Kindergartner brings gun to Texas school!

[the_tyrant]

(CNN) -- Three kindergartners in a Houston elementary school were wounded Tuesday when a loaded handgun brought to the school by a student fell on the floor and discharged, the school district said.

None of the injuries was considered life-threatening, Houston Independent School District spokesman Jason Spencer said in a statement.

The two boys and one girl, all of them kindergarten students at Ross Elementary School, were taken to a hospital and their parents were notified, Spencer said. Two children, a boy and a girl, suffered foot wounds, and the other, a boy, was wounded in the leg.

The incident occurred in the school cafeteria at around 10:22 a.m. School district police are investigating how the 6-year-old who brought the gun to school -- one of the wounded children -- obtained the weapon, Spencer said.


Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/US/04/19/tex...index.html

remember when we though it was absurd a few weeks ago when the tsa decided to check a 6 year old?

[Fish In The Water]

Wow... :nope:

I guess I'll ask the obvious question: What were the parents thinking? "Sure hon, leave the loaded gun laying around where little Jimmy can get a hold of it, what could go wrong?"

[Platapus]

Parents like this give responsible gun owners a bad name.

I hope they go after these parents. :yep:

[GoldenRivet]

Parents like this give responsible gun owners a bad name.

I hope they go after these parents. :yep:

agreed, this is why guns go in safes, or on the top shelf of the closet in a lock box with a trigger lock.

personally, I didnt have unsupervised access to firearms until i was 16

[Freiwillige]

Agreed. Nail the parents to the cross on this one.

[Feuer Frei!]

CNN link dead.

Found thos from last year, very very similar:
http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-kindergarten-gun-txt,0,2881480.story

B.O.T.:
Officials said the children, who were struck either by a single bullet or fragments from itSOURCE (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/04/19/Kindergartner-brings-gun-to-school-3-hurt/UPI-66571303262957/)

Was wondering about this actually.
How 3 people could get hurt by this.
1 i could understand, mayyybee 2, but 3?
Anyone confirm this can indeed happen? 1 bullet, 3 hits, by a dropped weapon? Or fragments?

Not to lessen the fact that thank God no-one was seriously injured, or worse, killed.

[onelifecrisis]

Parents like this give responsible gun owners a bad name.

"responsible gun owners" :haha:

That's a good one! :O:

[CptLolPants]

"responsible gun owners" :haha:

That's a good one! :O:

Not sure if troll.

[Molon Labe]

If responding with an F-bomb is an understandable and entirely appropriate response, then yes, it's a troll.

[GoldenRivet]

"responsible gun owners" :haha:

That's a good one! :O:

They exist.

You can tell a responsible gun owner when you go to his home, and perhaps aside from the 200 year old antique musket above his fireplace mantle, you can't really tell whether or not he actually owns any working guns.

[Ducimus]

Parents like this give responsible gun owners a bad name.

I hope they go after these parents. :yep:

This. Never leave your home defense piece somewhere where Junior can get his grubby mitts on it.

[mookiemookie]

The gun did not belong to the parents:

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8085925

http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/additional/large/office_space_kit_mat.jpg

[GoldenRivet]

http://www.gunsafereviews.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/GunVault-Mini-Vault-GV1000C-DLX-Deluxe-Gun-Safe.jpg

problem solved for only $99.95

[Ducimus]

Police believe the kindergartener who took the loaded gun to school got it from a family friend.

That's a little vauge mookie. I'm having a hard time swallowing that an adult gave this kid a loaded handgun. It is a reasonable conclusion that either the kid lifted the gun off an adult without their knowing, OR the "family friend" is another kid who did the same.

edit:
I'd be lying if i said i never played with my dads firearms as a kid without him knowing. I was a sneaky bugger, i found the key to the gun safe. I never did anything stupid (I was mischevious, but not stupid), but I figure If i did that little bit of sneaking around, my kid would do the same. Id expect no less from a chip off the old block, or any other kid for that matter.

[GoldenRivet]

i have always subscribed to the notion that if a child is to grow up with respect for something he should be introduced to it early.

allow your kid to have a beer once in a while when he is 13 years old. dont let him get trashed mind you... dont hook him up with a can of beer every week... but one twelve ounce can of beer with the old man around a camp fire, or one can of beer on some other special occasion wont kill him. it yanks the mystique out of alcohol. it makes it less risque and mysterious.

the same applies to guns

Allow your kid to accompany you to the gun range, or on a hunting trip when he is a curious child. Buy him a .22 and let him shoot it under strictly controlled supervision.

when you allow kids to do these things in moderation - they usually grow up to look at it as being no big deal. thereby finding it easier to resist the temptation and peer pressure to get drunk, or to play with a gun.

face it, kids do things like that because they are curious about the forbidden fruit aspect. its appealing to them because it is strictly off limits.


