| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/11/2013 10:39:49 PM · #176 |
Originally posted by Cory:
So, do tell, what is your stance here? |
Well, I actually agree with you about proper instruction with kids. If guns are going to be in the house, I think every occupant should understand proper safety and behavior in the presence of guns. But I also think kids should only have access to weapons in the presence of an adult. When it comes to kids, I am very in favor of gun safes and careful keeping of keys because kids are astonishingly stupid and rash, and rightly so, as they're kids and live their life by making mistakes. Besides this, I think plinking is a perfectly good activity that can be done with kids and which they can enjoy and learn proper safety and behavior.
I'd also like to see mandatory first owner instruction, and I'd like to see hunter safety courses made into something actually worthwhile, because while there are responsible hunters, there are also a ton of absolute idiots who get through joke hunter safety programs and do not take it seriously. The number and nature of hunting accidents is pretty surprising for a population who purports to be versed and understand the ramifications and weapons themselves. If the new owner has grown up with and around weapons, then it will be a breeze and no problem at all.
And I do agree the parents were obviously negligent. The issue is that the number of these incidents make it clear that there are plenty of parents who do not take guns seriously yet own them, and the kids are not having such a serious behavior imbued in them as a result. When it is shown that you cannot rely on parents to be responsible in regards to an issue, especially when it impacts public safety, I DO feel the government has an OBLIGATION to step in. |
|
|
|
04/30/2013 08:53:14 AM · #177 |
Here's a fun one.
Idiot tries to rob guy, uses shotgun, approaches to within 1 ft, loses his shotgun and runs away like a bitch. :)
|
|
|
|
04/30/2013 09:19:44 AM · #178 |
| its a shame the victim didn't have a gin to protect himself. |
|
|
|
04/30/2013 09:28:50 AM · #179 |
Originally posted by Mike:
its a shame the victim didn't have a gin to protect himself. |
I know you meant gun....but a gin and tonic would make him feel 10 feet tall and bullet proof
|
|
|
|
04/30/2013 10:52:55 AM · #180 |
|
|
|
04/30/2013 10:57:21 AM · #181 |
i didnt need to read any further:
PARKSIDE, Pa. - April 29, 2013 (WPVI) -- Police say a Delaware County woman fatally shot her husband by accident while he was giving her a gun lesson after they had been drinking.
|
|
|
|
04/30/2013 11:35:31 AM · #182 |
OK booze and guns don't mix in any situation
|
|
|
|
05/01/2013 12:09:25 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
OK booze and guns don't mix in any situation |
apparently kids neither. Nice birthday present.
//www.cnn.com/2013/05/01/us/kentucky-accidential-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Message edited by author 2013-05-01 13:01:53. |
|
|
|
05/01/2013 03:39:44 PM · #184 |
The kid shot his sister with a Crickett My First Rifle, from a company with the tagline "Quality Firearms for America's Youth," and a rifle wielding redneck bug for a logo. Swell. |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 09:53:36 AM · #185 |
i got a chuckle form this comment on that story from one poster:
We will quickly say we need to take the kids away from parent such as this, but taking away the guns is absolutely unacceptable.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2013 11:57:40 AM · #186 |
Originally posted by Mike:
i got a chuckle form this comment on that story from one poster:
We will quickly say we need to take the kids away from parent such as this, but taking away the guns is absolutely unacceptable. |
Should we follow it up with pools then? Since they're something like 100x as dangerous? And with little doubt, pools are far less necessary than guns, so that shouldn't even be a hard fight right?
Speaking of that risk article you looked up - I think this is one of those situations where we aren't worrying about the right things.
*shrug* |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 12:12:02 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Mike:
i got a chuckle form this comment on that story from one poster:
We will quickly say we need to take the kids away from parent such as this, but taking away the guns is absolutely unacceptable. |
Should we follow it up with pools then? Since they're something like 100x as dangerous? And with little doubt, pools are far less necessary than guns, so that shouldn't even be a hard fight right?
Speaking of that risk article you looked up - I think this is one of those situations where we aren't worrying about the right things.
