NationStates Jolt Archive

"Police say a 4-year-old boy in southern Ohio shot his babysitter because the sitter accidentally stepped on his foot. Police said 18-year-old Nathan Beavers and several other teenagers were babysitting several young children in a mobile home in Jackson on Sunday when the shooting occurred."


http://cbs5.com/national/shooting.babysitter.ohio.2.900762.html


Hey it was self-defense, no?

well isnt that a crying shame.

Witnesses told police the 4-year-old retrieved the shotgun from a bedroom closet and shot Beavers.

Why, aren't people allowed to shoot beavers and other wild animals? ;)


Hey it was self-defense, no?
YEA! Don't let ourselves be trampled upon in OUR OWN HOMES!

I suppose the guy will probably look where he's walking next time.

It was in a trailer court, I blame the parents.

The kid was just exercising his constitutional right as an American to possess and use a gun without the intelligence and common sense to ensure that he did so responsibly. Why do you hate freedom?

The kid was just exercising his constitutional right as an American to possess and use a gun without the intelligence and common sense to ensure that he did so responsibly. Why do you hate freedom?

Because I'm a commie!:tongue:

When did Fisher Price start making shotguns? :tongue:

It saddens me that the weapon was not properly stored in the first place. The weapon should be locked away, unloaded in a cabinet.

Two threads. Two children. Two guns. Two stories.

N.
S.
G.

Seriously, this is the second story we've had on a child shooting someone today. :confused:

And yes, this is a shame. Why wasn't the gun kept locked up and out of the reach of a 4-year old?!?

When did Fisher Price start making shotguns? :tongue:

Oh, ages ago. They supply the French army with both its guns.

When did Fisher Price start making shotguns? :tongue:

Dunno, but they do make CATAPULTS and CANNONS.

http://www.fisher-price.com/it/imaginext/product.asp?id=15653

It saddens me that the weapon was not properly stored in the first place. The weapon should be locked away, unloaded in a cabinet.

The weapon shouldn't be there at all.

Real men do not need guns to show off or to protect themselves.

The kid was just exercising his constitutional right as an American to possess and use a gun without the intelligence and common sense to ensure that he did so responsibly. Why do you hate freedom?

This is the 4th time I have put you in my sig DI...

More than the weapon, I do wonder what will happen to the perpetrator. Probably nothing much I would wager, and the usual "too young to understand" arguments will be translated into a near free pass.

More than the weapon, I do wonder what will happen to the perpetrator. Probably nothing much I would wager, and the usual "too young to understand" arguments will be translated into a near free pass.

I wouldn't be surprised that the babysitter would receive a punishment.

I wouldn't be surprised that the babysitter would receive a punishment.

It was clearly assault!:tongue:

More than the weapon, I do wonder what will happen to the perpetrator. Probably nothing much I would wager, and the usual "too young to understand" arguments will be translated into a near free pass.

The parents should have the child taken from them though; but it is Ohio.. practically a different plane of existence.

More than the weapon, I do wonder what will happen to the perpetrator. Probably nothing much I would wager, and the usual "too young to understand" arguments will be translated into a near free pass.

Yeah, instead he should be locked away for life. [/sarcasm]

This is the 4th time I have put you in my sig DI...

Good, good. Of course, no-one is allowed to reproduce my intellectual property without a small fee. Which means you are now legally obliged to give me your bank account details. But don't worry, I'm a commie, so your wealth will be distributed equally...between me and my twelve other personalities. Toodles.

The weapon shouldn't be there at all.

Real men do not need guns to show off or to protect themselves.

If you're in a trailer park, chances are you don't really have anything that warrants a gun to protect. The gun ITSELF is probably the only thing worth stealing.

Good, good. Of course, no-one is allowed to reproduce my intellectual property without a small fee. Which means you are now legally obliged to give me your bank account details. But don't worry, I'm a commie, so your wealth will be distributed equally...between me and my twelve other personalities.

If there is one thing I have learned from the internet, its that I can steal whatever I want!

Should we pull the toddler's gun license, or just have him take a firearms safety course?

If there is one thing I have learned from the internet, its that I can steal whatever I want!

But I want my monies :(

But I want my monies :(

So do the record companies :)

If you're in a trailer park, chances are you don't really have anything that warrants a gun to protect. The gun ITSELF is probably the only thing worth stealing.

There's something patently ironic about that.

Of course, no-one is allowed to reproduce my intellectual property without a small fee.

You don't have intellectual property.

You don't have intellectual property.

Now that's just mean.

So do the record companies :)

But thats different. Sound doesn't really exist, so there you stole nothing. Have you ever actually seen any sound? Exactly. If you start believing in things you can't see, soon you'll start worshiping an invisible all-powerful dude in the sky. And thats just silly.

But thats different. Sound doesn't really exist, so there you stole nothing. Have you ever actually seen any sound? Exactly. If you start believing in things you can't see, soon you'll start worshiping an invisible all-powerful dude in the sky. And thats just silly.

What a concept... I bet we could get half the world to get in on that, we can make billions!

Anyhow, I need to go to bed...

If you're in a trailer park, chances are you don't really have anything that warrants a gun to protect. The gun ITSELF is probably the only thing worth stealing.


That's why trailer park people have AK47 toys. To protect their other guns.

What a concept... I bet we could get half the world to get in on that, we can make billions!

Anyhow, I need to go to bed...

Nighty-night, Your plan is intriguing. I do think we can sell that. In an amusing nod to the money making purpose of this new belief system, why don't we call the human representatives of the invisible man in the sky 'profits'? No, thats too obvious. Better spell it slightly differently. I'll work on that.

But thats different. Sound doesn't really exist, so there you stole nothing. Have you ever actually seen any sound? Exactly. If you start believing in things you can't see, soon you'll start worshiping an invisible all-powerful dude in the sky. And thats just silly.


Scientists Say We Can See Sound:
http://www.livescience.com/health/080818-seeing-sound.html

Sound Waves:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9GBf8y0lY0&eurl=http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=seeing+sound&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&&feature=player_embedded

If guns are outlawed, only 5-year olds will have guns.

If guns are outlawed, only 5-year olds will have guns.

Currently they are not outlawed, so the other children can play with guns.

Scientists Say We Can See Sound:
http://www.livescience.com/health/080818-seeing-sound.html

Sound Waves:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9GBf8y0lY0&eurl=http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=seeing+sound&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&&feature=player_embedded

Right. I'm going to trust what scientists say, now? Yes, of course, over my own ad-hoc simpleton musings I'll accept the reliable word of a bunch of Jewish freemason lizardmen whose entire purpose of being is to infiltrate the universities and take over the bodies of our future elite :rolleyes:

Real men do not need guns to show off or to protect themselves.I own a firearm and do neither of those things with it.

