Well now, that's a very sad story isn't it.
I wonder why he felt he needed to carry a loaded gun in his car?

Not the firearms fault. So much went wrong here.

1. never leave a child alone in a car under the age you would be able to leave them alone at home.

2. Never have a gun accessible to children. Locked, in a safe, with a trigger lock, however you do it doesn't matter, just do it.

3. Did the guy even have a liscense to have a gun in his car? I don't know all the regulations but some places require that. Others say it has to be locked away or in a case etc.


I agree you SUPERMIDGET that parents should teach children how to use a gun and to respect it. At this child's age though I don't think they could have learned enough yet to prevent this accident. My daughter is 3 and not completely able to understand the significance of the respect of a firearm yet. She's also sometimes clumsy, as children are at that age, who are still learning small motor control. They could have an accident easily enough even when they aren't being stupid with the weapon.

I have allowed her to touch our guns under my constant supervision and I explain things to her. I want her to know how to fire one and how to hold one safely. I still will lock it away though, at least until I'm certain she is proficient in handling a firearm and mature enough to respect it.

I agree. why would you leave a kid with a loaded gun? people like that should not be qualified to own a gun...

The only person that needs to be blamed, is the stupid son-of-a-bitch who left a LOADED gun and a CHILD in the car.

What a waste!

V.

"dont have guns in your house" sounds like better advice to me

I dont want to be accused of flaming nor being a troll...

But to me it is absolutely horrifying that someone would allow a 3 year old child to play with a gun, or have any desire to explain how to use one. To a 3 year old.

Why would people want to teach their children to kill things?

The gun lobby might accuse Michael Moore of many things, but the 10,000+ gun related deaths a year he was quoting at you doesnt come from nowhere.

Anti gun doesn't even enter into it - this guy obviously should never have been allowed to breed,

However, let me note that, if it were illegal to own a handgun, this child might have grown up to vote republican.

If there are guns in the house, you want your kids to grow up with proper respect for them. Part of that is knowing the rules, part of it is understanding how they work, part is how to take care of them. The very last part is how to use them. It's like living near water: you want your kids to know how to swim as soon as possible so that they don't drown. Doing this gives them many more opportunities to get into situations where they could drown, but it's safest on the balance. Having guns in the house is the same principle: make sure accidents don't happen through ignorance and you've won half the battle.

I don't like guns, but the 2nd ammendment deserves my respect as much as the 1st, and I grew up with guns and understand them.

irresponsibility has reached a whole new level, thanks evolution

/scratches head

Well, the usual response is that he would need to kill a carjacker.

Or, save an old lady from a mugger.

These are the usual responses from the gun crowd--don't know why they aren't holding to their usual mantra now.

How would he be able to get a trigger lock off a gun in time to be a hero?

The guy had a license to carry and he put it in his console. We don't know whether the child was in a car seat or whether he was too big to be in one. I wonder if all you gun carriers stick the thing in your pants whenever you run into 7-11?

Anyway, a little senstivitiy is in order--the guy lost his son because of an accident. It's an accident that would have been prevented had he placed a trigger lock on his gun or left it at home. Yet, whenever I mention such a restriction in various other threads the gun crowd wails that they won't be able to whip it out and kill a criminal in enough time.

It's also an accident that would have been prevented had he not been allowed to have a gun at all.

I'm fine with any of these suggestions, yet it isn't the "anti" gun crowd yelling about the right and duty to carry lethal weapons at the ready...

That's a funny remark. I bet you're against the Patriot Act, right? I bet you'd say it strips American's of certain rights and privacy. Well, doesn't every American have the right to bear arms, yet you want to strip us all of that right....... Now you'll say it's different, but only because you like the idea of people like me not being able to own a gun, but like the idea of leaving criminals and terrorists alone so they can do whatever they want.

Strange Famous, where I grew up in rural South Dakota, hunting is a way of life. It is not only accepted but expected that once a child reaches 12 he will start hunting. Most people I know pick up shooting and firearm safety by the time they are five in preparation for their first hunt. Around here it is part of the order of growing up. It goes hunting at 12, drivers license at 14 (12 for farm kids), full driving priviledges at 16, and at 18 you are an adult.

This may seem strange to you, but out here it is a completely different culture. Most people never (or have even thought about it) lock their doors in their whole life. At any farm place chances are there is at least three vehicles with keys in the ignition. I still live in a place where people trust their neighbors. And I can guaruntee you every house has several firearms.

I wouldn't and didn't say any of the shit you just shoved in my mouth.

I take back what I just said. So I'm assuming you support the Patriot Act?

