2 year old shoots self with fathers gun.......

[Harshaw]

Coming back after a few weeks away, and I see the top thread is STILL a Capster78 rant exploiting a tragedy for his agenda.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Well, only the mother. It's her fault the child is in hospital in the first place, and yes, I would have the same opinion if he'd ingested nail polish or drowned in a pool. You don't leave **** that can kill your child lying around the house, it's negligence.

Thats the funny thing about kids. They figure things out. My wife had her nail polish up where little ones normally cannot reach. Know what happened? My daughter climbed up and got it anyways. Had that stuff all over the place by the time my wife saw it. Wife was going to the bathroom, my daughter was 3. (she started climbing up onto stuff before she could even walk.)

 

[Capster78]

I am not interested in playing "survey says" here. You posted a tragic story on this gun control thread. I simply wished to find out how it relates to any gun control issue - in your mind; yep you posted it. You seem both unable, and unwilling, to do so. FACT: as long a s morons remain free, bad things will happen. While they are indeed tragic, sad and, very likely, preventable - accidents will happen. The mere fact that a gun was involved is no more of a call for gun control than had another dangreous (to a two year old) substance been taken out of the purse.

What is sad, is that people don't see a problem. People like you simply wash the incident away by saying... oh, well, dumb people do dumb things and there is nothing we can do about it. Well, excuse me!!! But if we were talking about someone you love, I doubt that excuse would suffice. Then, you try to divert the conversation by saying... if another substance had been taken out of the purse.... Well, another substance was not taken out of the purse, a gun was.

To answer your question, and yes I will actually do that, not simply reply with unrelated, canned talking points. What is going too far, is using ANY incident involving a gun, intentional, negligent or accidental to act as "proof" that we need gun control.

And this is exactly what I want to highlight. It seems strange to me that people are so glued to their guns that it does not matter what happens, they say their views will remain unchanged. I don't say this about any view I hold, even on gun control. It is very possible that an event could occur that could change my mind. Or it could be possible that someone could put an argument forward that could change my mind. When someone says to me that there is nothing that can ever happen to change their mind, I take that as a sign of willful ignorance. Ignorance in the sense that you will purposefully ignore even a good argument or a major event that would make it clear to any rational person that your view is flawed.

Dangerous thing control is never going to make the country (or world) safe; safety being defined as the absence of risk. I understand the wishes on some folks (from both the extreme left or right) for ever more gov't control and, of course, ever less personal freedom - I do not agree with that philosophy and enjoy my freedom above all else in this nation - I will do what I can to preserve it. I have lived for 59 years and will not ever say that I have "seen it all", but fully intend to live the rest of my years with ALL of my freedom intact as a proud US citizen.

There are restrictions on LOTS of dangerous things, and they do keep us safer than if those restrictions did not exist. I don't know where you get this line of reasoning when we live in a society that restricts everything from car ownership, to drug manufacturing. And I dont know anyone who believes there should not be any restrictions on things like drug manufacturing, food processing or car safety.

What I have proposed does not take away your freedom to own a firearm. What I proposed only holds people accountable for the firearms they own. But then again, Over the last decade or so, It seems to have become the norm that people do not want to be held accountable at all. It's rap musics fault!

 

[ttwtt78640]

What is sad, is that people don't see a problem. People like you simply wash the incident away by saying... oh, well, dumb people do dumb things and there is nothing we can do about it. Well, excuse me!!! But if we were talking about someone you love, I doubt that excuse would suffice. Then, you try to divert the conversation by saying... if another substance had been taken out of the purse.... Well, another substance was not taken out of the purse, a gun was.



And this is exactly what I want to highlight. It seems strange to me that people are so glued to their guns that it does not matter what happens, they say their views will remain unchanged. I don't say this about any view I hold, even on gun control. It is very possible that an event could occur that could change my mind. Or it could be possible that someone could put an argument forward that could change my mind. When someone says to me that there is nothing that can ever happen to change their mind, I take that as a sign of willful ignorance. Ignorance in the sense that you will purposefully ignore even a good argument or a major event that would make it clear to any rational person that your view is flawed.




There are restrictions on LOTS of dangerous things, and they do keep us safer than if those restrictions did not exist. I don't know where you get this line of reasoning when we live in a society that restricts everything from car ownership, to drug manufacturing. And I dont know anyone who believes there should not be any restrictions on things like drug manufacturing, food processing or car safety.

What I have proposed does not take away your freedom to own a firearm. What I proposed only holds people accountable for the firearms they own. But then again, Over the last decade or so, It seems to have become the norm that people do not want to be held accountable at all. It's rap musics fault!

Nice rant yet, no gun control proposal in it, at all. Holding people "responsible" for negligence is not a gun issue at all, unless you favor allowing all other negligence to be ignored, or to make it "super negligent" only in cases involving a gun. Do you consider this child abuse "while armed"? Is that your point here?

 

[Capster78]

Nice rant yet, no gun control proposal in it, at all. Holding people "responsible" for negligence is not a gun issue at all, unless you favor allowing all other negligence to be ignored, or to make it "super negligent" only in cases involving a gun. Do you consider this child abuse "while armed"? Is that your point here?