I am an avid hunter and long-range target shooting fan, does this somehow make me less of a human than others?

I own a firearm and do neither of those things with it.

I am an avid hunter and long-range target shooting fan, does this somehow make me less of a human than others?

Yes, it does make you less of a human. In fact, it makes you a moose. Now shoo and go hunt yourself.

I own a firearm and do neither of those things with it.

I am an avid hunter and long-range target shooting fan, does this somehow make me less of a human than others?

Of course it does! You obviously are an evil righty who likes to give little children guns on purpose. Then you laugh with glee whenever you see one of these stories on the news! :mad:

Yes, it does make you less of a human. In fact, it makes you a moose. Now shoo and go hunt yourself.I don't hunt moose. Too far south to see them.

Of course it does! You obviously are an evil righty who likes to give little children guns with which they can shoot other people! :mad:Is it really that obvious?

I own a firearm and do neither of those things with it.

I am an avid hunter and long-range target shooting fan, does this somehow make me less of a human than others?

Yes. Other people buy their steaks in a supermarket or something.
Hunting was cool in the cavemen times.

Despite, hard drugs can be fun too. And some people can use hard drugs in a responsible way. But still, drugs are outlawed.

It’s not because you can use a gun wisely that we should allow it. There are too many people around who are not. So to protect them (and YOU!), guns should be outlawed.

Yes. Other people buy their steaks in a supermarket or something.
Hunting was cool in the cavemen times.

Despite, hard drugs can be fun too. And some people can use hard drugs in a responsible way. But still, drugs are outlawed.

It’s not because you can use a gun wisely that we should allow it. There are too many people around who are not. So to protect them (and YOU!), guns should be outlawed.

Ah, yes, I believe a quote is in order.
Thing that got me was not her list of things she hated, since she was obviously crazy as a Cyborg, but fact that always somebody agreed with her prohibitions. Must be a yearning deep in human heart to stop other people from doing as they please. Rules, laws— always for other fellow. A murky part of us, something we had before we came down out of trees, and failed to shuck when we stood up. Because not one of those people said: "Please pass this so that I won't be able to do something I know I should stop." Nyet, tovarishchee, was always something they hated to see neighbors doing. Stop them "for their own good"—not because speaker claimed to be harmed by it.

Two threads. Two children. Two guns. Two stories.

N.
S.
G.

Seriously, this is the second story we've had on a child shooting someone today. :confused:

And yes, this is a shame. Why wasn't the gun kept locked up and out of the reach of a 4-year old?!?

honestly, when you let a kid shoot beavers with a shotgun, how does any of this come to a suprise?

I say its just the universes way of taking care of the stupid.

It’s not because you can use a gun wisely that we should allow it. There are too many people around who are not. So to protect them (and YOU!), guns should be outlawed.Do you have a source that says a statistical majority of firearm handlers are irresponsible with their firearms, or are you just throwing it out here?

Do you have a source that says a statistical majority of firearm handlers are irresponsible with their firearms, or are you just throwing it out here?

I don't have to. There are enough school shootings, 'killing' children, gun accidents, family dramas and easy suicides in the news almost every day.

That should ring a bell.

Maybe there's a majority around that is using hard drugs in a responsible manner but a significant share isn't.

I don't have to. There are enough school shootings, 'killing' children, gun accidents, family dramas and easy suicides in the news almost every day.Collective punishment is okay as long as there are numerous stories about bad things happening that has to do with, then?

I suppose you're in favor of banning cars, too?

I don't have to. There are enough school shootings, 'killing' children, gun accidents, family dramas and easy suicides in the news almost every day.

That should ring a bell.

Maybe there's a majority around that is using hard drugs in a responsible manner but a significant share isn't.

You know what else I hear about in the news a lot? Car crashes. They happen so incredibly often... I've got it! Ban cars! Cars are a danger to everyone! Although the vast majority of people use cars responsibly, the many must all be punished for the sins of the few! And it's reported in the news a lot, so you know it's the truth, with no editorial spin or bias!

It was in a trailer court

Trailer court? What happened? Did China repossess the courthouse for non payment of debts or something?

Collective punishment is okay as long as there are numerous stories about bad things happening that has to do with, then?

I suppose you're in favor of banning cars, too?

So outlawing hard drugs is also a collective punishment?

No, why should I ban cars?

Most cars do not fire bullets. It's very rare that 4 year old boys kill babysitters with their cars. And I never heard of massive school slaughters with cars.

And...with a car, YOU can still hunt. You just drive around in the forest and when you see your animal, just accelerate.

Should we pull the toddler's gun license, or just have him take a firearms safety course?
I say check his strength. handling the recoil of a shotgun?!? :eek2:

Yes, it does make you less of a human. In fact, it makes you a moose. Now shoo and go hunt yourself. just stay away from Alaska! :eek:

Two threads. Two children. Two guns. Two stories.

N.
S.
G.

Seriously, this is the second story we've had on a child shooting someone today. :confused:

And yes, this is a shame. Why wasn't the gun kept locked up and out of the reach of a 4-year old?!?because the parents are idiots? and I hope the Teen's parents sue them for keeping a loaded shotgun in the closet.

I say its just the universes way of taking care of the stupid.

Who, the guy who babysat a 4-year old?

I say its just the universes way of taking care of the stupid.

if it was, then it would be the parents who would've been shot.

So outlawing hard drugs is also a collective punishment?What are you on about? Have I said something about drugs in my post?

No, why should I ban cars? People die in car crashes, and it's on the news. Which is exactly what you're using to justify banning firearms.

And yes, this is a shame. Why wasn't the gun kept locked up and out of the reach of a 4-year old?!?
Why should they have kept it out of the reach of a 4 year old? Is there a law mandating that?

btw. The kid should've shot the parents as well for hiring such an incompetent babysitter.

What are you on about? Have I said something about drugs in my post?



People die in car crashes, and it's on the news. Which is exactly what you're using to justify banning firearms.


How many 4 year old boy can drive a car and kill their babysitter with it?
How many massive school slaughters with cars happened last decade?

Why should they have kept it out of the reach of a 4 year old? Is there a law mandating that?

btw. The kid should've shot the parents as well for hiring such an incompetent babysitter.


I agree. All babysitter should inspect all rooms, cupboards, boxes and stuff to check for guns.

Every US babysitter should know that it's a standard procedure.

I agree. All babysitter should inspect all rooms, cupboards, boxes and stuff to check for guns.

Every US babysitter should know that it's a standard procedure.
Indeed, US babysitter's rule number 1: Secure the firearms. :)

So outlawing hard drugs is also a collective punishment?

