and used by criminals to commit further crimes and yet I am not aware of one case where the original owner was prosecuted.

[Scrivener7]

135. No. They are not prosecuted. But they should be.

[LiberatedUSA]

184. I love your ideas.

Tell people they need to lock their guns up, then arrest and imprison them if their gun is stolen, regardless of measures used to store it.

You have inspired me. We should make a law that says people HAVE to lock their guns up when not in use or cleaning. Then we should immediately charge anyone who employed successful self defense in the home with said gun, while treating the criminal invader as the victim and letting them off the hook.

We should tell the detectives, don’t concentrate on the home invader; we only care about how it is possible for someone to shoot, in their own home, a criminal we sympathize with, with a gun that was supposed to be locked up. That doesn’t sound legit so the shooting is murder or attempted murder.

Isn’t that clever? Make self defense illegal by a backdoor method.

[Renew Deal]

32. Is it clear that he left the gun unsecured?

The article says "an adult."

[Scrivener7]

37. Sure. Go with that. The gun was totally secure but the toddler was a criminal mastermind.

[Renew Deal]

39. Read again, slowly.

It doesn’t say the dad left it out. Could the mom have left it out?

[Scrivener7]

42. Read again, slowly. There are gun freaks who jump into every one of these threads to tell everyone

that there is really nothing to see here and that all should move along because nothing can be done about guns.

These people have lost their own humanity. They are soulless. Something is wrong with them. What they do is inconceivable to humane people.

How do they become people who would do that?

They see a tragedy like this, like tragedies we have seen thousands of times before, and they do everything they can to move the subject away from the obvious: gun incidents like this need to be criminalized.

Always, their posts are full of hubris and attempts at shows of superiority. But, as their gun dependence proves, their pose of superiority is just a front for a very deep and fundamental state of fear.

They are pitiful, but they are also monstrous.

[Renew Deal]

46. Thank you for the speech.

There are also those that have an agenda and make assumptions in a way that blinds them from objectivity and even the truth. This is typical of Qanon types but is not limited to them.

[Scrivener7]

47. My wish for those people, though I know that it will never come true, is that they

will read a post like the OP, consider their own responses to it and ask themselves these questions:

1) What are they doing?

2) Why are they doing it? Why are they reading these horrible stories of TOTALLY AVOIDABLE tragedy and such awful sadness, and responding to them in these dismissive and obstructive ways?

3) Are their responses really reflective of who they want to be in this world?

[Renew Deal]

51. That's nice. Now go throw a coin into a fountain.

Getting back to the OP that you are attempting to hijack... who does the article say left the gun out?

[Scrivener7]

55. Again, how do they become people who respond this way? What warped them like that?

[ShazzieB]

127. I can answer that!

An adult. (As I am sure you know. 😉

"Investigators determined that the injury was caused by a toddler who found a loaded handgun, which was left unsecured by an adult in the apartment," Altamonte Springs police said in a statement.

It does not say WHO the adult was. Why anyone would INSIST that it HAD to have even the kid's father is a mystery to me!

[Crunchy Frog]

139. Either the father killed the mother, or the mother killed herself.

[Straw Man]

183. Criminalized?

Last edited Mon Aug 16, 2021, 05:10 AM - Edit history (1)

They see a tragedy like this, like tragedies we have seen thousands of times before, and they do everything they can to move the subject away from the obvious: gun incidents like this need to be criminalized.

They already are: criminal negligence. But what do you do in cases where the the criminal is already dead, which is quite possibly the situation here? Look for somebody else to blame? That doesn't sound like justice to me. Maybe you have a different standard.

[ShazzieB]

128. Exactly.

The article says "an adult" left the gun "unsecured in the apartment." This is taken directly from a statement made by the police.

Sure, it could have been the dad. It could have just as easily been the mom. If she is the one who left the gun lying around, then by Scrivener7's logic, her death should be ruled a suicide!

[thucythucy]

150. It should be possible to determine who owns (or owned) the gun.

I would think that whoever was the legal owner was obligated to make sure it was securely stored.

[treestar]

120. No one said that.

But don't blame any person before finding out just who did it.

[SidDithers]

69. +1...nt

Sid

[Dial H For Hero]

5. Realistically, what can be done?

I'm one of the rare gun enthusiasts on this board (or, as seems to be the popular term here, 'gunner'). My first response to such a story as this is that the owner of the handgun in question was an idiot of the highest order, criminally so. One never leaves unsecured firearms anywhere a child will have access to them, with the exception of teenagers who have demonstrated consistently responsible gun safety (I had access to my .22 rifle when I was 14).

So: Education. But we're already doing that, and lots of people are stupid and/or ignorant. What else, then, in regards to children and guns?

Abolish the 2nd Amendment? Not happening. Ban handguns? Not happening, Pass safe storage legislation? Such laws punish people after the fact. Anyone dumb enough to leave a handgun around a toddler isn't very likely to use a gun lock on it.

Look, if you just want to be the zilliionth person to say "Fuck the NRA!", "Tax bullets at $1,000 each!" or something along those lines, have at it. I'm hoping for something a bit more substantive, though. What policies can be passed at the national level that are both constitutional and politically feasible? Because honestly, in a nation with well over a hundred million handguns (and millions more manufactured and imported every decade), I don't see one.

[gab13by13]

7. The problem is these people live in fear,

Numerous people on my local right wing web site talk about leaving loaded guns all over their house, and I live in a rural community.

My uncle, when he was a little boy, found a loaded gun and shot and killed my grandfather. My dad never knew his father. My uncle turned into an alcoholic, I have no idea if that incident was a primary reason.

[Dial H For Hero]

9. I'd enjoy quizzing your locals regarding the point of simply leaving loaded guns strewn about.

It's one thing to have a single firearm loaded and accessible when at home, but what you described simply doesn't make sense, regardless of the circumstances.

As for your family tragedy, my condolences.

