Shot girl's dad: I drank vodka as I cleaned guns

[RamboLiberal]

MARYSVILLE, Wash. - A father arrested after his 6-year-old daughter was fatally shot in their Washington state home allegedly told authorities he had been drinking double shots of vodka while cleaning his guns.

Court papers say Richard Peters told detectives he had asked his daughter, Stormy, to bring him the .45-caliber handgun Sunday. He said he must have pulled the trigger, and the girl fell to the floor. She was pronounced dead Monday.

Bail for Peters, 42, was set Monday at $250,000. He has been arrested for investigation of first-degree manslaughter.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27800038/

F'in Idiot! Too bad he didn't shoot himself.

[KamaAina]

1. Remember, guns don't kill people. Vodka kills people.

:hide:

[YOY]

2. If it's not the guns to blame it's the gun culture and the lack of respect for firearms.

Sorry, as I am sure I will get flamed, but if the goddamn NRA would do more promoting firearm safety and responsibility as it does promoting yahoolike behavior...Mr. Wango Tango and the guy with (now) cold dead hands for example then idiots wouldn't be doing this shit.

[Deep13]

8. They actually do a lot of gun safety education.

And the "gun culture" is generally pretty safety conscious. Can't say the same for the drinking culture.

[YOY]

15. I've met firearm enthusiasts who fit into both categories: responsible/masturbating to their guns

Both seem to love the NRA. The NRA isn't doing too much to depromote the latter.

[Deep13]

32. True.

I don't love the NRA. I have to be a member to use the range.

[Alter Ego]

41. Oh God.

I have this mental image of some guy sitting in his shorts in a La-Z-Boy firing a 9mm at the ceiling and whacking off at the same time yelling "YEEAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!"

[SteveM]

52. Maybe, you need to see a doctor. Here's why:

"Like any other symbol, one can project many different images onto it , and these images can be reflections of unconscious issues as well as conscious ones. Someone who fears guns, for example, could have healthy reasons for wanting to avoid guns, or their fears could be a deeper phobic reaction to conflicts about sexuality and repressed anger." -- In Defense of Hunting, James A. Swan, Harper Collins, SF, 1995. Swan is a PhD. psychologist.

Put another way: "He who first smelt it dealt it."

[YOY]

62. Maybe I don't fear guns. Maybe you need to stop projecting?

I love the heat here: I dislike irresponsible yahoos with firearms so I'm treated as anti-firearm!

I dislike the NRA for their political stance and inability to call irresponsible yahoos on their mistreatments of firearms and I'm trated as "afraid of firearms." Hell...god forbid they really push acting like adults...it might hurt their someone's sales...

[SteveM]

102. If you would drop the usual sexual stuff, then you won't get the "heat:"

That old saw about jacking off with/over/about guns, or using them as a substitute for some kind of sexual urge is pretty ripe tripe.
Respectfully, why don't you drop it? It only fuels the truly hateful attitudes expressed by some in these threads.

I agree with you about the NRA's political shit, but the NRA has taken issue with unsafe gun practices which may explain in part why accidental child deaths have gone down in recent years, more so than any other surveyed category of cause of death.

Thanks for the dialog.

[Tallison]

150. But don't you think some gun owners

are a little over the top with their enthusiasm?

[JanMichael]

130. I don't fear guns; I own them, and the poster you were responding

to is correct.

The NRA has done nothing in the past decade or so to rein in the gun whackos. Case in point? "President Obama will take away your guns."

Go to their website. It's all there.

[iverglas]

158. maybe you and jody need to get together and form a study group

and review the rules applied in the Guns forum, and applicable here. Ascribing a public policy position to a phoney mental illness is impermissible. The fact that you're posting outside the Guns forum does not actually make it permissible.

[iverglas]

160. ooooh, James A. Swan

Swan is a PhD. psychologist, you say. Hmm.

You folks and your "authorities", you are so much fun.

http://www.jamesswan.com/resume.html

BS, Conservation Education, University of Michigan, 1965;
MS, Resource Planning, University of Michigan 1967;
Ph.D. Environmental Psychology, University of Michigan, 1969.
Media training, University of Michigan Television Center, 1969-1971.

Stuffed in among his writing, appearing in movies, consulting and other fascinating stuff, we find this:

Counselor:
1974-1982 in Oregon and Washington, special interest in peak performance in sports, psychosomatic illness and spiritual psychology;
1970-72 Board of Directors of Washtenaw County, Michigan, Juvenile Court ;
1974-1976, taught courses in therapeutic strategies, University of Oregon;
1979-1982, Directed Life Systems Center in Seattle, WA, a primary prevention stress reduction center.

Sum total of efforts that fall under the rubric "psychologist" as it is generally applied.

Yes indeed. I would pay that man to diagnose and treat my psychological troubles. Yes indeed I would. Why, back in the 1970s, he had a special interest in peak performance in sports, psychosomatic illness and, er, spiritual psychology, apparently in some kind of private practice.


https://www.collegetoolkit.com/colleges/browse/majors/michigan/26/byid/psychology/42.2101.aspx

Overview for Environmental Psychology
A program that focuses on the study of behavioral interactions between human beings and the environment in individual and group contexts, and ways to improve them. Includes instruction in contextual theory; statistics; physiological, social, and psychological responses to natural and technological hazards and disease; environmental perception and cognition; loneliness and stress; and psychological aspects of environmental design and planning.

Perhaps we have heard of "clinical psychology":

Overview for Clinical Psychology
A program that prepares individuals for the independent professional practice of clinical psychology, involving the analysis, diagnosis, and clinical treatment of psychological disorders and behavioral pathologies. Includes instruction in clinical assessment and diagnosis, personality appraisal, psychopathology, clinical psychopharmacology, behavior modification, therapeutic intervention skills, patient interviewing, personalized and group therapy, child and adolescent therapy, cognitive and behavioral therapy, supervised clinical practice, ethical standards, and applicable regulations.

And we will note that Dr. Swan is not qualified in that field.

Perhaps he has an opinion to offer on the care and feeding of hamsters. That would be about as enlightening and worthwhile as the one you have quoted.

[underseasurveyor]

170. I must kick this up.

Not only to mark it but because I just can't wait for 'his' response. And if he doesn't, I guess we'll know what that means... W.E.L. :evilgrin:

[iverglas]

175. If they aren't quoting Republicans ...

... they're quoting fakey experts.

There's a reference to "hoplophobia" way down the page. We used to get treated to this one regularly down in the gun dungeon:

http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

"Raging Against Self Defense:
A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality
By Sarah Thompson, M.D."

Problem was ... Dr. Thompson never was a psychiatrist, and she seemed to have a pretty hard time even keeping up with being a doctor ...

[underseasurveyor]

178. Um I wonder where he is?

He was quite available yesterday:-) Perhaps he stopped at the store to pick up a hamster wheel:rofl:

Thanks much for the link.

