NationStates

Merizoc wrote:

St Williams Parr County wrote:I don't think the little guy meant to shoot his own mother. Afterall, the father will probably speak in a gentle voice. Letting him easily understand the situation. But not with big words, or extreme words like 'murder', 'homicide', or other words like that. That's how all little children learn. But first, a simple explanation, easy enough for them to understand.

God, I hope his dad doesn't hate him when he grows up. But still, I can't imagine how sanguineous the situation was. It's sad!

This is, of course, assuming there is a father figure.

At least the father was there by his side while he was growing up. Of course, when he is growing up.

St Williams Parr County wrote:

Merizoc wrote:This is, of course, assuming there is a father figure.

At least the father was there by his side while he was growing up. Of course, when he is growing up.

Assuming the kid had a father or that it was a straight relationship and the children weren't adopted.

Fortschritte wrote:Can we not make this political, out of respect for the victim? Please, show some courtesy, NSG.

St Williams Parr County wrote:

Merizoc wrote:This is, of course, assuming there is a father figure.

At least the father was there by his side while he was growing up. Of course, when he is growing up.

Yeah. This is next level sad.
I'm concerned for the kid later in life, other kids can be cruel sometimes. I'm expecting some kids to bully him/stay away from him because of this. Not to mention some adults, or even family members.

St Williams Parr County wrote:

Merizoc wrote:This is, of course, assuming there is a father figure.

At least the father was there by his side while he was growing up. Of course, when he is growing up.

I'd put that kid up for adoption if it were my son. Two years old and already pointing a gun at its mother. Yeah I'm sure junior won't wait to shot his dad too...

F'ing school shooters. Cowards!!! Grow balls and fight your bullies with your fists and not your daddy's AR15!!!!

I had to fight all my battles with my fists and I don't go around shooting for fun...

Mavorpen wrote:

Galloism wrote:Well, I will agree with you and all, but until everyone catches up with us and let's is have death clinics, I'm afraid I'll have to be quasi-ok with just empowerment.

But let's not thread jack into the ethics of suicide.

Wait, we were talking about the ethics of suicide? I was just saying that personally I'm not interested in going off of my suicidal thoughts until I'm ready, so I'm not really content about the idea of owning a gun. :p

Preferably until my favorite manga series end. *nods*

If I had owned a gun chances are I might have shot myself during my mental breakdown last year, which is also why I resigned from my Mentor position during that time.

So in my opinion guns are a bad means of empowerment.

Mavorpen wrote:

Galloism wrote:Well, I will agree with you and all, but until everyone catches up with us and let's is have death clinics, I'm afraid I'll have to be quasi-ok with just empowerment.

But let's not thread jack into the ethics of suicide.

Wait, we were talking about the ethics of suicide? I was just saying that personally I'm not interested in going off of my suicidal thoughts until I'm ready, so I'm not really content about the idea of owning a gun.

Preferably until my favorite manga series end. *nods*

I'm going to force you to get a gun. Exercise your rights or gtfo!

Kidding of course. I generally think only those who want guns and are willing to learn how to use them properly and will do so should go out and get them.

Liberty, baby. That's uh huh uh huh how I like it uh huh uh huh.

Esternial wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
I have guns in my house. It doesn't really bother me to have one since I grew up around them and I feel a tad safer.

That's what sometimes concerns me. Children growing up in houses where people are lax with their weaponry. The resulting mentality of those children may be to treat guns as common tools, like a spade...

or some ductape...

or sturdy rope.

Yea, my dad never let us hold a gun. He still doesn't let me use the guns that are his.

He taught me how to use them once I was an adult, but while I was growing up I was explicitly forbidden from touching it under penalty of being punished harshly, not even a finger on them.

My dad stressed the point to me about gun safety: it's not the gun that's the issue, it's the idiot behind the gun.

Big Jim P wrote:Would you prefer I just link to a single incident? After all, that is all it takes to prove your statement wrong.

