Toddler Shoots and Kills Mother

[WestRedMaple]

Which would be accurately described by the word projection.

Now, by any chance, would you care to discuss the topic?

I've discussed it. It's an annoying topic, and I've found the approaches taken by some of the more ardent firearms aficionados to be intellectually dishonest, utterly fallacious, and eye-rollingly idiotic. I have no interest in further discussion when the other side acts as if any attempt to restrict or otherwise modify our current approach to gun ownership is treated as a proposal to amputate their genitals.

So you're just here to whine about what other people have to say......

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I've discussed it. It's an annoying topic, and I've found the approaches taken by some of the more ardent firearms aficionados to be intellectually dishonest, utterly fallacious, and eye-rollingly idiotic. I have no interest in further discussion when the other side acts as if any attempt to restrict or otherwise modify our current approach to gun ownership is treated as a proposal to amputate their genitals.

So you're just here to whine about what other people have to say......

Actually, no, I was here to read what arguments people had, and took the opportunity to correct your self-serving intentional misinterpretation of the post of another. Not a whine involved.

[WestRedMaple]

So you're just here to whine about what other people have to say......

Actually, no, I was here to read what arguments people had, and took the opportunity to correct your self-serving intentional misinterpretation of the post of another. Not a whine involved.

Which is obviously incorrect. You're not reading, you're whining. You're not even accurate about it.

My statement about the post was entirely accurate.

I'm sorry to see that you are so interested in typing, but have so little interest in discussing the topic.


A negligent woman allowed a small child access to a loaded firearm. The silver lining, I suppose, is that at least she paid the price for her negligence rather than someone else

[Big Jim P]

Which would be accurately described by the word projection.

Now, by any chance, would you care to discuss the topic?

I've discussed it. It's an annoying topic, and I've found the approaches taken by some of the more ardent firearms aficionados to be intellectually dishonest, utterly fallacious, and eye-rollingly idiotic. I have no interest in further discussion when the other side acts as if any attempt to restrict or otherwise modify our current approach to gun ownership is treated as a proposal to amputate their genitals.

We had no real problem with gun ownership until people started modifying the approach to gun ownership in the first place.

[Big Jim P]

A negligent woman allowed a small child access to a loaded firearm. The silver lining, I suppose, is that at least she paid the price for her negligence rather than someone else

Essentially this says it all.

[Big Jim P]

Let's consider the word "prevent" (which you used) vs "dissuade" (as used by the original poster you responded to).

Dissuade implies a discouragement, but not a prevention. For instance, I can try to dissuade you from making bad comparisons by pointing them out, but I cannot prevent them as I do not have the power.

However, if the government came by and charged a $1,000 per month tax on your internet because you make bad arguments, that would probably prevent you from using the internet, and therefore you could not exercise your constitutional right to make bad arguments.

A tax which is reasonable may be used as a dissuasion, and that's not significant problem.

But if it's $1,000 per gun, that's effectively a prevention for a significant portion of society, and would probably be unconstitutional.

The problem is, much like poll taxes originally, the issue is relative exclusion based on income, and the other factors which follow alongside of it.

Middle-class working individuals can afford a wide range of surcharges on firearms with little or no impact on their availability.
Such is not the case with the poorer segments of society where, one would be remiss in not pointing out, the prevalence of potential usage in self-defense situations is considerably higher (the poor being more likely targets/victims of crime than other groups). One could also point out the unfortunate racial component this contains because of the wide segments of minority communities who live in poverty, and question the motives behind restricting access to these people in particular with surcharges which would be much more harmful on them than others. One might then question the motivation of an action designed to set-up monetary barriers to such people obtaining firearms and the motivations which underlay it, in the same manner poll taxes restricted the ability of such people to vote or voter ID requirements restrict the ability of such people to vote.

That is and always has been the true purpose of gun-control: to keep the poor and black unarmed.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Actually, no, I was here to read what arguments people had, and took the opportunity to correct your self-serving intentional misinterpretation of the post of another. Not a whine involved.

Which is obviously incorrect. You're not reading, you're whining. You're not even accurate about it.

My statement about the post was entirely accurate.

I'm sorry to see that you are so interested in typing, but have so little interest in discussing the topic.


A negligent woman allowed a small child access to a loaded firearm. The silver lining, I suppose, is that at least she paid the price for her negligence rather than someone else

I have to say that it's not especially shocking that someone given to self-serving interpretations is either unable to see or unwilling to admit just how self-serving they are.

I have an interest in discussing the topic with someone who is able to do so intelligently and honestly. You've shown no interest in doing so. Please move on.

[Big Jim P]

One final not for today:

From my sig: If you do not like private gun ownership in America, amend the constitution.

[Yuketobaniac]

Now if only the mom had a gun, this whole thing could have been prevented.

Or if the gun had a safety.

[Big Jim P]

Now if only the mom had a gun, this whole thing could have been prevented.

Or if the gun had a safety.

Gun safeties (or lack of them) were discussed earlier.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

The problem is, much like poll taxes originally, the issue is relative exclusion based on income, and the other factors which follow alongside of it.

