2nd amendment in action: 4 yr old dies after he hides behind paper target

CptStern

CptStern

suckmonkey
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
10,303
Reaction score
62
A 4-year-old boy may have been hiding when he was killed in a weekend target shooting accident at Lake Vermilion, a relative said Monday.

The group was engaged in target practice when a 40-year-old friend of the family shot a 45-caliber handgun at a paper target about 30 feet away.

Unknown to the group, Evan, wearing camouflage pants, had slipped behind the target and was fatally wounded.

source


whatever happened to wholesome family trips to the zoo?
 
not the kind of place any normal or sane person would take a 4 year old child. jeez does the madness never stop. even Devvo would be appalled :p
 
Devvo said:
Guns kills people. End of story.
Click to expand...

guns are made to kill people. Their purpose is to take life/protect citizens when used properly. End of Story.
 
15357 said:
guns are made to kill people. Their purpose is to take life/protect citizens when used properly. End of Story.
Click to expand...
Yet, if guns were banned this 4 year old would've lived.
 
The_Monkey said:
Yet, if guns were banned this 4 year old would've lived.
Click to expand...
That is flawed logic, and i am not saying that for being pro gun.
You should never say "if something was something this wouldn't have happened.

I mean lets say guns were banned, mabye the kid would have hid behind a lorry when it was reversing.
"oh if hitler would have died in ww1 with the rest of his fire squad there would have been no ww2"
..............yeah but then something else might have happened like russians invented nukes and decided to nuke america?

Now as far as the incident goes, you have to be stupid not to check targets first, they should have been aware that the kid was not behind the firing area before firing.
The same would go for making sure a child is belted in a car seat.
 
The_Monkey said:
Yet, if guns were banned this 4 year old would've lived.
Click to expand...
Yet if they weren't all drunk and noticed little Timmy was missing this would have never happened.
 
excuses excuses, the fact is he died.. pro gun or anti gun, there will always be more random killings when weapons are available to people, because its always possible to abuse something so deadly but it is much easier to cause damage with projectile weapons making them the most targeted accusation. Just seems like paranoia to me, 'oh noes a robber could have guns,, so I needs guns aswell to shoots him before he shoots me. im fookin safe now!' but lets face it, the damage has been done, and gun crime has established itself as a much larger operating force in the US because of the abuse of the laws.
 
How many times are we going to repeat the same argument?
 
clarky003 said:
excuses excuses, the fact is he died.. pro gun or anti gun, there will always be more random killings when weapons are available to people, because its always possible to abuse something so deadly but it is much easier to cause damage with projectile weapons making them the most targeted accusation. Just seems like paranoia to me, oh noes a robber could have guns,, so I needs a guns aswell to shoots him before he shoots me. im fookin safe now!
Click to expand...
Why are you blaming the guns? Why not careless people? Careless people will always find a way to die.
 
i think this should be more a matter of bad parenting than gun control why in hell would you take your eyes off your kids when shooting a gun i remember going shooting with my dad and he would never let us shoot unless everyone was behind the shooter and it sounds to me like there lying i mean if all the kids were "all together" and "way back" no one would of been hit
 
short recoil said:
That is flawed logic, and i am not saying that for being pro gun.
You should never say "if something was something this wouldn't have happened.

I mean lets say guns were banned, mabye the kid would have hid behind a lorry when it was reversing.
"oh if hitler would have died in ww1 with the rest of his fire squad there would have been no ww2"
..............yeah but then something else might have happened like russians invented nukes and decided to nuke america?

Now as far as the incident goes, you have to be stupid not to check targets first, they should have been aware that the kid was not behind the firing area before firing.
The same would go for making sure a child is belted in a car seat.
Click to expand...
I see where you're going with that, but it's also flawed logic. You're absolutely right that the kid COULD have been run over by a bus, but that possibility is immaterial. That's not what's under debate. When a smoker dies of lung cancer, one doesn't say "Well, he could've been run over by a bus tomorrow." You attribute the death to the cause and address it accordingly, don't you?

In any case, I think more than this being a case of people having the freedom to own guns, it seems more a case of people having the freedom to have children.
Far be it from me to criticise others' parenting methods, but these people are clearly dreadful parents and intensely stupid people.

Feath said:
How many times are we going to repeat the same argument?
Click to expand...
Well I dunno about you, but I'm not QUITE blue in the face yet...
 