You mean, would I like you to do literally the one thing I've been asking you to do for the last five pages? Yes, actually, I would. If you could link to an example of a situation which:

a) could happen regularly (i.e. a relatively generic mugging, or home invasion, or whatever you feel would justify people regularly carrying concealed weapons)
b) is best dealt with using a gun (as opposed to pepper spray, or by the police, or by a broader ban on guns, etc)
d) is not otherwise plainly bullshit, since I'm not perfect and can hardly think of every reason it might not satisfactorily contradict me

...that would be great. Oh, you've already posted it. Ok:

Big Jim P wrote:Here you go Tubbs:

http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/v ... g-threats/

See, that's pretty reasonable (from what I can tell, although the information isn't really all there). I'd draw a distinction, though, between the public and e.g. cashiers, since they do seem to be more regularly exposed to this kind of thing than others, and are in a better position to protect themselves while they ready the weapon. Also, this is the sort of situation I'd prefer to be addressed by a broader ban on guns, such that random unstable members of the public don't have guns to threaten random employees with.

But yes, that's exactly the sort of thing I was asking for. Now an actual discussion can take place.

Galloism wrote:Not at all: you said a concealed gun is NOT useful in self defense in any situation where nonlethal means aren't just as useful.

I'm pondering why a detective running down to the corner store to get a pack of cigarettes before he goes to question a witness needs a gun for self defense, but it's completely fully ass useless for me when I run down to the store for a gallon of milk.

If you're just going down to get some milk, you don't need a gun, even if you are a detective. If you're leaving your house for the day, and going out to investigate something, and it's procedure to carry a weapon, whatever, that's fair enough.

Master Shake wrote:

St Williams Parr County wrote:
At least the father was there by his side while he was growing up. Of course, when he is growing up.

I'd put that kid up for adoption if it were my son. Two years old and already pointing a gun at its mother. Yeah I'm sure junior won't wait to shot his dad too...

F'ing school shooters. Cowards!!! Grow balls and fight your bullies with your fists and not your daddy's AR15!!!!

I had to fight all my battles with my fists and I don't go around shooting for fun...

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Esternial wrote:That's what sometimes concerns me. Children growing up in houses where people are lax with their weaponry. The resulting mentality of those children may be to treat guns as common tools, like a spade...

or some ductape...

or sturdy rope.

Yea, my dad never let us hold a gun. He still doesn't let me use the guns that are his.

He taught me how to use them once I was an adult, but while I was growing up I was explicitly forbidden from touching it under penalty of being punished harshly, not even a finger on them.

My dad stressed the point to me about gun safety: it's not the gun that's the issue, it's the idiot behind the gun.

My mother's strictly opposed to guns.

You should have heard the discussion we had recently when she heard I purchased an airsoft version of the Steyr AUG.

Tubbsalot wrote:

Big Jim P wrote:Would you prefer I just link to a single incident? After all, that is all it takes to prove your statement wrong.

You mean, would I like you to do literally the one thing I've been asking you to do for the last five pages? Yes, actually, I would. If you could link to an example of a situation which:

a) could happen regularly (i.e. a relatively generic mugging, or home invasion, or whatever you feel would justify people regularly carrying concealed weapons)
b) is best dealt with using a gun (as opposed to pepper spray, or by the police, or by a broader ban on guns, etc)
d) is not otherwise plainly bullshit, since I'm not perfect and can hardly think of every reason it might not satisfactorily contradict me

...that would be great. Oh, you've already posted it. Ok:

Big Jim P wrote:Here you go Tubbs:

http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/v ... g-threats/

See, that's pretty reasonable (from what I can tell, although the information isn't really all there). I'd draw a distinction, though, between the public and e.g. cashiers, since they do seem to be more regularly exposed to this kind of thing than others, and are in a better position to protect themselves while they ready the weapon. Also, this is the sort of situation I'd prefer to be addressed by a broader ban on guns, such that random unstable members of the public don't have guns to threaten random employees with.

But yes, that's exactly the sort of thing I was asking for. Now an actual discussion can take place.

