Toddler Shoots and Kills Mother

[Glamour]

If that happened, they would be a military - a shit one.

Nobody should go to another country to fight anyone else. If nobody did, there would be no war. It's an individual's own decision whether or not to do that. I'd rather go to prison.

So if nobody formed militaries, there'd be no war. Great suggestion, good work.

_{^{if thunderclouds never formed, there'd be no lighting! christ, definitely on the dope godDAMN}}

Yes. Correct. I'm still waiting on someone to actually tell me why I'm wrong. Until then I assume I'm right.

Lightning is an electrical charge between a thundercloud and the Earth. So again, yes. Please be rational. "Dope" (what are you, 75?) has nothing to do with anything.

[Warpspace]

Son, are you on the dope?

People would still fight, they'd just send random people in to pillage/skirmish/raid/take over shit instead. Having a professional military to send instead keeps Joe Citizen from having to go and do it. One of the better ideas society has had, I'd say.

If that happened, they would be a military - a shit one.

Nobody should go to another country to fight anyone else. If nobody did, there would be no war. It's an individual's own decision whether or not to do that. I'd rather go to prison.

There is no reason to not go to war when somebody else has resources you need, and you have the resources to wipe them off the map. Or if you need more territory to annex for various reasons ranging from a buffer between another nation that's a threat, permanent assimilation of the resources located in that nation, assimilating an ethnicity within that nation (Russia for example) etc.

But there are no right reasons, and there are no wrong reasons. It's simply whoever has the bigger gun to ensure things go their way.

[Glamour]

If that happened, they would be a military - a shit one.

Nobody should go to another country to fight anyone else. If nobody did, there would be no war. It's an individual's own decision whether or not to do that. I'd rather go to prison.

There is no reason to not go to war when somebody else has resources you need, and you have the resources to wipe them off the map. Or if you need more territory to annex for various reasons ranging from a buffer between another nation that's a threat, permanent assimilation of the resources located in that nation, assimilating an ethnicity within that nation (Russia for example) etc.

But there are no right reasons, and there are no wrong reasons. It's simply whoever has the bigger gun to ensure things go their way.

There are no right reasons for mass murder. You wouldn't view another nation as a threat if nobody in the world had a military or went to war. I'm aware that the reality is quite different from my idealism, but that's the point of idealism. It's not realism. Reality is sadly that we are not as civilised as we think and are on the verge of world war 3. I will keep in mind your arguments when our military and others are being slaughtered by the orders of people who would piss themselves and cry in that situation. But anyway, the military isn't the topic of this discussion so I'm done.

A toddler has shot its mother. Hopefully it grows up desensitised to violence, joins the military, shoots a few more people, this time deliberately, and then gets shot to death itself.

[Atlanticatia]

Firearms should be required to safely locked away with bullets separated, with no carrying open or concealed, unless for employment, hunting, or sporting. I don't care about "blah blah 2nd amendment". It's time to end the gun culture once and for all. We need to cultural change to stamp out this culture where we regard firearms as normal and fun.

[Imperializt Russia]

You weren't doing a very good job of it.

And I care about the opinion of a statist, why?

You care about my opinions :<

You're implying that gun owners should be shot for owning guns. That makes you sadistic. The military and volunteer gun ownership aren't comparable. There has to be a military to rectify wrong authority. Idiots still don't need to own guns.

I'm not implying anyone should be shot, which is why I don't believe in gun ownership. If this woman hadn't owned a gun, would she have been shot dead? No. Probably not. I'm saying that if it seriously crossed your mind that you might get shot at, to the point where you bought a gun, and then you do get shot at, why are you surprised?

If there was no military in the world there would be no war. This is why I don't consider the military heroes. Brave, yes, but not heroes.

Apart from one small thing.

Paramilitaries (ie, not military forces) have been responsible for many of the conflicts the west have fought in since WWII.

maybe some places, but not in America.

Soldiers should be law enforcement in America if they are already not in combination with police.

I think you're thinking of the National Guard.

You can enforce your law inside of your sphere of influence, if parts of that location happen to be outside of the country then it is called war.

Exactly. So if there was no military in the world, there would be no war.

The IRA, IS, Taliban, Mujahideen, Viet Minh and so forth were not military forces.
Yet they caused or fought wars.