[gab13by13]

12. Thank you,

I am 74 years old now so the incident with my uncle happened before my dad was even born. My grandma was pregnant with my dad when my grandpa was killed.

It is worse than that with these people. They talk about putting a strobe light on their loaded gun near their bed so they can blind an intruder. Their explanations are that they don't live in fear because they keep loaded guns all over their houses. I am not making this stuff up, numerous people have talked about keeping loaded guns in their houses.

[Dial H For Hero]

17. In fairness, weapon lights are a standard accessory for handguns and most feature a strobe function.

Just as lasers were an exotic add-on 30 years ago, but today are quite common. But keeping multiple guns loaded and unsecured is absurd.

[JanMichael]

24. We have family members that do that. Guns everywhere.

We met them one time at a location far from both of our homes and they told us that they slept in the hotel with a shotgun under the pillow. God forbidden one of them has some sort of waking dream right? Next time again I think I hope they do. On top of that keep a loaded handgun under the driver's seat. Without too much detail I can say for a fact I know that the safety is off all the time. Hope their vehicle never gets stolen. They are not in anomaly. This country is crazy with crazy people in it and all the crazy people or at least most of them have a gun it sucks.

[Rorey]

29. I have a gun on my bedside table. I've used it twice, so far.

Ok, well it's actually a stun gun, and I've used it twice to interrupt a potential cat fight in my back yard in the middle of the night. If saying, "Get out of here" doesn't work, I press the button on my stun gun for just a split second and the noise makes the cats run off. At least it has so far.

When I first became single again a couple of years ago, one of my sons told me I needed to get a gun. I thought about it briefly, and decided against it. I don't feel comfortable with the idea of a loaded gun in my house. Honestly, the only time in my life I've ever been afraid of something bad happening to me was the last year of my marriage, and my ex-husband did keep a loaded handgun in the house. The thought of him shooting me definitely crossed my mind.

[elias7]

10. Realistically what can be done about anything once opponents block anything substantive?

Gun control, climate change, Covid vax, etc, The time to act is long gone, but people opposed to legislation, people who wanted what they wanted won the day, and unfortunately their selfishness has led to the “realistically, what can be done” argument you putout there now.

I would argue that your defense of guns does not serve the greater good, but only yourself, and that this tack, just like with climate change and Covid policy is a fatal fool’s errand. And now it’s too late for anything. Thanks!

[Dial H For Hero]

33. The time to act to change this country's attitude towards guns was the late 18th Century.

As for guns being a societal evil, I would point out that there are many positive uses of firearms. How that compares to the negative ones is beyond the scope of this thread.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

11. Like the father in this OP there are just too many stupid people in America that own guns.

If you have toddlers running around in your home and are leaving loaded guns within their reach your not only stupid, you're fucking stupid and criminally negligent.

Like they did with DUI laws: Give laws the teeth needed that can basically destroy a person's life for quite some time. Make laws that will make people frightened to leave that gun around for easy theft or acquisition by another and then start putting them away for a goodly amount of time.

When gun owners start getting prison time because their fourteen year old blew has brains out with the gun they kept in the nightstand things might change. When Bubba's shotgun gets stolen from his gun rack and used on the cashier at the 7-11, Bubba goes to jail too.

There are lots of things we can do... Common sense things we can do without canceling the 2nd.

I grew up in the country shot skeet, dove, ducks and quail in my youth and still say "fuck the NRA."

[viva la]

14. Put him in jail.

Deterrence works sometimes. Why the prospect of a toddler getting hold of a loaded gun isn't deterrence enough, I don't know.

And a prison term will make clear that what the father did was against society's laws, not just an accident.

That poor child. Imagine growing up and realizing you'd done that.

[jaxexpat]

15. The repair is simple.

Here's a few ideas:

Define militia so the constitution is CLEAR and not used as a half-assed excuse to legitimize personal arsenals or possession of weapons designed to kill people and is CLEAR that congress CAN enact laws to regulate (in any way) gun ownership.

Legalize enactment of laws banning all guns within jurisdictional boundaries.

Enact warrantless search liability on all registered gun owners.

Imprison/fine and confiscate unregistered gun owners.

Mandatory imprisonment, fine and confiscate hand gun ownership.

Shut down all private gun sales, manufacturers and ban gun imports.

Raise hunting permit costs X100.

Make it too much hassle to screw around with guns.

Keep the children in their playpens until they can act right. It's 2021 and we've got a problem that's bigger than anybody's fetishes.

[Dial H For Hero]

18. I presume by "simple" you don't mean "feasible". Your repair plan hasn't the slightest chance of

coming to pass.

[Orrex]

26. Gun zealots always insist that nothing can be done

They make some meaningless noise about “improved access to mental healthcare” or some kind of flaccid universal background checks, but ultimately they don’t want anything done if it means they can’t personally own enough weapons to overthrow a nation. Whatever reasonable measure is proposed, a gun zealot immediately leaps into action to defend the rights of guns above the rights of, you know, people.


In a world where we cling to the sick, cowardly delusion that “gun rights” are sacrosanct, indeed nothing can be done.

[Scrivener7]

35. Honestly, it's monstrous. How do they live with themselves? How does a person become that?

How do you look at this story and say OUT LOUD, "Ho hum, so what. Nothing can be done. My hobby is not to be curtailed."

If there were any decent people among the gun freaks, they would be the ones saying the loudest, "Something must be done, I SUPPORT AND WORK FOR real and effective measures to stop this kind of thing happening."

They are all complicit.

How do they become such people?

[Jedi Guy]

101. Well...

Maybe because they haven't done anything wrong, and dislike the idea of being negatively impacted for the stupidity, carelessness, and/or malice of other people? I don't think it's unreasonable to feel that way.

[Dial H For Hero]

36. Please estimate the chance of the agenda in post #15 coming to pass.

I’ll go first. 0%.