EDIT:

on the case of it not belonging to the parents... thats what makes my statements here more sensible. the kid could theoretically find himself in a situation to receive a gun from anyone... a neighbor kid, a friend, a friend of the family who was watching the kids for a couple of hours. it might not come from the parents, so the kid has to be equipped - raised - to believe that guns are not this forbidden, tempting thing.

like my mom told me once "You can't watch your kid all the time."

[onelifecrisis]

Not sure if troll.

Haha, that's cute, especially from someone who registered only days ago and has a whopping 8 posts worth of experience here.

If responding with an F-bomb is an understandable and entirely appropriate response, then yes, it's a troll.

I didn't see anyone drop an F-bomb. :hmmm:

They exist.

You can tell a responsible gun owner when you go to his home, and perhaps aside from the 200 year old antique musket above his fireplace mantle, you can't really tell whether or not he actually owns any working guns.


Well if you say so GR, but that seems a little off topic. Back on track, here are some ways to prevent your child from getting his or her hands on your gun:

1) Keep the gun locked in a safe protected by DNA-sampling, eye-scanning, voice-sampling technology. And never, ever forget to put it in there after you're done playing with it.
2) Don't own a gun.

The second one seems a lot simpler to me. :up:

[GoldenRivet]

Well if you say so GR, but that seems a little off topic. Back on track, here are some ways to prevent your child from getting his or her hands on your gun:

1) Keep the gun locked in a safe protected by DNA-sampling, eye-scanning, voice-sampling technology. And never, ever forget to put it in there after you're done playing with it.
2) Don't own a gun.

The second one seems a lot simpler to me. :up:

To each his own in that regard.

I could avoid being in a car accident by not owning a car, but i chose to own one.

Electing not to own a gun is just as much of a right as owning one is, and i fully respect your decision not to own one.

but the funny thing is you never see attempts to pass legislation requiring you to buy a firearm... the opposite is constantly true.

As for the gun safe: i think DNA / retinal scan / voice recognition lock tech is a little much for storage of just about anything in any average home.

a 4 to 6 digit pin code lock like the one i linked to earlier for only $80-100 will suffice. unfortunately, many people chose not to use locks at all.

for a large gun collection a rifle safe with a combination lock should do the job. (I didn't have the combination to my dad's rifle safe until i was 21 years old! despite the fact that guns I OWNED were inside of it)

I elect not to lock any of my firearms meant for immediate home defense, and why should i? i don't have children about.

but if there are children routinely in the home for any reason - whether they reside there, or you baby sit them once in a while... lock up any and all firearms.

[onelifecrisis]

Fair point with the car accident, GR. My counter: a car serves a practical purpose, a gun does not. Yes, you can shoot deer with it. Or you can just buy venison from the supermarket (much easier IMO). Yes, you can defend yourself with it... and tell me, how many times have you ever had to? I often see gun owners on this forum talking macho about what would or would not happen if someone tried to break into their house, molest their daughters, or whatever, but has any of that actually ever happened to you? Ever? Yes a car can kill, but that's not what it's designed for and driving to work is something I have to do every day - how many days a week do you have to shoot someone?

[GoldenRivet]

Yes, you can shoot deer with it. Or you can just buy venison from the supermarket (much easier IMO)

While it is true that it is easy to go to the supermarket to buy venison, and there are many many people who elect to do that, there are some who prefer the sport and thrill of the hunt, and the satisfaction of cleaning and preparing their own meat - about 100 lbs worth in total - that will last their family many months for next to zero overhead cost. the price of venison at the supermarket for a similar amount of meat would be astounding.

Yes, you can defend yourself with it... and tell me, how many times have you ever had to?

I've never had to. on the same note, I've never had to put a fire out with the fire extinguisher i keep in my truck either. I hope i dont ever have to.

on the other hand i do know a man who has *3 times* had to defend himself and his wife from immediate danger using his firearm as a deterrent. (he has not fired it in defense)

I often see gun owners on this forum talking macho about what would or would not happen if someone tried to break into their house, molest their daughters, or whatever, but has any of that actually ever happened to you? Ever? Yes a car can kill, but that's not what it's designed for and driving to work is something I have to do every day - how many days a week do you have to shoot someone?

again, see the fire extinguisher reference above. I keep one in my truck - never had to use it. but the worst day of my life would be listening to my wife scream as she burned in a car fire i would have otherwise been able to prevent if i were equipped with a fire extinguisher. (It happened to one of my mom's friends and her grandson - both dead now because they were trapped and had no way to combat the flames while waiting for help)

Im not macho about home defense, and it takes a fool to talk a big talk about all the rambo stuff they would do to an intruder. You never know what might happen in the scenario of home invasion.

but i would rather be equipped to deal with the threat than not be.

you can bet anything that a home intruder is prepared to do harm to you and those you love... shouldnt it stand to reason that you should be prepared to prevent it?

i certainly think so.

and while any defense scenario can unravel - i think the logic of preparation is infallible - and you can never be too prepared.

