ST. LOUIS: Girl, 7, shoots 1-year-old brother ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

[cornermouse]

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/laworder/story/BAF5EE7E23318E868625768C001D9A86?OpenDocument
ST. LOUIS: Girl, 7, shoots 1-year-old brother
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
12/14/2009

St. Louis police say charges of endangering the welfare of a child may follow an incident involving a 7-year-old girl who turned a loaded weapon on her 1-year-old brother Saturday afternoon, shooting him in the chest, police said. The child was listed in critical but stable condition.

Police Department spokeswoman Erica Van Ross said the girl removed the gun from a backpack belonging to her 18-year-old uncle while the children were playing in a bedroom. Other family members were gathered in the living room of their home on College Avenue.

[Sebastian Doyle]

1. If that poor baby only had a gun, he could have shot back

ARM ALL BABIES NOW !!1!!!1!!

[eqfan592]

5. Mr strawman joins us on reply 1! (nt)

[SteveM]

26. Wow! You think they planned it? Waiting for just the right tragedy? (nt)

[baldguy]

2. Another responsible gun owner making sure his weapon is secure from unauthorized access.

If that kid dies, the uncle should be put away for life.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

3. Irresponsible firearm storage...

I'm pretty sure he is able to be held accountable because there are laws against allowing minors access to firearms. At any rate, this is another incident that shows firearm awareness and training needs to be taught to children. Although, 7yrs and 1 yrs old are pretty young... I'm not sure education programs/efforts would have encompassed such youngsters.

[iverglas]

11. WHO THE FUCK CARES?

If YOUR kid is killed/maimed because some other kid finds a gun lying around and shoots your kid with it, do you give a flying fuck how accountable someone is held?

Maybe, in that charming finger-pointing blame-laying way I've grown so familiar with, you do. It would be a remedy for the deadness of your kid to be able to hold somebody accountable. Maybe you get so much satisfaction out of pointing and blaming that you really wouldn't care your kid's dead or paraplegic, or needs an organ transplant.

I gather your Prez had something to say about that sort of thing the other day.

Ah yes.

'The Satisfying Purity Of Indignation'

There is just so much of it in this cranny here.

Knowing that somebody might be held accountable for something -- punished, mm mmm -- just makes it all worthwhile. To get to feel that satisfying pure flame of self-righteousness for a time.

What in the fucking hell an 18-yr-old was doing with a handgun in a backpack, well, I probably don't want to know. Who he got it from, and who they got it from -- those are things I'd sure be wanting to know, I'll tell ya.

Too much effort, that, I guess. The effort it would take to drop the self-righteousness and insincerity and pretense of giving a shit, not to mention of acquiring anything genuine and worthwhile in its place, yow, that would have to hurt.

As you were now.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

15. Who wouldn't care?

If it were my kids... you bet your ass I would care who was accountable.
Are suggesting you yourself would not care about all the circumstances at hand?!?

Yes, in the interest of reducing future tragedies like this, I hope they find those responsible. My best guess, with the information at hand, is several laws were broken leading up to this event. As you point out (good job by the way, Sherlock) 18yr olds generally aren't allowed access to concealed pistols so there may be more dubious elements to this crime than it appears. The public at large needs to see what laws were broken here - as a reminder of why they exist. Laws exist for a reason and finding those accountable reinforce the need and strength of laws being ignored/broken in the future.

It would be a remedy for the deadness of your kid to be able to hold somebody accountable. Maybe you get so much satisfaction out of pointing and blaming that you really wouldn't care your kid's dead or paraplegic, or needs an organ transplant.

... and what the hell is this drivel? Where did I say this?
Oh, right, it's your classic let's make assumptions about somebody and berate them.
Classic iverglass, hasn't matured one iota in her absence. Let me save you some time & energy - you're wrong.
So I guess you can just shove that analysis back up your ass where it must have came from. :eyes:

[iverglas]

16. wowie zowie

Good job. Pretty much illustrated all I was saying.


If it were my kids... you bet your ass I would care who was accountable.

Me, I'd be doing my damnedest to make as sure as I could be that IT NEVER HAPPENED.