I don't support the Patriot Act, or widespread gun ownership... are you arguing there is some kind of contradiction in this?

Absolutely. The Patriot Act will help to put criminals and terrorists behind bars. Some people think that their lives will be changed, and they don't like the idea that the police/government can do things that they previously couldn't do. So some people feel as though they lose their privacy or other rights. So how can someone who claims to not want to lose rights want to take peoples right to bear arms? We all have that right, don't we? Can you please explain to me how that isn't a contradiction..

I have no problems with people owning guns. I have no problems with the Patriot Act. I have not lost any rights. When people say they have I always ask, "What have you lost? How have you been violated?" I've never once had anyone even be able to answer me. I will admit. The Patriot Act can be used to fuck people, but it isn't happening. So why do people cry about it. What's so wrong with being able to lock up criminals anyway?

Sixate what are you rambling on about? There are many rights to protect in this world, some more basic than others. There are no blacks and whites here, you don't get either 100% freedom or dictatorship. Sometimes you have to break a few eggs. We might have to restrict the rights of Billie Mcinbred in Bumfuck, Texas a little bit to prevent him from keeping loaded guns within the reatch of his children. This does not mean that we need to support spying on people's library records.

Also:
So if the government passes laws making it able for them fuck you up the ass every friday if they suspect that you are a criminal/terrorist, you would not oppose, as you are not a terrorist/criminal? First they came for the jews...

What the fuck are you talking about? Do you even know?

Apparantly I was nodding to a famous poem about govermental prosecution from WW2. I tried to make the point that saying "I don't care what they allow themselves to do as long as they don't act out on it" leads to a pretty slippery slope. You say that you don't care wether the patriot act CAN be used to fuck people up, as long as it isnt. Pretty naive.

To avoid too much patriot act derail: I also tried to explain that some rights might have to be bent in order to fully protect others. This means that the "right" to own weapons might have to be restricted in order to protect people from themselves and others.

Thanks for clarifying, but I disagree. Has the Patriot Act been abused? Have you been violated? Has anyone you know been violated?

The right to own weapons is restricted. Not everyone can get a gun legally, but of course that won't stop anyone from being able to get them now will it?

I live in Norway, so I can't really claim to be to harassed by the "Patriot" act or any other scary neocon laws. Wether or not the laws have been misused is not the point, the point is that they can be misused. The fight for personal freedom is preventive, it is better to secure it while it is there, than to fight for it as it is taken away. The humorous part of this is that you support gun ownership, based on a law designed to make citizens able to fight oppressors, but you don't fight the oppressors currently in administration, and their restrictions of your rights. The very essence of the constitutional right to bear arms is to make people able to protect their rights, why not try to protect your rights all the way, before you need to resort to armed struggle? Better safe than sorry.

When did I ever say that I need a gun to fight the establishment? That's not the case. The fact is times change and laws change and people just need to quit their crying. The law isn't being abused. If it is then people can cry all they want, until then everyone needs to quit their whinning. The law is used to put criminals and terrorists behind bars. Why is that soooo bad? Who violates peoples rights more than criminals and terrorists anyway? Should they have the right to do whatever they want when something can be done to stop them?

My positions on this mirror sixate's exactly, so I won't repeat them. Both the Patriot Act and gun ownership - even less restricted than it is now - are OK with me. Carry on, six...you're doing fine.

Hell of a political discussion we're having here outside the Politics Forum...hmmm.

"Naturally the common people do not want war: neither in Russia, nor England, nor, for that matter, in Germany. That is understood. But, after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Reich Marshall Hermann Wilhelm Goring at the Nuremberg Trails


Of course Goring was not especially anti-semetic, but he was happy enough to ignore endsolung and even pretend to support it to keep his position in the Nazi Party.

1, Guns are weapons of destruction, and the wider the ownership of them the more people are destroyed

2, The Patriot Act gives the state totaliterian powers over the people... just another step towards 1984. And it is not just the guilty who need to be afraid, but rather anyone the state decides to call guilty - regardless of any real wrongdoing.

The constant comparisons between Nazi Germany and political decisions that some folks disagree with convince only those already convinced by such hyperbole in the first place.

I'll check back on this thread and move it to the Politics Forum in a bit - that's where it wants to be.

Heh, you really are buying this hook, sink and line aren't you? This is nothing but a blatant display of the most basic ways of restricting people's rights. The government gradually allows themselves to control and monitor the people stricter and stricter, while the people are content because the potential vitcims are just criminals/terrorist/unpopular group of choise anyway. How is it even possible to be this ignorant towards every single lession history can give us regarding oppressing regimes? It seems history will keep on repeating itself until the day a majority of the population is aware of how important it is to protect your rights.

