Pro-gun poster girl shot by her own toddler

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.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Yeah, we know that American citizens have a constitutional right to own guns, but what has that got to do with

a) Gun safety and endangering a child's life through criminal negligence

b) leaving your gun in the back seat of your car, thus making it harder for you to defend yourself from criminals...

**djones520**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Yeah, we know that American citizens have a constitutional right to own guns, but what has that got to do with

a) Gun safety and endangering a child's life through criminal negligence

b) leaving your gun in the back seat of your car, thus making it harder for you to defend yourself from criminals...

It has to do with people constantly pointing to someones negligence and criminal wrong doing, and then saying we need to restrict everyone elses rights because of it.

As Prestor said, that presumption of innocence is also one of our rights. Constantly attacking other rights because of "what ifs" kinda flies in the face of that presumption.

**Prestor Jon**

Kilkrazy wrote:
SirDonlad wrote:
I love guns - i lament and understand the firearm restrictions over here, and whenever i hear/see a story like this i facepalm.
I'm certain that every gun owner/fan is probably doing the same.

The reaction to demand banning/controlling firearms is kinda understandable, but is still based on an irrational assumption that your government can protect you from accidental death; and it's usually postualated immediately after an emotionally evocative incident like this.

Can you imagine how you would explain cars on a motorway to a H&S committee if they didn't exist already?

"so it's a metal box which weighs a ton and a half which can move more than 8 times as quickly than the peak running speed of the average human male and requires 40 gallons of highly flammable liquid in an unprotected tank in the back - these are then driven within 4 feet of each other at speeds exceeding that needed for fixed-wing flight with you and three other people inside"

Further to the 'risk in life' thing - in the UK 290 people a year die from falling out of bed.

http://money.aol.co.uk/2014/10/03/what-s-more-likely-winning-the-lottery-or-being-killed-by-your/

How many die of guns?

It makes no difference how many die of guns. There is no justification for the illogical act of banning one person, for instance Sir Donlad, from owning firearms because of the actions of another person that have no connection whatsoever to Sir Donlad. No amount of bad behavior exhibited by any number of other people guarantees similar as behavior will be done by Sir Donlad.

No lives are being saved from prohibiting Sir Donlad from owning guns unless you know for certain that Sir Donlad would, either through negligence or deliberate intent harm or murder someone with a gun if he owned one. Absent evidence proving such a certainty banning him from owning guns is a needless infringement on a citizens Liberty done purely to assuage the fears of others.

**CptJake**

TheMeanDM wrote:

I will step right up and say I have no sympathy for her. It was a situation brought about/created by her own choices.

Would you have sympathy for someone who chose to murder another person?

Common sense says to not leave your loaded gun:

1) in your vehicle (highly illegal in most states)

Highly illegal in most states? Really?

**Prestor Jon**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Yeah, we know that American citizens have a constitutional right to own guns, but what has that got to do with

a) Gun safety and endangering a child's life through criminal negligence

b) leaving your gun in the back seat of your car, thus making it harder for you to defend yourself from criminals...

Nobody in this thread has said that gun safety courses aren't worthwhile or that child endangerment via negligent handling of firearms shouldn't be a crime. Nobody has said that leaving a loaded gun on the backseat of your is a good idea or safe action either.

Unfortunately some people in this thread do seem to believe that negligent and/or criminal acts by some people justifies the collective punishment of everyone even in direct opposition to enumerated constitutional rights. Once that line of thought has been introduced into the thread you can expect others to post rebuttals to it.

**CptJake**

Ouze wrote:
Breotan wrote:
Or just carry concealed and solve the problem altogether. Maybe the next poster girl can spread the word about firearm safety.

Agree completely. Purse carry seems like a bad carry option to me. In my humble opinion, the only 3 places a firearm should be are in your hand, on your hip, or in your safe. Go IWB if you must.

For many females (smaller body/frame and female clothing styles) purse carry is a very valid option.

Got wife one of these:

Clips to the purse liner and protects the pistol.