[Hangingon]

86. Masturbation?

I know lots of gun owners who enjoy maintaining their firearms. I don't know any who get sexual pleasure from it. I get lots of literature from the NRA and it never mentions masturbation and firearms either. The NRA literature does contain gun safety reminders and the NRA has always pushed for enforcement of gun laws. Down thread, a reference to drinking and driving is turned to SUVs. This is not a thread with reason it is just an emotional rant by a gun grabber using the tragic and needless death of a child as an excuse.

[zbdent]

98. so, in truth, Ted Nugent was acting upon his own suppressed homo-erotic desires

when he held up a weapon on stage and told Barack Obama to "suck it"?

I've heard about the "NRA Porn" calendar ...

[SteveM]

16. Actually, "promoting firearm safety" has caused an improvement...

www.outdoorlife.com

In the May 2007 issue of Outdoor Life, p. 12:
"A new report from the National Safety Council indicates that accidental firearms-related fatalities remain at record lows, and accidents involving youths continue to decline significantly...

"Firearms-related fatalities fell 40 percent between 1995 and 2005, the greatest decrease in percentage of all measure types of accidental fatalities in the U.S....

"All this occurred at a time when American gun ownership is at a record high -- more than 290 million guns owned and 47.8 million households having at least one firearm."

No flaming necessary with data like this.

[JonQ]

35. Drunk drivers aren't to blame when they plow their cars through innocent bystanders

it's a car culture and a lack of respect for cars. I'm sorry but if the AAA did more to promote safety and responsiblity, and less time promoting drunk driving these accidents would never happen.

Seriously, when a drunk driver kills someone does anyone jump on the bandwagon of blaming the cars or a culture that promotes cars? I for one blame the drunken idiot who did it and think they should be punished, severely, even if they weren't in control of their actions due to intoxication (they did choose to drink). I don't see why guns are so different.

[YOY]

40. I'm not anti-second amendment. Try reading what I wrote.

I dislike the promotion of acting like an Yosemite Sam with irresponsible gun use and abuse. If you think that's anti-gun then you can go take a flying fuck.

If you think about it I'm actually following Cold-Dead-Hand's advice and blaming the people and not the guns...

[JonQ]

51. And who exactly

promotes this sort of behavior? A name, attached to a quote would be nice. Something endorsing using firearms while intoxicated. Because it seems to me you've created a straw man here; stating that anyone who supports the 2nd also supports this sort of behavior.

[YOY]

59. Mother fucking Ted Nugent.

There's one name. Need more?

He's the paragon of waving it around like a toy and making idle threats.

And it's not about the 2nd amendment it's about acting like an irresponsible asshat and promoting asshat behavior. See you do think I'm anti 2nd Amendment. Nice to call you on it!

[AtheistCrusader]

69. I'm no fan of Ted

he's a far right shithead, but you fail. He doesn't advocate drinking around firearms. If you tried it near him, he'd probably kick your ass and damn the consequences. In fact, he doesn't even advocate drinking when NOT around firearms.

[YOY]

73. He dies advocate the acting like a fucking loon and waving it about.

Who the hell said anything about advocating drinking around firearms??? Jesus Christ...drinking or not the guy told his kid to get his gun for him??? You think he wouldn't tell her to do it if he wasn't sober?

Ted couldn't kick anyones ass. He's all show. I'd like to see Henry Rollins wrap him into a shithead burito.

[JonQ]

78. Wow

The question you were attempting to respond to was my request for "Something endorsing using firearms while intoxicated". And it relates as this tragedy would have been entirely avoidable if the guy weren't drunk.

Are you paying attention to what's going on or just randomly throwing out hate?

[YOY]

82. Ooops. I did fail. I cannot think of anyone who promotes drinking and shooting.

But then again I haven't a problem with either seperately.

I have a problem with people who think it's a toy and the culture that refuses to point them out for the imbeciles they are.

[JonQ]

87. Again, what culture are you talking about

who endorses this behavior? Who has come to this guys defense? Is anyone seriously advocating what he did, or leniency? I believe I refered to him as a drunken idiot before, and I think he should be tried for negligent homicide (or whatever the appropriate charge is given the circumstances, I don't claim to be a lawyer).

It seems you're raging against a culture that doesn't exist.

[YOY]

92. Well do you want a name of a few guys I know?

The magazines they collect. The attitude they seem to hold? They got it from somewhere. I haven't seen that attitude anywhere else in the world.

You're saying there isn't a gun culture let along a self-destructive part of one?

[AtheistCrusader]

85. Hahahah oh man.

I never thought someone would box me into a corner defending Ted, but I have an idea, why don't you buy a bus ticket, head on over to his place and say that to his face? Bring a friend with a camcorder, because that's going to be a youtube moment.

Ted is a hunter, he is extremely responsible with firearms. The only possible thing I can think of that might maybe sort of fit your characterization of him would be that time he held up a rifle, barrel pointed up at the cieling in front of a crowd, as a prop, yelling about how Hillary, etc should come try and take it from him. He's a showman, with a slightly political bent. Nothing about it seemed terribly shocking, beyond the possibility it could have been construed as a threat.

But all that aside, you have failed to demonstrate any sort of 'yosemite sam' gun culture that would advocate behavior that leads to some shithead getting drunk while cleaning his guns, and shooting his own child. Ted 'motherfucking' Nugent isn't going to be defending this shithead that killed his own kid. If I had to make a guess, Ted would suggest the death penalty for him.

[YOY]

100. This is responsible?

http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2007/08/24/ted-nugent-threatens-to-kill-barack-obama-and-hillary-clinton-during-vicious-onstage-rant/

THat is the pinacle of "Yosemite Sam" irresponsibility.

[AtheistCrusader]

106. That's exactly the incident I was referring to.

His weapons handling could have been better, and what he said could be construed as a threat. Beyond that I dissagree with your interpretation. And again, nothing he said or did on stage might somehow lead to some jackass drinking while cleaning his guns, and shooting a kid.

I have seen plenty of theatrically provocative incidents like this, from every political angle. I don't see how it supports your point. No one I have ever met would even think what that guy did, drinking while handling firearms was even acceptable, much less something to be encouraged.

[YOY]

109. I never said he promoted drinking and shooting.

I think upstream I refered to him accidentally in such a manner.

[AtheistCrusader]

111. Ted is making a political statement

on that stage, artists often do that sort of thing. I don't like what he said, but I still don't see how it relates to the subject of this thread. Ted Nugent has published several books, and plenty of essays, and been a part of public talks, etc, that all strongly support good stewardship of firearms, hunting, and general out-doorsy type stuff.

He is unrelenting and unapologetic about defending his civil rights. Again, I don't like the material in that clip, but I don't see the same connection you do to these current events.

[iverglas]

161. oh for pity's sake

No one I have ever met would even think what that guy did, drinking while handling firearms was even acceptable, much less something to be encouraged.

Tens and probably hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of people in the US do it all the time.

Hell, when I lived in small town Ontario, everybody did it. One Friday after knocking off work, when I was new to the place, I encountered a fellow member of the bar plodding down the street laden with bags from the Liquor Control Board store. Big weekend, John? I asked. Goin' huntin', he replied.