And that involves doing everything possible to keep handguns out of the backpacks of 18-yr-olds and, really, anybody else.



Yes, in the interest of reducing future tragedies like this, I hope they find those responsible.

Me, I'll just have to hope that someday before the apocalypse you get a fucking clue.

What do you imagine could be done to this particular 18-yr-old to prevent people like him, or anyone else, from wandering around with handguns in their backpacks?


Laws exist for a reason and finding those accountable reinforce the need and strength of laws being ignored/broken in the future.

Yeah. There's loooaaaads of evidence of that happening. I mean, that's why, where people who commit murder get killed, there just ain't no murders at all! I mean, in fact, we've been at this blame-and-punish game for so many centuries and generations already now, there aren't actually any crimes being committed anymore, are there? Didn't mandatory minimums and three-strikes thingies fix that little problem? I mean, to the extent that the 10 commandments didn't quite finish the job and all.

You do know that things don't happen just because you say they do, and won't happen just because you say they will, right?


... and what the hell is this drivel? Where did I say this?

You (and not just you) respond to these events with a great big satisfyingly pure fit of indignation and calls for SOMEBODY to be HELD ACCOUNTABLE. Never the people who are really accountable -- the right-wing assholes and their leaders and followers and the scummy firearms manufacturers/dealers who do nothing to keep firearms out of these situations and/or do everything possible to put them in these situations.

That's where you say it.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

19. Welcome to the real world.

Laws aren't perfect and shit happens. No way to prevent it - even if we all tried our damnedest
People don't obey the laws and, when those laws are broken, offenders need to be held accountable.
Legal accountability is the entire basis for law and order.

What do you imagine could be done to this particular 18-yr-old to prevent people like him, or anyone else, from wandering around with handguns in their backpacks?

I suggest enforcing of the laws to to discourage such behavior and acts by the community in the future.
Do you suggest NOTHING be done to this 18 year old and enablers of his (likely underage) possession of this gun?
If no, then what?

Yeah. There's loooaaaads of evidence of that happening. I mean, that's why, where people who commit murder get killed, there just ain't no murders at all! I mean, in fact, we've been at this blame-and-punish game for so many centuries and generations already now, there aren't actually any crimes being committed anymore, are there? Didn't mandatory minimums and three-strikes thingies fix that little problem? I mean, to the extent that the 10 commandments didn't quite finish the job and all.

Erecting strawmen so soon after extended absences, eh? At least it's good to know you must be doing well again. Nowhere does anyone claim laws outright prevent crime. No law prevents crime; at least not here - don't know about Canaduh. Laws (and punishments) exist as a deterrent to crime. How do you think we believe the system operates? What would you suggest as an alternative to laws and enforcing legal accountability that will yield good results in crime prevention? Surely, you must have an inside scoop as to what works in crime prevention. Obviously, we're doing it wrong.


Never the people who are really accountable -- the right-wing assholes and their leaders and followers and the scummy firearms manufacturers/dealers who do nothing to keep firearms out of these situations and/or do everything possible to put them in these situations.

I hate to break it to you this late in the game, but the right to self defense (and ability equip one's self to exercise this right) is not a right or left wing concept. Self defense is a natural right and should be recognized by conservatives and progressives alike. There is no way anybody, short of heavily infringing on freedoms, can do anything about how anything in the hands of private citizens are used - cars, guns, knives, meatloaf... whatever.

[iverglas]

23. have you bozos not learned YET what a "strawman argument" is???

Cripes. I thought you might have spent just a little of the time in private study or something.

How is one even supposed to play at conducting a discussion with someone who looks at this:

Yeah. There's loooaaaads of evidence of that happening. I mean, that's why, where people who commit murder get killed, there just ain't no murders at all! I mean, in fact, we've been at this blame-and-punish game for so many centuries and generations already now, there aren't actually any crimes being committed anymore, are there? Didn't mandatory minimums and three-strikes thingies fix that little problem? I mean, to the extent that the 10 commandments didn't quite finish the job and all.

and burbles strawman

?

I have no idea.

You're the one playing blame-and-punish and pretending to think (or, sadly, maybe even thinking) that the game has some significant, worthwhile impact on the prevalence of the harmful conduct / harm in question.

