Pro gun mom got shot by her 4 years old son

[TECSHARE]

It is very simple.  Some people should not be allowed to own or use guns.  Guns should be confiscated from those people as they are endangering themselves and others around them.  Yes, guns will be used to confiscate guns from them.  How in the world you got to the hypocrite part?  Do you even know what the word means?

How do you disarm a lunatic with a gun in a theater?  With other guns.  No sure what is your point?

If you change the laws, that 2nd amendment right will not apply to you if you don't meet new legal requirements.  So your guns would be confiscated from you.  If you resist, guns will be used to force you
to comply with the law.  If you confront police with fire, you'll be dead.  Just like today, if you try to fire at a cop, you'll be dead within minutes, hours or days.

Which part of my argument you don't understand?

Actually, its not simple at all. Your idea is simple. The reality of implementing it is not simple. Who shouldn't have guns? Who decides this? Based on what standards? Who enforces these standards? What is stopping them from abusing this system to strip gun rights from people who should rightfully be allowed to own guns? Your "simple" point is fraught with tons of holes, which is why most pro-gun people reject any form of gun control outright, because nothing is stopping the government from abusing that process until no one can be armed.

Like he already said before, in the USA, the constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any law counter to the constitution is not lawful, including your half baked gun control plans.

"How do you disarm a lunatic with a gun in a theater?  With other guns."

Absolutely. Now please tell me the magic powers that a costume and a badge grant people to do this better than any other law abiding citizen with a gun, and please don't tell me training, because most Police in the US are extremely poorly trained. In fact a lot of them are criminals themselves, which is exactly why citizens need to be armed so they are not so easily victimized by these thugs in costume operating under color of law. Even assuming they have your best interests at heart, they still get there in minutes when seconds count.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cops-civil-rights-prosecutions/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/weekinreview/09baker.html?

[af_newbie]

It is very simple.  Some people should not be allowed to own or use guns.  Guns should be confiscated from those people as they are endangering themselves and others around them.  Yes, guns will be used to confiscate guns from them.  How in the world you got to the hypocrite part?  Do you even know what the word means?

How do you disarm a lunatic with a gun in a theater?  With other guns.  No sure what is your point?

If you change the laws, that 2nd amendment right will not apply to you if you don't meet new legal requirements.  So your guns would be confiscated from you.  If you resist, guns will be used to force you
to comply with the law.  If you confront police with fire, you'll be dead.  Just like today, if you try to fire at a cop, you'll be dead within minutes, hours or days.

Which part of my argument you don't understand?

Actually, its not simple at all. Your idea is simple. The reality of implementing it is not simple. Who shouldn't have guns? Who decides this? Based on what standards? Who enforces these standards? What is stopping them from abusing this system to strip gun rights from people who should rightfully be allowed to own guns? Your "simple" point is fraught with tons of holes, which is why most pro-gun people reject any form of gun control outright, because nothing is stopping the government from abusing that process until no one can be armed.

Like he already said before, in the USA, the constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any law counter to the constitution is not lawful, including your half baked gun control plans.

"How do you disarm a lunatic with a gun in a theater?  With other guns."

Absolutely. Now please tell me the magic powers that a costume and a badge grant people to do this better than any other law abiding citizen with a gun, and please don't tell me training, because most Police in the US are extremely poorly trained. In fact a lot of them are criminals themselves, which is exactly why citizens need to be armed so they are not so easily victimized by these thugs in costume operating under color of law. Even assuming they have your best interests at heart, they still get there in minutes when seconds count.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cops-civil-rights-prosecutions/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/weekinreview/09baker.html?

Did I say to strip citizens from the right to own or carry arms?  I said to take away guns form people who give guns to 4 year olds and get shot in return (for example).  People like that are dangerous.  They should not be allowed to own guns, EVER.

US gun regulation (or lack of) is out of control.  So blame YOURSELF for blindly supporting 2nd amendment next time a kid takes a gun from their parents, shoots them dead, gets to a mall or school and kills 20-30 people.

Blindly supporting laws that allow insane people to own, have access to guns or to store them unsafely, is nuts and irresponsible, IMHO.

I understand it is not easy, NRA political grip is strong, any bills that attempt to restrict 2nd amendment will not have enough support to even be introduced.

I'm saying it should be a grass roots movement to correct the wrongs of this law.  Once enough people would agree that the changes are needed, politicians will go with it.

But rejecting any proposals to reform gun control laws, you'll be just counting bodies of innocent people who died because of your blind support of a really bad idea.

[TECSHARE]

Did I say to strip citizens from the right to own or carry arms?  I said to take away guns form people who give guns to 4 year olds and get shot in return (for example).  People like that are dangerous.  They should not be allowed to own guns, EVER.