If no one thinks that drinking while handling firearms is even acceptable, why do so many people do it?

And if the point is that you haven't ever met them, well, that ain't a point. I have.

[AtheistCrusader]

172. I'd say it's on the decline.

Since the implementation of our hunter safety education programs, completion of which is required to obtain a hunting license, they have stressed sobriety around firearms. Accidental deaths are way, way down among hunters, and those who shoot people are being prosecuted heavily. Definite trend in the right direction. None of the hunters in my community that I know will even take beer along with.

In Canada, do you have the HSE program, or something like it? Here it's required for anyone born after 1972, prior to obtaining a hunting license.

[iverglas]

173. up here

You have to pass two things, I believe.

Federally, the approved firearms instruction course in order to obtain a Possession and Acquisition Licence for a firearm.

Provincially, I expect that all provinces require a hunter safety course of some sort in order to get the necessary separate hunting licence.

In my experience, taking a course is not determinative of future behaviour. ;)

[iverglas]

177. and I would just point out

What I was responding to was your statement:

No one I have ever met would even think what that guy did, drinking while handling firearms was even acceptable, much less something to be encouraged.

Hunting is only one element of "handing firearms", and my suggestion that drinking while handling firearms is really quite a widespread practice wasn't limited to hunting.

[AtheistCrusader]

179. It's not around my personal community.

But I live in the northwest which is fairly progressive. Even my father, who was an alcoholic stressed the importance of not mixing drinking with firearms (or vehicles, etc). To my knowledge, he never did, and willingly gave up his firearms long before the end, when his judgment could no longer be trusted.

It's just not part of the 'gun culture' around here. I have certainly seen indications of it in other parts of the country, even just 2 states east where a Police Chief was drunk, hunting, and mistook a hunter wearing an orange vest for an elk and killed him. I guess it still happens here and there, but it's getting to be quite rare.

I would like to see Game Wardens and Forest Rangers conduct sobriety tests on people out hunting. I'd support the same .08% limit used for operating a vehicle. Anything that impairs your judgment has no place around firearms.

[8 track mind]

144. dude i'd pay money to see that!

....on Pay per View! Henry Rollins and Ted Nugent Death Match!

[Ghost in the Machine]

70. Ted Nugent doesn't drink or use drugs...

Try again... you were aske dto provide a name and a link to a quote from someone promoting the use of firearms while drinking... you failed to do so...

[JonQ]

75. Clearly you didn't read his response carefully

he said "mother fucking" ted nugent, that immediately ends the debate and we are forced to concede the point to him. Little known law of debate protocol, the side that busts out the f-bomb first and most often is always right.

[Dr. Strange]

121. Point of order.

The phrase did not consist of all caps. If the poster had typed "MOTHER FUCKING TED NUGENT," then of course the debate would have to end. As is, the debate may continue.

Side note: debate rules indicate that a debate may also be construed as ended if one side "moons" the other.

[JonQ]

132. DAMN

I FORGOT THAT ONE!!!!!ONE!1!

Hehe

[YOY]

81. Apparently I didn't even take that into consideration. I did fail.

I can't think of anyone who promotes drinking and playing with guns.

But my problem isn't the drinking. It's not with guns as I've said about 50 freaking times...but shit...start advocating responsibilty around firearms around here and you get treated like you want to ban the second amendment...

My problem is with the "playing" part. I don't like the promotion of waving it around like a toy. I think it's seeped into our culture and taken the complete respect away from the danger of the instrument. If our culture stolidly promoted sensible and responsible (along with completely legal and free) gun ownership would this have happened? Gotta ask yourself.

[AtheistCrusader]

90. I want that dude thrown in jail.

I'm perfectly fine with the court making an example out of his sorry ass.

As a side note, I am still concerned about a culture that seems at least somewhat ok with drinking while hunting. Drinking while fishing isn't a great idea either, but you are pretty much just a threat to yourself. Drinking while hunting, you are a threat to everyone. But it's been a long time since I've seen a drunk hunter, and social winds have shifted a bit. It's getting better.

[JonQ]

91. Again

who advocates treating guns like toys? Names, and quotes please.

[YOY]

95. Well if we are talking about "treating guns like toys" you can't deny the Nuge.

Oh...here's that non-existant culture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_culture Someone made up a Wikipedia based on my fantasy...

[JonQ]

101. You didn't read it did you

from their definition of a gun culture in the US:
* They share a belief that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution enumerates an individual right, (as further elaborated by Justice Antonin Scalia of the SCOTUS).<4> Generally they see people as trustworthy and believe that others should not be prevented from having guns unless they have proven otherwise.
* They share a belief that guns provide some level of protection against criminality and tyranny. This ranges from a feeling that it's good to have a gun around the house for self-protection, to an active distrust of government and a belief that widespread gun ownership is protection against tyranny.
* They are generally responsible with respect to firearms handling. They have an awareness (or internalization) of either Jeff Cooper's Four Rules<5> or the NRA's Three Rules,<6> providing for some level of safe handling of guns and try to abide by them when handling firearms.
* They support, widely and in principle, the gun rights associated with hunting and other outdoor sports activities, although these activities are not always practiced by all within the gun culture. Some members of the gun culture remain avid collectors and shooters but this is not universal.


---------------------

Yeah, clearly they advocate getting plastered and waving guns around like toys.

[AtheistCrusader]

108. That usage of 'gun culture' strictly forbids

what happened to that child. Specifically, Cooper's 4 rules listed right there in that wiki article.

If 'gun culture', as you are using it, was observed, this would never have happened.

[JonQ]

71. Ah good

a name. Now for the second part, a quote from him suggesting he supports drunken shootings?

Also I was unaware the the Nuge ran the NRA, was a supreme court Justice, controlled our culture, and a senator all at the same time, thus giving him the influence you seem to attach to his unspoken pro-drunken gun wielding stance that would literally force this poor dad to get wasted and kill his daughter.

[Hangingon]

93. Okay, you pulled up a name - now how about the quote?

[YOY]

97. OK. It's not about the drinking and shooting but about acting like a child while waving guns.

“Obama, he’s a piece of shit. I told him to suck on my machine gun. Hey Hillary,” he continued. “You might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless bitch.” Nugent summed up his eloquent speech by screaming “freedom!”

[JonQ]

103. Have you noticed that you keep changing the goal posts?

First it's guns and drinking is acceptable by the community, then a gun culture that says guns are toys and advocates irresponsible behavior, then this one guy said this one thing this one time. What's the next logical progression?

[YOY]

125. No, the latter was always my point.

n.t.

[JonQ]

58. And I didn't call you

anti-2nd amendment. I suggest you try reading what I wrote.

[YOY]

64. Suuuuuure you didn't...

I've seen that reply to anti-gun folks...the cutesy comparision. No. You still think I'm anti-gun.

[JonQ]

65. Well this will make my job easier

tell me what I'm going to say next, since you have no qualms with putting words in my mouth.