Are you made of straw? Is this what I've been missing all along? You people are the straw personages??



I suggest enforcing of the laws to to discourage such behavior and acts by the community in the future.

And I suggested, and will suggest again, that you get a fucking clue.

Christ, the fucking gun militant machine has polluted everything on the internet, hasn't it? I wanted to find some serious writing about general deterrence theory and various kinds of crime. I know it exists, because I've read it and studied it and what not. But what do I find now? Fucking Don Kates and assorted other gun scum talking about humping guns around in public as "general deterrence". One more nail in the coffin of genuine intellectual endeavour, courtesy of we all know what/who.

Give it a shot, anyhow. Try selecting "gun" out of the search criteria, hurt though I can imagine that would.


Do you suggest NOTHING be done to this 18 year old and enablers of his (likely underage) possession of this gun?

OMDs, are you STILL beating your poor dog?????

If no, then what?

Read the post you replied to.
Get a clue.
Lather, rinse, repeat.



I hate to break it to you this late in the game, but the right to self defense (and ability equip one's self to exercise this right) is not a right or left wing concept.

And I take great pleasure in giving you this particular clue: A ONE-YEAR-OLD CHILD WAS SHOT AND IS APPARENTLY LUCKY TO BE ALIVE NOW. "Self-defence" has precisely FUCK ALL to do with this discussion.

And if you want to say that doing what needs to be done to keep firearms away from people who transfer them -- however that happens -- to seven-year-olds who then shoot one-year-olds, or to drug addicts who hold up liquor stores, or to drug dealers who shoot kids in their beds or in crossfire on the streets, or to men who murder the women they live with -- shall I go on? -- loses out to your or anyone's intellectually and ethically putrid demand for no interference in your access to all the guns you can eat ..................... well, then, I was right all along, wasn't I?


Now run along and find me a 7-yr-old who wounded a 1-yr-old, potentially fatally, with just about anything other than a firearm. Or a drug dealer who uses meatloaf to protect turf and enforce debt payments ...



formatting fixed

[TPaine7]

55. Yeah, that's it

And that involves doing everything possible to keep handguns out of the backpacks of 18-yr-olds and, really, anybody else.

Your Sophistry rarely speaks so plainly. Let's see if we can follow the "logic" here.

"If a single person fails to secure an item so that a child is injured or killed, that would justify banning that item to everyone, or at least to everyone's backpack."

Does that "logic" apply universally, or must the words "but only if the item is a gun" be attached in microscopic fine print?

[Remmah2]

17. Firearms should not be left laying around.

In the safe or in a holster on your hip. No problem.

[SteveM]

27. Yep. That's where mine are (nt)

[rd_kent]

20. Wow, did you have an extra scoop of poutrage in your coffe this morning?

You are just on fire today!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

33. So you don't care about holding the person illegally possessing the gun accountable just...

those who sold it to him? Interesting.

[iverglas]

45. plus ça change

plus Dave can still call it something it ain't, never were, and won't never be.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

49. Your words, "Who he got it from, and who they got it from -- those are things I'd sure be wanting...

to know, I'll tell ya."

[iverglas]

50. here's some more words

Chocolate fudge sauce ... butterscotch sauce -- those are things I'd sure be wanting ...


Now Davy, tell me I don't care about protein and vitamins.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

57. More of your words,"WHO THE FUCK CARES?" and

"What in the fucking hell an 18-yr-old was doing with a handgun in a backpack, well, I probably don't want to know."

So why don't you drop the drop the self-righteousness and insincerity and pretense of giving a shit? Spare us your tired old lines. You got banned from the genealogy website again and now you are here again in an attempt to torment people because your life didn't turn out the way you thought it should.

[iverglas]

63. such bitterness, such unfounded allegations

Such a pretense at not grasping sarcasm.

"I probably don't want to know". I'm sure you've never heard anyone say "No, don't tell me, I don't want to know" about something icky. Never said such things yourself, I'm very sure. Hint: that last bit was sarcasm.