[Orrex]

49. What do you propose as an alternative?

How is it that no developed nation on earth has this problem, yet somehow we pretend that no solution is possible?


The NRA thanks you for parroting their talking points.

[treestar]

121. Merely pointing out that the SCOTUS

ruled we have a right to guns under the Second Amendment. You can disagree with that, but now it's the law.

[Orrex]

124. I agree that it's a bullshit interpretation.

Last edited Sat Aug 14, 2021, 07:08 PM - Edit history (1)

Heller, as I've correctly stated upthread, is one of the two worst decisions of the past half century, at least.


Here's how we fix it: for purposes of the 2nd amendment, define "arms" as "weaponry and firearms extant at the of the ratification of the amendment." All "arms" subsequent to that date are excluded and are subject to federal, state & local laws.

"BuT iT wIlL nEvEr PaSs" bleat LaPierre's surrogates across the internet.

[Jedi Guy]

152. "Heller...is one of the two worst decisions of the past half century, at least."

It's correct that that's your opinion. However, your opinion is not objective fact.

And if the "logic" from your "fix" were to be applied to the First Amendment, any speech/expression disseminated via something more advanced than a printing press could conceivably fall outside the protections of the amendment. After all, radio, television, and the Internet weren't extant when it was ratified. What's done to one amendment can be applied to others.

Also, all arms produced subsequent to the date of ratification are already subject to federal, state, and local laws. Those laws simply have to pass constitutional muster.

But who cares if you rip up the Bill of Rights as long as you get what you want, right?

[EX500rider]

104. "Gun zealots always insist that nothing can be done"

Not unreasonable to point out both the zero % chance of what the poster suggested passing any US Fed/State vote and how very fascist warrantless door to door searches would be.

Certainly some zealots in this thread though...

[Orrex]

110. I've had this discussion for decades

In all that time, I have never seen a gun zealot agree to any reasonable measure that might incidentally prevent them from personally owning all of the military-grade ordnance they fantasize about owning.

They invariably bleat the mantra that “It’ll never pass,” thinking that this lets them avoid admitting that they personally don’t want it to pass, because they perceive it to restrict their cartoonish notion of ”gun rights.”

So forgive me if I don’t find “it’’ll never pass” to be a compelling rebuttal. It’s simply a statement of cowardice from someone who is, in the end, just fine with tens of thousands of deaths by firearm.

And before anyone starts in on any bullshit about suicides accounting for many gun deaths, ask yourself why you’re ok with so many gun suicides.

[EX500rider]

114. I've had this discussion for decades

In all that time I have never seen a anti gun zealot suggest any reasonable regulation that might actually have a chance of passing.

So forgive me if I don’t find “it’’ll never pass” to be a compelling rebuttal.
If you think proposing laws and regulations that zero % chance of passing is somehow helpful have at it.

[Orrex]

118. How do you suppose other nations have managed it?

Somehow American gun zealots call impossible the laws and policies that are basic common sense in nations that don’t fetishize guns uber alles.

Is it because of the pathologically misread 2nd amendment? Maybe we should start by rejecting the interpretation so lovingly put forth by the NRA and its acolytes on the Right and Left.

[EX500rider]

119. I bet the writers of the Constitution knew what they meant when they wrote it

So once it passed they insisted all firearms only be owned by militia members, right? Oh, wait, they didn't.
They also put it in the "Bill of Rights" which should give you a clue if it was meant to be a right for the people.

Mexico has basically outlawed private firearms so it must be some crime free paradise I bet...oh, wait

[Crunchy Frog]

144. Massive gun trafficking from their gun saturated neighbor.

That's okay though. The Mexicans get to share in our freedumbs.

[EX500rider]

151. Common misperception

Only about a 1/3 of Mexican firearms get traced back to the US

https://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/counting-mexicos-guns/

[SYFROYH]

125. I don't see anyone saying nothing can be done.

Perhaps you can show me.

[Orrex]

130. Gun zealots sure as shit aren't offering any suggestions

And their answer to every reasonable suggestion is two-fold"

1. "tHaT's NoT rEaSoNaBlE."

2. "It'll never pass."

So, if it will satisfy your pointlessly contrarian need for literal specificity, I concede that no gun zealot has explicitly stated in writing that nothing can be done. My statement (and I accept that this is hard for some to grasp) should be taken not as literal truth but as a casual summation of the overall arc of 20+ years of stonewalling and nay-saying by gun zealots in this and every forum.

Way to focus on the important point, namely that people are dying by the thousands in the US but in no developed nation, because gun zealots in this fine land of ours worship their cartoonish notion of gun-based freedom above all other rights. Very much like the way that anti-mask assholes insist that their cartoonish notion of freedom supersedes all other concerns of public safety.


And, if it helps you to sleep at night, I do not mean that gun zealots literally worship a literal cartoon; this is figurative language that assumes (perhaps without justification) that the average reader is sufficiently sophisticated to comprehend the obvious stylistic difference.

[Straw Man]

181. So ...

So, if it will satisfy your pointlessly contrarian need for literal specificity, I concede that no gun zealot has explicitly stated in writing that nothing can be done. My statement (and I accept that this is hard for some to grasp) should be taken not as literal truth but as a casual summation of the overall arc of 20+ years of stonewalling and nay-saying by gun zealots in this and every forum.

,,, you made it up, then?

[jaxexpat]

40. It's a goal, hero.

[Dial H For Hero]

43. What is your estimate of the likelihood of this goal actually coming to pass?

Not asking for a thesis with footnotes, just a number.

[jaxexpat]

65. The same as the probability of a sane USSC.

US gun sanity = sanity of USSC

[Orrex]

67. That's a brilliantly simple summation

IMO the two worst decisions of the past 50 years are Citizens United and Heller, both of which are passionately cheered by their fans.