Depending on which hard drugs you're talking about.
No, why should I ban cars?
BECAUSE THEY ARE DANGEROUS AND EBILZ LIKE GUNZ! OH NOEZ! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_bomb)
Most cars do not fire bullets. It's very rare that 4 year old boys kill babysitters with their cars. And I never heard of massive school slaughters with cars.
Well now you have. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/28/suicide-car-bomb-attack-afghanistan)

And...with a car, YOU can still hunt. You just drive around in the forest and when you see your animal, just accelerate.
That very well may be the dumbest thing I've heard today.

Why should they have kept it out of the reach of a 4 year old? Is there a law mandating that?


No, but it's common sense to keep guns out of the hands of unsupervised toddlers.

Two threads. Two children. Two guns. Two stories.

N.
S.
G.

Seriously, this is the second story we've had on a child shooting someone today. :confused:

And yes, this is a shame. Why wasn't the gun kept locked up and out of the reach of a 4-year old?!?


No, the real question is why the Parents let that four year old out of the laundry room when people are over.

No, but it's common sense to keep guns out of the hands of unsupervised toddlers.
Why? What's the harm? So what if few babysitters are lost every once in a while when the gun is easily accessible and can be used to protectah your home and your property!


Really, I only have two words describing the legislation allowing idiocies like this: Fucking stupid.

The fact of the matter is that people are stupid, period. Therefore stronger legislation is necessary in order to protect people better because YOU CAN NOT rely on people having common sense.

Depending on which hard drugs you're talking about.

BECAUSE THEY ARE DANGEROUS AND EBILZ LIKE GUNZ! OH NOEZ! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_bomb)

Well now you have. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/28/suicide-car-bomb-attack-afghanistan)

That very well may be the dumbest thing I've heard today.


The dumbest I heard, was a 4 year old boy shooting his baby-sit.


Car hunting is dumb, just like any hunting. In the civilized world we don't do that anymore.

Why? What's the harm? So what if few babysitters are lost every once in a while when the gun is easily accessible and can be used to protectah your home and your property!


Really, I only have two words describing the legislation allowing idiocies like this: Fucking stupid.

The fact of the matter is that people are stupid, period. Therefore stronger legislation is necessary in order to protect people better.


I'm wondering against who are you protecting your home and property?
Are you living in Gaza?

I am on this planet for 40 years and I never had a visit from some criminal. Neither is my family or friends experiencing.

The absurd fear for criminals isn’t cured by buying a gun.

Why? What's the harm? So what if few babysitters are lost every once in a while when the gun is easily accessible and can be used to protectah your home and your property!


Really, I only have two words describing the legislation allowing idiocies like this: Fucking stupid.

The fact of the matter is that people are stupid, period. Therefore stronger legislation is necessary in order to protect people better beacuse YOU CAN NOT rely on people having common sense.
*sigh*
btw. The kid should've shot the parents as well for hiring such an incompetent babysitter.
Apparently not.
The dumbest I heard, was a 4 year old boy shooting his baby-sit.

No, no, I believe someone suggesting that some hunt forest creatures with a car is dumber. Perhaps not as shocking, but certainly dumber.

Car hunting is dumb, just like any hunting. In the civilized world we don't do that anymore.
Ah, yes, 'In the civilized World'. In other words, your community, your little world, taking into account not a single square inch of the rest of the world, civilized or not.

So you admit that people as a whole are pretty dull-witted and ignorant.
Yes, you got it.

After all, if people aren't intelligent enough to responsibly treat a clearly lethal object, then perhaps they aren't intelligent enough to make a rational decision on who should lead the country?

See, it's the stupid people who don't vote...

OTOH it's stupider to vote for the lesser evil instead of the right candidate, regardless of party affiliation.


Ah, well, let's just say the modern democarcy was invented by smart individuals to keep stupid people happy, m'kay? :D

I'm wondering against who are you protecting your home and property?
Are you living in Gaza?

I am on this planet for 40 years and I never had a visit from some criminal. Neither is my family or friends experiencing.

The absurd fear for criminals isn’t cured by buying a gun.

Ah, of course. "It's never happened to me, so it must not exist!"

I'm wondering against who are you protecting your home and property? Are you living in Gaza?
But...But don't you know that unless you have a gun people will rob you?

OTOH if you have a gun they'll just shoot you first... :p

The absurd fear for criminals isn’t cured by buying a gun.
No, but the random shootings and retarded incidents like this thread make fun news.

*sigh*
You're right, the babysitter should've had a gun as well...for self defence.

Ah, of course. "It's never happened to me, so it must not exist!"


It doesn't exist for most people.

Why don't you build a nuclear shelter? You never know, one day they drop the big one and...

You're right, the babysitter should've had a gun as well...for self defence.
You really aren't making any points, or trying to debate. You're just filling your post count with endless, and poorly executed sarcasm. It's like a broken record.

But...But don't you know that unless you have a gun people will rob you?

OTOH if you have a gun they'll just shoot you first... :p

Probably they are.


No, but the random shootings and retarded incidents like this thread make fun news.

I like it when people say stuff like 'guns do not kill'. :)

It doesn't exist for most people.

Why don't you build a nuclear shelter? You never know, one day they drop the big one and...
"It doesn't exist for most people." Is that really your argument? Please, tell me that you're joking. "If the majority aren't affected, it should be ignored/banned"?

You really aren't making any points, or trying to debate. You're just filling your post count with endless, and poorly executed sarcasm. It's like a broken record.
You're correct, just don't shoot me. :p

Well, seriously speaking, I already made my point - weak legislation + common people = disaster - and am just spammin' here.


btw. I don't mind gun ownership per se, just the use of a gun outside of its intedend civilian functions of hunting and recreational shooting.

I guess this incident could be categorized as hunting....

I like it when people say stuff like 'guns do not kill'. :)
They don't. I could go out and kill somebody with a gun, but if the gun did the killing, wouldn't the penalty all go on the gun? Wouldn't the gun be the criminal? Wouldn't the gun get the time behind bars?

"It doesn't exist for most people." Is that really your argument? Please, tell me that you're joking. "If the majority aren't affected, it should be ignored/banned"?


Why are you afraid for something which is very very rare?
I hope they find a therapy.

So I hope they are going to try the toddler as an adult.

People die in car crashes, and it's on the news. Which is exactly what you're using to justify banning firearms.

Cars aren't designed for killing.

Why are you afraid for something which is very very rare?
I hope they find a therapy.

Have you ever gotten a vaccine against smallpox? Put on your seatbelt? Lock your doors at night? Lock your car? Keep your wallet in your pocket instead of leaving it out in the open?

Cars aren't designed for killing.

Crossbows are designed for killing. Should we ban those? What about knives?