You don't think it's "super negligent" that a two year old managed to get a hold of a gun and shoot itself in the head?

 

[Harshaw]

It is very possible that an event could occur that could change my mind. Or it could be possible that someone could put an argument forward that could change my mind.

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever, in anything you have posted, ever, why anyone should believe this could be even remotely true.

You are as radical on this issue as anyone could possibly be. Your views are the most extreme views possible. You don't get there by rationality and thoughtful deliberation.

 

[Jerry]

I appreciate that you would like to engage in a rational discussion. Thank you for that because you don't always get that.

I know you can carry a loaded gun if you have a conceal carry permit. If you do have a permit and you are carrying your gun, why would you place it in your wife's/girlfriend's purse at any time? Obviously there was lack of adequate supervision, and this child was able to access the gun (if you believe the story).

Would that loaded gun in her purse be legal if she does not have a conceal carry permit? Even if she does have a permit, what is her responsibility for making sure there are no "accidents" such as this?

I was asking why it occurred to you to ask if a gun was loaded when we carry it.

There is nothing about this woman's actions that I support.

• That child could have found a common pocket knife and cut himself, or coins and swallowed them, or medication and OD's. Women shouldn't leave their purses where children can get to them regardless of if they carry a gun or not.
• It's not her gun, so she shouldn't touch it, let alone carry it.
• I would never let anyone carry a gun that belonged to me. If I wanted them to use it, I would give/sell it to them.
• Carrying in a purse is a horrible way to carry because women tend to put their purse down and walk away from it.
• Some states don't require a permit for residents to carry concealed.

I would like to know why it occurred to you to ask if a carried gun is loaded.

 

[EarlzP]

Under existing law there SHOULD be charges of child endangerment and CPS involvement at least. There also SHOULD be a national dialogue on weapon safety.

Now...if we can just get the douchebags in DC to not use this as a means to press for gun registration, magazine capacity ban, semiautomatic bans, and every other means of exploiting the blood of a child to further their own ideological gains, then we might actual see some good come from the tragedy. Unfortunately...

The one I see using this tragedy to advance his agenda is YOU, that said this type of tragedy is a good reason to make it more difficult for people to purchase guns, this couple should have had to pass a test on gun owner safety before they were allowed to have a weapon. Unfortunately for this child his mother and her boy friend did not know enough to keep their weapon out of his reach.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You don't think it's "super negligent" that a two year old managed to get a hold of a gun and shoot itself in the head?

No more so than if the child was left unattended and fell into a pool, swallowed drugs/poison or fell into a glass coffee table. You seem to be hoplophobic to the extreme. Have you still not found any other child serious injury or death from accident stories where no criminal charges were brought against the parent/guardians? There is no logical reason to put guns, alone, into this argument. As I have stated before, unless you can provide some link to gun control, this story is on the wrong thread. Should people with children, or that may visit them, not have gun rights? I certainly do not consider this accident not preventable, but question what "gun control" law could have prevented it.

 

[66gardeners]

I was asking why it occurred to you to ask if a gun was loaded when we carry it.

There is nothing about this woman's actions that I support.

• That child could have found a common pocket knife and cut himself, or coins and swallowed them, or medication and OD's. Women shouldn't leave their purses where children can get to them regardless of if they carry a gun or not.
• It's not her gun, so she shouldn't touch it, let alone carry it.
• I would never let anyone carry a gun that belonged to me. If I wanted them to use it, I would give/sell it to them.
• Carrying in a purse is a horrible way to carry because women tend to put their purse down and walk away from it.
• Some states don't require a permit for residents to carry concealed.

I would like to know why it occurred to you to ask if a carried gun is loaded.

Because I have no clue about how often someone would carry a loaded versus unloaded gun. Should I assume that all guns are loaded if they are being carried. I really don't know.

My main reason was because the gun was in her purse and her child accessed it. If she knew it was there and loaded, why wouldn't she be more careful?

 

[Capster78]

No more so than if the child was left unattended and fell into a pool, swallowed drugs/poison or fell into a glass coffee table. You seem to be hoplophobic to the extreme. Have you still not found any other child serious injury or death from accident stories where no criminal charges were brought against the parent/guardians? There is no logical reason to put guns, alone, into this argument. As I have stated before, unless you can provide some link to gun control, this story is on the wrong thread. Should people with children, or that may visit them, not have gun rights? I certainly do not consider this accident not preventable, but question what "gun control" law could have prevented it.

No gun control law would have prevented it, but there should be laws that protect children from parental negligence. And in this case, it should be a gun law. Stating that if a child is present, a gun should never be left unattended or accessible to a child.

 

[SMTA]

No gun control law would have prevented it, but there should be laws that protect children from parental negligence. And in this case, it should be a gun law. Stating that if a child is present, a gun should never be left unattended or accessible to a child.

Then why do you post is here in the Gun Control forum other than to promote an anti-gun theme?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

So - while everyone's been debating this same story for days - has there been an update? How is he doing?

 

[Jerry]

Because I have no clue about how often someone would carry a loaded versus unloaded gun. Should I assume that all guns are loaded if they are being carried. I really don't know.