[Ducimus]

1) Keep the gun locked in a safe protected by DNA-sampling, eye-scanning, voice-sampling technology. And never, ever forget to put it in there after you're done playing with it.
2) Don't own a gun.

The second one seems a lot simpler to me. :up:

Since your presumably from England as your location says as much, i suppose the 2nd option makes alot of sense to you. However to an American, it does not. Our culture has its colonial roots you know.

http://americanvision.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/second-amendment-rifle.jpg

http://www.willowtown.com/promo/jap%20general.jpeg

[Cohaagen]

That Yamamoto quote is a favourite line of right-wing internet posters, often cropping up in their signature along with George Orwell's "we sleep peaceably in our beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf".

Unfortunately, like the Orwell quote, it is completely bogus. The man never said such a thing. Ironically, it was the likelihood that there would have been a rifle behind every blade of grass in Japan that in part led to the decision to drop the A-bomb instead of invading.

[GoldenRivet]

Unfortunately, like the Orwell quote, it is completely bogus. The man never said such a thing.

Untruths on the internet tubes?!

OH NOZ!!1!

:haha:

[mookiemookie]

"The problem with Internet quotations is that many are not genuine." - Abraham Lincoln

[Krauter]

Up here in the frigid North it's too damn cold for home invasions :haha:

On a serious note, when I was a kid, I used to always want to go out hunting with my uncle. Just the thought of shooting a rifle, or the thrill of the hunt, had me begging him to go out. Even still, he refused me until I was older.

However, prior to him actually having the will to take me out, I joined the Royal Canadian Air Cadets where I made it on to the Marksmanship team of my squadron. Mind you, this was only firing air-soft rifles. However, due to this, I was able to attend a course during the summer for firing actual rifles, mostly .22's. This taught me that, shooting a gun isn't all it's cracked up to be. And most importantly, if you don't hold the damn thing snugly, it'll dislocate your shoulder. Factor #1, but primarily factor #2 meant that when my uncle finally asked me to go hunting I said no :haha:

However, i do own an old .22 Bolt Action Springfield that I received after the death of my great grandfather. Albeit the firing pin has been removed (by him for safety reasons) and I keep the bolt separate from the the rifle itself. I only look at that rifle and think of my grandfather, not of firing it.

Anyways, back on topic...
BRING THE HAMMER DOWN ON THE LITTLE TODDLER.. and all that stuff :shifty:.. Just a case of a student not being paid enough attention if they're able to sneak that stuff into class.

[gimpy117]

Umm...well why is a gun laying around so easily where a 5 year old can handle it?

[Ducimus]

That Yamamoto quote is a favourite line of right-wing internet posters, often cropping up in their signature along with George Orwell's "we sleep peaceably in our beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf".

Unfortunately, like the Orwell quote, it is completely bogus. The man never said such a thing. Ironically, it was the likelihood that there would have been a rifle behind every blade of grass in Japan that in part led to the decision to drop the A-bomb instead of invading.

Whooo hoo. First time i ever got accused of being on the right wing. All the local right wingers think im a left winger.

I did look up that quote out of curiosity after i hotlinked that picture. It sounded cool, but it sounded too cool, and looked it up finding it for the urban legend that it is. I was wondering if anyone would catch it or not. :rotfl2: Anyway untrue of source or not, the sentence itself is reasonably correct. I'll wager there's at least one firearm in every Home, Apartment, and RV in America. And my point still stands, Firearms, much like car's, are embedded in our culture. Only the cultural roots of firearms in our society go way back to the very founding. Hell, i'm not a Gun nut, far from it, i acutally sit on the fence as far as Assault weapons go, but even I own a couple of guns.

[Fish In The Water]

"The problem with Internet quotations is that many are not genuine." - Abraham Lincoln

Rumor has it Lincoln first posted that at: sellmeabridge.com ;)

[Schroeder]

As for the gun safe: i think DNA / retinal scan / voice recognition lock tech is a little much for storage of just about anything in any average home.