Feath said:
How many times are we going to repeat the same argument?
Click to expand...
hehe, it's always the same.
Cptstern posts a news story about a gun incident, someone says something either pro or anti gun why it shouldn't of happened or why such a thing isn't a guns fault e.t.c and it all kicks off.

usually ends up at a complete stalemate as usual.
 
Foxtrot said:
Why are you blaming the guns? Why not careless people? Careless people will always find a way to die.
Click to expand...

its the guns and the people, not just the people, the two go hand in hand, its just that guns obviously make it more easily accessible to do more damage, if you make it harder for these people, rather than taking on the near impossible task of rounding them all up in insane asylums then most likely it will be more difficult for the individual to cause harm to others or himself so easily.
 
clarky003 said:
its the guns and the people, not just the people, the two go hand in hand, its just that guns obviously make it more easily accessible to do more damage, if you make it harder for these people, rather than taking on the near impossible task of rounding them all up in insane asylums then most likely it will be more difficult for the individual to cause harm to others or himself so easily.
Click to expand...
Always taking the easy way out...incidents like this are so rare though, laws should not be made around them.
 
What exactly is the second ammendment?

Bad supervision is to blame for the terrible accident, not guns. People can use guns and enjoy guns in a safe and wholesome environment, as long as they're all responsible and look out for each other.
 
clarky003 said:
its the guns and the people, not just the people, the two go hand in hand, its just that guns obviously make it more easily accessible to do more damage, if you make it harder for these people, rather than taking on the near impossible task of rounding them all up in insane asylums then most likely it will be more difficult for the individual to cause harm to others or himself so easily.
Click to expand...
It's a fair point that you will never stop potential killers, someone who seems completely sane and "good" the next day can be a brutal killer, you just cannot predict human behavoir sometimes, take that 18 year old that killed people with the .22 the other day, no indication that was going to happen.

As for saying guns and people go hand in hand for killing, i would say it was more the people, i wish extreme anti gun people would stop trying to make everyone seem innocent, like guns infect you with evilness or something.
It is more people than guns by far, a gun will not kill on it's own, it's not a danger like a virus is, it takes a user of the tool to do so.

Now this is where the problem comes, whats to say we shouldn't all be given drugs to damp down our aggressive and anti social tendancies?
That would definetley lower aggressive crime/murders.
Sometimes i think they just try too hard against guns even when there are much worse things killing people.
 
Razor said:
What exactly is the second ammendment?

Bad supervision is to blame for the terrible accident, not guns. People can use guns and enjoy guns in a safe and wholesome environment, as long as they're all responsible and look out for each other.
Click to expand...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

There you go.
 
Banning guns would have stopped this but there aren't many countries that have outright banned guns. Heck this easily could have happened in Canada too.
 
i'm anti-gun, but this accident doesn't proof anything, but the carelessness of a parent, don't make it into something it's not
 
They should have a test for gun ownership: anyone who isn't clever enough to move their right leg in clockwise circles while drawing a number 6 shouldn't be allowed to buy a firearm.

Personally I don't see why they can't add a new amendment which does away with the right to bear arms, a well regulated militia is enough to protect the country in this day and age. Trouble is, pandora's box is already open and those gun-toting types are voters...
 
jonbob said:
They should have a test for gun ownership: anyone who isn't clever enough to move their right leg in clockwise circles while drawing a number 6 shouldn't be allowed to buy a firearm.
...
Click to expand...
that test has nothing to do with cleverness (or whatever)
 
Banning guns would have caused this to not have happened.
What are we going to do about all the four year olds killed in car wrecks? Should we ban cars, because if we look for the facts im sure more four year olds are killed by cars.

What im saying is....
the fact of the matter is its a sad tragedy this four year old died and accidents kill children all the time but its just not practical to ban everything that causes accidents.
 
willyd said:
Banning guns would have caused this to not have happened.
What are we going to do about all the four year olds killed in car wrecks? Should we ban cars, because if we look for the facts im sure more four year olds are killed by cars.

What im saying is....
the fact of the matter is its a sad tragedy this four year old died and accidents kill children all the time but its just not practical to ban everything that causes accidents.
Click to expand...
as said before, BAN DUMB PARENTS
 
The Mullinator said:
Banning guns would have stopped this but there aren't many countries that have outright banned guns. Heck this easily could have happened in Canada too.
Click to expand...


not so sure of the current laws but I dont think you're allowed to fire off a handgun unless it's at a gun range ...I could be wrong.