[YOY]

67. Nothing preferably. Try it.

n.t.

[JonQ]

Uh uh

Now I have the last word. Seems to be about on par for your debating style. So there.

Seriously, is this a long running joke or something? Are you trying to make the anti-gun folks (there now I actually did say it) look crazy to discredit them? I have a very hard time taking you serious.

[YOY]

88. I have no idea what you are even talking about now...

n.t.

[JonQ]

94. Yes you do, don't even try to play that card

look, you admitted you failed on this. You're ranting over a strawman and looking fairly ridiculous in the process. You make contradictory claims without evidence, you reverse your stances and at least (I'll give you this one) you were willing to admit you were wrong, but not on everything. I suggest you take a breather before responding to any more posts.

[Coexist]

44. and in response the auto industry installed safety measures and a license to drive can be revoked

or suspended.

Bad analogy.

[YOY]

48. Actually by his analogy I would be complaining about people who drive 105 on the freeway.

or drive their SUVs like maniacs because they are the largest thing on the road.

Not really a good analogy at all because he didn't actually read what I said.

[JonQ]

53. Hmm

driving at 105 is illegal, so is driving like a maniac. And when people do these things and get killed or kill someone else, who do you blame? The culture, the auto-producers, lobbyists for the auto-industry, or the individual who acted irresponsibly and illegally?

[YOY]

61. and still it's a shitty analogy and you didn't read what I wrote.

Spare me the standard excuses you use for anti-gun folks.

[JonQ]

68. Well that certainly was a better choice

than going with a well-reasoned, coherent and logical response. That route is so dull. Productive maybe, rational, sure, but not as fun as screaming insults and then claiming victory.

[JonQ]

54. And in response

we have laws governing how guns may be used, in what areas, what guns are illegal to own period, and revoke the right of certain individuals to own firearms. Punishing those who fail to comply.

Excellent analogy.

[baldguy]

63. Drunk drivers who kill people are usually charged with manslaughter.

[JonQ]

84. Yep

as they should be. And people who get drunk and shoot someone should be held to the same standard.

[gollygee]

149. He also had his daughter fetch a gun for him

Drunk drivers who drive their kids around without child safety seats and crash and their kids die are charged with negligent homicide.

[aquart]

3. Where's the kid's mother?

[CrispyQ]

43. ???

What does that have to do with it? Maybe she was grocery shopping or maybe she was at work or maybe she was in the kitchen doing the dishes. Your post suggests that it is somehow more the mother's responsibility to care for the child than the father's.

My apologies if I interpreted your post incorrectly, but I'm not certain what point you are trying to make.

[aquart]

55. No. I want to know who's holding on to her.

I don't know if there are other children. I don't know if her whole family just went pfft. Hers is the only reaction that interests me here.

[gollygee]

49. Not drinking, cleaning loaded guns, and having 6-year-olds fetch guns

:shrug:

[LeftinOH]

4. I'm not a gun person, but -shouldn't guns be unloaded prior to cleaning them...

..never mind the drunk-on-vodka part? I. just. don't. get. it...

[Deep13]

10. #1 safety rule for mere handling, not just cleaning.

One should always visually inspect the chamber to guarantee it is not loaded.

[Egnever]

24. I thought the number one rule was always assume a gun is loaded,.

[Deep13]

27. Exactly.

That's why it is necessary to open it up and look inside before transporting it, working on it etc.

Assuming it is loaded causes a person to develop a habit of safety.

[Cronus Protagonist]

104. If only the parent had followed that rule

The kid wouldn't have been asked to bring over a loaded gun in the first place.

[AlCzervik]

13. he appeared to be cleaning another gun according to what i read, just drinkin and Fetch me mah 45.

the key words here is "guns".

Court papers say Richard Peters told detectives he had asked his daughter, Stormy, to bring him the .45-caliber handgun Sunday. He said he must have pulled the trigger, and the girl fell to the floor. She was pronounced dead Monday

So he was most likely cleaning one and she went to get him another.

[SteveM]

17. Yes. And a child should not be involved unless with supervised instruction (nt)

[Deep13]

28. Agreed. I will add a six-year-old is just plain too young...

...even if supervised by a sober, safety-minded adult.

[SteveM]

116. I agree with that as well. nt

[gollygee]

5. Uhm.

He was drinking double shots of vodka while cleaning his guns? I think this makes it clear that the problem here was not the gun.

[supernova]

6. How awful

and who the hell stows a LOADED gun!?!

That is colossal stupid right there. The second would be getting a 6 year old to fetch it for you.

[gollygee]

7. He had the 6-year-old fetch it?

I didn't read the article. My god. Yes, he deserves charges.

[SteveM]

22. I "stow a loaded gun." Here's why:

While all my hunting/heirloom guns are locked up and the ammunition for them is locked in a separate box, I keep a loaded gun within quick bed-side reach when I am at home.

I do not have children. But when I was a child, my father kept a loaded gun in his closet for home defense even with four sons in the house. Why? We were all trained in the use of handguns, shotguns and rifles. This training is the BEST DEFENSE against accidental shootings. When we were older (by age 12), we were given handguns of our own and entrusted with the responsibility of keeping them in our respective rooms.

[supernova]

30. You will never convince me this is smart

Sorry, but that is asking for trouble.

I grew up in the country. There were plenty of hunting trips and rifles and ammo to be had. And yes, I used them on occasion. But we didn't stow loaded guns. Ever. In fact, the only time you put live ammo in a gun was when you were ready to actually shoot a target, not before.

Do you live in a place with a lot of home invasions?

[SteveM]

66. For home defense with revolvers, there is an exception...

One can have a firearm readily at hand and NOT have it loaded. This would be a pistol whereby a magazine can be quickly inserted, or with any firearm which has a such quick-loading capacity. With a revolver, you must have it loaded if there is to be any practical quick response if an intruder suddenly breaks into your home. This "exception" to the rule is recognized by gun safety authorities.
Of course, when not at home, the revolver is locked away. The key here is this: "Store guns so they are not accessible to unauthorized persons." (From The Basics of Pistol Shooting, NRA publication, 1991.)

So I have one stowed and loaded firearm for self-defense purposes.

There is a steady drone of home invasions in one end of my town (probably crim-on-crim crime), and occasional B&Es and invader/rapists elsewhere. My area suffers a little from B&E. And my frame house hasn't had a fire in its 60-year history; yet, I still carry home insurance and have smoke alarms.

Incidentally, quick-loading features is yet another argument for folks to use semi-automatic arms for self-defense. I prefer the safe aim & pull-trigger characteristic of a revolver.

[Deep13]

34. All my friends and my parents and grandparents grew up in that environment.

No shootings.

[dorkulon]

9. Thank God responsible gun owners still have their rights

It's totally worth 6-year-olds getting shot dead every once in a while, so law-abiding gun owners can get their jollies shooting at targets.