US gun regulation (or lack of) is out of control.  So blame YOURSELF for blindly supporting 2nd amendment next time a kid takes a gun from their parents, shoots them dead, gets to a mall or school and kills 20-30 people.

Blindly supporting laws that allow insane people to own, have access to guns or to store them unsafely, is nuts and irresponsible, IMHO.

I understand it is not easy, NRA political grip is strong, any bills that attempt to restrict 2nd amendment will not have enough support to even be introduced.

I'm saying it should be a grass roots movement to correct the wrongs of this law.  Once enough people would agree that the changes are needed, politicians will go with it.

But rejecting any proposals to reform gun control laws, you'll be just counting bodies of innocent people who died because of your blind support of a really bad idea.

No, you didn't, but your "simple" ideas will easily lead to people being stripped of those rights. There are no laws that allowed her to do this,she did it because she is irresponsible. Laws won't make irresponsible people magically more responsible. In fact what she did is already illegal! The prosecutor just decided that she was the injured party, she had already suffered enough and decided not to prosecute which is at their discretion as prosecutors, it doesn't mean there isn't a law against it. Also its not just the NRA, THE PEOPLE largely do not want gun control. Mostly a minority of hysterical control freaks driven by media fear mongering are the ones pushing gun control, and 9 times out of 10 they have never even held a gun and know nothing about firearms to begin with to even make an informed decision about them. Gun control freaks ALWAYS appeal to emotion to sell their ideology. Debating gun control advocates is like debating moody teenage girls on their periods. Everything upsets them to tears, and their emotional trauma is obviously caused by guns, certainly not their own emotional instability!

[BADecker]

Did I say to strip citizens from the right to own or carry arms?  I said to take away guns form people who give guns to 4 year olds and get shot in return (for example).  People like that are dangerous.  They should not be allowed to own guns, EVER.

US gun regulation (or lack of) is out of control.  So blame YOURSELF for blindly supporting 2nd amendment next time a kid takes a gun from their parents, shoots them dead, gets to a mall or school and kills 20-30 people.

Blindly supporting laws that allow insane people to own, have access to guns or to store them unsafely, is nuts and irresponsible, IMHO.

I understand it is not easy, NRA political grip is strong, any bills that attempt to restrict 2nd amendment will not have enough support to even be introduced.

I'm saying it should be a grass roots movement to correct the wrongs of this law.  Once enough people would agree that the changes are needed, politicians will go with it.

But rejecting any proposals to reform gun control laws, you'll be just counting bodies of innocent people who died because of your blind support of a really bad idea.

No, you didn't, but your "simple" ideas will easily lead to people being stripped of those rights. There are no laws that allowed her to do this,she did it because she is irresponsible. Laws won't make irresponsible people magically more responsible. In fact what she did is already illegal! The prosecutor just decided that she was the injured party, she had already suffered enough and decided not to prosecute which is at their discretion as prosecutors, it doesn't mean there isn't a law against it. Also its not just the NRA, THE PEOPLE largely do not want gun control. Mostly a minority of hysterical control freaks driven by media fear mongering are the ones pushing gun control, and 9 times out of 10 they have never even held a gun and know nothing about firearms to begin with to even make an informed decision about them. Gun control freaks ALWAYS appeal to emotion to sell their ideology. Debating gun control advocates is like debating moody teenage girls on their periods. Everything upsets them to tears, and their emotional trauma is obviously caused by guns, certainly not their own emotional instability!

So enjoy your guns, masturbate to them for all I care, and watch TV for the next shooting :-)

Give this lady access to full auto AK47s while you are at it...She has the RIGHT to own them.

Sounds reasonable. Give her all the guns she wants. She learned her lesson. She will be a lot more careful. But you don't deserve any guns, because you haven't learned your lesson. People are free. Except you, you slave by personal design.

[coinzat]

this is just an accident that might happen even if there was no gun at home as the child might throw her with knife. so the problem is not with gun control, the problem is keeping weapons in a safe place away from children

[TheButterZone]

30 000 deaths every year by guns in the USA

Most of which are suicides (exercises of a human right) and self-defense (exercises of a human right), but go ahead, dance in the blood of the exceedingly rare victim of a kid-inflicted GSW to "justify" enabling more democide of disarmed & defenseless innocents.

[TECSHARE]

So enjoy your guns, masturbate to them for all I care, and watch TV for the next shooting :-)
Give this lady access to full auto AK47s while you are at it...She has the RIGHT to own them.