I reunited someone last week with the father she never knew she had. At the age of 40, she was suddenly told by her mother that her father wasn't her father. So working only with a name and approximate age and the date he had been working in Cornwall, I found him and his siblings in Liverpool. He's getting on in years and in poor health, and now he has a daughter for Christmas. Currently working on reuniting someone in England with his dad's cousins in Canada, small town near where I grew up. And trying to find the mother of someone born in Scotland in 1944 who grew up in foster homes (the mother will be deceased, but he may have sibs he's never known). I prefer the ancestor hunts, through the old records, finding the people who did everything they could not to be found, like changing their names and going to Australia. But heck, finding somebody a family, not a bad day's work.

If you ever do want to find any UK ancestors, just let me know!


typos.........

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

66. You have previously reported a propensity for being temporarily banned from the site.

[gorfle]

53. I agree.

What in the fucking hell an 18-yr-old was doing with a handgun in a backpack, well, I probably don't want to know. Who he got it from, and who they got it from -- those are things I'd sure be wanting to know, I'll tell ya.

These are good questions, considering in most states in order to get a concealed carry permit you have to be 21.

[slackmaster]

13. Yes, my brother would have known at age 7 not to mess with a handgun

He also wouldn't have gone rummaging through someone else's backpack.

[TheCowsCameHome]

4. Maybe the brother was trying to break into her room.

Seriously, stories like this are just plain sickening.

The 18 year old needs some jail time.

[onehandle]

6. Finally the Constitution is doing its job.

Show me an age restriction in the most precious of Amendments. Show me.

And since the Second Amendment (blessings being upon its glorious revelation) is the master Amendment over all Amendments...

It sleeps well at night.

[eqfan592]

7. Wow, taking advantge of a story like this...

...in order to cast those you don't agree with in a horrible light. You're one sick puppy onehandle

[slackmaster]

14. Enumeration of a right does not preclude restrictions agreed upon by due process

Please don't post nonsense on this forum.

[iverglas]

18. "restrictions agreed upon by due process"??

:wtf:

Er, "Please don't post nonsense on this forum.".

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

35. Hey Iverglas here is your strawman argument.

[iverglas]

39. whoa, Davy, that's scary

The fact that I actually have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about here ...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

41. Looks like things took a turn for the worse in your life. I hope they improve.

[msongs]

8. another righteous killing in gun land...oh wait, the kid didnt die....yet nt

[rd_kent]

21. Another inflammatory drive by posting.

[SteveM]

29. Admit it: you guys ain't got nuttin' to show (nt)

[onehandle]

32. Wait. Are you saying that many acts of gun violence don't result in deaths?

We obviously need better guns.

[iverglas]

37. I'd say so

Somehow, the ones shooting in "self-defence" always manage to bag their prey!

What's wrong with all the bad guys, merely maiming and disabling and disfiguring people? Or hell, robbing them. They must not be even trying.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

42. Poor training.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

36. You are the only one calling it a righteous killing. It says volumes about you.

[iverglas]

44. doesn't "good shoot" count??

I called it a good shoot!!

Afraid you have all done your job too well, and after all these weeks and months (I won't say years, because there actually was a time when something other than bang bang bad guy dead appeared in thread titles on this board), we've simply internalized the message that ALL shoots are good, all kills are righteous? Maybe resistance really was futile. We succumbed. And the utter incoherency of the message was the seed of its own ultimate failure ... a parody of itself already, it became impossible to distinguish from parody ... at least, so some claimed ...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

47. So you admit you lost all sense of judgement. If you say so who am I to disagree.

[iverglas]

9. good shoot!

Righteous! One more stupid crook outa the gene pool! If you're too dumb to dodge the bullet, you got it coming, you little loser!

Oh wait. Am I in the wrong thread?

Well, decent odds the rugrat would have grown up to be a loser stupid crook anyhow, in that environment, so hell yeah: good shoot!

[SteveM]

30. Been hanging 'round your own stereotype too long....?

...and have become the very bugaboo that you so condemn? Sounds like it.

How you been doing, lately?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

38. Looks like things have gone horribly wrong in your life. I hope they improve.

[eqfan592]

10. seriously, i'm amazed at how mindblowingly sick some of you people are.