[Deep13]

11. Hey, I've never shot anyone and never will either.

People who follow the rules are not the problem. So why aren't you railing against the availability of booze? That causes far more deaths in this county than shooting accidents.

[jeepnstein]

99. It was called "Prohibition"

And it was a miserable failure, as would be any gun ban. It will probably be even worse. When you criminalize a Constitutionally Protected freedom you can be pretty sure that it will turn a huge portion of the country into criminals overnight.

The bozo who killed his kid should be punished. I figure he broke about every safety rule in the book so negligence, if not wanton reckless disregard for the child's safety would be an easy score. It wouldn't take a jury long to really burn a guy like this. And that's how it should be. Dumb people should pay the price.

[NeedleCast]

14. Thank god responsible car owners still have their rights

it's totally worth 6-year-olds getting killed in car accidents on a regular basis, so law-abiding car drivers can get their jollies driving around on Sunday afternoon.

[Coexist]

47. is there a state test that must be passed to learn how to use or own a gun?

[JonQ]

56. Is there a consitituationally guaranteed

right to operate a motor vehicle?

[NeedleCast]

57. In many states, yes

Handguns in particular.

The point is though, that there are a lot of things out there that far outrank guns in the number of child-deaths they cause every year. When a child is irresponsibly placed in a child seat, or not placed in a child seat at all, or dies in a vehicle related tragedy, no one ever points at the car (unless there is a glaring saftey defect). The fault is placed with the person who acted irresponsivly. So why is it that when the mechanism of death is a gun, it's the gun's fault and not the irresponsible owner?

[SteveM]

89. In all states, a prospective gun owner must pass the NICS test...

The National Instant Background Check test. This clears someone for purchasing on the basis of no disqualifying criminal act and no adjudication of mental incompetence. Otherwise, most states do not have a proof of proficiency test. The except to this is for concealed carry permits and hunting. By and large these require the above NICS test, a written test, a proficiency test at the range, the carrying of a picture i.d. with thumbprint, and renewal. Of course, you are registered with the state issuing such.

The reason most states do NOT require proficiency tests is because:
(1) guns are kept in the home unless used outside when they BECOME SUBJECT TO GREATER REGULATION;
(2) abuse by authorities as to who and who does not qualify (many of these tests are like the old literacy tests in Jim Crow days);
(3) the test puts an undue burden (re delay and expense) on someone keeping a gun for home defense.

The best way to look at regulation is where it is used outside the home. If I go hunting, there are regulations as to how I store my weapon in transit, regulations as to what kind of gun to use in the field, regulations as to ammunition capacity, the type of ammo, and within the last 30-40 years, proof of proficiency with guns and knowledge of game laws, etc. If I carry it for personal protection, the state has an interest in seeing that I am not incompetent or ignorant of the law when in public. That same sort of burden is not put on a head of household, and given the low (and declining) rate of accidental child homicides in the home, it is unnecessary and may be unconstitutional. See #16 in this thread.

Also, see www.georgiacarry.org

Search for Heller Brief and get a history of how gun laws had their birth in the racist policies of the South, from antebellum days to the present. Very disturbing and not widely known.

[dorkulon]

79. Cars aren't made for killing people.

Cars are made for transportation. Guns are made for killing. That's all they're good for.

[NeedleCast]

137. That doesn't make cars any less lethal to children

Despite the designed purpose of inanimate objects, they are often not used as intended. I would also suggest that killing is not the only thing that guns are good for, but that's completely beside the point.

Again, the point is that lots of things that are not designed to kill children end up doing it anyway. Cars, pools, plastic bags, just about anything made in China...you get the picture. However, in just about every case EXCEPT guns, the inanimate object which was used incorrectly is not blamed, the person(s) who created the situation or defect that caused the death is blamed.

So my question to all who are intent on blaming the gun is where the line should be drawn between making it a safe world and allowing people some level of freedom. I mean, we don't NEED swimming pools, right? Other than cooling off and having a good time, a swimming pool really doesn't serve any great purpose, so shouldn't we just get rid of them in the name of child safety?

[iverglas]

156. odd how no one has answered

So my question to all who are intent on blaming the gun

I wonder. Could it be because only psychotics and members of very, very primitive cultures (like our own, back in the Dark Ages) actually blame inanimate objects for events?

I haven't noticed any psychotics or members of primitive cultures posting here.

That could be why I have never once noticed anyone in this place blaming a gun.

Have you? Can you point him/her out for me? I will especially hope that s/he is a member of a very, very primitive culture, since one doesn't often get to meet one of them. Psychotics, well, them there may be some of here; I have had friends with psychoses, so that would not be particularly novel. I just haven't noticed any blaming guns.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

152. My guns are very good for target shooting.

[123infinity]

171. That's exactly what makes them useful if someone's breaking in your house to rape your

son.
:eyes:

[SteveM]

33. Continuing the culture war, huh? Some folks are benefiting, alright...

You really should see yesterday's posting about the increase in gun sales. One gun shop owner genuinely thanked the Democratic Party for his increase sales. You should express your pride; I mean, in this economic downtown, you really pumped his gas!

[JonQ]

38. How is drinking vodka

with a loaded firearm "responsible"? Sounds like an irresponsible gun owner to me. And I can't think of any pro-2nd amendment groups that advocate drunken screwing around with guns. Can you?

Why is it that if this were any other situation where a drunk father killed/injured his child people would be blaming the dad, but because guns are involved there must be some big conspiracy to encourage this sort of behavior and force otherwise sensible adults to kill their kids?

[AtheistCrusader]

74. I would say he was highly irresponsible, negligent

and he deserves everything the court can throw at him for killing a child in an unimaginably stupid way.

[dorkulon]

77. Of course it's the dad's fault.

But if he didn't have a gun, that girl would still be alive. I agree about the booze, too. I bet the number of gun deaths--or violent deaths on the whole--would go down about 2/3 to 3/4 if there wasn't any alcohol involved. But there is, there just is.

[SteveM]

42. Sounds like you are getting your jollies in a culture war...

You really should read about the thread in Guns (posted yesterday?) wherein a gun store operator was genuinely thanking the Democratic Party for his increased sales.

You part of that? Write the man and express your welcome

[dorkulon]

72. Oooh, culture war! I must be a bad person.

I don't give a flying fuck if people don't like it. The fact is that for every "responsible" gun owner, there is at least one irresponsible one. It is simply a foregone conclusion that if you sell a device that makes killing someone as easy as turning off a tv with a remote control, people are going to get killed.

Cars are for transportation. Guns are for killing people. And every day, some jackass proves yet again that PEOPLE AS A WHOLE CANNOT HANDLE the responsibility of gun ownership. It is not worth thousands of deaths each year just so the responsible ones can have their gun fun.

[SteveM]

115. Well, you certainly are not a well-informed one...

You say: "The fact is that for every 'responsible' gun owner, there is at least one irresponsible one."

Fact? Any proof? Made it up on the fly?

You say: "It is simply a foregone conclusion that if you sell a device that makes killing someone as easy as turning off a tv with a remote control, people are going to get killed."