You'll only need a fingerprint reader. My safe has one and even my car's GPS has one. It's no big deal at all and comes at a cheap price. While those things of course always come with a backup key /password you won't need them often and therefore you don't need to go and get them every now and then, making it much more difficult for junior to find out where you are hiding them.;)

[onelifecrisis]

I've never had to. on the same note, I've never had to put a fire out with the fire extinguisher i keep in my truck either. I hope i dont ever have to.

on the other hand i do know a man who has *3 times* had to defend himself and his wife from immediate danger using his firearm as a deterrent. (he has not fired it in defense)

Okay, firstly, there are only six degrees of separation. Everyone knows someone who [insert anything here]. Secondly, did he *have* to use a gun? Over the last 7 years I've spend a lot of time in the US in different states (mostly Ohio) and heard many stories in which guns have been used as a deterrent, but not one where it was actually necessary to do so. In every story, the person pointing the gun "in defense" was pointing it at someone unarmed.

I don't know the necessary stats, but it'd be interesting to compare the statistical chance of facing an armed intruder vs, say, winning the lottery or getting struck by lightning.


again, see the fire extinguisher reference above. I keep one in my truck - never had to use it.

I don't think fire extinguishers are often the cause of the deaths of innocent bystanders.

Im not macho about home defense, and it takes a fool to talk a big talk about all the rambo stuff they would do to an intruder. You never know what might happen in the scenario of home invasion.

I know, but the way some people talk you'd think they need to hold a gun to get it up.

I know this debate is old and I won't convince you, but when Plat made the comment about "responsible" gun ownership in thread where three kids got shot, I couldn't resist the urge to comment.

[GoldenRivet]

While i agree on the six degrees of separation comment: 1. I don't question his decision to pull out his firearm. 2. in 3 of those cases, threat was imminent one being an attempted carjacking, one being an attempted mugging by knife, and one being an attempted home invasion. i say attempted because all three were thwarted. 3. I will always prefer to know someone who had to use or threaten to use their firearm rather than be the person to have to do it myself.

What happened in Houston with these kids is tragic. i know there are responsible gun owners... but i also know there are irresponsible gun owners... and i simply pose the question; Which ones make the news?

you simply cannot make a blanket decision that all gun owners are irresponsible, car shooting, beer swilling red necks because a kid gets his hand on pappy's pistol.

In this case, someone was lax with their firearm security and a kid got a hand on it and took it to school and people got hurt.

That is unfortunate, but i wonder how many kids didn't bring a gun to school that day and shoot people?

I also know - as an educator - that good judgment is not a teachable skill. Good judgment is something that a person acquires (hopefully) through years of experience and psychological development.

some people acquire more than others. and other people still seem to acquire none. In this case, someone exercised poor judgment and we see the result.

fortunately nobody was killed, hopefully the gun owners of the world can learn something from the incident.

not that you are guilty of making this a case for taking people's guns away from them... but here in the states - its a constant issue.

every time something like this happens, it causes some folks to jump up on the soap box and shout and stomp their feet about how nobody should even be allowed to own guns.

and you have a very large segment of society in the United States that is very adamant about defending that right. Its a culture thing. Its ingrained in our national psyche. many view it as a right. many view it as a duty. and a few consider it absurd NOT to own one.

my fire extinguisher comment was not meant to illustrate that fire extinguishers kill people - im not sure where you picked that out.

i just think that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. thats why i carry a fire extinguisher in my car, its why i have a snake bite kit with my camp gear (even though i camp in colder months) and its why there is a firearm at my bedside.

i do these things because i've been in positions without such things when it would have been nice to have it.

I pray to God the only thing that me and my firearms ever shoot are paper targets. But im certainly not going to leave my wife at home for the weekend armed to the teeth with a cell phone and harsh language.

[CCIP]

I used to be very anti-gun-ownership. Then I got to be good friends with a guy from the south who's introduced me to the gun culture personally. After hanging around, doing some shooting and meeting these so-called right-wing gun-nuts that come to shooting ranges etc., you know what, I honestly realized that contrary to the crazed unreasonable people that everyone paints them as, they're actually some of the more reasonable, civil, and above all safety-conscious (as in, gun handling/storage safety) people I've met. I'd be doing them a disservice if I said they shouldn't own guns.

I still support strict gun registration and licensing, which they obviously don't, but I'd honestly be lying if I said that gun owners in the American general public don't deserve to have things their way.

[Growler]

I've always seen home defense as thus:

If you're prepared for the worst case, the worst that can happen is you end up dead.