**Kanluwen**

djones520 wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Yeah, we know that American citizens have a constitutional right to own guns, but what has that got to do with

a) Gun safety and endangering a child's life through criminal negligence

b) leaving your gun in the back seat of your car, thus making it harder for you to defend yourself from criminals...

It has to do with people constantly pointing to someones negligence and criminal wrong doing, and then saying we need to restrict everyone elses rights because of it.

As Prestor said, that presumption of innocence is also one of our rights. Constantly attacking other rights because of "what ifs" kinda flies in the face of that presumption.

"Presumption of innocence" has nothing to do with the subject at hand, now does it?

**Prestor Jon**

Kanluwen wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Yeah, we know that American citizens have a constitutional right to own guns, but what has that got to do with

a) Gun safety and endangering a child's life through criminal negligence

b) leaving your gun in the back seat of your car, thus making it harder for you to defend yourself from criminals...

It has to do with people constantly pointing to someones negligence and criminal wrong doing, and then saying we need to restrict everyone elses rights because of it.

As Prestor said, that presumption of innocence is also one of our rights. Constantly attacking other rights because of "what ifs" kinda flies in the face of that presumption.

"Presumption of innocence" has nothing to do with the subject at hand, now does it?

What subject are you referring to? Everyone is always innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law. The woman in the OP article is technically innocent until her court case is decided.

**djones520**

Kanluwen wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Yeah, we know that American citizens have a constitutional right to own guns, but what has that got to do with

a) Gun safety and endangering a child's life through criminal negligence

b) leaving your gun in the back seat of your car, thus making it harder for you to defend yourself from criminals...

It has to do with people constantly pointing to someones negligence and criminal wrong doing, and then saying we need to restrict everyone elses rights because of it.

As Prestor said, that presumption of innocence is also one of our rights. Constantly attacking other rights because of "what ifs" kinda flies in the face of that presumption.

"Presumption of innocence" has nothing to do with the subject at hand, now does it?

I'd say it does, when we're saying that we need to take things away from them, to keep them from supposedly breaking the law. You're presuming guilt in that case.

**jmurph**

Not really. Presumption of innocence is a legal presumption relevant to criminal proceedings, not firearms laws.

Basically, the issue is that no matter what the problems with firearms/gun violence/etc. are in the United States, you cannot simply prohibit firearm ownership except in limited circumstances.

Certainly that does not preclude consequences for actions taken with firearms (hence why assaults/thefts with firearms are generally more severely punished), nor does it make basic gun safety and safe storage a bad idea.

**Smacks**

djones520 wrote:
It has to do with people constantly pointing to someones negligence and criminal wrong doing, and then saying we need to restrict everyone elses rights because of it.

I feel that the operative word in that sentence was "constantly".

Prestor Jon wrote:
It makes no difference how many die of guns.

That's certainly an interesting perspective. I would argue that the number of deaths do make a difference. By your logic we shouldn't quarantine people exposed to ebola, because the number of lives that might be saved are irrelevant compared to restricting someone's freedom.

Prestor Jon wrote:
There is no justification for the illogical act of banning one person, for instance Sir Donlad, from owning firearms because of the actions of another person that have no connection whatsoever to Sir Donlad.

Firstly, not all control is about banning. Secondly, you are being deliberately obtuse, if you are not able to understand why dangerous things might be reasonably restricted. Many chemicals, poisons, explosives, radioactive material, pornography, drugs, medication, animals, vehicles, machinery etc, etc, etc... are restricted. It shouldn't be an alien concept to you.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Yeah, we know that American citizens have a constitutional right to own guns, but what has that got to do with

a) Gun safety and endangering a child's life through criminal negligence

b) leaving your gun in the back seat of your car, thus making it harder for you to defend yourself from criminals...

Nobody in this thread has said that gun safety courses aren't worthwhile or that child endangerment via negligent handling of firearms shouldn't be a crime. Nobody has said that leaving a loaded gun on the backseat of your is a good idea or safe action either.