Middle-class working individuals can afford a wide range of surcharges on firearms with little or no impact on their availability.
Such is not the case with the poorer segments of society where, one would be remiss in not pointing out, the prevalence of potential usage in self-defense situations is considerably higher (the poor being more likely targets/victims of crime than other groups). One could also point out the unfortunate racial component this contains because of the wide segments of minority communities who live in poverty, and question the motives behind restricting access to these people in particular with surcharges which would be much more harmful on them than others. One might then question the motivation of an action designed to set-up monetary barriers to such people obtaining firearms and the motivations which underlay it, in the same manner poll taxes restricted the ability of such people to vote or voter ID requirements restrict the ability of such people to vote.

That is and always has been the true purpose of gun-control: to keep the poor and black unarmed.

That's a moronic (and, I assume, intentional) mischaracterization of the "true purpose" of gun control. It's like me saying that the true purpose of gun rights advocacy is to ensure that murderers have ready access to heavy firepower. The purpose of gun control is to cut down on gun violence with a eventual goal of eliminating it entirely. Whether or not this is practical or workable is open to fair and honest debate, but you're not going to get a debate that is either fair or honest when you spew bullshit like that.

[WestRedMaple]

Which is obviously incorrect. You're not reading, you're whining. You're not even accurate about it.

My statement about the post was entirely accurate.

I'm sorry to see that you are so interested in typing, but have so little interest in discussing the topic.


A negligent woman allowed a small child access to a loaded firearm. The silver lining, I suppose, is that at least she paid the price for her negligence rather than someone else

I have to say that it's not especially shocking that someone given to self-serving interpretations is either unable to see or unwilling to admit just how self-serving they are.

I have an interest in discussing the topic with someone who is able to do so intelligently and honestly. You've shown no interest in doing so. Please move on.

Your refusal to discuss the topic, even when responding to comments about the topic, is adequate demonstration that you have no interest in it. The fact that you lie about it only strengthens that indication.

If you ever get tired of that whining and would actually like to discuss this woman allowing a toddler access to a firearm, then come on back

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I have to say that it's not especially shocking that someone given to self-serving interpretations is either unable to see or unwilling to admit just how self-serving they are.

I have an interest in discussing the topic with someone who is able to do so intelligently and honestly. You've shown no interest in doing so. Please move on.

Your refusal to discuss the topic, even when responding to comments about the topic, is adequate demonstration that you have no interest in it. The fact that you lie about it only strengthens that indication.

If you ever get tired of that whining and would actually like to discuss this woman allowing a toddler access to a firearm, then come on back

Did you have a hard time understanding the "Please", the "move", or the "on"?

Refusing to discuss the topic with you is not the same thing as refusing to discuss it at all.

[WestRedMaple]

Your refusal to discuss the topic, even when responding to comments about the topic, is adequate demonstration that you have no interest in it. The fact that you lie about it only strengthens that indication.

If you ever get tired of that whining and would actually like to discuss this woman allowing a toddler access to a firearm, then come on back

Did you have a hard time understanding the "Please", the "move", or the "on"?

Refusing to discuss the topic with you is not the same thing as refusing to discuss it at all.

So you're still just whining rather than discussing the topic.

As mentioned, if you'd ever like to discuss this woman and her toddler, I'll be around

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Did you have a hard time understanding the "Please", the "move", or the "on"?

Refusing to discuss the topic with you is not the same thing as refusing to discuss it at all.

So you're still just whining rather than discussing the topic.

As mentioned, if you'd ever like to discuss this woman and her toddler, I'll be around

I actually discussed it a few posts up, as regards the motivations of gun control advocates. I also discussed it some pages back, which you would know if you'd bothered to actually read the thread rather than coming in and tromping all over the conversation with your ill-informed opinions and intentional mischaracterizations of the arguments of others. Again, I simply have no interest in discussing it with you, as your record on this thread indicates no ability on your part to have an open, honest, and intelligent conversation.

I repeat: please move on, and stop embarrassing yourself.

[WestRedMaple]

So you're still just whining rather than discussing the topic.

As mentioned, if you'd ever like to discuss this woman and her toddler, I'll be around

I actually discussed it a few posts up, as regards the motivations of gun control advocates. I also discussed it some pages back, which you would know if you'd bothered to actually read the thread rather than coming in and tromping all over the conversation with your ill-informed opinions and intentional mischaracterizations of the arguments of others. Again, I simply have no interest in discussing it with you, as your record on this thread indicates no ability on your part to have an open, honest, and intelligent conversation.

I repeat: please move on, and stop embarrassing yourself.

So you're still not ready and interested in discussing the negligent woman shot by her toddler. That's alright, come back when you are

[Fartsniffage]

One could cut the sexual tension in this thread with a knife.....

[The Wolven League]

This is why guns should be banned or strictly regulated.

[Imperializt Russia]

This is why guns should be banned or strictly regulated.

It's actually not.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

This is why guns should be banned or strictly regulated.

No, not at all.

[The Wolven League]

The world would be safer with only people with absolutely no criminal record owning them. They should be strictly sold.

[Cyrisnia]

This is why guns should be banned or strictly regulated.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

The world would be safer with only people with absolutely no criminal record owning them. They should be strictly sold.

Perhaps, but an outright ban is absurd.

[Cyrisnia]

The world would be safer with only people with absolutely no criminal record owning them. They should be strictly sold.

You do understand that is impossible, correct?

[The Wolven League]

The world would be safer with only people with absolutely no criminal record owning them. They should be strictly sold.

You do understand that is impossible, correct?

How so?