As easy as turning on the ignition of your car "people are going to get killed." What's your point?

You say: "Cars are for transportation. Guns are for killing people." Yet the former kill more. What is your point?

You say: "PEOPLE AS A WHOLE CANNOT HANDLE the responsibility of gun ownership." This is patently untrue.
There are perhaps 80,000,000 U.S. civilians who own one or more guns, yet the homicide/accident rate with guns is a tiny, tiny fraction of this figure, both in terms of guns and the gun-user. In fact, most criminal use of guns is criminal-on-criminal. Take that out of the equation and the PEOPLE AS A WHOLE become even more responsible.

The wages of culture war are that you might lose. Bill Clinton has an interesting take on how Al Gore lost his presidency bid: by supporting the totally ineffective Assault Weapons Ban.

Still want to fight that one?

[dorkulon]

120. No, I don't.

Frankly, I know I'm beaten on this issue, from a popular and a legal perspective. I still think I'm right, and I don't think expressing my POV is going to help or hurt the nation politically.

You are right that cars kill more people, and that the number of accident/homicides is relatively low. But cars are a necessity of life, as it is, in this country. Guns really aren't. And again, cars have a purpose that doesn't involve killing people--they kill when they are operated improperly; guns kill as their primary function. Still, I'd rather live in a world with top-shelf public transportation and few, if any, cars. I don't think cars should be driven for sport, or for fun, and I think the very concept of sports cars and muscle cars is wasteful and dangerous. There are a lot of ways to have fun, and most don't involve risking the lives of the people around you.

And secondly, no matter how low the number is, I value the lives of innocent people over any benefit people derive from their guns, period. One death is too many, thousands is a national tragedy.

EDIT: And really, if you can't acknowledge that there are at least as many gun-owners out there (legal or otherwise) who have no business owning one as there are those who behave safely at all times, I don't know what to tell you. People like this dumbass in the OP are everywhere, not to mention people who keep them loaded in their cars, or just like to wave them around and act macho. This night and every night, there are drunk people carrying guns in every city in this nation, time bombs waiting to go off. They may only kill another gun-toting criminal asshole, but in the old days, those guys would have had to actually fight to do any damage to each other. Most drunken confrontations won't even get that far, as self-preservation will keep most thugs talking and not fighting. But it's easy as hell to just shoot someone.

Again, I don't want to discuss what a loser of an issue this is for Democrats. I know all about that. I just think it shouldn't be that easy to kill someone. You should at least have to get pissed off enough to stab them. Other developed, civilized, free, democratic nations, ones with socialized health care, decent education systems and all sorts of other things Democrats admire and want, get along just fine without guns. I like that idea. That's all I'm sayin'.

[SteveM]

127. I appreciate your reasonable answer...

I will not take issue with your assertion about the necessity of cars (as of now). I have never understood what is so dark and lurking about guns having a primary cause of killing. There are many things which kill; a gun is just better suited in certain situations. And I would make this assertion: if car owners treated their driving habits as carefully as gun owners treat their shooting habits, we would have fewer auto-related deaths.

I think it is pointless to compare the deaths of any group of people to the death-dealing object, cars or guns. The purpose of a firearm is largely defined by the user. In the instance of self-defense, a gun is used to stop an attack. Many, many attacks have been stopped by the use of firearms (mostly without firing a shot). This is a good thing, and shouldn't be rejected because of accidents with guns, most of which are avoidable.

[dorkulon]

146. Not to belabor the point, but

it just doesn't matter that they're "avoidable"--they are not avoided. And while many attacks have been stopped with guns, many--I would guess more--have been enabled by them. Anyway, we're probably not going to convince each other here.

[NeedleCast]

140. It's a fact huh?

Care to back up that "fact" with...you know, actual facts?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

159. So you think this man was acting responsibly? Please explain.

[NeedleCast]

12. This kind of stupid deserves a murder charge, not manslaughter

[Tikki]

18. Honestly, there should be safe-houses in every...

town or large city neighborhoods for children to go to when their stupid parent(s) are
drinking and handling guns.

We should teach this in school or in the community just like we teach how to call 9-1-1...
Hell, kids should be able to call 9-1-1 when they see their parents drinking and
handling guns.

I am tired of hearing that the gun toting-shooting parent shouldn't be punished because "the child's
death is punishment enough".


Tikki

[supernova]

20. Yes, really

Children giving up their lives shouldn't have to be the price they pay for someone else's moral lesson.

[Deep13]

25. ...or driving, or beating their spouses, or chasing the DTs around the house with a hammer.

I have no sympathy for those who hurt people because of voluntary intoxication. At Common Law, this is called depraved heart murder. It is conduct so reckless that the death of someone is likely. Ohio requires intent to kill for murder, so it would be a high grade of manslaughter.

[gollygee]

26. Oh god has anyone said that?

That the child's death is punishment enough? I agree when there is a true accident, but this was not a true accident. If he chose to drink while cleaning his guns and having his child fetch guns, he chose to put his child's life at risk.

[SteveM]

36. See my post #16...

This individual should be tried and if found guilty, punished.

[SteveM]

39. Uh, has anyone said "gun toting-shooting parent shouldn't be punished"?...

I know you are tired and all, but I haven't read that. Correct me if I am wrong.

[Tikki]

50. Wow...I've heard that many times...

In print, from peoples' mouths and in the movies.

Tikki

[SteveM]

96. In the movies. From peoples' mouths.

No one here is saying he is punished enough, and no one is carrying on about excusing "gun toting-shooting" parents except you.

[Deep13]

19. When alcohol is involved, it is not an accident.

Whether it is driving or handling any other dangerous equipment, if the person is drunk, the injury is not an accident. Accidents happen despite efforts to prevent it. Intoxication means that the wrong-doer is not taking safety seriously.

It is easy to blame civilian gun onership until one remembers that alcohol adds disaster to all sorts of lawful injury. The most dangerous thing most of us possess is an automobile. Even without alcohol, they kill far more people than firearms do in the USA. Add drinking to the situation and a danger becomes a disaster. Despite increasingly harsh penalties, our unwillingness to reign-in commercial alcohol culture puts alot of bodies in the morgue.

So I am not blaming this one on civilian ownership. This one falls squarely on the shoulders of the drunken idiot who asked an six-year-old to fetch him a loaded pistol.

[slackmaster]

21. Paging Red Foreman...

[benld74]

23. DUMBASS!!!

[underseasurveyor]

29. I hope his precious guns were worth it to him.

They need a prison for the criminally stupid.

Poor baby girl:-(

[gollygee]

31. I hope his vodka was worth it to him

His stupidity and gross negligence caused this poor girl's death. :(

[SteveM]

46. A very unfortunate death, but are you taking advantage of it?...

"I hope his precious guns were worth it to him." This sounds like the usual hateful language of culture war, based always on prohibition. (I note your "handle" temperancedissent. Do you favor still other prohibitionist policies?)

Now, please see my post #16.