Unfortunately some people in this thread do seem to believe that negligent and/or criminal acts by some people justifies the collective punishment of everyone even in direct opposition to enumerated constitutional rights. Once that line of thought has been introduced into the thread you can expect others to post rebuttals to it.

Fair enough. For the record, I'm not calling for gun control/restrictions, because a) it's the wrong thread for that, and b) I'm generally sympathetic to law-abiding people using guns to defend their homes/property/life etc from armed criminals.

If the woman in question had left a knife with a 6 inch blade on the backseat next to her child, I'd be equally as mad. It's not an anti-gun thing from me.

**Prestor Jon**

Smacks wrote:
djones520 wrote:
It has to do with people constantly pointing to someones negligence and criminal wrong doing, and then saying we need to restrict everyone elses rights because of it.
I feel that the operative word in that sentence was "constantly".

Prestor Jon wrote:
It makes no difference how many die of guns.
That's certainly an interesting perspective. I would argue that the number of deaths do make a difference. By your logic we shouldn't quarantine people exposed to ebola, because the number of lives that might be saved are irrelevant compared to restricting someone's freedom.

Prestor Jon wrote:
There is no justification for the illogical act of banning one person, for instance Sir Donlad, from owning firearms because of the actions of another person that have no connection whatsoever to Sir Donlad.
Firstly, not all control is about banning. Secondly, you are being deliberately obtuse, if you are not able to understand why dangerous things might be reasonably restricted. Many chemicals, poisons, explosives, radioactive material, pornography, drugs, medication, animals, vehicles, machinery etc, etc, etc... are restricted. It shouldn't be an alien concept to you.

No, you're the one trying to obfuscate what is being discussed. My comments are discussing firearm ownership; both in the US where it is less restricted and the EU where it is heavily restricted. If you want to change the subject to infectious disease quarrantines or regulations and laws regarding the handling of hazardous materials you should start another thread.

Even so, I will rebut your arguments anyway. Restricting my right to free assembly with a temporary quarrantine is legal because quarrantines are temporary and limited to people for whom there is evidence that shows possible exposure. As soon as that temporary threat is over freedom of movement and association is restored. That is clearly different from preventing citizens from owning firearms.

Bans =\= reasonable restrictions. The misuse of firearms by others is no justification to prohibit possession of firearms for other people that have not misused firearms.

**Ouze**

Spoiler:

There is no variation of purse carry equipment that will convince me leaving a gun inside a purse instead of on your body is a good idea. If you have to dress to accommodate a holster, then that is what you should do.

**Nostromodamus**

Ouze wrote:

Spoiler:

CptJake wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Breotan wrote:
Or just carry concealed and solve the problem altogether. Maybe the next poster girl can spread the word about firearm safety.

Agree completely. Purse carry seems like a bad carry option to me. In my humble opinion, the only 3 places a firearm should be are in your hand, on your hip, or in your safe. Go IWB if you must.

For many females (smaller body/frame and female clothing styles) purse carry is a very valid option.

Got wife one of these:

(snip)

Clips to the purse liner and protects the pistol.

There is no variation of purse carry equipment that will convince me leaving a gun inside a purse instead of on your body is a good idea.

Agreed. From purse snatching to "I'll just sit this here for a second", it doesn't sit well with me.

**Smacks**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Smacks wrote:
Firstly, not all control is about banning. Secondly, you are being deliberately obtuse, if you are not able to understand why dangerous things might be reasonably restricted. Many chemicals, poisons, explosives, radioactive material, pornography, drugs, medication, animals, vehicles, machinery etc, etc, etc... are restricted. It shouldn't be an alien concept to you.

Bans =\= reasonable restrictions. The misuse of firearms by others is no justification to prohibit possession of firearms for other people that have not misused firearms.

You have quoted me, very clearly stating that not all control is about banning; do you actually read the posts you quote before spewing your stock replies?

You have also quoted me talking about reasonable restrictions, where I mentioned vehicles, which are reasonably restricted, yet are in no sense "banned". So if you had anything to say besides vapid rhetoric, I'm afraid your point was lost on me.