Anyways it's far more likely to happen in the US than anywhere else ...the sheer number of guns in circulation pretty much gaurantees this will continue to happen. No precautions are ever enough ...accidents are called "accidents" for a reason



"A new study from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) finds that in states and regions with higher levels of household firearm ownership, many more children are dying from homicide, suicide and gun accidents.

"In states with more guns, more children are dying. They are dying in suicides, in homicides, and in gun accidents. This finding is completely contrary to the notion that guns are protecting our children,


In the 10-year period, 253 children died from firearm accidents in the high gun states, compared to 15 in the low gun states. While the numbers of non-gun suicides were similar, 153 children killed themselves with guns in the five high gun states, compared to 22 who committed suicide in the five low gun states. "


the facts speak for themselves banning guns WOULD have prevented this
 
hey Stern check your PM

US is going in other direction about gun ban, i'm takling about that new Florida gun law
 
drunken guy drives kid over with his pick-up



ban alcohol and pick-ups??

It aint that easy stern
 
shadow6899 said:
And of course areas that are more populated are gunna have more deaths, that's just obvious.
Click to expand...
i wounder what's the murder rate ratio of China to US
 
CptStern said:
not so sure of the current laws but I dont think you're allowed to fire off a handgun unless it's at a gun range ...I could be wrong.

Anyways it's far more likely to happen in the US than anywhere else ...the sheer number of guns in circulation pretty much gaurantees this will continue to happen. No precautions are ever enough ...accidents are called "accidents" for a reason



"A new study from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) finds that in states and regions with higher levels of household firearm ownership, many more children are dying from homicide, suicide and gun accidents.

"In states with more guns, more children are dying. They are dying in suicides, in homicides, and in gun accidents. This finding is completely contrary to the notion that guns are protecting our children,


In the 10-year period, 253 children died from firearm accidents in the high gun states, compared to 15 in the low gun states. While the numbers of non-gun suicides were similar, 153 children killed themselves with guns in the five high gun states, compared to 22 who committed suicide in the five low gun states. "


the facts speak for themselves banning guns WOULD have prevented this
Click to expand...
In Canada you can get a hunting permit (aboriginal or not) which will allow you to buy and use firearms. I think its a written test and once you have the permit there are of course a lot of restrictions applied though.

Of course the chances of this happening are definitaly higher in the US than any other Western nation. Its just not limited too them.
 
Being an Englishman, i have no problem with American's having the right to bear arms, basing their rights on a 200year old law is utterly stupid though.
 
shadow6899 said:
^ i agree, but i still believe we should all have the right to bear arms, cuz when we dont is when the gov't has the option to opress the peoples.
Click to expand...
good luck defending yourself with a 9mm against a rocket fire (gov. vs. shadow6899)
 
iyfyoufhl said:
what do you mean?
Click to expand...


He means that he would rather have the freedom to fight for his rights then be someones slave.
 
If you or someone else cannot defend your rights then you may as well not have them.
It's all well and good saying i have the right of freedom, but if the government wanted they could just lock me up...i wouldn't stand a chance.

It's the way of life, you cannot change it without changing the laws of physics.
 
Razor said:
He means that he would rather have the freedom to fight for his rights then be someones slave.
Click to expand...
oh, well, wouldn't be a lot of fighting, maybe back in the day when solders and farmers had the same riflies, but no way you can even consider defending yourself agaist yourown gov. nowadays, too much anti-USGov. talk and they'll send you to Guantanomo Bay
 
short recoil said:
If you or someone else cannot defend your rights then you may as well not have them.
.
Click to expand...
i'm telling you right now, you can not defent yourself agaist US gov. as of right now. Do you still feel free?
 
iyfyoufhl said:
oh, well, wouldn't be a lot of fighting, maybe back in the day when solders and farmers had the same riflies, but no way you can even consider defending yourself agaist yourown gov. nowadays, too much anti-USGov. talk and they'll send you to Guantanomo Bay
Click to expand...
It's exactly what you don't want.......

Soviets and nazis loved those kinda powers.

I have said it quite a few times, seperation of state and people is a BAD idea.
Guns are power, if you have guns it makes you closer to the government.
Now i would accept banning of guns, if the government and army banned guns for itself as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top