If you're not prepared for the worst case, the best than can happen is you end up dead.

How an individual chooses to define "prepared" is up to the individual. Some live in houses with bars on the windows and doors. Others own guns, or bright outside lighting. Some do less, others do more.

I've trained lots of kids to shoot - some as young as seven or eight. I've also taught them how to handle firearms safely and responsibly. And to this date, not one of those kids I taught - and there were hundreds - has ever blasted one of his mates, accidentally or intentionally.

So, like it our not, there ARE responsible gun owners. Just like there are irresponsible car owners... and irresponsible parents.

[onelifecrisis]

I'm going to buy a lightning-proof coat and wear it at all times. Actually, better make it meteor-proof as well. One should always be prepared for the worst.

[Growler]

I'm going to buy a lightning-proof coat and wear it at all times. Actually, better make it meteor-proof as well. One should always be prepared for the worst.

Yup. Better look into the armor-plated vehicles, too, unless you plan on hiding inside the rest of your days in your impregnable fortress of attitude.

[onelifecrisis]

Yup. Better look into the armor-plated vehicles, too, unless you plan on hiding inside the rest of your days in your impregnable fortress of attitude.

Hit a nerve, did I? Funny how often my arguments with pro-gun folk result in them promising (and sometimes outright threatening) physical violence, either from themselves or others. I'm almost given to thinking it's all they understand.

[Growler]

Hit a nerve, did I? Funny how often my arguments with pro-gun folk result in them promising (and sometimes outright threatening) physical violence, either from themselves or others. I'm almost given to thinking it's all they understand.

Excuse me? How in any way did I threaten you?

All I did was suggest that, if you're going to take my words to ridiculous extremes, perhaps you would like to extend your protection to your home and/or means of conveyance, as those things are also susceptible to lightning and/or atmospheric anomalies.

Funny how anti-gun people immediately assume it's all about them.

Let me restate, since you clearly tripped right on over the main point of my earlier statement in your rush prove your intellectual and moral superiority to the rest of us.

"How an individual chooses to define "prepared" is up to the individual. Some live in houses with bars on the windows and doors. Others own guns, or bright outside lighting. Some do less, others do more."

[onelifecrisis]

Excuse me? How in any way did I threaten you?

All I did was suggest that, if you're going to take my words to ridiculous extremes, perhaps you would like to extend your protection to your home and/or means of conveyance, as those things are also susceptible to lightning and/or atmospheric anomalies.

You were suggesting an armoured vehicle as a way to defend my home from lightning and meteor strikes? And how would that work exactly? Would I park my house inside my car at night instead of the other way around?

Funny how anti-gun people immediately assume it's all about them.

Let me restate, since you clearly tripped right on over the main point of my earlier statement in your rush prove your intellectual and moral superiority to the rest of us.

"How an individual chooses to define "prepared" is up to the individual. Some live in houses with bars on the windows and doors. Others own guns, or bright outside lighting. Some do less, others do more."

Definitely hit a nerve. Sorry about that. Go shoot something, you'll feel better.

[Schroeder]

You were suggesting an armoured vehicle as a way to defend my home from lightning and meteor strikes?

I understood it as a means of being safe outside your house.;)

[onelifecrisis]

I understood it as a means of being safe outside your house.;)

Yeah, that's exactly how I understood it as well. :up:

[Platapus]

I guess this is why here in the United States our citizens, for the most part, have a choice concerning whether they choose to own a handgun.

Those that choose not to own one have the freedom not to have one
Those that choose to own one, with in some limitations, have the freedom to own one.

Win win situation

I have never heard of a gun owner trying to force non gun owners to own a gun. :nope:

[Schroeder]

Yeah, that's exactly how I understood it as well. :up:
Yes, but I didn't interpret it as a threat towards you. Just as a statement that there is no 100% safety, neither with guns nor without.
To add my 2c, I'm quite happy about our strict regulations regarding gun ownership here. We have very few people being killed by guns. On the other hand, I can understand that a country like the US can't be made gun free anymore. It's too deep in their culture and the country is already flooded with weapons so there is hardly a way to really reverse things.

[onelifecrisis]

I guess this is why here in the United States our citizens, for the most part, have a choice concerning whether they choose to own a handgun.

Those that choose not to own one have the freedom not to have one
Those that choose to own one, with in some limitations, have the freedom to own one.

Win win situation

I have never heard of a gun owner trying to force non gun owners to own a gun. :nope:

Well I've never heard of an innocent gun-owner getting shot by a non-gun-owner's non-existent gun.