Good one. So I demolished your sad excuse for an argument, so my demand for freedom = masturbating to guns. Makes sense. Also you are showing your ignorance about firearms and the law in the US even more. Even in states where full auto AK-47's are legal for the general public (most states full auto is not legal for anyone but police and military), they still have to get special federal permits that include a more thorough background check, but why let facts get in the way of a good bias?

[Lethn]

This is what happens with any fucking gun control argument, yes, very often when confronted with facts the pro gun control side immediately resorts to this kind of crap, if that's all you have to back yourself up with af_newbie then no wonder your not getting anywhere. It's fucking tiresome seeing supposed adults who are allowed to vote resort to mocking the other side claiming they masturbate to guns when they don't get their way.

[mainpmf]

This is what happens with any fucking gun control argument, yes, very often when confronted with facts the pro gun control side immediately resorts to this kind of crap, if that's all you have to back yourself up with af_newbie then no wonder your not getting anywhere. It's fucking tiresome seeing supposed adults who are allowed to vote resort to mocking the other side claiming they masturbate to guns when they don't get their way.

Facts? Facts? You saw facts? All I saw is this dumb Tecshare using the worst examples ever and insulting others... Didn't see any fact anywhere.

[mainpmf]

Yeah and we're saying you can't...

Let's imagine one of your neighboor didn't obey a law. He should go to prison. You think the law is dumb. Your whole village gather and decide to protect your "community" from government. So what? You're going to fight the army?

Hey look more shifting goal posts! Sorry but the Army doesn't enforce domestic law here. Additionally we aren't talking about ignoring laws. I am talking about defending the law, people's lives, and freedoms from criminals within the government, not the entire fucking army, but you gun control freaks love to bring everything to its most extreme possible interpretation don't you?

I don't even know what you're talking about... You want to defend yourself with guns from representatives of the state while not ignoring the law? Please explain me how you might do so xD

No you didn't. You didn't gave any argument.
Please prove your claim "guns for everyone is better than no gun and makes the society safer".

Actually I did. You tried to state that the people could never resist the government by implying they have such superior weaponry we wouldn't have a chance. I refuted that argument by giving an example of a place where people still live in caves and only have small arms and still managed to hold back the most powerful military on earth. You keep moving those goalposts tho when you have to avoid the flaws in your own arguments. As far as your demand I prove "guns for everyone is better than no gun and makes the society safer", I never actually said that, so I am not going to waste my time. Try picking a statement I actually made instead of speaking for me then expecting me to defend your interpretation of my words.

Great. So we agree, a society without guns is safer. Thanks and good bye.

[valta4065]

...and even more shifting goal posts! We are arguing you are a hypocrite demanding the use of guns to disarm people. Your inability to have this contradiction enter your brain doesn't invalidate the argument.

No but the fact that you see a contradiction in the idea that representatives of the state on duty might be armed while the population in their daily routine might be unarmed, is a rather good example of how biased and limited your whole "reasoning" (if someone could even call reasoning the fact to insult people while giving neither facts nor stats and no logical argument) is.

[TECSHARE]

Yeah and we're saying you can't...

Let's imagine one of your neighboor didn't obey a law. He should go to prison. You think the law is dumb. Your whole village gather and decide to protect your "community" from government. So what? You're going to fight the army?

Hey look more shifting goal posts! Sorry but the Army doesn't enforce domestic law here. Additionally we aren't talking about ignoring laws. I am talking about defending the law, people's lives, and freedoms from criminals within the government, not the entire fucking army, but you gun control freaks love to bring everything to its most extreme possible interpretation don't you?

I don't even know what you're talking about... You want to defend yourself with guns from representatives of the state while not ignoring the law? Please explain me how you might do so xD

No you didn't. You didn't gave any argument.
Please prove your claim "guns for everyone is better than no gun and makes the society safer".

Actually I did. You tried to state that the people could never resist the government by implying they have such superior weaponry we wouldn't have a chance. I refuted that argument by giving an example of a place where people still live in caves and only have small arms and still managed to hold back the most powerful military on earth. You keep moving those goalposts tho when you have to avoid the flaws in your own arguments. As far as your demand I prove "guns for everyone is better than no gun and makes the society safer", I never actually said that, so I am not going to waste my time. Try picking a statement I actually made instead of speaking for me then expecting me to defend your interpretation of my words.

Great. So we agree, a society without guns is safer. Thanks and good bye.

Easy. Not all representatives of the state are operating within the law, meaning armed civilians could then legally take up arms agains't them. Is steam coming out of your ears trying to contemplate this yet?

So your reply to me pointing out I did not say something is to then make further statements on my behalf that I did not state? Stacking two strawman arguments together doesn't make logic. Sorry.