*shrug* |
here we go again, pools serve a purpose other than killing, as do bathtubs and bleach and yes with my risk article i think there is an overreaction to the violence, but this discussion keep coming up. and then there is those and their families that have guns are statistically more at risk by owning them than they are by not.
arming every American is stupid and unrealistic, taking away all guns is stupid and unrealistic but employing more stringent background checks, regulation type of guns we can buy by all means not letting toddlers have them, i dont think will the end of america, of course im sure it will cut into the bottom lines of the those that make and sell the guns and lobby the lawmakers, but you cant please everyone.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2013 06:33:34 PM · #188 |
Originally posted by Cory:
And with little doubt, pools are far less necessary than guns, so that shouldn't even be a hard fight right? |
...and the average person has a dire need for a gun because?
Ray |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 06:38:32 PM · #189 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Cory:
And with little doubt, pools are far less necessary than guns, so that shouldn't even be a hard fight right? |
...and the average person has a dire need for a gun because?
Ray |
Some people need guns. No people need pools. The cost of human life, and environmental damages are simply reprehensible. |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 06:41:18 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Cory:
And with little doubt, pools are far less necessary than guns, so that shouldn't even be a hard fight right? |
...and the average person has a dire need for a gun because?
Ray |
Some people need guns. No people need pools. The cost of human life, and environmental damages are simply reprehensible. |
Yes they do...and most are military types and law enforcement personnel, after that the "Need" criteria is severely diminished.
Ray |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 07:00:04 PM · #191 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Cory:
And with little doubt, pools are far less necessary than guns, so that shouldn't even be a hard fight right? |
...and the average person has a dire need for a gun because?
Ray |
Some people need guns. No people need pools. The cost of human life, and environmental damages are simply reprehensible. |
Yes they do...and most are military types and law enforcement personnel, after that the "Need" criteria is severely diminished.
Ray |
Ok, so right off the bat, I should clearly restate that I'm not for depriving anyone of choice.
Next, I find it fascinating that we've established that pools are both less necessary, and more damaging than guns. Yet, for some obnoxious reason you seem to think banning guns will do something to help the world, while I have little doubt that you'd have a hard time pulling together a line of pool banning rhetoric.
Let's be clear on this - the original stated goal of this sort of legislation was to prevent another tragedy like the one in Connecticut.
First, after the facts have come out, it's pretty obvious that no laws short of a full ban would have really helped much.
Second, did you notice that little thing that happened in Boston? Any idea how much easier it is to get pressure cookers, fireworks, and bb's/nuts/bolts than it is to get firearms?
Let's finally be honest about your motives - you're tired of having a fair fight on your hands when you wish to pick a fight (rightly or wrongly). Your real motive is to have a police force that is even more significantly asymmetrical than the population in terms of ability to deliver force.
I can understand your motives, and don't suspect I'd feel a lot differently if I were you. Thing is, I'm me. So I do feel differently. :) |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 10:50:22 PM · #192 |
Cory you are failing to see a few things:
First, the gun debate isn't an overreaction, its constantly brought up all time after every incident with a gun happens, the Denver movie theater and Newton just happened to be major events that really stirred up the debate.
Second, how can less guns ever cause more problems, since almost all the problem in the middles stem from the US et. al. arming them. Less guns in the world is a good thing.
Finally, the real motive is that guns are far more dangerous to society than any help they provide. Less guns = less risk of me or my loved one getting killed by one. the odds of someone trying to break into my house are very slim, i (or my family) have a greater chance of getting shot because one of my neighbors or their kids were playing with or had access something they should not have. people are stupid, inconsiderate and not mindful of the power they wield, i don't trust them with guns, especially if they don't have formal training.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2013 10:52:37 PM · #193 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Cory you are failing to see a few things:
First, the gun debate isn't an overreaction, its constantly brought up all time after every incident with a gun happens, the Denver movie theater and Newton just happened to be major events that really stirred up the debate.
Second, how can less guns ever cause more problems, since almost all the problem in the middles stem from the US et. al. arming them. Less guns in the world is a good thing.