The weapon shouldn't be there at all.

Real men do not need guns to show off or to protect themselves.

So, what do real men use to protect themselves? Because I have a rifle and a handgun that I use to protect myself.

I agree. All babysitter should inspect all rooms, cupboards, boxes and stuff to check for guns.

Every US babysitter should know that it's a standard procedure.

Really? Could you show me where in the babysitting manual it says to check the homes for firearms, and does it also say what to do with those firearms?

The dumbest I heard, was a 4 year old boy shooting his baby-sit.


Car hunting is dumb, just like any hunting. In the civilized world we don't do that anymore.

and yet...we live in a "civilized" world, and people still hunt....strange.

I like it when people say stuff like 'guns do not kill'. :)

Guns are a tool, like a hammer, like a sledgehammer, like a drill. The tool itself doesn't kill, what kills is the human using the tool and his intention with that tool.

You know, I am almost tempted to buy a video camera, put my handgun on a table and tape it killing people without my influence.

Yes, people are idiots with guns, some people are bigger idiots than others with guns, however the majority of gun owners are actually safe. They have gun cabinets, they have child locks on the triggers, they keep the gun and ammunition in separate places, and they teach their children that shooting someone is dangerous and deadly. It isn't like you can shoot them and all you'll see is a hole like in a Bugs Bunny cartoon.

So get over yourself.

/rant

The weapon shouldn't be there at all.

Real men do not need guns to show off or to protect themselves.

Real men need weapons to protect themselves. Hence, we arm soldiers and police.

Women need guns to protect themselves as well.

While guns are not for showing off, they can be a useful hobby, a sport, or allow someone to put meat on their table.

They are also used in what are called "defensive gun uses" several million times per year in the US (the vast majority of which involve no actual gunfire).

Yes, it's tragic that a 4 year old got hold of a shotgun (I find it difficult to believe that a 4 year old can lift a shotgun, let alone fire it in a desired direction). But I have an 8 year old who has his own rifle (the stock is fitted to his size), a 10 year old with his own rifle, and a 15 year old daughter with her own M-4 (not to mention the wife with her own plethora of firearms).

Since they've been properly taught to know the legal and social context of firearms, I don't have the problems you see in inner city schools (where the kids seem to have plenty of 9mm pistols) and I don't have them shooting the babysitter, either.

My daughter is safer with a handgun than our local police. During a school visit by a policeman, he offered his sidearm to her to hold. She promptly dropped the magazine, locked the slide back, and handed it all back to him before he could react, saying, "Never hand a loaded weapon to someone - it's unsafe and impolite."

So I hope they are going to try the toddler as an adult.

*dances around thread chanting*
DEATH PENALTY, DEATH PENALTY, DEATH PENALTY!



What do you mean this didn't happen in Texas?!

<snip>
Might be a cultural thing but I think you're clinically insane.

edit:
Just what kind of a society is one where you feel you need lethal weapons to protect yourself from other human beings, members of the same society?

"Police say a 4-year-old boy in southern Ohio shot his babysitter because the sitter accidentally stepped on his foot. Police said 18-year-old Nathan Beavers and several other teenagers were babysitting several young children in a mobile home in Jackson on Sunday when the shooting occurred."


http://cbs5.com/national/shooting.babysitter.ohio.2.900762.html


Hey it was self-defense, no?
I think the parent or parents should be charged with assault with a deadly weapon. Maybe if the parents were forced to be responsible for raising their kid he would learn that it wasn't an appropriate reaction.

What do you mean this didn't happen in Texas?!

Ba-Zing!

Might be a cultural thing but I think you're clinically insane.

You think he's insane because he's teaching his children how to properly use firearms in the case where they might actually want to pick up the hobby? So that his 15 year-old daughter could correct a police officer on how to hand someone a gun? Training when you're young soaks in a lot more then when you're older.

edit:
Just what kind of a society is one where you feel you need lethal weapons to protect yourself from other human beings, members of the same society?
So, tell me, what is it like in happy-magic-fairy land where there are no police officers, or military of any kind, and there is no crime, just people going around and being civil to one another?

Might be a cultural thing but I think you're clinically insane.

edit:
Just what kind of a society is one where you feel you need lethal weapons to protect yourself from other human beings, members of the same society?

Have you ever lived in the "bad" side of town? Ever?

So, tell me, what is it like in happy-magic-fairy land where there are no police officers, or military of any kind, and there is no crime, just people going around and being civil to one another?

It'd probably drive me insane and I'd go on a rampage screaming "be normal! Be normal dammit!"

Have you ever lived in the "bad" side of town? Ever?
Well, there's no bad side of the town here: There's no place where I'd be afraid of walking regardless of the time of day.

Though, that might be a population issue - the population of Suur-Helsinki area is only roughly 1.0-1.2 million.

btw. The number of private guns is probably at least hundred thousand as well.

Well, there's no bad side of the town here: There's no place where I'd be afraid of walking regardless of the time of day.

Though, that might be a population issue - the population of Suur-Helsinki area is only roughly 1.0-1.2 million.

btw. The number of private guns is probably at least hundred thousand as well.

What a way to answer my question without actually answering my question...

*dances around thread chanting*
DEATH PENALTY, DEATH PENALTY, DEATH PENALTY!



What do you mean this didn't happen in Texas?!

Send him to the big house for 10 to 25 years.

So, tell me, what is it like in happy-magic-fairy land where there are no police officers, or military of any kind, and there is no crime, just people going around and being civil to one another?
You're confusing my point of personal protection with having empowered members of society protecting and upholding the law.


You're right that the police here has guns, but the times they use them is probably less than 10 times in a year and I can't even remember when was the last time they shot someone dead. Few years ago they did kill a dog...

What a way to answer my question without actually answering my question...
My point was that relative to my culture, your question makes no sense whatsoever: Such a situation simply does not exist here.

Well, there's no bad side of the town here: There's no place where I'd be afraid of walking regardless of the time of day.

Though, that might be a population issue - the population of Suur-Helsinki area is only roughly 1.0-1.2 million.

btw. The number of private guns is probably at least hundred thousand as well.

Of course there isn't. Your land is made of sunshine, rainbows, and happy bunnies. Because, obviously, there isn't a single place in your town that you could ever get mugged.

*wikis name* I see. Finnish.
The Helsinki region is the largest urbanised area in the country, and is by far the most important economic, cultural, as well as scientific region of Finland. Eight out of Finland's 20 universities and most of the headquarters of notable companies and governmental institutions are located in Greater Helsinki, as is Finland's main aviation hub, Helsinki-Vantaa airport, which is located in Vantaa.
So, you're saying the largest section of your country is also the safest in the world?