[DVRacer]

58. Sounds like a goal to get a lot of minorities in prison

Like drug laws most gun laws get enforced so unequal. Tulsa just had young female police officer go to jail for making a firearm purchase for her boyfriend of course she is black. I have personally seen others with very similar facts of the case simply admonished by the court and that was it. Her boyfriend asked her to buy a gun turned out he was a prohibited person and later it was used in a crime. They conducted a firearm trace and she admitted to buying it. Substitute white male buying prohibited white female that used the gun in a crime and the boyfriend in that case was simply told he did wrong but was never charged. Too many double standards especially here in Oklahoma.

[jaxexpat]

63. I'd like to see a world where racism is irradicated and replaced by gunism.

People don't have a say in their race but they DO have a choice to own or not to own guns. Racism, like choosing to own a hand gun, is a character flaw.

[paleotn]

52. Feasible. I get your point. It's a pity....

Americans aren't as sensible as Australians. Another former British colony with a firearm laced, wild frontier ethos and history. We could and we should, but we won't enact rational gun restrictions. Hell, we can't even get half our population to wear goddamn masks during a global pandemic.

[LiberatedUSA]

60. LOL

Your solution to gun ownership is heavily armed police carrying out warrantless searches?

I thought the narrative was we were wanting less jacked up cops armed to the teeth running around. Or do you think you can magically get them to only slap around, violate and step on the ones you dislike?

“We don’t like angry, killer cops.”

“Also, ban all guns within certain entire large areas except for the police and let them be our heavily armed masters who can legally kick down your door at any time and Rambo you.”

[jaxexpat]

66. The idea is.....

that when the ownership of guns means giving up some civil rights, people may rethink their options.

I think that ONE of the reasons we have "jacked up cops armed to the teeth" is because they KNOW that at some point in their career they're likely to run into a moron with a gun. The other reasons include a dearth of pre-hire psychological assessment and low wages.

But you know, that's another discussion, isn't it?

[LiberatedUSA]

68. Your idea won't work with mainstream Democratic leaders.

And red states, as well as their police would ignore it as a federal law in the same way blue states ignore federal bans on marijuana. Of course, the Supreme Court would be unlikely to allow it to ever happen as well.

Enjoy your fantasy.

[EX500rider]

79. "Enact warrantless search liability on all registered gun owners."

Maybe give the search teams snazzy black uniforms and a neat straight armed salute while your at it?
And maybe some papers everybody could carry they could ask for to prove you've already been searched? Or maybe a badge you sew to your shirt..

[jaxexpat]

82. You choose to own a gun, you choose to lose some civil rights. The choice is yours.

Nothing untoward about it. You have the right to choose.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

85. That's not the way our system works

whether you like it or not.

[jaxexpat]

92. That's exactly how it works.

There are examples all around.

You pay taxes-you may be audited
You wanna drive a big truck-you must have insurance coverage
You wanna work, apply for assistance-you may be mandatorily drug tested
You driving down the road and a cop wants to stop you-you better pull over and use yessir a lot

Not saying I like it but to deny that our system doesn't provide for arbitrary infringement on our civil rights is just naive.

[EX500rider]

156. I don't see where any of your examples are Constitutionally protected rights. nt

[MarineCombatEngineer]

159. Thank you!!!!

I gave up trying to explain to wannabe authoritarians why those "proposals" are unconstitutional.

[EX500rider]

86. lol, lets just throw the Bill of Rights in the trash for your crusade? No thanks.

And the number one killer of toddlers is drowning, what's your draconian solution to that?
Maybe outlaw all pools and have warrantless search teams comb the neighborhoods for them or does that sound over the top?

[jaxexpat]

91. People regularly brandish weapons in public.

That simply wasn't even possible before the NRA "taught" people how to read the constitution.

Pools to guns? Really?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

94. Brandishing weapons in public?

Do you even know what brandishing is legally?
Brandishing is illegal in every state of the Union.

[EX500rider]

103. "Pools to guns? Really?"

If you are actually more concerned about dead toddlers then a anti gun culture crusade then yes, drowning is the #1 killer of toddlers. But I am guessing not.

That simply wasn't even possible before the NRA "taught" people how to read the constitution.
Not really, if the authors of the Constitution had meant for only militia members to own firearms they would have started enforcing that as soon as it was passed. But since they put it in the "Bill of Rights" it is a Right of the people like all the 1st 10 amendments.

[LiberatedUSA]

97. Let's talk about that for a minute.

You make the mistake of lumping all police into doing what you want done.

The police in the left-leaning Democratic cities would run with your powers hardcore. All would be affected, many those you consider Democratic voters.

Who won’t be putting up with it in the cities? Rural, redneck AR-15 owners in the middle of a cornfield. Do you see many cornfields in San Francisco?

Do you know why? Because Rural, redneck AR-15 owners who also vote Trump tend to live in the cornfield and cow states where the police are made up of Rural, redneck AR-15 owners in the middle of cornfields. The same states that have already voiced not following any new federal gun laws.

So tell me again, your plan. Will you involve the military now? They are not allowed to do civilian police work. However, I’m guessing (based on what I’ve seen), you’d want that little bit ignored as much as you want the 4th Amendment ignored.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

98. +100. nt

[MarineCombatEngineer]

84. Oh that's brilliant!!!!

Let's just shit all over the Constitution and BoR.

Enact warrantless search liability on all registered gun owners.

Warrantless searches? Sounds like a dictatorship to me.

Imprison/fine and confiscate unregistered gun owners.

Mandatory imprisonment, fine and confiscate hand gun ownership.

Yeah, let's enrich the prison system with more Americans, which would impact POC more than white people and probably get alot more of POC killed, while at the same time, ensuring a very nasty and bloody civil war.
That's fucking brilliant.

Raise hunting permit costs X100.

Why? To what end?

Shut down all private gun sales, manufacturers and ban gun imports.

Good luck with that.