[underseasurveyor]

80. No.

I don't know how you read all of what you did from my post but it has become the norm around here to do just that.

I said 'precious guns' because these types of accidents that occur are more often than not caused by people with such a cavalier attitude toward guns and they're sure nothing bad could ever happen AND it's usually those with this same cavalier attitude that scream the loudest about government and democrats trying to take their precious guns away. With that said............

Obviously you know nothing about me so let me clue you in... First of all the word temperance means moderation and/or self-restraint. It has nothing to do with being prohibitionist. Second, years ago when Skinner allowed us to change our DU names my family got together and we all wrote a word on a piece of paper and I pulled two out of the hat. I put the two words together and that's how I choose my new DU name. Third and probably more important, I am a gun owner and avid shooter and if I do say so myself I'm quite good at it. I can and have shot various and numerous firearms all because my first husband was a gun-smith/dealer among other things.

So you can take your "usual hateful language" argument aimed at me and use it somewhere else because it doesn't fit here.

[SteveM]

112. So noted. I still have an issue with your expressions...

"Precious guns" is a pejorative expression in this debate. Surely you see this. Besides, if guns were that "precious," they wouldn't be handled in a "cavalier" manner. The rest of your statement -- "it's usually those with this same cavalier attitude that scream the loudest about government and democrats trying to take their precious guns away" -- is much the same. You have stereotyped many, many Americans by equating those anti-Democratic persons with the same "those" who use guns in a cavalier manner. That still does not wash for me.

I accept that you are not a prohibitionist, and retract the "usual hateful language" argument.

[underseasurveyor]

139. Well then I guess it's your issue

Hold on to it as long as you wish.

[guitar man]

37. I'd like to know

I'd like to know what particular .45 caliber pistol was involved. That would tell me if the "duh, I must have pulled the trigger by mistake" excuse is even valid in this case.If it's a 1911 Colt or a clone, I wouldn't buy that for a minute.

[scrinmaster]

45. Always, always, always check to make sure your gun is empty before fucking around with it.

Remove the magazine, or open the internal magazine, cycle the slide or work the action to make sure that there is no round in the chamber. Then check the chamber visually, and stick a pinkie in there just to be safe. Don't drink while handling guns, operating machinery, driving cars, etc. It sounds like the retard in question didn't follow these ridiculously simply rules, and now has to live with having killed his daughter.

[Dukkha]

60. the #1 unpreventable cause of death: human stupidity

Unpreventable as Einstein warned it was as infinite as the universe itself.

[Qibing Zero]

76. Yes, lets blame the vodka, video games, violent movies, and such

Clearly that helps us solve the real problems in this world.

Did he listen to heavy metal too?

[maxsolomon]

83. Here's a horrible Darwinist take on it:

he "only" killed his own offspring. it's a horrible, undeserved, unjust tragedy for the victim. but in the genetic scheme of things, this is not a negative. if he'd shot himself before repoducing, that would have been preferable.

I don't actually feel this way, but it's probably a more productive argument to have than the endless cliched "cars are just like handguns" Gungeon crap on DU.

[Cronus Protagonist]

105. Darwin Award by proxy

A sad tale that would have, as you mentioned, been better told by the wife over a dead husband than the father over a dead child.

[renie408]

110. Wow, that is SO not something I think I would ever say.

What you are saying, basically, is that the world is probably better off because this guy shot his kid because the kid carried his 'tainted' DNA.

That just seems a little icky to me.

[maxsolomon]

123. isn't that the way natural selection is supposed to work?

the wildebeest that is caught by the lion is the slowest. the wildebeest that escapes & lives to breed is the fastest.

we're animals, too. homo sapiens got where we are now by selecting for intelligence - and vodka dad demonstrated that he has little of that.

and as i said, i don't feel this way 100% of the time. i'm just willing to post it.

[renie408]

126. Accidentally getting shot by your drunk father is not exactly an example of

natural selection. Shit luck, maybe. Natural selection...no. Also, I don't think that IQ is directly heritable. People of average intelligence have genius offspring and geniuses produce average children. So, the kid, had she been given a chance, might have grown up to be a perfectly intelligent, useful member of society.

[SteveM]

113. "Cars are [not] just like handguns." The former "kill" more people. nt

[maxsolomon]

122. thank you for proving my point

that's the exact rejoinder that gun advocates always make to the "cars are licensed, why not guns?" argument. see multiple posts above. no logical argument over the PURPOSES of the 2 products can dissuade a gun rights advocate from repeating the cliche.

if drunken idiots with guns would only kill themselves, there be nothing to argue over. but they don't. call me a cynic, but america has LONG AGO made a collective decision, consciously or unconsciously, that the level of gun deaths due to negligence & crimes of passion iis an acceptable tradeoff for the ability to possibly protect yourself from a statistically unlikely attack. gun deaths will continue at the current levels for the foreseeable future.

it's fucking pointless to discuss anymore.

[renie408]

129. Now THIS we agree on. n/t

[SteveM]

136. Well, I'm not sure what was proven, but we do have a legal system...

which which to prosecute anyone who unlawfully kills another, using a gun or a car.

The right to keep and bear arms is a protected right in the constitution. Cars -- even the technology of transportation writ large -- are not a protected right; hence, it can be (and is) highly regulated, licensed, registered, taxed, etc. These same practices regarding cars cannot be used to "control" a constitutional right. Beyond the usual outer edges of the "crowded theater" metaphor, speech is not regulated, licensed, registered, or taxed. The same for voting, up to and including the Amendment XXIV (1964).

Guns are regulated, registered, licensed and in some cases taxed when they are taken OUT OF THE HOME and used for other purposes. IOW, the moment you walk out of the house and get into the "unprotected" car, additional regulation impinges on guns in terms of transport (various laws, state-by-state), in terms of carrying concealed (taxed, tested at the range, I.D.'d, registered), in terms of hunting (ammo, gun type, when, where, how, taxes, fees, etc.).

Often, folks say that a gun's purpose is to kill. While some firearms (match-grade, trap, and others) are not designed for that purpose, most are in fact designed to kill or stop animals and people. Respectfully, so what? I don't see why this characteristic pushes a gun into the forefront of severe regulation when it is the person using it which determines the ultimate purpose.

I don't share your cynicism about what is acceptable. The number of accidental deaths due to guns has fallen over the last 10-12 years even as the number of guns in civilian hands has risen, so some folks are working to lessen that. Yes, it is "statistically unlikely" that an attack may occur on (or within) this country. The framers of the constitution were not insurance actuary writers, but they saw the need for a protected right to keep and bear arms as insurance against domestic despots (who always have their beginnings in such notions as "unitary" executives and private armies like Black Water), invasion, civil insurrection and general crime. Insurance, but no probability numbers and no guarantees.

Thanks for the discussion.

[Shardik]

107. This is a terrible story.

And another reason for more stringent gun control.