My point was that relative to my culture, your question makes no sense whatsoever: Such a situation simply does not exist here.

and where is "here"?

My point was that relative to my culture, your question makes no sense whatsoever: Such a situation simply does not exist here.

Excuse me, but that is simply not true.
Crime in Finland has some unique features. The overall crime rate of Finland is not high in the EU context. Some crime types are above average, notably the highest homicide rate in Western Europe.
Hmmm. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland)
Perhaps even more interesting. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Finland#Statistics)

and where is "here"?

Finland.

You're confusing my point of personal protection with having empowered members of society protecting and upholding the law.


You're right that the police here has guns, but the times they use them is probably less than 10 times in a year and I can't even remember when was the last time they shot someone dead. Few years ago they did kill a dog...
Really? Do you have proof? Or is it your word against the numerous sources of Wikipedia? Note, not just Wikipedia, which is easily altered and untrustworthy, but the original sources. I can quote them if you prefer.

Excuse me, but that is simply not true.
It is.

Nobody uses a gun for crime outside of crime gangs between themselves or domestic violence: We excel in domestic killings as well as suicides.

Vice versa, nobody uses a gun for self protection and nobody I know has the need to experience the illusion of safety of walking with a gun in their pocket or purse.


btw. The biggest concentration of crime is right at the city center.

It is.

Nobody uses a gun for crime outside of crime gangs between themselves or domestic violence: We excel in domestic killings as well as suicides.

Isn't that what you should be worried about?

Vice versa, nobody uses a gun for self protection and nobody I know has the need to have the illusion of safety while walking with a gun in their pocket or purse.

Because the illusion is already there.

btw. The biggest concentration of crime is right at the city center.
And your point is...?

When did Fisher Price start making shotguns? :tongue:

Back in the 70s, Mattel made the M-16 . . .

Does the US Constitution not allow children the right to bear arms? Does it set age stipulations?

Does the US Constitution not allow children the right to bear arms? Does it set age stipulations?Tenth amendment.

Tenth amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
:confused:

:confused:States limit the ability to bear certain arms in their area of governance. Take Alabama for example, no one under 21 can purchase a pistol, nor can you purchase or own an assault rifle. But that could be different in, say, California.

He was just exercising his right to self defense. Would you really want to leave your kid completely defenseless in case the baby sitter tries to mug him?

Finland.

I swear you're American?

Crossbows are designed for killing. Should we ban those? What about knives?

Yes, no.

I swear you're American?
Yep.
Yes, no.
Ban... Crossbows...

I could make a crossbow with some Fishline, a pocket knife, and some wood. Tell me how you could possibly ban that? It's too easy to create at home, it'd be as hard as banning fishing poles!

Isn't that what you should be worried about?
About domestic violence?

In case of domestic violence guns only escalate the damage, guns do not reduce the violence itself.

Crime gangs OTOH only shoot each other...and really, there are only few incidents per year here.
Because the illusion is already there.
The reality of the issue is that gun is primarily seen as a tool.

Another reality is that the prevalence of private guns in Finland is 2nd or 3rd highest in the world.

Furthermore, Finland has conscription so basically every man gets to fire various guns from pistol and assault rifle to machine guns and RPGs. Goes a long way disenchanting the mystical aura of the gun.

Really? Do you have proof? Or is it your word against the numerous sources of Wikipedia? Note, not just Wikipedia, which is easily altered and untrustworthy, but the original sources. I can quote them if you prefer.
Ok, let's do a search from a site of a national newspaper...

http://www.google.com/search?q=+site:www.iltalehti.fi+poliisi+ampui

12. dec 08: Lohjan perhesurma: Ex-poliisi ampui vaimonsa ja itsensä - Domestic violence, ex-cop kills his wife and himself.

6 dec 08: Poliisi joutui ampumaan veitsellä uhannutta Helsingissä - Police had to shoot person threating with knife. The person got a minor wound to his arm.*

15. October: Mies riehui aseen kanssa Äänekoskella - Man waves a shotgun, police shoots a single warning shot. Apparently some bloke had trespassed to a kindergarten with a shotgun in his hand because he was too drunk to open up a beer bottle by himself.

11. August: Poliisi ampui riehujaa jalkaan Kuopiossa - Police shoots rampaging person to the leg

21. June, Midsummer fest: Poliisi ampui jalkaan kirveellä uhannutta miestä - Police shoots axe waving man to leg.

14. May: Kansanedustajat maksoivat poliisin sakot - Representatives paid police's ticket. He got the ticket from shooting the tires of an escaping drug criminal.

13. January: Vaimonsa murhasta syytetty poliisi ampui anoppinsa - More domestic violence - Cop blamed for the murder of his wide shoots his mother-in-law.


That's the analysis of first 50 results relating to police and firearm use in Finland. The rest of the results are either international news, accidents or crime related incidents where the police didn't have to fire a shot.

Exactly one of those incidents I listed happened in Helsinki area.

*http://www.iltalehti.fi/helsinki/200812068713625_hi.shtml

Poliisi käyttää ampuma-asetta pidätystilanteessa muutaman kerran vuodessa. = Police uses firearm during arrest situation few times per year

edit:
It's true that Finland is leading the murder statistics but most of those are up close and personal ie. domestic violence and most of the time the tool used is not a firearm but traditional puukko ja kirves - knife and axe.

We're one fucked up nation, I grant you that, but one where the gun is not necessary for defence.

If my memory serves, a child cannot be charged with a crime until they are five, as the court recognizes that any younger and the child in question has absolutaly no idea what the hell he is doing (morally and legally speaking at least).

So, this kid is just getting his crimes in while he can.

About domestic violence?

In case of domestic violence gun only escalates the damage, guns do not reduce the violence itself.

Crime gangs OTOH only shoot each other...and really, there are only few incidents per year.

Really? Few incidents with the highest homicide rate in Western Europe? That's hardly what I'd call few.

The reality of the issue is that gun is primarily seen as a tool.

And why shouldn't it be viewed as such? A tool for defense.


Ok, let's do a search from a site of a national newspaper...

http://www.google.com/search?q=+site:www.iltalehti.fi+poliisi+ampui

12. dec 08: Lohjan perhesurma: Ex-poliisi ampui vaimonsa ja itsensä - Domestic violence, ex-cop kills his wife and himself.

6 dec 08: Poliisi joutui ampumaan veitsellä uhannutta Helsingissä - Police had to shoot person threating with knife. The person got a minor wound to his arm.*

15. October: Mies riehui aseen kanssa Äänekoskella - Man waves a shotgun, police shoots a single warning shot. Apparently some bloke had trespassed to a kindergarten with a shotgun in his hand because he was too drunk to open up a beer bottle by himself.