IIRC, most accidental discharges of firearms are caused when the trigger is caught, not pulled, unintentionally.

Do you know what kind of finger pressures a toddler can generate?
I'm going to guess it's more than you believe.

Yes, but for the gun to be fired, he must have deactivated the lock, or whatever you call it.Unless the lock *already* deactivated and then it's even more the mother's fault.

IIRC, revolvers usually don't have safeties. Meaning this was either a double-action revolver (where the trigger pull also cocks the weapon before firing - this requires a lot of trigger pressure, so is unlikely) or the weapon was stored cocked in the woman's purse. Which was a stupid idea, for the titular reason.

[Glamour]

Apart from one small thing.

Paramilitaries (ie, not military forces) have been responsible for many of the conflicts the west have fought in since WWII.
The IRA, IS, Taliban, Mujahideen, Viet Minh and so forth were not military forces.
Yet they caused or fought wars. IIRC, most accidental discharges of firearms are caused when the trigger is caught, not pulled, unintentionally.
IIRC, revolvers usually don't have safeties. Meaning this was either a double-action revolver (where the trigger pull also cocks the weapon before firing - this requires a lot of trigger pressure, so is unlikely) or the weapon was stored cocked in the woman's purse. Which was a stupid idea, for the titular reason.

The IRA was a response to what was seen as British MILITARY occupation. Same with IS. Same with the Viet Minh and Japanese occupation. They all rationalised themselves as paramilitary insurgencies against occupiers. I.e. war had already started in their minds because foreigners were on their soil. Foreign militaries.

Also it is confirmed that not all safety precautions for the gun were taken.

[Imperializt Russia]

By?

[Big Jim P]

Firearms should be required to safely locked away with bullets separated, with no carrying open or concealed, unless for employment, hunting, or sporting. I don't care about "blah blah 2nd amendment". It's time to end the gun culture once and for all. We need to cultural change to stamp out this culture where we regard firearms as normal and fun.

You want to watch crime skyrocket? When you can get all the predatory criminals in society to agree and adhere to that, then there will be no need for the average citizen to carry a gun. Until then, we have the right and the need.

[Glamour]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014 ... on-walmart

Koontai lieutenant Stu Miller in thus article. She was a nuclear scientist, so not stupid, her toddler didn't mean it, so looks like guns do kill people.

[Big Jim P]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/31/idaho-nuclear-scientist-shot-dead-son-walmart

Koontai lieutenant Stu Miller in thus article. She was a nuclear scientist, so not stupid, her toddler didn't mean it, so looks like guns do kill people.

Not without human intervention.

[Glamour]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/31/idaho-nuclear-scientist-shot-dead-son-walmart

Koontai lieutenant Stu Miller in thus article. She was a nuclear scientist, so not stupid, her toddler didn't mean it, so looks like guns do kill people.

Not without human intervention.

So guns wouldn't kill people if they inhabited the planet by themselves, and the toddler is a murderer. Great.

Also, what if it had got caught on her bag?

[Big Jim P]

Not without human intervention.

So guns wouldn't kill people if they inhabited the planet by themselves, and the toddler is a murderer. Great.

Also, what if it had got caught on her bag?

We've already discussed (several time) where the blame lies: The woman who violated two or three basic safety rules.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Nor do the vast majority of gun owners.

If you don't own a gun for the reason of shooting evil people, why the hell would you own one?

Target shooting, hunting, and collecting are all pretty good reasons to own firearms while not intending to shoot ANY person.

[Glamour]

So guns wouldn't kill people if they inhabited the planet by themselves, and the toddler is a murderer. Great.

Also, what if it had got caught on her bag?

We've already discussed (several time) where the blame lies: The woman who violated two or three basic safety rules.

Yes, but the gun is inherently a murderous thing more than the toddler is a killer or the woman was suicidal. Although it is her fault, it's her fault mainly for owning the gun (if she didn't she'd still be alive) and for failing to make it safe (if she did she might still be alive, but then again a robber could have grabbed her bag, made it unsafe and shot her with it, which is actually a more likely situation than what happened). Or, she could have been involved in a shootout with a robber and since she was obviously incompetent, she would have lost and probably injured or killed a few bystanders.

[Imperializt Russia]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/31/idaho-nuclear-scientist-shot-dead-son-walmart

Koontai lieutenant Stu Miller in thus article. She was a nuclear scientist, so not stupid, her toddler didn't mean it, so looks like guns do kill people.

