What's new
By:

Pro-gun activist Jamie Gilt shot by 4 year old Son

King Cy said:
I believe it's called "Natural Selection".
Click to expand...

Alas, here they have already reproduced.

Gameface said:
Which is one big reason I've become disheartened by the turn the gun rights movement has taken. I believe gun ownership requires a significant degree of discipline and diligence. The first and last thing anyone in possession of a firearm should be thinking about is the safe handling of their weapon, according to a rigid set of standard criteria that is well practiced and never deviated from.

Instead, gun rights seems to mean that anyone should be able to own and carry a gun and that we should place no obstacles in their way. Also, advancing the cause through fear mongering and promoting the idea (well above safety and responsibility) that you're very likely going to have to blow someone away, and that you need to be ready and not hesitate when the opportunity to do so arises. It's soooo important to be ready to kill a "bad guy" you can't be hindered by having to load the firearm, or remove a lock, or open a safe. You need to be able to kill "bad guys" on a split seconds notice. And when in doubt assume that shadow, or that noise, or the person on the other side of that door is about to gun YOU down so you better fire first.
Click to expand...

What? A centrist position on gun rights! Unbelievable!
 
Gameface said:
Which is one big reason I've become disheartened by the turn the gun rights movement has taken. I believe gun ownership requires a significant degree of discipline and diligence. The first and last thing anyone in possession of a firearm should be thinking about is the safe handling of their weapon, according to a rigid set of standard criteria that is well practiced and never deviated from.

Instead, gun rights seems to mean that anyone should be able to own and carry a gun and that we should place no obstacles in their way. Also, advancing the cause through fear mongering and promoting the idea (well above safety and responsibility) that you're very likely going to have to blow someone away, and that you need to be ready and not hesitate when the opportunity to do so arises. It's soooo important to be ready to kill a "bad guy" you can't be hindered by having to load the firearm, or remove a lock, or open a safe. You need to be able to kill "bad guys" on a split seconds notice. And when in doubt assume that shadow, or that noise, or the person on the other side of that door is about to gun YOU down so you better fire first.
Click to expand...

Great post.
 
King Cy said:
Yeah, the kid only has to deal with being traumatized for life over killing his own mother.
Click to expand...
Did she die?
In the op it says she was wounded.
(I didn't read the link)
 
Gameface said:
Which is one big reason I've become disheartened by the turn the gun rights movement has taken. I believe gun ownership requires a significant degree of discipline and diligence. The first and last thing anyone in possession of a firearm should be thinking about is the safe handling of their weapon, according to a rigid set of standard criteria that is well practiced and never deviated from.

Instead, gun rights seems to mean that anyone should be able to own and carry a gun and that we should place no obstacles in their way. Also, advancing the cause through fear mongering and promoting the idea (well above safety and responsibility) that you're very likely going to have to blow someone away, and that you need to be ready and not hesitate when the opportunity to do so arises. It's soooo important to be ready to kill a "bad guy" you can't be hindered by having to load the firearm, or remove a lock, or open a safe. You need to be able to kill "bad guys" on a split seconds notice. And when in doubt assume that shadow, or that noise, or the person on the other side of that door is about to gun YOU down so you better fire first.
Click to expand...

I believe that.

There is no safety class or lock in the world that is gunna stop this person from being a stupid *** hole. She was negligent in the welfare of her child so throw her *** in jail.

This lady didn't have her child in a safety seat! Driving in a car is the most dangerous thing for a child to do and she didn't bother to protect him. Then she leaves a loaded firearm in his reach without supervision(being present does not count as supervision). What makes you think that if there was a law to require a gun lock, or a safe, or that it wasn't loaded(which I'm pretty sure there is a law against driving with a fully loaded firearm everywhwere), that this lady would have followed it? She could have prevented this by keeping it away from him and my guess is, seeing that she was shot by a 4 year old, that she had one in the chamber and didn't have the safety on!

I am totally fine with punishing people who are clearly negligent with their firearms, but most people aren't. There are over 300 million firearms in this country and more than 99% of them will never fire a bullet that pierces human flesh.
 
Yet another responsible gun owner!

I hope she goes the whole 9 yards and doesn't use any socialist government aid. I keep hearing from repubs that churches and charities can take the place of gubbamint. I say we give them the opportunity to do so! Let the NRA pay for her health care, disability, welfare, etc.
 
♪alt13 said:
...punishing people who are clearly negligent with their firearms, but most people aren't.
Click to expand...

Very highly doubt that. Most are just lucky.


Dumb luck, blind luck.

There are over 300 million firearms in this country and more than 99% of them will never fire a bullet that pierces human flesh.
Click to expand...

See comment above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top