Do you really believe that ANY court in this land would uphold such laws?
How would you get such laws passed, even Democrats wouldn't vote for such unconstitutional laws, they're smarter than that.

And you think this is simple?
I think the simple is somewhere else.

Some of the shit I read here just blows my mind sometimes.

[EX500rider]

89. "Shut down all private gun sales, manufacturers and ban gun imports."

Hey it worked in Mexico didn't it? lol

[jaxexpat]

90. The constitution does NOT provide citizens with the right to flaunt firearm carelessness.

It does, however, empower the congress to make laws regulating non-militia firearm possession. It's a political predictability that any mention of firearm control brings out the deranged ranting of guns fetishes. Fetishes, however, do not preclude the right to vote. When everyone is as able to vote as are white republicans there may be a serious conversation about gun control.

The simple thing about it is identifying the problem and the solution. The hard part is imposing any reasonableness into the situation.

All the people in my family who buy into the GQP baloney also own guns. There are none who support progressivism, vote Democratic and also own guns. I don't think that's unusual.

And just what is wrong with a mandatory inspection to assure that weapons are being accounted for and stored safely?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

93. ....

And just what is wrong with a mandatory inspection to assure that weapons are being accounted for and stored safely?

If you can't figure that out, then I'm truly sad for you.

All You want to do is crap all over the Constitution and BoR with your "proposals", but I'm not worried in the least with your nonsensical "proposals", they wouldn't even survive the first court challenge, much less make it through the Congress.

[jaxexpat]

95. Oh, I forgot.

It's perfectly fine if people loan their guns out or leave them laying around loaded in the rec-room.


and BTW, "If you can't figure that out, then I'm truly sad for you."

[MarineCombatEngineer]

96. I challenge you to provide any post where I said that?

Put up or..............

[sarisataka]

99. You are not a fan of the Bill of Rights are you?

Your proposals are in direct violation of at least 4 of the amendments.

[jaxexpat]

105. Illuminate me.

[sarisataka]

109. 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th

Possibly 8th, 9th and 10th depending on the details of enforcement and imprisonment.

[jaxexpat]

112. you're reaching, dude.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

113. And you're just another one who wants to shred the Constitution

to satisfy your disdain of firearms owners.

[jaxexpat]

115. I am, at this point, giving you the floor. I decline to respond further.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

116. Suit yourself,

that's usually the sign that you've lost the debate.
Have a great weekend.

[sarisataka]

117. I'll give you the easiest one to figure out

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This is the 4th.

[jaxexpat]

158. My suggestion is that in order to own a gun one would knowingly waive some 4th amendment rights.

Perhaps other civil rights as well. The point is that all this waiving of rights is done on a very narrow basis and voluntarily. Similarly to the concept of waiving ones rights to council or to remain silent under questioning. Or like the application of the uniform code of military justice one accepts (in lieu of the constitutional application for civilian citizens) when joining the military. The intentional outcome is to make it an introspective process and a potentially uncomfortable undertaking to own a gun legally. This is as it should be. Possession of a lethal weapon is a serious responsibility. One which, all too often and easily, is taken on by irresponsible people.

I'm not an exceptionally dense person (not really exceptional in any respect) though you seem to envision and portray me that way. I make effort to choose my words with care. The leap to visions of jack booted thugs run amok in a lawless police state, indiscriminately knocking down doors is unnecessarily dramatic.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

161. You're the one that wrote this:

Legalize enactment of laws banning all guns within jurisdictional boundaries.

Enact warrantless search liability on all registered gun owners.

Imprison/fine and confiscate unregistered gun owners.

Mandatory imprisonment, fine and confiscate hand gun ownership.

So tell us just how the fuck are we to interpret that?
This is the kind of power tyrants love, so what does that make you?

[jaxexpat]

164. "So tell us just how the fuck are we to interpret that?" Well, since you asked nicely.

There are existing parallels for these proposed statutes already enacted and enforced. As evidenced in the fact that there are already items which are regulated or deemed illegal for private citizens to possess. We accept those regulations and prohibitions as within of our government's jurisdiction.

Are you under the impression that, somehow, personal ownership of guns prevents tyranny? Or that regulatory legislation enacted by a representative government in response to public safety concerns is tyrannical? Those questions seem to get to the heart of your concerns about "tyranny". Have I misinterpreted?

You have asked how do I propose to see such regulation passed. In answer: I have no hope of ANY legislation which does an actual public service passing into law so long as our government is confounded by GOP actors seeking the spot light, desperate for re-election or the nation is hobbled by a large minority of misguided people on a rampage against truthful data, facts.

Would you, please, consider stopping the hard push? This discussion, from my point of view, seems personal and is assuming the appearance of a personal attack. Our conversation seems like some sort of rear-guard, guerilla action while the thread has moved the main battle into history, made more absurd by it's isolation.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

165. And none of those existing parallels are protected Constitutional rights are they?

Are you under the impression that, somehow, personal ownership of guns prevents tyranny? Or that regulatory legislation enacted by a representative government in response to public safety concerns is tyrannical? Those questions seem to get to the heart of your concerns about "tyranny". Have I misinterpreted?

How long do you think that such laws would be used to curb other Constitutional Rights?
Do you think that the repigs would love to have such laws on the books?
How fast do you think that the repigs would interpret such laws to apply to our other rights?

Once you open the door to such laws as you are proposing, then the floodgates will open to curb other Constitutional Rights.

Let me ask you this, are you also in favor of hate speech laws?

[jaxexpat]

168. I find "hate speech" laws aggravating.

One person's "hate speech" may be another's sarcasm. Regulating arbitrarily will lead to at least one (or both) of two things: irrelevance, abuse.

"Hate (or any) Speech", when an aspect of evidence for a statute violation, could influence a jury in deciding it's verdict but shouldn't be the statute itself or an additional violation with mandatory consequences.

