Girl accidentally kills firing range instructor

Status
Not open for further replies.
blah...
 
Last edited:
Steinhauer said:
absolutely. A lot more people were killed defending the 2nd amendment. You can't just deny everyone that right because someone was stupid with theirs.

Are you ok with your right to drive?
Click to expand...

The issue I have with that presentation is that many of the items that could be fatal usually is made with good intentions.

For example, we have cars. They're used to get us from point A to B faster. And contributes a large part to our well being - work, social functions, etc.

The same can be said for your silverware. It is not designed to kill or maim people, but could be used to.

Now, guns? It is a object that was designed with one primary goal. And that is to kill. You don't see people generally use guns to disable others. When they shoot at a person it's to kill them usually.

Again I return to my question. How many is too many. On one hand we have few self defense scenarios where things turned out good. On the other we have numerous of deaths that are considered unfortunate. Suicide for example, one every 40 seconds. And in the USA, suicide by a firearm rate = 53%. The next: Drug use.

Drug use. Well, we all know drugs that are underground is not designed with good intentions.

Do you see where I am coming from?
 
Jiro said:
the fact that a boy shot an intruder backs up my claim that it's ok to teach children firearms - entirely up to parents.

15-Year Old Boy Uses AR-15 to Defend Himself, Sister Against Home Invaders
Child shoots intruder during home break-in - WAFB 9 News Baton Rouge, Louisiana News, Weather, Sports
Teen fatally shoots suspect in home invasion in Fort Bend County | abc13.com

it's a fact that normal American family do teach their children in firearm safety, laws, danger and the consequences of using firearm on a person. you seem to think nobody is taught with that.


cheapass. how many kids were killed by their own parents? how many kids were killed by cars?
Click to expand...

As I said earlier, once a gun nut always a gun nut!

I have no problem with a kid who is 14 or 15 learning to shoot a gun. I do have a problem with a child learning to shoot a gun.

You can teach a child proper gun safety but chances are he won't be able to comprehend it all until he is much older.

The question should be how many kids died because their parents taught them to shoot guns when they were to young and had an accident and killed themselves or a sibling or friend. And what does your question even have to do with the topic? It's comparing apples to oranges.
 
Jiro said:
do you realize that only few states actually go out to grocery to buy meat? that "few" states are the one with major cities - disillusioned and disconnected from the reality. the saddest part? they throw away such wasteful amount of food. what a tragedy.

many states hunt to eat and make their own stuff... and many states defend themselves because 911 would take over 30 minutes to get to you.
Click to expand...

Now I've been in many of the states including Alaska and everyone of them had grocery stores and the people there actually went in and bought there meat there. Very very few people in the US hunt for their food. I'll bet the Beverly Hillbillies was your favorite show! You sound like your related to JED!
 
Steinhauer said:
The entire issue these progressive liberals are bringing up isn't about guns. It is about parental discretionary rights. Think about it ... as a parent, do you have the right to train your child in Tae Kwon Do, or any other form of physical self defense?

Do you have the right to train your child to hunt or fish?

What if, instead of a 9 year old accidentally shooting a gun range instructor, the accident was a drowning while on a boat that capsized while on a fishing trip?

Ban children from boats? Do you think that a child's parents should have the right to allow their children to ride dirt bikes, mini bikes? Have go-carts?

Do parents have the right to take their children to church and instruct them in biblical theological principles? even if the church speaks out against same sex marriage?

Progressive Liberals (enemies of freedom) will say .. absolutely not! For them, safety is more important than individual liberty - when in the end game, they will get neither. They want everything they like to be legal, and anything they do not like to be banned.
Click to expand...

Next time you have a thought, LET IT GO! All the things you have just mentioned have nothing to do with introducing a child to firearms that can kill themselves and others. I'm talking about a child, not a teenager. You have to use logical reasoning here and use something that makes sense, not boats tipping over, dirt bikes or taking a kid to church. None of these have anything to do with teaching a child to shoot something that can be used with deadly force. What we who think it's wrong to teach a CHILD to shoot a gun or a machine gun have that you seem to be missing is COMMON SENSE. But as I have said before and will have to continue repeating myself, ONCE A GUN NUT, ALWAYS A GUN NUT! As I said, next time you have a thought LET IT GO!
 
a l i v e said:
In other words you're fine with children getting maimed on the range so you can have your gun rights?
Click to expand...

Kids getting maimed on shooting ranges has nothing to do with gun rights . It has to do with using common sense and good judgment . No one was using this when his tragic accident happen . About 3 kids had drowned in pools this summer should there be a ban on pools too ? Why should responsible gun owners lose their rights b/c of people that do not know how to use their brain when it come to owning and using a gun? If we where to follow your logic there should be a ban on anything that can kill or maim people. If there is a ban on guns this will only increase the crime rate , people will looking on the black market for guns and drug lords own the black market.
 
seb said:
As I said earlier, once a gun nut always a gun nut!
Click to expand...
can you give me an accurate defintion of a "gun nut"?

seb said:
I have no problem with a kid who is 14 or 15 learning to shoot a gun. I do have a problem with a child learning to shoot a gun.