**Grey Templar**

Smacks wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
Smacks wrote:
Firstly, not all control is about banning. Secondly, you are being deliberately obtuse, if you are not able to understand why dangerous things might be reasonably restricted. Many chemicals, poisons, explosives, radioactive material, pornography, drugs, medication, animals, vehicles, machinery etc, etc, etc... are restricted. It shouldn't be an alien concept to you.

Bans =\= reasonable restrictions. The misuse of firearms by others is no justification to prohibit possession of firearms for other people that have not misused firearms.
You have quoted me, very clearly stating that not all control is about banning, do you actually read the posts you quote before spewing your stock replies?

You have also quoted me talking about reasonable restrictions, where I mentioned vehicles, which are reasonably restricted, yet are in no sense "banned". So if you had anything to say besides vapid rhetoric, I'm afraid your point was lost on me.

None of the restrictions which constantly get bandied about are anywhere close to reasonable. Especially when you consider you are talking about a Constitutional right.

All of the proposed solutions, and most restrictions which are currently in place, are equivalent to limiting everyone's free speech because Bob used some racially charged language and hurt Steve's feelings.

**Kilkrazy**

Shooting people is a bit different to shouting insults at them.

**Grey Templar**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Shooting people is a bit different to shouting insults at them.

Not in terms of infringing on Constitutional rights.

The right to own weaponry is just as important as the right to free speech, religion, assembly, etc...

People would be horrified if equivalent restrictions were proposed in terms of those other rights, yet they are ok with it for weapons. Which is moronic.

**Co'tor Shas**

No, it's not. Simply because free speech is considered more paramount to the protection of our rights than guns. You may disagree with that, and that may even be wrong, but that it why people are OK with limiting weapons, and not speech.

**Kilkrazy**

Grey Templar wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Shooting people is a bit different to shouting insults at them.

Not in terms of infringing on Constitutional rights.

The right to own weaponry is just as important as the right to free speech, religion, assembly, etc...

People would be horrified if equivalent restrictions were proposed in terms of those other rights, yet they are ok with it for weapons. Which is moronic.

They are in term of killing people.

**Breotan**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Shooting people is a bit different to shouting insults at them.

Not in terms of infringing on Constitutional rights.

The right to own weaponry is just as important as the right to free speech, religion, assembly, etc...

People would be horrified if equivalent restrictions were proposed in terms of those other rights, yet they are ok with it for weapons. Which is moronic.

They are in term of killing people.

If that were true, we'd have more severe penalties in place for drunk driving.

**Kilkrazy**

The ultimate penalty for drunk driving is permanent ban.

**Grey Templar**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
No, it's not. Simply because free speech is considered more paramount to the protection of our rights than guns. You may disagree with that, and that may even be wrong, but that it why people are OK with limiting weapons, and not speech.

No, its definitely moronic. All your rights are equally important. And the right to own weaponry is actually paramount to defending your rights, just as much as free speech. Speech, ultimately, cannot protect you from tyranny. It only serves to pass along information, but information without action is useless.

Weapons are necessary as the last resort to protect your rights, and your own life. You can't stop an attacker with mere words, you aren't the Dragonborn.

**TheMeanDM**

CptJake wrote:
TheMeanDM wrote:

I will step right up and say I have no sympathy for her. It was a situation brought about/created by her own choices.

Would you have sympathy for someone who chose to murder another person?

Common sense says to not leave your loaded gun:

1) in your vehicle (highly illegal in most states)

Highly illegal in most states? Really?

Rifles and shotguns especially....pardon the need to clarify.

And yes..a handgun unless secured properly...is also a "no no" to keep loaded.

**Nostromodamus**

Grey Templar wrote:
You can't stop an attacker with mere words, you aren't the Dragonborn.

Totally using that the next time someone asks why I carry a gun.

"Because I'm not the Dragonborn."