Finally, the real motive is that guns are far more dangerous to society than any help they provide. Less guns = less risk of me or my loved one getting killed by one. the odds of someone trying to break into my house are very slim, i (or my family) have a greater chance of getting shot because one of my neighbors or their kids were playing with or had access something they should not have. people are stupid, inconsiderate and not mindful of the power they wield, i don't trust them with guns, especially if they don't have formal training. |
The problem Mike, is that you're only looking at the problems which are currently in vogue. There are other problem that actually can arise due to a lack of civilian firearms. The problem with my position is that I don't have proof until it's far too late. |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 10:56:00 PM · #194 |
| what problems do civilian firearms hold back, btw again, i'm not advocating banning all guns, i'd just like certain folks not to have easy access to them. |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 10:56:26 PM · #195 |
Originally posted by Cory:
The problem Mike, is that you're only looking at the problems which are currently in vogue. There are other problem that actually can arise due to a lack of civilian firearms. The problem with my position is that I don't have proof until it's far too late. |
But, but... You have a whole WORLD of civilized, first-world, industrial nations that have VERY strict gun control. SURELY you can find examples among them that support your position that gun control, in and of itself, will cause as many problems as it solves? |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 11:19:08 PM · #196 |
By the way the bill came in to the NRA. It seems the cost of stopping handgun legislation in the senate came to a modest $8,165,490.00 spread among 45 senators to kill a bill supported by 91% of the American public. Check to see if your senator got his fair share to ignore public opinion. If he or she did, remember who he works for next election.
 |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 11:20:30 PM · #197 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But, but... You have a whole WORLD of civilized, first-world, industrial nations that have VERY strict gun control. SURELY you can find examples among them that support your position that gun control, in and of itself, will cause as many problems as it solves? |
I'm betting , no. He can't. |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 11:29:45 PM · #198 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
By the way the bill came in to the NRA. It seems the cost of stopping handgun legislation in the senate came to a modest $8,165,490.00 spread among 45 senators to kill a bill supported by 91% of the American public. Check to see if your senator got his fair share to ignore public opinion. If he or she did, remember who he works for next election.
|
to be fair i'm betting the constituents in those states wold prefer they kept the gun laws the way they are. |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 11:33:09 PM · #199 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But, but... You have a whole WORLD of civilized, first-world, industrial nations that have VERY strict gun control. SURELY you can find examples among them that support your position that gun control, in and of itself, will cause as many problems as it solves? |
I'm betting , no. He can't. |
Just depends on your values.
For me, simply being disarmed against my will is enough of a problem.
But in reality, take a careful look at disarmed populations throughout history. Perhaps I'm wrong, and the world has changed.
Then again, I keep my cat's claws in too. I suppose I'd bleed less if I had them ripped out wouldn't I? And it's not like the cat really has ever had anything happen that it needed the claws from what I can tell. Suppose it's just a theological difference.
Of course, the wind isn't blowing in my favor these days, so I genuinely hope I am mistaken. |
|
|
|
05/02/2013 11:56:58 PM · #200 |
Originally posted by Mike:
to be fair i'm betting the constituents in those states wold prefer they kept the gun laws the way they are. |
Then you would lose that bet. That 8% who did not like the bill are not that wide spread.
Murkowski's net approval rating has fallen 16 points.
Begich has also seen his net approval rating fall 6 points.
Portman's net approval among Ohio voters has dipped 18 points.
Heller has seen a 15-point decline in net approval with Independents in Nevada.
Ayotte has fallen 15 points.
I expect the Democrats will be hit even worse in the primaries.
Approval Ratings Are Plunging For Senators Who Voted Down Gun Control
We're Starting To See Some Very Real Ramifications From Senators' Votes On Gun Control
Taken together these results make it pretty clear that this issue could be a serious liability for the Senators who opposed overwhelmingly popular background checks in the Senate vote earlier this month.
In a Fox poll 61% said they would be likely to vote for a candidate who voted for, 21% said they would be likely to vote for a candidate who voted against.
Who knows if the outrage will be remembered come election time, but make no mistake, this vote was not popular in any state. None who voted against it have seen a rise in their approval rating. But they did make bank from their friends at the NRA.
Message edited by author 2013-05-03 05:56:36. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 07:08:44 AM EDT.