11. August: Poliisi ampui riehujaa jalkaan Kuopiossa - Police shoots rampaging person to the leg

21. June, Midsummer fest: Poliisi ampui jalkaan kirveellä uhannutta miestä - Police shoots axe waving man to leg.

14. May: Kansanedustajat maksoivat poliisin sakot - Representatives paid police's ticket. He got the ticket from shooting the tires of an escaping drug criminal.

13. January: Vaimonsa murhasta syytetty poliisi ampui anoppinsa - More domestic violence - Cop blamed for the murder of his wide shoots his mother-in-law.


That's the analysis of first 50 results relating to police and firearm use in Finland. The rest of the results are either international news or crime related incidents where the police didn't have to fire a shot.


*http://www.iltalehti.fi/helsinki/200812068713625_hi.shtml

Poliisi käyttää ampuma-asetta pidätystilanteessa muutaman kerran vuodessa. = Police uses firearm during arrest situation few times per year
Damn. I can't read it to double check.

The reality of the issue is that gun is primarily seen as a tool.With which I use in a manner that I was carefully instructed in by safety and range officers who are fully qualified to teach me how to handle this tool.

Really? Few incidents with the highest homicide rate in Western Europe? That's hardly what I'd call few.
See the edit.

And why shouldn't it be viewed as such? A tool for defense.
Well, we trust our big brother - As a tool for defence the problem with gun is that it empowers the insane, stupid and - on topic - the innocent as well.

Damn. I can't read it to double check.
You could try:
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awww.hs.fi+police+firearm+-Saari

See the edit.

I see it. I still am not seeing your point.

Well, we trust our big brother - As a tool for defence the problem with gun is that it empowers the insane, stupid and - on topic - the innocent as well.

And you're saying what would help? I'm not seeing what we've been debating here.

You could try:
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awww.hs.fi+police+firearm
A police officer who handled the firearms permit application of Matti Saari, the gunman in last week’s shootings at a vocational school in Kauhajoki, faces a criminal investigation.

Police interviewed the suspected Kauhajoki gunman Matti Juhani Saari on Monday, because they had been made aware by a member of the public of videos Saari had placed on the YouTube website.
The questioning did not lead to any further action, and on Tuesday the Minister of the Interior Anne Holmlund (National Coalition Party) and the Chief of Police Mikko Paatero promised a comprehensive inquiry into why the suspect was not relieved of his gun on Monday.
The following day, Saari caused a bloodbath at a vocational college in Kauhajoki that left ten others dead before he shot himself in the head. Saari later died of his injuries in hospital in Tampere.

After the Kauhajoki tragedy, the top brass of the police have appeared to be split and confused, and no wonder. The police face a nearly impossible task in trying to control the sale, exchange, theft, and import of firearms.
Just keeping tabs on legal weapons is difficult for police, as about 60,000 - 70,000 weapons change owners legally in Finland each year.
Furthermore, the firearms register of the Ministry of the Interior is outdated. It is difficult for the police to get significant information quickly from there, as the firearms register is not linked with the criminal register, for instance.

:confused:

I see it. I still am not seeing your point.
Most homicides are carried out 'unexpected': 'A man breaks, kills his family and himself' or 'a man drinks too much, stabs drinking partner over petty issue'.

No amount of guns is going to change those scenarios.

Really, I'm not fuckin' kidding here: Such incidents are practically so common that they hardly get noticed in the papers unless there's something special - like a firearm - involved. :(
And you're saying what would help? I'm not seeing what we've been debating here.
Stop seeing personal gun as an instrument of safety or an instrument protecting yourself from the government.

That's the only complaint I have with US gun culture - well, beyond the lax laws, a laissez faire for idiots, leading to idiocies like this topic. In my opinion the citizens who treat the gun responsibly should have no objection for more understanding legislation.
:confused:
Matti Saari (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matti_Juhani_Saari)

Most homicides are carried out 'unexpected': 'A man breaks, kills his family and himself' or 'a man drinks too much, stabs drinking partner over petty issue'.

No amount of guns is going to change those scenarios.

Really, I'm not fuckin' kidding here: Such incidents are practically so common that they hardly get noticed in the papers unless there's something special - like a firearm - involved. :(

Stop seeing personal gun as an instrument of safety or an instrument protecting yourself from the government.

You yourself just admitted that most of these were unexpected, a man breaks, drinks too much, etc. But no amount of gun control is going to stop the unexpected!

That's the only complaint I have with US gun culture - well, beyond the lax laws, a laissez faire for idiots, leading to idiocies like this topic. In my opinion the citizens who treat the gun responsibly should have no objection for more understanding legislation.

"The innocent have nothing to fear", Eh? False dilemma fallacy I see. "If they protest the stricter legislation, they are obviously not treating their firearm responsibly. If they don't protest it, they obviously have no problem with it."

Matti Saari (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matti_Juhani_Saari)
Still not getting what you're driving at.

Most homicides are carried out 'unexpected': 'A man breaks, kills his family and himself' or 'a man drinks too much, stabs drinking partner over petty issue'.

No amount of guns is going to change those scenarios.

Really, I'm not fuckin' kidding here: Such incidents are practically so common that they hardly get noticed in the papers unless there's something special - like a firearm - involved. :(

Stop seeing personal gun as an instrument of safety or an instrument protecting yourself from the government.

That's the only complaint I have with US gun culture - well, beyond the lax laws, a laissez faire for idiots, leading to idiocies like this topic. In my opinion the citizens who treat the gun responsibly should have no objection for more understanding legislation.

Matti Saari (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matti_Juhani_Saari)

The problem is always the same-we don't want idiots and criminals to have guns, we want responsible people to have the option, but when you write legislation, you're writing to the lowest common denominator, it's generally a stack of compromises, and the decision is usually voted by people with a tendency to be ignorant of the issues regarding firearms-either the idiotic side of the pro-gun, or the idiotic side of Anti-Gun.

Common-sense says you don't give a firearm to a suicide risk unless you're keen on them dying, it says you don't sell a gun to a felon (someone who's already demonstrated they aren't responsible citizens), that you don't sell one to a guy who beats his wife, and that you don't sell one to the guy who wants to start a race-war.

It's a lot harder to spot the young couple who're going to leave it in the sock-drawer loaded while their kids are playing alone in the house, or under the bed, or on the coffee table. They usually seem responsible, hard-working, honest, even sensible. When I was doing the gun-show circuit, I always gave customers a lock for it-not a trigger lock that can be overridden, but a more expensive cable lock or barrel-lock that is harder for small hands to override with a screwdriver.

But, ultimately, you're going to have otherwise responsible, sensible people doing mind-blowingly stupid things-and this tends to result in tragedy.

