Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
And this is why guns need to be regulated better.

Any moron who mistakes a child wearing a costume for a skunk does not need a firearm. In fact, they shouldn't even be allowed to have scissors.

What test would you propose to determine if someone is going to shoot at a small child dressed in colors that happen to resemble the distinctive pattern of a small woodland creature, out of curiosity?

Interview them and randomly have a child dressed as furry animal bolt across the room.

Or maybe a simple IQ test?

If I remember correctly Cheney was climbing over a fence but didn't pass his weapon off to a buddy.

are skunks really as big as a 9 year old child out there?



oh my that is some serious failure on the adults part

 Jihadin wrote:
If I remember correctly Cheney was climbing over a fence but didn't pass his weapon off to a buddy.

No, he flushed a bird and tracked it behind himself or beside to whereever the other dude was. It's like a manual for what not to do when shooting birds.

Darkness and curvature of the hill had something to do with it...and alcohol I heavily suspect.

This sort of accident is part of the price that US citizens have decided to pay for the unrestricted right to own guns.

The constitution does not allow any kind of qualification (other than felon or insane status) to deny a citizen a weapon.

Therefore all tests based on intelligence, safety training, and so on, are irrelevant.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
This sort of accident is part of the price that US citizens have decided to pay for the unrestricted right to own guns.

Probably the most sensible thing that will be written on Dakka today.

Wow, I need to tell my friend that's dressing up as godzilla for halloween to watch out.

This is yet another example of what happens when you have dumb people and guns.

 Seaward wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Wait, what? How can anyone mistake a human child for a skunk... Is there some kind of Skunk-People problem I'm unaware of?

Apparently she was on the other side of a hill, wearing a black hat with a white tassle. Presumably only her head or the upper part of her body was visible. Captain Mossberg saw movement, saw a small black-and-white object, and, if my speculation is correct, his co-pilot Jim Beam determined that the target was a skunk.

Commander Meth might have had an influence on the decision too.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
This is why we need to ban night time, to many people make to many mistakes.

Win! +1 bro five star post! LOL FTW

I don't know how someone makes that mistake, or why their first impulse when they see a skunk is to shoot it. Skunks can be quite affectionate. They smell when they spray you, but otherwise, they aren't threatening.

 juraigamer wrote:
Wow, I need to tell my friend that's dressing up as godzilla for halloween to watch out.

This is yet another example of what happens when you have dumb people and guns.

Well, as long as your national guard unit is not activated right now, he should be good... I'd also suggest he stay away from large bodies of water

 Mr Nobody wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
And this is why guns need to be regulated better.

Any moron who mistakes a child wearing a costume for a skunk does not need a firearm. In fact, they shouldn't even be allowed to have scissors.

What test would you propose to determine if someone is going to shoot at a small child dressed in colors that happen to resemble the distinctive pattern of a small woodland creature, out of curiosity?

Interview them and randomly have a child dressed as furry animal bolt across the room.

I actually just processed for my concealed carry permit today (stupid Colorado not being nearly as awesome as Arizona where the permit consists of being a U.S. citizen who owns a gun) and they used this test. As I was sitting there in the Sheriff's office a small child dressed as a coyote darted across the room, I almost went for the nearest blunt object on instinct as I was unarmed at the time but I thankfully managed to restrain my self. This test is in it's trial phase here in Colorado but I firmly believe that we as Americans should adopt it nation wide.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Poor kid, hope she makes it.

Never having seen a skunk in real life, do they really stink and are they a nuisance?

It's definitely not a creature I'd consinder shooting around my house since the area would stink to high heaven for days after it got splattered by a bullet. That being said, when I us ed to live in the back woods of Maine, it would not be unusual to see one of our cats and a skunk playing with each other.

Man, this sucks. Poor kid, here's hoping they're ok.

And yeah gun control, that's what's needed here. /sarcasm

What bs.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
This sort of accident is part of the price that US citizens have decided to pay for the unrestricted right to own guns.

The constitution does not allow any kind of qualification (other than felon or insane status) to deny a citizen a weapon.

Therefore all tests based on intelligence, safety training, and so on, are irrelevant.

I'm far more worried about a stupid or drunk driver than I am about someone with a gun, since the drivers have a better chance of getting me or my family.

Yes, because clearly an idiot who mistakes a small child in a costume for a skunk and immediately decides "Hey, I'ma gonna shoot dat skunk!" needs to own a weapon capable of killing people.

/sarcasm

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Mr Nobody wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
And this is why guns need to be regulated better.

Any moron who mistakes a child wearing a costume for a skunk does not need a firearm. In fact, they shouldn't even be allowed to have scissors.

What test would you propose to determine if someone is going to shoot at a small child dressed in colors that happen to resemble the distinctive pattern of a small woodland creature, out of curiosity?

Interview them and randomly have a child dressed as furry animal bolt across the room.