You take a tragedy like this and try and use it to paint a group of people as monsters, just because they don't believe that appeals to emotion are the the ultimate guiding force in public policy. Because they don't believe that because people are irresponsible and do not keep their firearms out of the hands of children, that others who are responsible (which make up the vast majority of gun owners) should be denied the right to defend themselves and their homes using reasonably effective means.

Seriously, how righteous can your cause be if these are the sort of arguments you must resort to? You remind of the people, mindless chanting "support our troops" with a blank stare in their eyes as we protested the very war that was getting them killed.

[iverglas]

12. ya think?

I just thought I'd been spending too much time here already.

See a line that says X shoots Y, and the knee twitches. The nature/identity of the X and the Y are of no consequence at all. Good shoot! just rolls off the tongue all unbidden.

That's what's supposed to happen, isn't it? Like, it's working?

[slackmaster]

22. Why were no adults watching those children?

You don't leave a 1-year-old in the care of a 7-year-old. Not even briefly.

[iverglas]

24. if we can answer that

will the kid not be shot?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

40. So you actually have a solution that will prevent him from being shot? Do tell.

[Ready4Change]

25. One year old. 7 year old. 18 year old. Parents?

Lots of missteps leading to a tragic end.

Blaming the gun is misguided. It could have as easily been a knife. Or a set of car keys. Matches or a bic lighter. Heck, a plastic bag even. If it weren't a gun the damage could have been less. Or it could have been greater. No matter the tool, the causes of this tragedy are an unsupervised 7 year old, a severely undisciplined 18 year old, and parents who don't seem to be in the picture (or the news story) at all.

[eqfan592]

28. Well said!

You hit the nail on the head perfectly!

[iverglas]

34. It absolutely was!

It was the absolutely perfect illustration of everything I said!

Looked around, found somebody to blame -- done and dusted. Move along folks, nothing to see here. Just some bad people who must now be punished. No gravely injured toddlers. Nope. Just bad people who must be punished.

Didn't he do that well?

With a deflection to top it off, just in case that didn't finish the job: the straw thing to point fingers at, somebody blaming guns. Now let's all nod our heads and say Tsk. Imagine, stupid people blaming inanimate objects. Look over there! Let's all blame these people now, they're really really bad, even though we know nothing about them and blaming them is going to accomplish sweet bugger all if the goal is to reduce the harm caused to toddlers and other such things. But then, that's not our goal.

Our goal is to make sure that somebody else doesn't get blamed. Shh. We all know who they are.

And they got gunz.

[iverglas]

31. Oh, thank you thank you thank you!

Step right this way, folks. Ready4Change has decided to provide an excellent lesson in that "strawman argument" thing for us. Well, for all you who evidently need it so sorely.


Blaming the gun is misguided.

It is! It is! You're right! 100%!

Now, point that finger at the person who did it, would you please please?

Oh ... you mean that big thing over there in the corner, the one MADE OF STRAW?

I do believe you do!

Thank you!!!


It could have as easily been a knife. Or a set of car keys. Matches or a bic lighter. Heck, a plastic bag even.

But my goodness, y'know what? y'know what?

IT WASN'T. But I'm sure you can find us some examples where it was.


No matter the tool, the causes of this tragedy are an unsupervised 7 year old, a severely undisciplined 18 year old, and parents who don't seem to be in the picture (or the news story) at all.

My my, you are the all-seeing, all-knowing ones, aren't you just?

You never know, could be.

Could also be parents and an 18-yr-old who rushed out the door to help someone struck by a car while crossing the street.

People are like that, you know. A bit impulsive, not always stopping to calculate the risks or compute the odds of them materializing, sometimes downright careless.

Any reason that one-year-olds -- or 5-yr-olds, or 15-yr-olds, or 55-yr-olds -- should be maimed, if they are?

When Disney builds a ride, does it put up a big sign saying SIT DOWN AND HOLD ON TIGHT OR YOU'LL GET HURT, and hurtle it off? Nope. They put secure bars across people so they can't climb around. What a theory, eh?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

43. Poor Ivy thinks a strawman left that gun where a child could get it.

[rd_kent]

46. Did I miss the headline where all gun violence in Canada has been resolved?

Nope, its just you with your strawman.