...and even more shifting goal posts! We are arguing you are a hypocrite demanding the use of guns to disarm people. Your inability to have this contradiction enter your brain doesn't invalidate the argument.

No but the fact that you see a contradiction in the idea that representatives of the state on duty might be armed while the population in their daily routine might be unarmed, is a rather good example of how biased and limited your whole "reasoning" (if someone could even call reasoning the fact to insult people while giving neither facts nor stats and no logical argument) is.

I feel like I am having a conversation with a parrot some times when talking with you. You repeat my own words back to me but never really seem to grasp the meaning of them. Hopefully this is just willful ignorance and not brain damage. Why is it you didn't include the entire quote from above? Oh thats right, you need to take statements out of context to try to even appear to have an argument. Here is the entire post:

Giving access to all citizens because of 2nd amendment is just too broad so you allow all people to own guns, people who should not be trusted with screwdrivers, never mind guns.

So you want some people to stop other people from having guns? How would they do it? By using guns?
...

You pass the laws.  If someone breaks guns laws, it is a matter for police and courts.

If the existing gun owners don't meet the new legal requirements, their guns would be confiscated by police and sold at auctions.  Proceeds can be used to pay off some of US 19T+ debt  

You are so focused on your own righteousness that you can't even see the nose on your face. His point is gun control MUST be enforced, you guessed it, by using guns. Armed police with guns will be required to enforce your anti-gun policy, but hey lets not let something minor like hypocrisy get in the way of a good antigun hysteria eh?

Laws are enforced using guns.  What is your point?  

You pass the laws, if you are on the wrong side, you face a long arm of the law.  Not sure what are you arguing?  You want to break the law?  Go rob a bank with your guns, see what happens.

I'm saying you should screen people and allow gun ownership to sane people who would store and use guns safely.  Not give guns to a 4 year old.  That family should be banned (forever) from owning guns.

Anything else is just irresponsible.

...and even more shifting goal posts! We are arguing you are a hypocrite demanding the use of guns to disarm people. Your inability to have this contradiction enter your brain doesn't invalidate the argument.

[valta4065]

I feel like I am having a conversation with a parrot some times when talking with you. You repeat my own words back to me but never really seem to grasp the meaning of them. Hopefully this is just willful ignorance and not brain damage. Why is it you didn't include the entire quote from above? Oh thats right, you need to take statements out of context to try to even appear to have an argument. Here is the entire post:

No, just that I don't want to polute this thread with too much of you

Sadly, it seems like you're like every parasite, you polute where you are :/

Anyway, once I ignore you it'll be a much more logical thread =D

[TECSHARE]

I feel like I am having a conversation with a parrot some times when talking with you. You repeat my own words back to me but never really seem to grasp the meaning of them. Hopefully this is just willful ignorance and not brain damage. Why is it you didn't include the entire quote from above? Oh thats right, you need to take statements out of context to try to even appear to have an argument. Here is the entire post:

No, just that I don't want to polute this thread with too much of you

Sadly, it seems like you're like every parasite, you polute where you are :/

Anyway, once I ignore you it'll be a much more logical thread =D

I look forward to not having to try to refute your mental gymnastics, logical fallacies, and insults. Also I am tired of you asking for crackers anyway. Have fun in the safety your birdcage. No one will challenge your ideologies there.

[yugo23]

I feel like I am having a conversation with a parrot some times when talking with you. You repeat my own words back to me but never really seem to grasp the meaning of them. Hopefully this is just willful ignorance and not brain damage. Why is it you didn't include the entire quote from above? Oh thats right, you need to take statements out of context to try to even appear to have an argument. Here is the entire post:

No, just that I don't want to polute this thread with too much of you

Sadly, it seems like you're like every parasite, you polute where you are :/

Anyway, once I ignore you it'll be a much more logical thread =D

I look forward to not having to try to refute your mental gymnastics, logical fallacies, and insults. Also I am tired of you asking for crackers anyway. Have fun in the safety your birdcage. No one will challenge your ideologies there.

Lol? You're the one talking about insults? xD
And you challenge nothing let's be honest. You just spit with contempt on facts and evidence.

[BADecker]

VICTORY: Police Settle Rutherford Institute Lawsuit Over Activist Held at Gun Point...