That's the most ridiculous conspiracy theory I ever heard in my life. So your basically saying that you think my government is secretly and slowly trying to take over the population, strip us of everything we have, and put us all in jail? How do you base that judgment when you don't even live here or have any real life experiences with how things work in the US? You just believe whatever propaganda you want to believe. People bitch and cry about crime in the US, but when something is done to help eliminate criminals people cry because their rights to be fucking criminals are taken away... WTF?! I still have not had an answer to my question... Who violates peoples rights more than criminals and terrorists? I can tell you one thing. My government sure as hell doesn't violate me more than criminals.....

Guns are here to stay. There's no getting rid of them. Learn to deal with it. There are fucked up people out there who already have them, and if I want a gun I'll get one. BTW, I plan on buying a gun this year. There's nothing wrong with target practice or hunting, not that I'll be hunting, but that's beside the point.

What state has been abusing the Patriot Act? There are not thousands of people who have been put in jail because of the Patriot Act. The state does not have totalitarian powers.

I am confused by both sides of the argument here. Sixate argues that the grossly misnamed "Patriot Act" is not a slippery slope, yet as a gun owner he of all people should realize just how slick it is. ES et al. just don't seem to realize that gun ownership, and more fundamentaly the right of self defense, is every bit as important as the basic rights that are trampled by the "Patriot Act".

Don't confuse your agenda with other peoples rights.

Ferchristssake...firstly, these laws will stick along for the future, I'm not saying that GWB is going to turn into Stalin over night, but that this kind of legislation paves the way for just that kind of people. Just the same way it has happened in the past. Crime is everywhere, and is more closely connected to poverty and desperation to wether or not people will get shot if they step on eatch others lawn. The problems with the patriot act isn't neccecarily wich kind of govermental actions it allows, but how easy they might get permission to act. You keep saying this only matters to criminals and terrorists, and thus it shouldn't matter to you, but you have to understand that these laws might one day harm innocents, and maybe it already has. When will we ever know if there are any innocent men on Guatanamo? They are kept there without trial, and have already had numerous of their human rights violated.

I don't care if it sounds like I'm wearing tin foil here, it is naive and gullible thinking like that which have paved the way for oppressing regimes to rise from democracies before. I pray it won't happen again, but it takes more than prayer to prevent it.

Problems with gun saftey tend to be democrat issues.

http://www.daveschultz.com/scum/clinton/img161.jpg

Guess who?

I think you misunderstood Goring.

The point wasnt and isnt that America or Russia is somehow Nazi, but that the methods the Nazi's used to drag the German people inti a war are the same methods that everyone uses, Stalinist, Liberal Democratic, or Facist.

1, You make people afraid; of terrorism, of Russia, of America, of whatever.

2, You make people who call for police or who call for the state's powers to be held in check unpatriotic.

Whether you are Blair, or Bush, or Hussain, it works in the same way.

The differnce of course is that in Iraq you would have been jailed for even posting this sort of thing, while in the US you are free to do so. People who whine about the patriot act tend to whine about what future laws will be. The US has had times where civil liberties were supressed to a much much greater degree (Civil War and WWII come to mind first) yet nothing long term came of it.

Exept that in both these cases the country was at war, facing a real threat from an equal enemy, but now the only enemy seems to be the greedy chaps in the white house themselves.

Or even in the UK I am free to post it.

Of course the people in Iraq suffered and suffer more than the British or Americans, that does not mean that Blair is any different to Hussain, just that Blair is more restrained.

Things like "The Patriot Act" allow people like Balir and Bush to get closer to behaving as Hussain did.

http://www.umbc.edu/saf/sanews/volum...ter%20fire.jpg


All laws are a step closer to tyranny, it is a matter of degree of course. The patriot act is VERY minor and you are no closer to a Nazi style death camp then before. If you want to have an open and free society you accept a lot of risk as well, and currently the risk is a bit higher so we need to watch some people a bit closer. If we start putting Muslims into camps let me know.

Do I need to post pictures of London or Dresden after the bombings? Hiroshima perhaps? Two towers ain't nothing, buddy.

Actually no, and in fact I'm sure I know more about WWII then you do, and the Patriot act ain't nothing either.

I would **********************, as I lost a good friend that day.

Edit: I was asked to.

Mods, this thread looks done...

As a CCW holder myself, I only see one real error: he let his carry gun get out of his presence.

Of course, it only took one error (not 4) to result in a dead child.