I get it. You seem to see a slippery slope situation in meaningful gun regulation. Others might see it as a, "I give an inch / They take a mile" situation. I'm among those who see that (for over 40 years) the pro-gun lobby has continually poured money and influence through the flood gates opened by a distinct LACK of plain spoken gun regulation. I think this victory over gun-legislation was won through misinforming people that, among other things, Democrats will take their guns. The most outrageous lie is their proposition that gun ownership will help ensure the congress does the will of the people. I think the echoes of lies propositioned in arguments against gun regulation are the primary reason hand gun and automatic rifle ownership has increased and the nation is so split.

I speculate that some gun owners become owned by their guns due to strong psychological attachments.(and I'm not saying you, here) I've seen it in otherwise normal people. Might be the reason this issue has stuck so long.

I do, however, draw a line when I see the 2nd amendment used to justify personal ownership of weapons of war. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." I don't see this verbiage as a free-for-all license for everybody to own and publicly carry an automatic rifle or to store a .45 in their purse or vest holster. I don't think the writers ever intended to infer a right for everyone to be armed with weapons designed only for war and/or the killing of people.

The GOP does not want such statutes on the books. That's why they have always opposed them. That, alone, is evidence enough that maybe they'd be a good thing. G'day.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

170. It is a slippery slope to curb other rights,

and your proposal about unwarranted search in firearms owners homes just because of your disdain for firearms doesn't justify shredding the 2nd and 4th Amendments of the Constitution, period.
Think about it, which Amendment would be next? The 1A? The 5A? The 10A?
And so on and so forth.

Be careful what you wish for, there will be dire consequences, especially when, not if, but when the repigs are back in power sometime in the future.

Sorry for the hostility, but I get a little peeved when someone starts proposing shredding the Constitution, something I spent 35 years of my life defending.

Semper Fi.

Good day to you also.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

166. And....

Are you under the impression that, somehow, personal ownership of guns prevents tyranny?

No, I do not, what I am under the impression is that Americans, as long as they are legally able to, have the right to own firearms not connected to any militia service, as the Heller ruling so succinctly stated.

[jaxexpat]

169. The Heller ruling was decided by a 5-4 ruling.

The five were GOP style "conservatives", appointed by republicans. How useful is their wisdom, really?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

171. It doesn't matter if it was a 5-4 ruling,

what matters is that it is now the law of the land.

[jaxexpat]

172. You're beginning to look like a pretzel, my friend.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

173. How so?

You posted that it was a 5-4 decision, so I answered.
So what if it was a 5-4 decision, many, many rulings have been a 5-4 decision, that doesn't change the fact that the 2A confers a right for Americans to privately own firearms without any connection to military or militia service.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

174. More:

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91913260

In a 5-4 vote Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court declared for the first time that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms. The court said gun ownership is an individual right, not connected with military service, and that it can be regulated in some ways.

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapons whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority. But it did allow for individuals to have guns for lawful purposes, such as hunting and defending themselves, he said. The majority clearly saw the individual right to own a gun.

So, according the the late Justice Scalia, firearms can be regulated, all that's required is the political will to do so, and as long as any regulation can pass constitutional muster.

[jaxexpat]

176. Agreed.

Though, "Constitutional muster" is not necessarily a hard and fast metric. It bends with the momentary will of 2/3rds of the federal and state legislatures. An admittedly hard hill to climb. But as a back up there are always the politics of the USSC judges.

It would be helpful if the term "militia" were defined as it was "intended" for use in the constitution. By separating military service from gun ownership (and unnecessary clarification in my opinion) the Fab-Five merely confused the issue. Leaving it a burden for future clarification. Without saying as much, they left the idea that Militia is an unimportant and misplaced concept by failing to incorporate it's propriety into this determination of 2nd amendment limits. When approached from that logical standpoint, the whole business isn't yet settled because they refused to credit the meaning of the original constitutional sentence with that term included. The "toss-off" to defining military service doesn't close the gap in logic. As usual, these 5 guys were not up to the task but, hey, it was tee time.

USSC judgements are not often contested. Especially very soon after their issuance. Mostly because it gives time for the country to get used to the judgement or the judges to be dead and comfortably disrespected. Something about the gravity of the institution. So we live with it, right?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

178. We live with the system we got,

now if future generations wish to change it, hopefully not, that's their concern, I won't be around to see it, but for now?

Well thought out post and great points.
Just to clarify, I'm not a gun person, I don't even own, nor want guns in my home nor my truck, after 35 years in the Marines, I have no desire to ever own another firearm, the only weapon I keep in my truck is my tire thumper for checking my tires every morning and every evening when I stop for the night:



but I do believe that the 2A is just as important as the rest of the BoR and lawful Americans do have the right to privately own firearms, with certain restrictions attached.

You also posted that hunting fees need to be raised by 100x, to what end?
To ban hunting except for the rich and elite?
Alot of rural Americans rely on hunting to supplement their diet, so you would be hurting them in the pocket book, if they could afford the permit at all, so the only ones that hurt would be the ones that can least afford it.
Does that sound fair?

And what about the populations of game animals? Without hunters, we would be over run by deer, elk, etc, which can do great damage to crops, grass, more accidents because of animals on the roads, etc.

Just wondering why you would hurt the Americans who could least afford it.

[LiberatedUSA]

177. You sure you want to imply 5-4 rulings don't count?

May want to think on it. Any wildly popular 5-4 decisions you may agree with. You should be able to answer that.

Oh, I get it. If the 5-4 is in our favor, it is good and the winning opinion is what we need to concentrate on. If the 5-4 is not in our favor, then it was activist judges and the dissent is all we need to concentrate on.

I bet they have the same view towards cases they lose.

[jaxexpat]

180. it's not the numbers, man.

It's the fact that there are 5 "conservatives" on the court. In 2021, when the judgement goes 5 -4 it means the sensibilities of 2/3 of the country are ignored and another victory for fascists.