I'm painfully aware that, being British, my opinions must seem rather unwelcome even to some anti-gun Americans. But my father lives in the US and my job involves regularly working in the states (I'm actually in the US right now). I do not claim to have any deep understanding of American culture, nor any "right" to involve myself in the legal side of this debate. But I am somewhat affected by it, and issues of morality (as opposed to legality) are IMO not bound by borders.

[GoldenRivet]

Well I've never heard of an innocent gun-owner getting shot by a non-gun-owner's non-existent gun.

Flawed argument IMHO. nothing personal but i think its a bit off kilter as it seems to make the assumption that the only way to kill someone is to shoot them.

i have heard of plenty of people beaten to death, burned to death, stabbed to death, strangled to death, hacked into pieces, the list goes on.

is any of those methods of killing someone more reasonable, more humane than shooting them?

fact is taking another persons life is a terrible thing to do, its a horrible thing to want to do, and its a horrible thing to be put into a situation wherein you may have no choice.

There are folks out there who would just as soon look at you as murder you.

and OLC

meteors?

seriously?

if a meteor were to fall on me right now, there is no way i could protect against it, let alone predict it's occurrence.

lets try to stay more grounded in reality - a fire for example is a real possibility. Is it not wise to have a fire extinguisher in your kitchen? A car accident is a real possibility, is it not wise to wear a seat belt?

Being a person who likes to be prepared for things large and small is one thing.

being a person who belittles a person's choice to be prepared with stingy little sarcastic comments is a whole other matter.

nobody here is putting a gun in your hand.

you have expressed that you choose not to own one because its "easier a decision" for you to make. Others have said they choose to own one for the sake of preparedness or sport.

not one person that i have seen has bashed your choice with sarcasm... in the least, return that favor. :up:

issues of morality (as opposed to legality) are IMO not bound by borders.

where do you stand on abortion? just curious

[Growler]

You were suggesting an armoured vehicle as a way to defend my home from lightning and meteor strikes? And how would that work exactly? Would I park my house inside my car at night instead of the other way around?

Sure, if that makes you feel safer. Seems rather silly to me, but what do I know? I'm just some upstart colonial with a gun and an apparently uncontrollable urge to use it.

Definitely hit a nerve. Sorry about that. Go shoot something, you'll feel better.

No nerves hit here. I'm just curious as to how, yet again, you've managed to cleverly avoid speaking about that point of my statement with yet another ad hominem attack.

[onelifecrisis]

Flawed argument IMHO. nothing personal but i think its a bit off kilter as it seems to make the assumption that the only way to kill someone is to shoot them.

i have heard of plenty of people beaten to death, burned to death, stabbed to death, strangled to death, hacked into pieces, the list goes on.

is any of those methods of killing someone more reasonable, more humane than shooting them?

None of them are more reasonable and most of them are less humane than shooting, but *all* of them are considerably more difficult than pulling a trigger. Stabbing someone with a knife is, I gather, a visceral act. You feel the blade go in, the flesh tear, the bones resist. Strangling someone you feel the life ebb from their body. You don't just point and press a button.

Also there are never any innocent bystanders, nor any accidental discharges.

and OLC

meteors?

seriously?

if a meteor were to fall on me right now, there is no way i could protect against it, let alone predict it's occurrence.

You could protect yourself from a small (say, bullet sized) meteor. A big one, no - but neither will a gun protect you from a guy with a nuke. As for predicting meteor strikes... are you saying you have a crystal ball that tells you when someone is going to break into your house?

lets try to stay more grounded in reality - a fire for example is a real possibility. Is it not wise to have a fire extinguisher in your kitchen? A car accident is a real possibility, is it not wise to wear a seat belt?

Didn't I already answer this? Fire extinguishers and seatbelts save lifes. Guns only end them.

being a person who belittles a person's choice to be prepared with stingy little sarcastic comments is a whole other matter.

<snip>

you have expressed that you choose not to own one because its "easier a decision" for you to make. Others have said they choose to own one for the sake of preparedness or sport.

not one person that i have seen has bashed your choice with sarcasm... in the least, return that favor. :up:

I use sarcasm, you buy guns. Which of us is being more aggressive?

where do you stand on abortion? just curious

Interesting tangent. Abortion is a difficult one. I generally favour abortion being legal and the choice of the mother. The long and short of my justification is this: if my mother had not wanted me, then I would rather she had been allowed to abort me. I wouldn't know any different and she, in this hypothetical scenario, would be happier (I hope). That said, things do get complicated in some circumstances. For example, what if the father wants to keep the baby and is willing to raise it alone? That one makes my head hurt.