[iverglas]

48. wow! more demos! straw's a-flyin!

Keep 'em coming. I was here all night ... but sadly will only be here another 4 hours or so today.

[rd_kent]

51. You would know, as you OWN AND OPERATE the strawman factory.

In the short time you have been back, I am now ready for you to go again.

[iverglas]

52. no, I do know, because I know what a "strawman argument" is

Anybody here care to explain it in their own words, instead of just spewing them all over the place?

Hey, feel free to quote any of mine you've run into.

But be sure to find some way of distinguishing parody from "strawman argument" if you haven't figured that out to date.

[rd_kent]

54. I know you do, thats why you are so good at propping them up.

Is that 4 hours up yet?

[Ready4Change]

56. You're welcome.

I have to go install the factory approved training wheels onto my kitchen knives now.

[cornermouse]

58. I posted this without comment because I just wanted to record

the fact that gun accidents happen.

I have no quarrel with rifles or shotguns. They have a clear legitimate use (hunting) and that's not a problem with me. That said, handguns have no real use for hunting. Handguns are good only for target practice and shooting people. You allow the handgun to be put in the hands of an 18 year old who thinks a backpack is acceptable for carrying and storing a gun, a 7 year old who obviously knows how to pull the trigger but who isn't old enough to appreciate the fact that guns can kill and who therefore for whatever reason (childhood rivalry or just an old fashioned sibling fight?), and the end result of a 1 year old with a bullet hole in the chest.

That's just plain old fashioned wrong.

[jefflrrp]

59. I'm getting really tired of people having to refute this damn thing ...

Say it with me, cornermouse. Ready?

The Second Amendment is not about hunting.
The Second Amendment is not about hunting.
The Second Amendment is not about hunting.

What you are saying is that in your mind, rifles and shotguns only have legitimate uses, and DING DING DING -- you'd be wrong. Handguns (in the hands of millions of lawful citizens) can be used as a defensive tool to protect people from harm. They also are easier to use in home defense than say, a rifle or shotgun.

When i feel the need (not very often, mind you), I legally carry a defensive handgun. If I happen to discourage an assailant from attacking me, or foil a crime in action with said defensive firearm, is that not a legitimate use?

Yes, handguns, rifles, shotguns, baseball bats, spam, oreos, gasoline, cars, whiffle bats and other objects can be misused and harm others. Its very sad.

However, thats what unfortunately happens in a free society. Deal with it.

There are 220 million guns in this country. Only an extremely small percentage ever get used (in any bloodletting manner), and generally these aren't legally owned guns that are misused.

[cornermouse]

60. Local person drove through town a few months back.

A heavy residential area in fact, trying to shoot out the tires of a purse snatcher. If you don't have enough brains and judgment to know that you don't drive through town shooting at other cars; if you don't have enough smarts and sanity to know that guns are not toys (a common failing around here); if you don't understand that its stupid to put a handgun of all things into a backpack where a 7 year old child can find it and use it, you should not be allowed to have a gun.

That one year old baby? What is he? Acceptable collateral damage? How much damage did that bullet do to his tiny chest and do you really think it won't leave him permanently damaged?

People who need to carry guns in order to feel safe have serious problems.

[jefflrrp]

61. local person drove through my town recently too . . . .

drunk as hell. hit an old woman, put her in the ICU at the local hospital. Hit 3 other cars, caused upwards of $20,000 in damage. Almost hit a responding officer. Luckily, they got the bastard.

See the correlation here? Anything can be misused. Anyone can be criminally stupid.

It is extremely sad for the 1 year old, as it is for any child who was in an accident as a result of negligent or criminal behavior. And I hope the fucker who decided that putting a handgun in his backpack was a smart idea and then carrying the backpack around kids gets a shitload of time in jail and becomes the personal pet of some inmate named Harley.

"People who need to limit or control others' rights in order to feel safe have serious problems."

There. Fixed it for you.