I don't have any concern for what conservatives view until they can act right in public, support right to choose, vaccinations. When they learn to say Black Lives Matter and Trump lost because he's a loser. And if they'd run a candidate who wins the executive office without the electoral college. And maybe universally condemn an assault by a mob on the congress.

When progressives lose it's a blow to hope.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

111. It's pretty sad that you can't figure that out for yourself.

[Scrivener7]

28. Oh, Jesus. What a crock of shit. The thing that should be done is that the person

who left a deadly weapon accessible to the toddler should be convicted of murder. Because that's what this shit is.

I am so sick of the gun freaks taking the "I'm so reasonable, but really, what can be done" bullshit in the face of tragedies like this one. It's inhuman and disgusting, and this insistence that one's hobby is worth ANY price is soulless

Disgusting.

And PS, in your defense of your hobby, no one cares what YOU are hoping for.

[ShazzieB]

129. What you are proposing wouldn't work, for reasons that have already been pointed out.

I am NOT a "gun freak." I have never owned a gun and have no interest in ever owning one. I am as pro gun control as anyone, and I hate the Heller v. DC decision with the fire of 1000 suns.

I don't know what the solution to America's gun problem is, but charging every gun owner whose property is used to kill someone regardless of the gun owner's personal intent is just not a viable suggestion. It's out of sync with too much case law regarding a property owner's liability (or lack thereof) when their property is used by someone else to commit a crime.

I can't completely rule out the possibility of there ever being a case where that might be appropriate, but as a blanket rule as you're proposing? No. That dog will not hunt.

[Ziggysmom]

59. I like sporting guns, started trap & skeet shooting as a kid. I use the biometric safe

by Barska. Never have to worry when friends with kids stop by. We keep the hubby's narcotic pain meds in the safe, too.

Florida has a weak CAP law, a conviction for a second-degree misdemeanor can result in up to 60 days in jail, 6 months probation, and a maximum fine of $500.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.174.html

790.174 Safe storage of firearms required.—
(1) A person who stores or leaves, on a premise under his or her control, a loaded firearm, as defined in s. 790.001, and who knows or reasonably should know that a minor is likely to gain access to the firearm without the lawful permission of the minor’s parent or the person having charge of the minor, or without the supervision required by law, shall keep the firearm in a securely locked box or container or in a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure or shall secure it with a trigger lock, except when the person is carrying the firearm on his or her body or within such close proximity thereto that he or she can retrieve and use it as easily and quickly as if he or she carried it on his or her body.
(2) It is a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, if a person violates subsection (1) by failing to store or leave a firearm in the required manner and as a result thereof a minor gains access to the firearm, without the lawful permission of the minor’s parent or the person having charge of the minor, and possesses or exhibits it, without the supervision required by law:
(a) In a public place; or
(b) In a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner in violation of s. 790.10.
This subsection does not apply if the minor obtains the firearm as a result of an unlawful entry by any person.
1(3) As used in this act, the term “minor” means any person under the age of 16.
History.—ss. 2, 7, ch. 89-534; s. 1216, ch. 97-102.
1Note.—Also published at s. 784.05(4).

[Scrivener7]

64. Second degree misdemeanor. Not good enough.

[Crunchy Frog]

142. You're right. I don't think anything can be done about it.

At least not in the country as it currently exists. If the country eventually breaks apart, maybe the sane part can write a constitution that isn't bound by something that maybe had meaning in the 18th century.

Since nothing can currently be done, I'm to the point where I can't give a fuck anymore.

People are going to continue to leave loaded and unsecured guns around toddlers, and the logical consequences will continue to happen. I will do the best I can to avoid those sorts of people.

[The King of Prussia]

8. Occasionally I look at the "Well-Regulated Militia" Twitter account

I genuinely don't understand the mentality of it, or how a society could tolerate it.

[gab13by13]

13. You know what is really ironic,

the militias were formed to aid the central government not as a check on it. I'm from Pa. and I try telling these people to Google the Whiskey Rebellion in Pa. Whiskey makers in Pa. rebelled against paying taxes and a militia was sent by the central government to quell the rebellion. The entire notion of the founders' purpose for having well regulated militias has been turned ass backwards and our MSM never attempts to correct this fallacy.

[Maine Abu El Banat]

16. A simple

$12 trigger lock. Would it have really taken their freedom.

[EX500rider]

73. Even just not leaving a round in the chamber would have worked.

Last edited Sat Aug 14, 2021, 01:18 PM - Edit history (1)

Toddlers don't have the strength to work the slide.
But keeping firearms locked away from children is the best choice.

[Crunchy Frog]

145. You could never enforce such a thing without an intolerable infringement of freedumb.

[marie999]

19. Not saying this is one, but how many "unintentional" shootings by children really not unintentional?

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

22. I don't know the stats but I would guess that there are far more cases of matricide and patricide by

firearm than by knife or other instrument by the simple virtue of being less connected to the actual acts.

[Nexus2]

21. And nothing will be done. [nt]

[twodogsbarking]

23. I don't find this odd.

It is to be expected.

[HAB911]

25. thoughts and prayers

I'm wearing out my "thoughts and prayers" key

[Tarc]

31. To some of the commenters above; this has nothing to do with right-wingers and militias

https://theflydaily.com/florida-toddler-shoots-kills-mom-shamaya-lynn-during-zoom-call-after-finding-gun/

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

38. So progressives should just shrug our shoulders and pretend that this is not a problem that should

be addressed? It isn't really a Left/Right issue but it seems there is a segment in America whose hair catches fire at any mention of laws that might keep firearms out of the hands of crazy people and children.

[Scrivener7]

45. Please link to the post that said this had anything to do with right wingers or militias.

[Tarc]

54. #8, #13, #26

[Scrivener7]

56. None of those in any way says this has anything to do with right wingers or militias.

But your defense of right wingers and militias is noted.

[Tarc]

182. This went way over your head, I see

Better luck next time.