No nerves hit here. I'm just curious as to how, yet again, you've managed to cleverly avoid speaking about that point of my statement with yet another ad hominem attack.

You mean the part where you say "some choose to do more, some choose to do less"? I didn't realise that needed a reply, but if you like: those choosing to do "less" as you put it are not endangering others by their choices.

[GoldenRivet]

Stabbing someone with a knife is, I gather, a visceral act. You feel the blade go in, the flesh tear, the bones resist. Strangling someone you feel the life ebb from their body. You don't just point and press a button.

Jack the ripper must have felt horrible about all the things he did. :yeah:

Shooting someone is no easier than stabbing them - for a morale person. Thats really what self defense training is about - mostly - to train a morale person to make a life saving decision quickly... even if it is immoral to kill someone. In my world... I come first, baddies come second.

sorry, thats just the way it is.

then again... I'm not worried about morale people am i? I dont keep a gun next to my bed because i dont trust my neighbors, i dont keep a gun by my bed because i live in a high crime area, i keep it because - as i said before... an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

By the logic of the anti-gun folks... i dont need locks on my doors, or a burglar alarm either.

but i've still got them;)

i cannot convince you that gun ownership is right for me no more than you can convince me that it is wrong for everyone.

its a complex issue. no doubt about it.

but know this

if you reduced mankind to the lowest common denominator - would there be a 5 day waiting period and an FBI background check before anyone was allowed to acquire a stone suitable for throwing?

would hatchets and knives be as heavily regulated as guns?

there are several constant's with mankind that shall never be removed from any society... one of which is the desire of a few to murder, rape and rob the others.

sad but true

[onelifecrisis]

Shooting someone is no easier than stabbing them - for a morale person. Thats really what self defense training is about - mostly - to train a morale person to make a life saving decision quickly...

At the risk of being a last-word freak...

To my mind, the fact that such training is necessary for guns but not for knives kinda proves the point I was making.

Edit:
This whole thread I've been trying to remember a saying. It finally came to me.
"It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail."

[Growler]

You mean the part where you say "some choose to do more, some choose to do less"? I didn't realise that needed a reply, but if you like: those choosing to do "less" as you put it are not endangering others by their choices.

Don't mistake my usage of the word "less" for judgment; it is referring to quantity. In my experience, choosing to do less for their own security can absolutely increase the danger to others by creating exactly the type of environment that facilitates criminal behavior. For example, leaving exterior lights dark, or unkempt hedges against windows, can create areas of darkness that criminals exploit to gain access to a home.

Which brings us back to the responsibility issue. Don't break into my home and threaten my family, and my firearm won't hurt you. It's a simple matter of responsibility. I don't carry my gun on the streets, nor I do store it in a manner inconsistent with well-established standards of safety and responsibility. A properly-stored and locked firearm endangers no one.

I choose reasonable means to protect myself and my family. United States law provides, as an American citizen without a felony record, the right to own firearms. In accordance with that law, and the laws of the State of Maryland, I am the fully-trained, responsible owner of legally-obtained and legally maintained firearms. I lock the doors and windows of my home and my car. I minimize potential attractants that might call unwanted criminal attention to my home.

Believe me, I would much rather exist in an environment without a need to defend my family and my home from others with malicious intent; sadly, that world does not exist within my reach, and until that is different, I will react accordingly.

[onelifecrisis]

Having chewed on this for a while, I apologise for the sarcasm.

[Penguin]

I have never heard of a gun owner trying to force non gun owners to own a gun. :nope:

I'm not pro or anti-gun, because I think that's the wrong stance. I see guns as a tool, it would be foolish to say that I am pro-hammer or anti-screwdriver.
That being said, I cannot understand the arguments of the gun lobby to fight for the right to carry on private grounds where the owner of the land forbids it. What's the deal about it, don't like the attitude, don't go there or just leave the guns in the car.

Yes, but I didn't interpret it as a threat towards you. Just as a statement that there is no 100% safety, neither with guns nor without.
To add my 2c, I'm quite happy about our strict regulations regarding gun ownership here. We have very few people being killed by guns. On the other hand, I can understand that a country like the US can't be made gun free anymore. It's too deep in their culture and the country is already flooded with weapons so there is hardly a way to really reverse things.

Well it works in an Utopia where the police is always there to protect you, but this is not the case. Ever been in an ugly situation in Germany? If so, what was the response time?
I certainly don't want all idiots here to own a gun, but matter of fact is: many idiots own one. The latest statistics about illegal ownership in Germany are about 20%.