The problem with Legislation is that you can't legislate better people into being, but you CAN make people worse by turning them from ordinary, into criminal (as demonstrated amply with Prohibition, Sedition Laws, and the current "war on drugs").

Yep.

Ban... Crossbows...

I could make a crossbow with some Fishline, a pocket knife, and some wood. Tell me how you could possibly ban that? It's too easy to create at home, it'd be as hard as banning fishing poles!

That isn't a particularly good argument. It is, allegedly, pretty easy to create a nail bomb at home - just because it is easy does not mean it shouldn't be banned.

That isn't a particularly good argument. It is, allegedly, pretty easy to create a nail bomb at home - just because it is easy does not mean it shouldn't be banned.

I'm saying it'd be impossible to stop anyone with half a brain and perfectly innocent materials to create something such as a crossbow. And I'm not too sure what you need to make a nailbomb.

I'm saying it'd be impossible to stop anyone with half a brain and perfectly innocent materials to create something such as a crossbow. And I'm not too sure what you need to make a nailbomb.

I'd assume some nails would be a good start point...

I'm saying it'd be impossible to stop anyone with half a brain and perfectly innocent materials to create something such as a crossbow. And I'm not too sure what you need to make a nailbomb.

Pretty much half a brain and some perfectly innocent materials

I'd assume some nails would be a good start point...

:eek2:

You are truly the master of all things! I bow to your superior intellect!
:hail:
:tongue:

:eek2:

You are truly the master of all things! I bow to your superior intellect!
:hail:
:tongue:

At last, the adoration of which I'm worthy.

*basks*

So, tell me, what is it like in happy-magic-fairy land where there are no police officers, or military of any kind, and there is no crime, just people going around and being civil to one another?

It'd probably drive me insane and I'd go on a rampage screaming "be normal! Be normal dammit!"

Gosh, reminds me of a movie from 1993...Demolition Man. Yes, we can defeat our violent offenders with crocheting!

I'm saying it'd be impossible to stop anyone with half a brain and perfectly innocent materials to create something such as a crossbow. And I'm not too sure what you need to make a nailbomb.
Google it. That's how I learned to make napalm...I mean, I don't know how to make napalm...

Google it. That's how I learned to make napalm...I mean, I don't know how to make napalm...

No, don't

No, don't
wait, you're taking me seriously?

I'd assume some nails would be a good start point...
Something explosive would also be required, otherwise it's not much of a "bomb".

The problem with Legislation is that you can't legislate better people into being, but you CAN make people worse by turning them from ordinary, into criminal (as demonstrated amply with Prohibition, Sedition Laws, and the current "war on drugs").
I think gun control laws - like law for safe storage of a firearm - would act similarly to speed limits.

Sure there will be people who will break the law but overall you end up saving lives because ultimately most people will rather follow the laws - more or less - than take stupid risks.

Secondly, it would also impact the cost on society - Like in this case, the gun owner would be responsible for all the costs and side effects.

You yourself just admitted that most of these were unexpected, a man breaks, drinks too much, etc
Well, 'unexpected' - Give a Finn a half-a-bottle of vodka and you have 50% chance of a fight..depending on who drank the other half.
But no amount of gun control is going to stop the unexpected!
That's definitely a sigworthy comment.

"The innocent have nothing to fear", Eh? False dilemma fallacy I see. "If they protest the stricter legislation, they are obviously not treating their firearm responsibly. If they don't protest it, they obviously have no problem with it."
You mistake my intention: I was merely expressing my opinion that those who are intelligent enough to treat gun responsibly should have no trouble understanding that other equally law abiding people will treat the gun stupidly and that such people can be hazardous to basically innocent people, the babysitter in this case.
Still not getting what you're driving at.
That was a reply to your confused smiley.

I quickly edited the link to google search of the international version of a local newspaper in the original post to "-Saari" in order to avoid that particular incident.

Something explosive would also be required, otherwise it's not much of a "bomb".

What's sad is that "explosive" could be something so easy to obtain and yet raise no flags with law enforcement, simply because of the nature of it and what it's normally used for, even if bought in bulk.

I blame my chemistry teacher in high school for that. Even demonstrating it outside.

One word:

sublimation

What's sad is that "explosive" could be something so easy to obtain and yet raise no flags with law enforcement, simply because of the nature of it and what it's normally used for, even if bought in bulk.

I blame my chemistry teacher in high school for that. Even demonstrating it outside.

One word:

sublimation

We made DNT in A level chemistry. Not that exciting but only a hop, skip and a junp from the fun stuff.

[Dry ice, empty 2 liter bottle]

Achmed: "Boom."

[Dry ice, empty 2 liter bottle]

Achmed: "Boom."

[Some big capacitors, 2 litres mercury, electromagnet]

Physics has it's little homemade bombs too... Well, we have also the big homemade ones too ;)

Anyways, making a functioning crossbow is not really that easy. And the crossbow itself is only a buldgeoning weapon, you need to make the bolts too.

Google it. That's how I learned to make napalm...I mean, I don't know how to make napalm...

Well you start with Petrol, then I think you add some sort of acid...

Aww screw it its too much effort. Lets just use the petrol for a car bomb instead.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/twowaysswf0.jpg

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/twowaysswf0.jpg

I agree - this never would have happened if the babysitter had a gun

"Police say a 4-year-old boy in southern Ohio shot his babysitter because the sitter accidentally stepped on his foot. Police said 18-year-old Nathan Beavers and several other teenagers were babysitting several young children in a mobile home in Jackson on Sunday when the shooting occurred."


http://cbs5.com/national/shooting.babysitter.ohio.2.900762.html


Hey it was self-defense, no?

Yet another case of a loaded and unsecured firearm being left out for a minor to access. :mad:

When will these parents learn that if they have kids and own firearms, they need to keep them separate until the kids are mature enough to handle them safely.

The weapon shouldn't be there at all.

Real men do not need guns to show off or to protect themselves.

How do you know it was not owned for hunting purposes?

The dumbest I heard, was a 4 year old boy shooting his baby-sit.


Car hunting is dumb, just like any hunting. In the civilized world we don't do that anymore.

http://www.countrysports.co.uk/
http://www.safariinternational.com/eng/
http://www.allanvester.dk/
http://www.kinghamsafaris.com/
http://www.kiwisafaris.co.nz/

Did I miss anywhere in the "civilized" world?

Yet another case of a loaded and unsecured firearm being left out for a minor to access. :mad:

The weapon and ammo were locating in two different locations and the boy loaded it himself.

Back in the 70s, Mattel made the M-16 . . .