I actually just processed for my concealed carry permit today (stupid Colorado not being nearly as awesome as Arizona where the permit consists of being a U.S. citizen who owns a gun) and they used this test. As I was sitting there in the Sheriff's office a small child dressed as a coyote darted across the room, I almost went for the nearest blunt object on instinct as I was unarmed at the time but I thankfully managed to restrain my self. This test is in it's trial phase here in Colorado but I firmly believe that we as Americans should adopt it nation wide.

For extra rigour they should also test you against a small animal dressed as a child.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yes, because clearly an idiot who mistakes a small child in a costume for a skunk and immediately decides "Hey, I'ma gonna shoot dat skunk!" needs to own a weapon capable of killing people.

/sarcasm

Like a car or something?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Mr Nobody wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
And this is why guns need to be regulated better.

Any moron who mistakes a child wearing a costume for a skunk does not need a firearm. In fact, they shouldn't even be allowed to have scissors.

What test would you propose to determine if someone is going to shoot at a small child dressed in colors that happen to resemble the distinctive pattern of a small woodland creature, out of curiosity?

Interview them and randomly have a child dressed as furry animal bolt across the room.

I actually just processed for my concealed carry permit today (stupid Colorado not being nearly as awesome as Arizona where the permit consists of being a U.S. citizen who owns a gun) and they used this test. As I was sitting there in the Sheriff's office a small child dressed as a coyote darted across the room, I almost went for the nearest blunt object on instinct as I was unarmed at the time but I thankfully managed to restrain my self. This test is in it's trial phase here in Colorado but I firmly believe that we as Americans should adopt it nation wide.

For extra rigour they should also test you against a small animal dressed as a child.

I'll have to shoot an email to the Sheriff's department with that suggestion, good idea Kilkrazy.

Relapse wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
This sort of accident is part of the price that US citizens have decided to pay for the unrestricted right to own guns.

The constitution does not allow any kind of qualification (other than felon or insane status) to deny a citizen a weapon.

Therefore all tests based on intelligence, safety training, and so on, are irrelevant.

I'm far more worried about a stupid or drunk driver than I am about someone with a gun, since the drivers have a better chance of getting me or my family.

Of the two (firearms accidents fatal/non-fatal and fatal car accidents) you're much more likely to get killed by a car with the CDC listing 613 unintentional shooting deaths in 2007. Mean while there was over 46,000 motor vehicle related fatalities in the same year. (for something more recent NHTSA says around 30,000 traffic fatalities for 2010) so yeah I'd be more worried about getting in my car then my neighbor's revolver if I was you.

Mattman154 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yes, because clearly an idiot who mistakes a small child in a costume for a skunk and immediately decides "Hey, I'ma gonna shoot dat skunk!" needs to own a weapon capable of killing people.

/sarcasm

Like a car or something?

A car isn't a weapon you nonce.

 Medium of Death wrote:

Mattman154 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yes, because clearly an idiot who mistakes a small child in a costume for a skunk and immediately decides "Hey, I'ma gonna shoot dat skunk!" needs to own a weapon capable of killing people.

/sarcasm

Like a car or something?

A car isn't a weapon you nonce.

It still kills more people per year than firearms. What makes it NOT a weapon?

 Medium of Death wrote:

Mattman154 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yes, because clearly an idiot who mistakes a small child in a costume for a skunk and immediately decides "Hey, I'ma gonna shoot dat skunk!" needs to own a weapon capable of killing people.

/sarcasm

Like a car or something?

A car isn't a weapon you nonce.

Dangerous machinery that can easily end human life?

A car isn't a weapon you nonce.

You'd have to argue that more motoring incidents are caused out of malice than being pure accidents, even then a car isn't a weapon anymore than a tree falling in the woods and crushing somebody is a weapon.

A gun is designed for one purpose.

 Medium of Death wrote:
You'd have to argue that more motoring incidents are caused out of malice than being pure accidents, even then a car isn't a weapon anymore than a tree falling in the woods and crushing somebody is a weapon.

A gun is designed for one purpose.

So a flamethrower isn't a weapon since you can use it to clear plants, de ice your driveway, put on cool pyrotechnic displays for your nephews garage band, and light your cigarettes like a badass.

Good.

I thought we had a thread on this - there really is no arbitrary line between weapons and tools.

What other purpose does a gun serve?

 Medium of Death wrote:
A gun is designed for one purpose.

But used for multiple.

A lot of our current technology was designed and invented for military application, but a use was found for it in civilian products.

Also, nothing with a gun is "accidental". It's negligent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Medium of Death wrote:
What other purpose does a gun serve?

Target shooting and home defense are my reasons.

And no, I don't subscribe to the belief that I should flee and surrender MY home to a criminal breaking in.

Multiple purposes such as? All resulting in potentially different outcomes?

While I am not anti-gun saying its not a weapon when used in a home defense scenario is kind of dumb.