Galloism wrote:Not at all: you said a concealed gun is NOT useful in self defense in any situation where nonlethal means aren't just as useful.

I'm pondering why a detective running down to the corner store to get a pack of cigarettes before he goes to question a witness needs a gun for self defense, but it's completely fully ass useless for me when I run down to the store for a gallon of milk.

If you're just going down to get some milk, you don't need a gun, even if you are a detective. If you're leaving your house for the day, and going out to investigate something, and it's procedure to carry a weapon, whatever, that's fair enough.

Generally detectives drive cars. Cars which lock.

Why don't they leave their gun in the car most of the time, then?

Why was I required to carry at all times, even off duty?

Seno Zhou Varada wrote:

St Williams Parr County wrote:
At least the father was there by his side while he was growing up. Of course, when he is growing up.

Assuming the kid had a father or that it was a straight relationship and the children weren't adopted.

I'm not sucking it up or anything, but if the father and the son were seperated that would be a life mute to the kid.

This woman while her passing is tragic and my thoughts go out to her family is almost a numbers game when you handle a gun as she did. What intelligent person keeps a gun within reach of a toddler? Honestly this is natural selection at its best.

Galloism wrote:

Tubbsalot wrote:You mean, would I like you to do literally the one thing I've been asking you to do for the last five pages? Yes, actually, I would. If you could link to an example of a situation which:

a) could happen regularly (i.e. a relatively generic mugging, or home invasion, or whatever you feel would justify people regularly carrying concealed weapons)
b) is best dealt with using a gun (as opposed to pepper spray, or by the police, or by a broader ban on guns, etc)
d) is not otherwise plainly bullshit, since I'm not perfect and can hardly think of every reason it might not satisfactorily contradict me

...that would be great. Oh, you've already posted it. Ok:


See, that's pretty reasonable (from what I can tell, although the information isn't really all there). I'd draw a distinction, though, between the public and e.g. cashiers, since they do seem to be more regularly exposed to this kind of thing than others, and are in a better position to protect themselves while they ready the weapon. Also, this is the sort of situation I'd prefer to be addressed by a broader ban on guns, such that random unstable members of the public don't have guns to threaten random employees with.

But yes, that's exactly the sort of thing I was asking for. Now an actual discussion can take place.


If you're just going down to get some milk, you don't need a gun, even if you are a detective. If you're leaving your house for the day, and going out to investigate something, and it's procedure to carry a weapon, whatever, that's fair enough.

Generally detectives drive cars. Cars which lock.

Why don't they leave their gun in the car most of the time, then?

Why was I required to carry at all times, even off duty?

Just because you had to do it doesn't mean it's not a stupid thing to require.

Galloism wrote:Generally detectives drive cars. Cars which lock.

Why don't they leave their gun in the car most of the time, then?

Why was I required to carry at all times, even off duty?

Bearing in mind that I'm not a detective, and know hardly anything about detectives, I'm not sure why you're asking. In most of the world detectives are not required to carry off-duty, so my guess would be that America has a crazy gun fetish. Presumably the justification was that they were at risk even off-duty because they could piss off criminal organisations in the course of their work. That's the only justification I can see which is even vaguely reasonable.

Though it's good that they weren't left in the car, because that's just one more opportunity for someone else to get their hands on a gun.

I was just talking to friend about this.

It is amusing, but at the same absurd.

It just goes to show how absurd and sad life is in the end.

An infant accidently kills its mother.

The only thing that could be more ridiculous would be if the family sued the infant.

St Williams Parr County wrote:

Seno Zhou Varada wrote:Assuming the kid had a father or that it was a straight relationship and the children weren't adopted.

I'm not sucking it up or anything, but if the father and the son were seperated that would be a life mute to the kid.

Explain what those mean.

Tubbsalot wrote:

Shilya wrote:An attack or attempted robbery from someone with a melee weapon (knife, bat or similar).