Um, no.

http://www.snopes.com/military/m16.asp

Gosh, reminds me of a movie from 1993...Demolition Man. Yes, we can defeat our violent offenders with crocheting!
No, they defeated their violent criminals with cryogenic freezing and highly advanced brainwashing.
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/twowaysswf0.jpg

Hey look, I can propaganda too!
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/twoways.jpg

No, they defeated their violent criminals with cryogenic freezing and highly advanced brainwashing.


Hey look, I can propaganda too!
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/twoways.jpg

I can't help but notice that, unarmed, most people are not that capable of defending against either type of attack, while armed, most people can defend against both.

It doesn't exist for most people.


Then you live in a relatively low crime zone. How good for you. The rest of us who don't have to make do.

Let's move you to say, Johannesburg, or perhaps Detroit. How about Thailand, or maybe Myanmar? Indonesia is quite nice this time of the year, between the riots and the rampant crime. Then you can talk about how "crime doesn't exist for most people". Of course, we'd have to contact you via a spirit medium, since in all probability your rose colored views would get you killed within the hour.

The weapon shouldn't be there at all.

Real men do not need guns to show off or to protect themselves.

I don't find arguments about what "real men" supposedly want or need or smell like or which products they buy or what jobs they have to be compelling - no matter who makes them.

Appeals to "manliness." Lame.

Nobody uses a gun for crime outside of crime gangs between themselves or domestic violence: We excel in domestic killings as well as suicides.


So nobody uses firearms to mug someone or rob a store/bank? You have some serious blinkers.

The weapon and ammo were locating in two different locations and the boy loaded it himself.

The Associated Press did not report that. The only story I read that says the 4 year old loaded the shotgun is a UK paper (the Telegraph) written by a reporter from LA. Is there another source that says the shotgun wasn't already loaded?

Something explosive would also be required, otherwise it's not much of a "bomb".

Chemical fertilizer i.e. ammonium nitrate, and diesel fuel, one of the most commonly used explosives, both of which are very innocent materials and easily procurable.

Chemical fertilizer i.e. ammonium nitrate, and diesel fuel, one of the most commonly used explosives, both of which are very innocent materials and easily procurable.
By whom?

The Associated Press did not report that. The only story I read that says the 4 year old loaded the shotgun is a UK paper (the Telegraph) written by a reporter from LA. Is there another source that says the shotgun wasn't already loaded?

http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/01/05/shoot.html?sid=101

This goes to show that parents can't always be there to protect their children, and all four-year-olds should be armed, to protect themselves from violent nannies. :p

By whom?

It's the bulk charge used in mining and road-building.

Since Oklahoma city ammonium nitrate isn't regarded as an "innocent material" and anyone buying lots of it is regarded with suspicion. Lots of it is sold though, and such bombings will certainly occur in future.

This shooting could have been prevented if the babysitter had been armed as well.

This shooting could have been prevented if the babysitter had been armed as well.

I'm pretty sure that joke has been made several times, the last was my reply to Kimchi being a smartass.

If the parents had properly locked up their firearms this wouldn't have happened. If I had kids I'd keep my guns in a gun safe with trigger locks as well. As it is, I live with two other guys in their late 20s and I keep my guns locked in my gun case with trigger locks.

I'm pretty sure that joke has been made several times, the last was my reply to Kimchi being a smartass.

Meh, didnt read the whole thread. Well, thats not true. I read the first 2 pages and was already bored.

By whom?

Mining mostly, where it's a good and cheap blasting charge. It's also the favored cheap explosive for the mad bomber on a budget. Not a lot of bang for its size compared to higher end explosives, but easy to make, and cheap to boot.

TCar hunting is dumb, just like any hunting. In the civilized world we don't do that anymore.
Do you think that meat GROWS in the package? Or is it civilized because someone else has to do the ugly bits like shattering the skull of the cow with a pneumatic hammer, hauling it up by its hind legs, eviscerating it, and carving it up?

If the parents had properly locked up their firearms this wouldn't have happened. If I had kids I'd keep my guns in a gun safe with trigger locks as well. As it is, I live with two other guys in their late 20s and I keep my guns locked in my gun case with trigger locks.

You'd think self-interest would be enough for people to do that.

Guns in the home are usually justified to protect against intruders. But the most obvious reason to intrude into someone else's home is burglary, which is best done when no-one is home. And burglars would rather take your stuff without being seen, let alone committing the more serious crime of threatening the homeowner with a gun.

So surely the homeowner is better off, if they come home and surprise an intruder there, that the intruder not already have their gun? It beggars belief.

If the parents had properly locked up their firearms this wouldn't have happened. If I had kids I'd keep my guns in a gun safe with trigger locks as well. As it is, I live with two other guys in their late 20s and I keep my guns locked in my gun case with trigger locks.
^ ^
This.
Any word on whether Mom and Dad are going to be charged for reckless endangerment, leaving guns around where four year olds can get at them?

The kid was just exercising his constitutional right as an American to possess and use a gun without the intelligence and common sense to ensure that he did so responsibly. Why do you hate freedom?

haha that is brilliant. :D

http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/01/05/shoot.html?sid=101

Thanks.

At least guns kill quickly.

At least guns kill quickly.

The babysitter didn't die.

^ ^
This.
Any word on whether Mom and Dad are going to be charged for reckless endangerment, leaving guns around where four year olds can get at them?The child was removed from the home by protective services. Don't know if any criminal charges are being filed but the parents will have jump through a few hoops to prove themselves as capable parents to get their kid back. In a way that can be worse than criminal charges, CPS doesn't have the same burden of proof as criminal court, they pretty much act as judge and jury in such matters.

*snip NRA ad*

Yea right.
Too bad that most killers are relatives of the victim's. Hence, highly unlikely that the potential victim would be ready to draw, load and aim.

Also... if the attacker has a gun, too, there are good chances that he's going to shoot at the first sign of an attempt to draw... and not to give the intended victim a fair chance.

You'd think self-interest would be enough for people to do that.

Guns in the home are usually justified to protect against intruders. But the most obvious reason to intrude into someone else's home is burglary, which is best done when no-one is home. And burglars would rather take your stuff without being seen, let alone committing the more serious crime of threatening the homeowner with a gun.

So surely the homeowner is better off, if they come home and surprise an intruder there, that the intruder not already have their gun? It beggars belief.

If I lived somewhere really rough, like the bad part of Detroit, I'd probably keep a gun more accessible, but I live in a small college town so I'm really not that worried about it. I'm far more worried about drunken idiots at parties in my house finding them than having someone break in while I'm here.

Yea right.
Too bad that most killers are relatives of the victim's. Hence, highly unlikely that the potential victim would be ready to draw, load and aim.

Also... if the attacker has a gun, too, there are good chances that he's going to shoot at the first sign of an attempt to draw... and not to give the intended victim a fair chance.

Can we get some evidence to back up your claims?