You can teach a child proper gun safety but chances are he won't be able to comprehend it all until he is much older.
Click to expand...
source please?

that is really new to me.

seb said:
The question should be how many kids died because their parents taught them to shoot guns when they were to young and had an accident and killed themselves or a sibling or friend. And what does your question even have to do with the topic? It's comparing apples to oranges.
Click to expand...
oh? then exactly what does "I don't even have to look that one up to know it's higher than those that were killed by someone breaking into their house. Not even close!" have to do with it?
 
seb said:
Now I've been in many of the states including Alaska and everyone of them had grocery stores and the people there actually went in and bought there meat there.
Click to expand...
sounds like you're one of those city slickers traveling around superficially because you found some slick deal from groupon and brag to people with your selfie shots next to some landmarks and bisons.

seb said:
Very very few people in the US hunt for their food. I'll bet the Beverly Hillbillies was your favorite show! You sound like your related to JED!
Click to expand...
that is strange... very strange.... how is it that you and I have come up with completely different observations? I live in NJ - right next to NYC where people are irrationally afraid of guns and I have many friends in several states in this region who do hunt for food and store them. buying meat at grocery and paying for it is a foreign concept to them. they gave me some deer meat and it's quite good. better than store-bought which is full of chewy fat.

where I vacation at.... a "supermarket" is pretty far and a local grocery doesn't sell meat. so I don't know exactly where you "vacationed" at but my money's on touristy places with A/C, internet, and 4-stars hotels.
 
a l i v e said:
The issue I have with that presentation is that many of the items that could be fatal usually is made with good intentions.

For example, we have cars. They're used to get us from point A to B faster. And contributes a large part to our well being - work, social functions, etc.

The same can be said for your silverware. It is not designed to kill or maim people, but could be used to.

Now, guns? It is a object that was designed with one primary goal. And that is to kill. You don't see people generally use guns to disable others. When they shoot at a person it's to kill them usually.

Again I return to my question. How many is too many. On one hand we have few self defense scenarios where things turned out good. On the other we have numerous of deaths that are considered unfortunate. Suicide for example, one every 40 seconds. And in the USA, suicide by a firearm rate = 53%. The next: Drug use.

Drug use. Well, we all know drugs that are underground is not designed with good intentions.

Do you see where I am coming from?
Click to expand...

To me, self defense, and a preservation of a culture, is a "good intention". It keeps the meddlesome folks with superiority and god -complexes at bay. Those who would "force" their socio-political views on an unsuspecting populace and use the power of Government to strip away their rights. Now - I am sure it would be much easier if the population were disarmed.
 
Steinhauer said:
To me, self defense, and a preservation of a culture, is a "good intention". It keeps the meddlesome folks with superiority and god -complexes at bay. Those who would "force" their socio-political views on an unsuspecting populace and use the power of Government to strip away their rights. Now - I am sure it would be much easier if the population were disarmed.
Click to expand...

Funny though, I trust them inner city impoverished people much more than the dangle-toothed lifetime NRA member cardholder up in the boonies who will do anything to defend their "God given rights". The inner city people don't give a f what you do as long as you mind your own business.
 
seb said:
Next time you have a thought, LET IT GO! All the things you have just mentioned have nothing to do with introducing a child to firearms that can kill themselves and others. I'm talking about a child, not a teenager. You have to use logical reasoning here and use something that makes sense, not boats tipping over, dirt bikes or taking a kid to church. None of these have anything to do with teaching a child to shoot something that can be used with deadly force. What we who think it's wrong to teach a CHILD to shoot a gun or a machine gun have that you seem to be missing is COMMON SENSE. But as I have said before and will have to continue repeating myself, ONCE A GUN NUT, ALWAYS A GUN NUT! As I said, next time you have a thought LET IT GO!
Click to expand...

Whoa man. I admire your passion but you can tone it down a little, buddy.
 
a l i v e said:
Funny though, I trust them inner city impoverished people much more than the dangle-toothed lifetime NRA member cardholder up in the boonies who will do anything to defend their "God given rights". The inner city people don't give a f what you do as long as you mind your own business.
Click to expand...
You don't stereotype people much, do you?

:laugh2:
 
I thought Chuck Norris had all his teeth...
 
seb said:
Next time you have a thought, LET IT GO! All the things you have just mentioned have nothing to do with introducing a child to firearms that can kill themselves and others. I'm talking about a child, not a teenager. You have to use logical reasoning here and use something that makes sense, not boats tipping over, dirt bikes or taking a kid to church. None of these have anything to do with teaching a child to shoot something that can be used with deadly force. What we who think it's wrong to teach a CHILD to shoot a gun or a machine gun have that you seem to be missing is COMMON SENSE. But as I have said before and will have to continue repeating myself, ONCE A GUN NUT, ALWAYS A GUN NUT! As I said, next time you have a thought LET IT GO!
Click to expand...

Once a progressive liberal, always a progressive liberal. So, tell me, what other inalienable rights do you disagree with?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top