[greenjar_01]

72. Oooof

The Twitter account @Well_Regulated_ is a listing of idiotic and/or criminal gun events, the point of which is that our gun culture fails even the basic test of "well regulated" in the Second Amendment. Their way of making this point is by posting gun-related crimes and accidents and fronting their description with "A member of our well-regulated militia..."

It has nothing to do with right wingers or militias. It's also weird that you'd simply post these pictures of African Americans as evidence for your own bizarre claim, but I'll leave that for others. It's enough to show here that you jumped to conclusions on the one point - no need to highlight your stereotyping on the other.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Crunchy Frog]

146. It has to do with gun fetishising loonies.

I'm all out of fucks over something that CAN'T be changed.

People who choose to live like that choose to live with the potential consequences. Hope it's working out for them.

[dsp3000]

34. The headline is so American. we should all be proud (sarcasm)

[SYFROYH]

41. Quick access lock boxes make great baby shower gifts.

Last edited Sat Aug 14, 2021, 04:51 PM - Edit history (1)

Safe storage is one way to prevent these types of shootings.

If you know someone with kids and who has a handgun, you might want to do them a favor and buy them a lockbox.

Something like this is a simple combination lockbox that costs about $25, but it keeps tiny fingers off of triggers.


When my friend had his first child, I bought him something like this that cost $125. That was 17 years ago and he still keeps his Glock 17 in it in his bedroom.

[Dial H For Hero]

44. Excellent suggestion.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

53. I find it interesting that the choice of names is associated with a pro 2A stance

as it lends itself to my personal thoughts of how many see themselves in the defense of firearm ownership groups. The hero waiting in the wings to save the defenseless.

[Dial H For Hero]

61. I will now point out (yet) again that my username is asked on a silly 1960's comic book.

I collected comics for decades.

[USALiberal]

153. I think it means you're a hero because you have guns. Nt

[Dial H For Hero]

154. I can't help what you think. I do have guns. I'm not a hero.

It's. A. Comic. Book.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

162. What you think and what is reality are two far different things. nt

[Scrivener7]

62. There is a psychology that is crystal clear to the rest of us but that the gun freaks themselves

don't seem to see.

It seems to be a defining characteristic.

[Crunchy Frog]

147. I don't know, and wouldn't associate with anyone like that.

If they love their children more than they love their guns, they'll take that responsibility on themselves.

[SYFROYH]

149. We give new parents all sorts of safety devices to help out.

We do things like that to help and because we care.

If giving a lock box offends your sensibilities, then that’s OK. Give them cabinet locks, baby monitor, baby Tylenol, or anything else to help new parents.

It takes a village.

[Crunchy Frog]

155. I'll leave it to the gun humper villagers to help their own.

I won't involve myself with those people.

[spike jones]

48. It was god's will.

[SidDithers]

71. FFS...

A certain percentage of all people are irresponsible fuckwits.

This is true for both gun owners and those who don't own guns.

But the irresponsible gun owner fuckwits regularly get people killed.



Sid

[grantcart]

88. I didn't think a toddler would have the strength to pull the trigger.

[EX500rider]

108. Certainly wouldn't have the strength to work the slide so the idiot also left a round in the chamber

[Liberal In Texas]

100. Sometimes I don't understand the dynamics of this board.

OK, many times.

I posted this story yesterday

Florida woman on a business Zoom call shot and killed by her toddler.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215733699

It got very little attention. Today, the story is a day older and it's got a hundred replies and 35 recs.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

102. Sorry, I missed your post and if I had seen it I would have posted in it and rec'd it.

The only difference was I used a title different than the original that in essence gave a statement relating to my opinions on the easy access of guns in America.

[Liberal In Texas]

106. It's not that as much as you wonder sometimes why something gets ignored and

basically the same thing is like, "Oh wow."

When I saw the story I had a "holy cow' moment and thought it would be of interest here. I guess it was, eventually.

I just find it curious.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

107. LOL... I have had similar experiences and have scratched my head.

[Dial H For Hero]

122. I humbly assert that it was me.

Early in this thread, I posted a calm, somewhat lengthy reply explaining why I didn’t see a practical way of preventing this sort of tragedy in the future, given political practicalities. This infuriated a number of people with whom I interacted further.

I was hoping for a more rational discussion (there was one poster in particular with whom things were going well), but it quickly degenerated to the point that I was being called (among other things) a monster complicit in countless murders. At that point I withdrew.

Such is the Internet.

[ecstatic]

132. Lol! nt

[Liberal In Texas]

163. That does explain a lot of what happened this time.

A big melee certainly attracts attention.

[Mr.Bill]

133. Sometimes it's not what's in the OP,

but one of the comments that make things take off. I have had three OPs make it to the top of the greatest threads page with triple digit recs, and when I posted each of them I expected no more than ten or so responses and recs.

[Crunchy Frog]

148. The Gungeon must not have noticed your post.

They've obviously noticed and swarmed this one.

[EX500rider]

175. Probably because no one suggested ripping up the Bill of Rights in that thread..

...with door to door warrantless searches etc

[Iggo]

123. Poor kid. (n/t)

[Crunchy Frog]

137. A negligent discharge by an adult, maybe even the mother herself.

This is what we, collectively as a society, have decided we can live with, in the name of freedumb.

[UnderThisLaw]

138. Threads like these

are even better than the Afghanistan threads at bringing out the usual suspects to circle jerk

[LiberatedUSA]

157. I find it interesting that this gun related thread was allowed...

…to stand as an exception to the rule, but another news story that was gun-related and posted by another poster lasted about 5 or so posts before getting locked. This place needs to write down what rules get exceptions and what exceptions are not allowed among exceptions.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

160. "This place" has written down the rules.

Perhaps after you have been here for a bit you'll read them. Have a nice day.

[LiberatedUSA]

167. Sure does.

Also has a lot of unspoken rules and you know it.