[GoldenRivet]

Having chewed on this for a while, I apologise for the sarcasm.

:up:

[Platapus]

That being said, I cannot understand the arguments of the gun lobby to fight for the right to carry on private grounds where the owner of the land forbids it. What's the deal about it, don't like the attitude, don't go there or just leave the guns in the car.





I not aware of any lobbying action that is focused on what you wrote. I have never heard of any gun organization that wants to insist on the right to carry on other people's private property when the property owner does not want it. Are you sure you are not confusing this with the issue on carrying on commercial property that is open to the public?

Even then, I have never heard of any gun organization lobbying for the right to carry on commercial property when the owner states that they don't want it.

Do you have a citation for this?

[Penguin]

I think I confused it a little, the discussion was not about carrying on the body but having with you in your vehicle on other people's private property. I've witnessed this discussion when I was in Alaka in 2006, I think it was the NRA who claimed it to be an unlawful restriction of gun ownership. Though the AKians elected the braniac women, I think it was a minor discussion and was not really an election-deciding issue. I'm checking out if I can find a flyer or other propaganda.
Here are the Ak gun laws:
http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/AKSL.pdf
As you can see, the only restriction regrading the ground are this:

It is unlawful to possess a firearm in a courthouse or courtroom, grounds of a day care center or parking lot immediately adjacent to these structures, or within a domestic violence or sexual assault shelter.

and that regarding rights of property owners:

The state, a municipality or a person may not adopt
or enforce a law, ordinance, policy or rule that prohibits an
individual from possessing a frearm while that individual is
within a motor vehicle or prohibiting an individual from stor-
ing a frearm that is locked in the individual’s motor vehicle
while the motor vehicle is otherwise legally parked in or on
state or municipal property or another person’s property.

As I know the private (federal) rights of the property owner superceed other rights, however I think it's not a sufficent reason to ban someone from your property solely for carrying a gun, but it's legal to ban a person for many other reasons you like, like having a ****ty tie ;)

[DarkFish]

The latest statistics about illegal ownership in Germany are about 20%.What does this 20% mean? 20% of all people have a gun (seems a bit much to me)? 20% of all guns are illegal? Something else?

If 20% of all guns are illegal, what is it compared with the total population of Germany? Compared to the criminal population of Germany? Both these numbers compared to the same statistics about the US?

Just this "20%" number without further information says exactly nothing.

[Schroeder]

What does this 20% mean? 20% of all people have a gun (seems a bit much to me)? 20% of all guns are illegal? Something else?

If 20% of all guns are illegal, what is it compared with the total population of Germany? Compared to the criminal population of Germany? Both these numbers compared to the same statistics about the US?

Just this "20%" number without further information says exactly nothing.
Was just about to ask the same. I don't believe that 20% of all Germans own guns. :hmm2:

[Penguin]

Ay caramba, sorry guys, I forgot to add a unit of measurement :oops:. The 20% refers to the number of all households, I think most guns stats measure this way.
I will break down the numbers for you tomorrow, as I have a busy Easter weekend and don't want write something quick without the appropriate links/referals.

Hope y'all enjoy your weekend, too at the sub-tropical temperatures we have here! :salute:

[Penguin]

The report where they mentioned the 20% estimation is not longer online, only the website of the report: http://www.ndr.de/fernsehen/sendungen/45_min/hintergrund/waffenbesitz100.html (sorry international folks: the links which I can provide are in german only)

But I can give you a breakdown of the numbers:
Germany has no central register of guns, ony the numbers of legal owners are somehow clear: it ranges mostly in the range of 3.5 - 4 million people. It is unclear how many of them live in the same household, so let's say that we are talking at least about 2-3 million households. The number of guns, these legal owners own are at least 7 million (the mimal estimate) - while most experts estimate about 10. The number of illegal guns is estimated by the police union (GdP) at about 20 million. Most other stats refer to this number. The pro-gun lobby talks about numbers up to 40 million (http://www.rp-online.de/panorama/deutschland/winnenden/Bis-zu-40-Millionen-illegale-Waffen-im-Umlauf_aid_684470.html). Lars Winkelsdorf, who wrote an anti-gun ownwership book, estimates the same 40 million (http://www.onejournal.de/item/politik/10/illegaler-waffenbesitz-deutschland-pr80712.html)

We have 40 million households in Germany, so these 20 million illegal guns of the conservative estimations, would be in 8 million households to reach the quota of 20% - note that in these numbers are also households of legal gun owners included who have illegal guns, but these numbers are marginal, as in most controls by the authorities, the most infractions they find are about the storage, not illegal ownership.