A settlement has been reached in a lawsuit filed by The Rutherford Institute on behalf of a man who was arrested as he was engaged in a First Amendment protest against President Obama while lawfully carrying a rifle. The settlement in Brandon Howard v. John Hunter resolved the lawsuit to the mutual satisfaction of the parties, which included claims that the police violated Howard’s First Amendment right to free speech, Second Amendment right to bear arms, and Fourth Amendment right to be free from a groundless arrest when they confronted him with guns drawn and ordered him to the ground on the unfounded belief that Howard was violating the law by being in public with a rifle slung over his shoulder. Soon after the incident, the City of Hopewell Police Department admitted in writing that the incident involved a violation of department policy. The settlement included an apology by the defendant police officer acknowledging respect for citizens’ First and Second Amendment rights and stating “[it] was not my intention to compromise Mr. Howard’s rights under the Constitution.”

The Rutherford Institute’s complaint in Brandon Howard v. John Hunter is available at www.rutherford.org.

“As this case shows, if you feel like you can’t walk away from a police encounter of your own volition—and more often than not you can’t, especially when you’re being confronted by someone armed to the hilt with all manner of militarized weaponry and gear—then for all intents and purposes, you’re under arrest from the moment a cop stops you,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “Certainly, if you’ve been placed in handcuffs and transported to a police station against your will, that constitutes an arrest.”

Read more at http://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/victory_police_settle_rutherford_institute_lawsuit_over_activist_held_at_gu.

[mainpmf]

Yeah and we're saying you can't...

Let's imagine one of your neighboor didn't obey a law. He should go to prison. You think the law is dumb. Your whole village gather and decide to protect your "community" from government. So what? You're going to fight the army?

Hey look more shifting goal posts! Sorry but the Army doesn't enforce domestic law here. Additionally we aren't talking about ignoring laws. I am talking about defending the law, people's lives, and freedoms from criminals within the government, not the entire fucking army, but you gun control freaks love to bring everything to its most extreme possible interpretation don't you?

I don't even know what you're talking about... You want to defend yourself with guns from representatives of the state while not ignoring the law? Please explain me how you might do so xD

No you didn't. You didn't gave any argument.
Please prove your claim "guns for everyone is better than no gun and makes the society safer".

Actually I did. You tried to state that the people could never resist the government by implying they have such superior weaponry we wouldn't have a chance. I refuted that argument by giving an example of a place where people still live in caves and only have small arms and still managed to hold back the most powerful military on earth. You keep moving those goalposts tho when you have to avoid the flaws in your own arguments. As far as your demand I prove "guns for everyone is better than no gun and makes the society safer", I never actually said that, so I am not going to waste my time. Try picking a statement I actually made instead of speaking for me then expecting me to defend your interpretation of my words.

Great. So we agree, a society without guns is safer. Thanks and good bye.

Easy. Not all representatives of the state are operating within the law, meaning armed civilians could then legally take up arms agains't them. Is steam coming out of your ears trying to contemplate this yet?

Lol xD
Ok please describe me a situation were state representatives aren't obeying the law and where it's safer for people to try to stop them themselves with guns than calling the police. I would like to read a situation like that xD

So your reply to me pointing out I did not say something is to then make further statements on my behalf that I did not state? Stacking two strawman arguments together doesn't make logic. Sorry.

As you refused the statement "guns freedom makes the country safer" it means you support the statement "no gun freedom makes the country safer". Like it or not, even if you're not really able to think more than one argument at a time, you don't have a "middle choice". It's a yes or no question and position, the only other possible statement would be "both situation are equally safe" but that would be so ridiculous I wouldn't even bother answering you ever again.

[TECSHARE]

Sorry, but I have zero obligation to defend statements I never made. You don't get to speak for me then demand I defend your interpretation of my words.

[mainpmf]

Sorry, but I have zero obligation to defend statements I never made. You don't get to speak for me then demand I defend your interpretation of my words.

Sorry to be logical.

You're saying that you refuse the statement "guns make society safer". That means you support the statement "guns make society less safe". It's a closed question, only two answer possible, if you refuse one that means you accept the other.

[JavaLove]

I'm just quickly skimming through the replies here and see countless posts about "laws" and who should have a gun and more and more and more.

The facts are that a 4 year old doesn't know what the hell he's doing. If anything this should emphasize gun legalization because we should be teaching kids properly how to use a gun so they don't do anything inappropriate with them. Give them the proper education and they'll learn but it has to be at a young age.

Guns should be totally legal without the government telling me what I can and cannot use. I hate the argument that guns will make everyone less safe. That's wrong. It'll make us more safe. We'll be able to defend ourselves against radicals who are either mentally ill or something else.

It may take the police 15 - 20 minutes just to show up at a door. If someone, who was armed, broke in at the middle of night and tried to hurt someone, just having your arms is not enough.

Guns will make our society safer and better. We need to stop focusing on the petty problems like marijuana and start looking at real issues facing society.