Loading a gun is like charging your phone or having gas in the car.

My main reason was because the gun was in her purse and her child accessed it. If she knew it was there and loaded, why wouldn't she be more careful?

People who take the initiative on their own to carry are more mindful. That she isn't mindful tells me that carrying a gun was probably her husband's idea, not hers.

 

[cpgrad08]

Uh yeah... when I carry a gun (almost all the time) it is always loaded... they are not much use if they are empty.


Possibly you've heard of this newfangled thing in the past 40 years, it is called Concealed Carry Permit.

Or Open carry.

 

[Capster78]

Then why do you post is here in the Gun Control forum other than to promote an anti-gun theme?

Because it is a gun control issue. The parents had no control over the firearm, the child got a hold of it as a result and shot himself. There should be laws that punish parents who don't protect children from accessing firearms.

How old do you have to be to purchase a firearm? 18 right.

Lets put it into context. You have to be 21 to purchase and consume alcohol. If you purchase alcohol under age both the individual and the seller are punished. If you consume alcohol under age, bot the consumer and the provider are punished.... Why is this not being applied to guns?? Why is there no law that states if a child is in possession of a weapon under a certain age, the person who is responsible for that weapon is not punished?

 

[Top Cat]

So you think they should drag the parents off to jail in handcuffs while they are at the hospital waiting to see if their child lives or dies? How very liberal compassionate of you to put your agenda ahead of the welfare of the child.

Is there anything funnier than a conservative bringing up compassion for children?

 

[Jerry]

No gun control law would have prevented it, but there should be laws that protect children from parental negligence.

There already is. Simply enforce existing law.

 

[cpgrad08]

I appreciate that you would like to engage in a rational discussion. Thank you for that because you don't always get that.

I know you can carry a loaded gun if you have a conceal carry permit. If you do have a permit and you are carrying your gun, why would you place it in your wife's/girlfriend's purse at any time? Obviously there was lack of adequate supervision, and this child was able to access the gun (if you believe the story).

Would that loaded gun in her purse be legal if she does not have a conceal carry permit? Even if she does have a permit, what is her responsibility for making sure there are no "accidents" such as this?

It would depend on her state. Some states like Alaska don't require a permit to conceal carry a loaded gun. Also in some states you can openly carry a loaded gun in public areas without a permit like my state Washington that is called open carry (which is how I carry).

 

[66gardeners]

Then why do you post is here in the Gun Control forum other than to promote an anti-gun theme?

Why can't you all give it a rest? Capster started this thread because he wanted to and he has that right. He has explained his position over and over and over again. Asking him again why isn't going to change didly.

 

[cpgrad08]

Is there anything funnier than a conservative bringing up compassion for children?

Is there is anything more tragic then a liberal using a tragedy to push forward their ideology on the country?

 

[Capster78]

Loading a gun is like charging your phone or having gas in the car.

But if something happens while charging your phone... like a house fire or electrocution, the phone manufacturer would be sued and some type of legal action would force them to fix the issue.

If, while you are filling up your car, an explosion occurs because the station is not properly grounded, or some other type of mechanical malfunction with the pump caused an explosion, the company would be sued and new restrictions would be put into place that would prevent that event from happening again.

In both scenarios, everyone would want restrictions put into place to prevent these things from happening again. For some reason, we dont think this way about guns which makes no logical sense what so ever.

People who take the initiative on their own to carry are more mindful. That she isn't mindful tells me that carrying a gun was probably her husband's idea, not hers.

Pure assumption here and either way, ignorance is not a good reason to not be held accountable for a third parties death.

 

[66gardeners]

It would depend on her state. Some states like Alaska don't require a permit to conceal carry a loaded gun. Also in some states you can openly carry a loaded gun in public areas without a permit like my state Washington that is called open carry (which is how I carry).

Since we know the state is PA, we can be more specific. I actually did search a little bit, but since we do not know if either of them had a carry permit, we still can not be sure.

Bottom line, the weapon was not secured when it was loaded. I do not think that is legal anywhere.

 

[SMTA]

Because it is a gun control issue. The parents had no control over the firearm, the child got a hold of it as a result and shot himself. There should be laws that punish parents who don't protect children from accessing firearms.

How old do you have to be to purchase a firearm? 18 right.

Lets put it into context. You have to be 21 to purchase and consume alcohol. If you purchase alcohol under age both the individual and the seller are punished. If you consume alcohol under age, bot the consumer and the provider are punished.... Why is this not being applied to guns?? Why is there no law that states if a child is in possession of a weapon under a certain age, the person who is responsible for that weapon is not punished?

I still do not trust your motives.

Long guns 18, hand guns 21.

I can serve my underage children a drink at home, as I am a consumer, not a seller.

Why not push for laws that allow warrantless searches without probable cause of every US household for alcohol checks.

You can add gun laws into the same category, and look for both at any time, for any reason, in any house, at any time by any law enforcement agency.

Problem solved, eh?

 

[SMTA]

Why can't you all give it a rest? Capster started this thread because he wanted to and he has that right. He has explained his position over and over and over again. Asking him again why isn't going to change didly.

You can move along elsewhere.