[SteveM]

114. Name the ways you would control guns (nt)

[Shardik]

118. Well... If I were king, I'd keep them out of your hands. n/t

[SteveM]

128. But you are a not king, and this is not a kingdom. Why is that?

[Shardik]

131. What would be that different in your life if you didn't own guns?

[SteveM]

141. I would not be able to hunt, a source of all-natural meat...

and I would not be able to sufficiently protect myself in my home. In my younger days, Plan A was to run to the other end of the house when someone was breaking in. Now, I have to use Plan B due to my age and slowness. I can threaten to use my gun against a home invader, or use it if I have to. I am not paranoid over this (I sleep very well) since I treat the gun as an insurance policy of sorts. Further, I would miss shooting at the range, a relaxing and concentrating exercise.

Protection against a despot (domestic or foreign) is not on my front burner, and would not affect my day-to-day life. But as remote as that possibility is, I believe that to have some kind of arm is better than to be unarmed. Frankly, most crimes are probably thwarted by a civilian's threat to use a gun, than by its actual use; similarly, a government bent on authoritarian takeover may be thwarted from that aim, knowing that perhaps 80 million civilians have guns, and tens of more millions can quickly obtain them.

Like a criminal, a despot may not wish to take a chance, no matter how "unitary" he is or how much he relies on Black Water.

Other than all the foregoing, my life would be different if we had guaranteed health insurance, drastically cut carbon emissions, better education, fiscally responsible spending practices, and more open, accessible public lands.

[slackmaster]

145. Aw come on Steve, you could run down deer and kill them with your bare hands

That would actually make it more fair.

Now, I have to use Plan B due to my age and slowness.

I'm older and slower too, but I'll still come out slashing with my carbon steel Hoplite sword if some fool breaks in. That is if my Attack Cats don't stop him first.

[Shardik]

148. LOL...

That is what one might expect. It's amazing that you have internet access if you have to depend on a firearm for access to meat.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

153. I guess since he just destroyed your argument it's okay to make things up.

When did he say he had to depend on hunting for meat? He said it was a source. I'd go back to the kiddy pool.

David

[NeedleCast]

151. If you were the king

we'd still be part of the British Empire...

[Shardik]

176. Which, statistically, has a much better method of gun control than we do.

when it comes to innocents being killed by guns.

[renie408]

133. Unfortunately, more stringent gun control probably wouldn't have stopped this

from happening.

But I am for more gun control in general.

[JonQ]

169. Interesting conclusion

you'd support doing away with guns entirely, thus negating the 2nd amendment, before returning to prohibition (alcohol was a major factor here). Why are guns dangerous and unacceptable, but alcohol which contributes to far more deaths and is not a guaranteed right is perfectly acceptable?

Again I'll post this analogy: a drunk driver kills some innocent people. Is the solution to ban cars?

[LanternWaste]

117. And people still wonder why I do my best...

And people still wonder why I do my best to avoid gun owners... :eyes:

[krispos42]

119. "Bring me my gun" to a 6-year-old...

which means that the gun was stored where a 6-year-old, UNAIDED, could get it.



Jeeezus Christ.



:banghead:

[gollygee]

124. And he knew that the 6-year-old knew where it was and could get at it

stupid stupid person.

[Javaman]

134. Simple guns and booze don't mix...

and given that this fucking genius was drunk while cleaning his gun, I'm sure the general homelife for that child was just wonderful.

Poor kid, hopefully she's in a better place now.

[flvegan]

135. Damn, this thread is awesome.

:popcorn:

[Tejas]

147. Waiting for the call to ban vodka

:rofl:

[apocalypsehow]

138. And yet another "law abiding gun owner" makes the headlines. n/t.

[iverglas]

168. awwww, no fair

I wanted to say that.

[aikoaiko]

142. Stupid, irresponsible, negligent father will have to be legally punished

As well as living with the guilt of killing his daughter.

[jody]

143. If he was drinking & that contributed to the accident he should be prosecuted just like drivers who

drink, drive, and cause accidents and the death of anyone.

The gun itself is an inanimate object just like a car and it is no more the cause of the accident than a car is the cause of an accident leading to death.

Of course those bothered with hoplophobia will probably disagree.

[iverglas]

157. jody, mumbling to himself again

The gun itself is an inanimate object just like a car and it is no more the cause of the accident than a car is the cause of an accident leading to death.

It must be those voices only you can hear saying that it is, jody.

Bothered with those voices quite a bit, from what I see.


Of course those bothered with hoplophobia will probably disagree.

And yet deaf to things like the rules of Democratic Underground, is jody.

Where regular posters in the Guns forum (I do believe you qualify on that count) were advised some years ago that use of the hokey term "hoplophobia" (that's "fear of guns", for you non pseudo-Greek speakers) to characterize firearms control advocates, i.e. to ascribe their public policy positions to a mental illness, is unacceptable.

The rules don't apply to jody, though. He just keeps on keeping on. And that's a whole lot easier if you don't even see replies to your mumbles, ain't it jody? jody?

[AlinPA]

162. It's simple. Guns and alcohol don't mix. All this arguing about this ignorant drunk makes no sense.

Maybe he will feel bad on his next round of double shots of vodka and put the gun to his mouth.

[jody]

164. "Guns and alcohol don't mix" & neither do "cars and alcohol", "boats and alcohol". My close friend's

wife was killed by a drunk driving a fast boat.

Like most people I have friends and acquaintances who were killed by drunks driving cars.

Perhaps we should prohibit drinking -- wait we already tried that. :shrug:

[AlinPA]

165. Alcohol and tailgating works.

[jody]

166. Been to an Alabama vs. Auburn football game? Alcohol flows like the Mississippi in flood. n/t

[varelse]

154. Too bad he didn't shoot himself.

I think he probably would agree with that sentiment, at this point. Losing a child to a tragic accident is heartbreaking enough - being the cause of that accident is beyond my imagination.

Handling any deadly weapon (car, airplane, steak knife, handgun, automatic rifle, vat full of boiling water, forklift, etc) while falling down drunk is a recipe for tragedy - this story is yet another illustration of that fact.

Poor kid, poor mom, and dare I say it... poor foolish father :(

[Pavulon]

155. Jesus RTFM (read the christ forsaken FUCKING manual)

every firearm comes with a simple manual, just like your car, just like insulin.

If you dont follow the directions you risk death to yourself and others. This is a classic case of stupid people doing stupid shit.

Pretty simple.

# Always point the muzzle in a safe direction; never point a firearm at anyone or anything you don't want to shoot.

ban stupid fuckers.

[Gormy Cuss]

163. That's just so unbelievably stupid and irresponsible.

The poor bastard is probably wracked with guilt.

[Crunchy Frog]

167. I always feel bad when someone wins a Darwin award though their child

rather than through offing themselves.

[Canuckistanian]

174. How do you fucking clean a gun WITHOUT removing the round?

I hear these stories all the time "The gun went off while I was cleaning it"

Shouldn't STEP FUCKING ONE be "Remove shell from firing chamber"???

[TransitJohn]

180. I think it's easy to forget when drinking vodka and tonics n/t

n/t