[eqfan592]

62. That person is also not likely smart enough to be driving a car.

Yet, amazingly enough, you don't demonize the car for it's participation in that morons act.

The second paragraph is a cheap (and sickening) appeal to emotion. That one year old baby dying is a tragedy, but you need to get it out of your head that somehow all such tragedies warrant immediate legislative action. Sometimes things like this just happen, especially so in a free society, and attempting to score cheap political points with them does NOT paint you in a positive light.

As for people "needing" to carry a gun in order to "feel safe" having "Serious problems," point to where anybody said they "need" to carry a gun in order to "feel safe?" A gun does not impart any added level of safety, per-say. What it does do is it allows a person a greater chance at protecting and defending ones self should the need arise. Many wish to have this added level of protection, others do not. One group is not more or less "mentally stable" than the others. Some just like being reasonably prepared, and they also understand the fact that the only people legally bound to protect them is themselves.

I can't say I would feel "safer" if my state allowed me to carry a concealed firearm, but I would feel like my chances of surviving any number of dangerous situations when facing a criminal would be better than if I were unarmed. If you think I'm somehow mentally unstable for feeling this way, then that's your problem.

[PavePusher]

65. Yeah, one person being stupid...

"A heavy residential area in fact, trying to shoot out the tires of a purse snatcher."

Provides validation for demonizing everyone. YOU FAIL.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

68. Why are you so critical of police officers?

[slackmaster]

64. The incident described in the OP was not an accident

It was a foreseeable result of negligence by the underage owner of the gun, and of the children's parents for not watching them and for not teaching basic gun safety to their daughter.

That said, handguns have no real use for hunting. Handguns are good only for target practice and shooting people.

You are wrong about hunting, but that is not my area of expertise so I will defer further comment to those who know more than I.

Sometimes people need to be shot.

...You allow the handgun to be put in the hands of an 18 year old who thinks a backpack is acceptable for carrying and storing a gun

You are correct that the weapon was not stored properly, but this sounds to me like another case of a child not being taught about firearm safety. Because no state issues concealed weapons permits to anyone under 21, it is likely that the young man was violating the law when he was carrying the gun in a backpack anywhere other than on private property.

...a 7 year old who obviously knows how to pull the trigger but who isn't old enough to appreciate the fact that guns can kill...

I must disagree again. Most 7-year-olds are perfectly capable of understanding the lethality of a firearm and the finality of death, but that knowledge is not instinctive. It must be taught by adults. My first memory of death was the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. I was five years old. My parents used it as an opportunity to explain death to me. By age 10 when I learned how to handle firearms, I had experienced several deaths.

Kids don't understand about bacteria until they are taught. Teaching kids about firearms is about as important as teaching them how to properly wash their hands. It's up to adults to teach those survival skills.

Simply pulling the trigger is taught by TV programming and movies. If you as a parent allow Daffy Duck cartoons and Hollywood shoot-em-up movies to educate your children about firearms and death, you are responsible for the result.

[iverglas]

69. and if I step out the front door and fall down the stairs

why, that's no accident. It's a result of my own negligence.

There are no accidents.

And I trust you prowl the internet correcting people who say there are.


Most 7-year-olds are perfectly capable of understanding the lethality of a firearm and the finality of death

Several million experts in child psychology and various other fields may disagree with you, but who the fuck cares, eh?

Hell, you say it, so it must be true. And self-evident ...


Oh, and another apparently self-evident thing:

another case of a child not being taught about firearm safety

because no kid has ever done anything it was taught not to do. Hell, no kid ever crosses a street without looking both ways. You teach the kid, and it's on its own. It will never ever do something it was taught not to do, or not do something it was taught to do. We can wash our hands of it now. Or blame it if it does something it was taught not to do. That's always fun too.


A lot of self-evident stuff in the world, isn't there? To read your posts one would think so, anyhow. They begin to sound like you think you're god or something. All-seeing, all-knowing. Maybe it's the crystal ball.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

67. First you'll have to point out where anyone said that gun accidents don't happen.

Then you'll have to point out where any court has ruled that hunting is the only legitimate use of firearms. Everyone here thinks 18 year olds illegally possessing and carrying concealed firearms is wrong.