The person presumably has their weapon ready and is at close range. You have to ready the gun and then use it at a range where a knife would be a superior weapon. Pepper spray would be a better choice for multiple reasons.

Big Jim P wrote:Describe it? there are plenty of examples of it already. Why do I need to describe a scenario that has already happened?

Because I'm not aware of these examples, can't think of any myself, and you're theoretically attempting to convince me of your views.

Here's 3 examples of a concealed carry permit holder using a concealed weapon in self defense.

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/but ... f-defense-

http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/local/da ... /18115091/

http://www.standard.net/Police/2014/11/ ... l-shooting

Tubbsalot wrote:

Galloism wrote:Generally detectives drive cars. Cars which lock.

Why don't they leave their gun in the car most of the time, then?

Why was I required to carry at all times, even off duty?

Bearing in mind that I'm not a detective, and know hardly anything about detectives, I'm not sure why you're asking. In most of the world detectives are not required to carry off-duty, so my guess would be that America has a crazy gun fetish. Presumably the justification was that they were at risk even off-duty because they could piss off criminal organisations in the course of their work. That's the only justification I can see which is even vaguely reasonable.

Though it's good that they weren't left in the car, because that's just one more opportunity for someone else to get their hands on a gun.

So what should this woman have done with her gun? Left it at home?

Tubbsalot wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:No it would not.

If you're in a situation where you would be unable to cock the handgun when you need it, you probably won't have the time to draw it in the first place.

Okay. Please describe a plausible scenario in which an unloaded, uncocked handgun would be a useful tool in self-defence.

Guns are hard, bash them against the person's head

Galloism wrote:

Tubbsalot wrote:Bearing in mind that I'm not a detective, and know hardly anything about detectives, I'm not sure why you're asking. In most of the world detectives are not required to carry off-duty, so my guess would be that America has a crazy gun fetish. Presumably the justification was that they were at risk even off-duty because they could piss off criminal organisations in the course of their work. That's the only justification I can see which is even vaguely reasonable.

Though it's good that they weren't left in the car, because that's just one more opportunity for someone else to get their hands on a gun.

So what should this woman have done with her gun? Left it at home?

Kept it out of reach of the child, for one. And then kept the safety on (if there was one), not have it cocked, and all in all, not have it immediately ready to fire. Though keeping it at home is fine too.

Galloism wrote:

Tubbsalot wrote:Bearing in mind that I'm not a detective, and know hardly anything about detectives, I'm not sure why you're asking. In most of the world detectives are not required to carry off-duty, so my guess would be that America has a crazy gun fetish. Presumably the justification was that they were at risk even off-duty because they could piss off criminal organisations in the course of their work. That's the only justification I can see which is even vaguely reasonable.

Though it's good that they weren't left in the car, because that's just one more opportunity for someone else to get their hands on a gun.

So what should this woman have done with her gun? Left it at home?

Well actually the law says yes.

Can't bring a gun into a building that holds more than 1000 people.

Cyrisnia wrote:

St Williams Parr County wrote:
At least the father was there by his side while he was growing up. Of course, when he is growing up.

Yeah. This is next level sad.
I'm concerned for the kid later in life, other kids can be cruel sometimes. I'm expecting some kids to bully him/stay away from him because of this. Not to mention some adults, or even family members.

This could stir trouble for the child in the future.

Anyways, I can't tell this little man's future. If it happens, it happens. We have no control over that. Besides, were not his parents.

Merizoc wrote:

Galloism wrote:So what should this woman have done with her gun? Left it at home?

Kept it out of reach of the child, for one. And then kept the safety on (if there was one), not have it cocked, and all in all, not have it immediately ready to fire. Though keeping it at home is fine too.

Well, I mean, I don't think a purse is a responsible place to carry. It's too easy to lift (as this has shown). I'm very much a proponent of body carrying, where the weight is noticeable and not easily forgotten about.

However, leaving the gun at home, unless in a very fixed heavy safe, is pretty irresponsible. One of the largest ways criminals get guns is via home theft.