**jreilly89**

Grey Templar wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
No, it's not. Simply because free speech is considered more paramount to the protection of our rights than guns. You may disagree with that, and that may even be wrong, but that it why people are OK with limiting weapons, and not speech.

No, its definitely moronic. All your rights are equally important. And the right to own weaponry is actually paramount to defending your rights, just as much as free speech. Speech, ultimately, cannot protect you from tyranny. It only serves to pass along information, but information without action is useless.

Weapons are necessary as the last resort to protect your rights, and your own life. You can't stop an attacker with mere words, you aren't the Dragonborn.

As much as I'm in favor of responsible gun ownership, I'd disagree with you. MLK did plenty to protect and promote peoples' rights without resorting to violence. Feudal Japan and China also did as much without handguns, using the basic tools at hand.

You can defend your rights without an AK-47 or a 9mm.

**OgreChubbs**

But doesnt everyone having a gun mean more violant crimes? Like if everyone has a gun and I want to rob someone I maze well kill em to minimize the risk of harm. But I am out of here everytime I post on the board I get band because I disagree with americans admins that hate me.
Wtf something freaky is goin on here with me quotes

**Smacks**

Grey Templar wrote:
Not in terms of infringing on Constitutional rights.

Again, I would say that if you can only think in those terms, then you are being deliberately obtuse, and missing the gaping void between the two things when viewed from any other perspective. If owning guns is really the equivalent to free speech then why isn't it in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? If it's so important then why did the UN human rights council not bother with it? Free speech is considered a basic right in every free nation, without it a nation could barely even call themselves "free". The right to bear arms doesn't even compare, it's just a weird idiosyncrasy that only Americans have (and perhaps a couple of SA countries modelled on the US constitution). The rest of the world doesn't have this weird gun obsession, and thinks it's nuts...

When no one else understands, that's usually a good sign that you're wrong.

**Grey Templar**

jreilly89 wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
No, it's not. Simply because free speech is considered more paramount to the protection of our rights than guns. You may disagree with that, and that may even be wrong, but that it why people are OK with limiting weapons, and not speech.

No, its definitely moronic. All your rights are equally important. And the right to own weaponry is actually paramount to defending your rights, just as much as free speech. Speech, ultimately, cannot protect you from tyranny. It only serves to pass along information, but information without action is useless.

Weapons are necessary as the last resort to protect your rights, and your own life. You can't stop an attacker with mere words, you aren't the Dragonborn.

As much as I'm in favor of responsible gun ownership, I'd disagree with you. MLK did plenty to protect and promote peoples' rights without resorting to violence. Feudal Japan and China also did as much without handguns, using the basic tools at hand.

You can defend your rights without an AK-47 or a 9mm.

Hence why I said "last resort".

Removing your last resort option to protect yourself and your rights is idiotic in the extreme. MLK was also quite in favor of the 2nd amendment you may recall(lots of gun control has roots in racism by the way).

Afterall, what happens when words don't work? And they quite often are not enough. Words are just words, actions are what gets stuff done. Be it voting in elections or overthrowing a tyrannical government, or shooting a home invader.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Smacks wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Not in terms of infringing on Constitutional rights.
Again, I would say that if you can only think in those terms, then you are being deliberately obtuse, and missing the gaping void between the two things when viewed from any other perspective. If owning guns is really the equivalent to free speech then why isn't it in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? If it's so important then why did the UN human rights council not bother with it? Free speech is considered a basic right in every free nation, without it a nation could barely even call themselves"free". The right to bear arms doesn't even compare, it's just a weird idiosyncrasy that only Americans have (and perhaps a couple of SA countries modelled on the US constitution). The rest of the world doesn't have this weird gun obsession, and thinks it's nuts...

When no one else understands, that's usually a good sign that you're wrong.

Why? Because they made a mistake. A huge mistake. Consensus over a large group doesn't lead to less mistakes, usually its the opposite.

I think the UN is a useless organization by the way. Largely because they have zero ability to enforce anything. They're the perfect example of what only having words gets you, lots of hot air and no real substance.