As a nuclear scientist myself, I'd like to contest this generalisation.

[Big Jim P]

We've already discussed (several time) where the blame lies: The woman who violated two or three basic safety rules.

Yes, but the gun is inherently a murderous thing more than the toddler is a killer or the woman was suicidal. Although it is her fault, it's her fault mainly for owning the gun (if she didn't she'd still be alive) and for failing to make it safe (if she did she might still be alive, but then again a robber could have grabbed her bag, made it unsafe and shot her with it, which is actually a more likely situation than what happened). Or, she could have been involved in a shootout with a robber and since she was obviously incompetent, she would have lost and probably injured or killed a few bystanders.

A gun is not a murderous item. Not all killing is murder, nor all all killings bad or unjustified.

Carrying the gun in a purse was her first safety violation.

We don't know about her competence in shooting, but here negligence doesn't put that in any good light.

[Glamour]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/31/idaho-nuclear-scientist-shot-dead-son-walmart

Koontai lieutenant Stu Miller in thus article. She was a nuclear scientist, so not stupid, her toddler didn't mean it, so looks like guns do kill people.

As a nuclear scientist myself, I'd like to contest this generalisation.

I really hope our nuclear scientists aren't stupid, or we are more doomed than even I thought.

Also, instead of murderous item, deadly item.

[Big Jim P]

As a nuclear scientist myself, I'd like to contest this generalisation.

I really hope our nuclear scientists aren't stupid, or we are more doomed than even I thought.

Also, instead of murderous item, deadly item.

We've already went around about that too.

This has gone full circle, repeatedly. Typical gun control thread.

[Imperializt Russia]

As a nuclear scientist myself, I'd like to contest this generalisation.

I really hope our nuclear scientists aren't stupid, or we are more doomed than even I thought.

Also, instead of murderous item, deadly item.

Scientists generally are very intelligent.
We don't have common sense, which is usually what people mean when they refer to stupidity.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Firearms should be required to safely locked away with bullets separated, with no carrying open or concealed, unless for employment, hunting, or sporting. I don't care about "blah blah 2nd amendment". It's time to end the gun culture once and for all. We need to cultural change to stamp out this culture where we regard firearms as normal and fun.

If you don't care about the 2nd Amendment, then work to repeal it. Until then, people are going to be carrying firearms.

And BTW, shooting at the range with friends IS fun.

[Glamour]

Firearms should be required to safely locked away with bullets separated, with no carrying open or concealed, unless for employment, hunting, or sporting. I don't care about "blah blah 2nd amendment". It's time to end the gun culture once and for all. We need to cultural change to stamp out this culture where we regard firearms as normal and fun.

If you don't care about the 2nd Amendment, then work to repeal it. Until then, people are going to be carrying firearms.

And BTW, shooting at the range with friends IS fun.

Until someone's daughter kills the instructor with an Uzi.

[Washington Resistance Army]

If you don't care about the 2nd Amendment, then work to repeal it. Until then, people are going to be carrying firearms.

And BTW, shooting at the range with friends IS fun.

Until someone's daughter kills the instructor with an Uzi.

Cuz that happens every day amirite?

[Imperializt Russia]

If you don't care about the 2nd Amendment, then work to repeal it. Until then, people are going to be carrying firearms.

And BTW, shooting at the range with friends IS fun.

Until someone's daughter kills the instructor with an Uzi.

It's the kind of thing one can expect to happen when the instructor does not bring out a gun-vice, a device intended for exactly that situation.

Or giving a small child a lightweight, handheld automatic weapon at all. If she'd been given some belt-fed monstrosity to shoot, the instructor would still be alive today and we'd not even be discussing anything of the sort.

[Glamour]

Until someone's daughter kills the instructor with an Uzi.

Cuz that happens every day amirite?

No, thank fuck. It still happens though. Another child scarred for life by playing with adult toys. Which aren't really toys, or fun, except for those of a warped disposition.

[Imperializt Russia]

Cuz that happens every day amirite?

No, thank fuck. It still happens though. Another child scarred for life by playing with adult toys. Which aren't really toys, or fun, except for those of a warped disposition.

It's the exact same thrill people get from watching NASCAR or drag racing.