What's new
By:

Pro-gun activist Jamie Gilt shot by 4 year old Son

The Midnight

The Midnight

#Baby_Talk
Contributor
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3484064/Pro-gun-poster-girl-shot-four-year-old-son-driving-Florida-boy-pistol-seat-truck.html

- Jamie Gilt, 31, was driving with her son, 4, through Putnam County, Florida

- The child picked up a loaded .45 handgun from the back seat and fired

- Gilt was shot and wounded after the round passed through the truck's seat

- She told deputies that she had been shot in the back by her young son

- Just 24 hours earlier, she posted about her toddler's shooting ability

- She wrote: ''Even my 4 year old gets jacked up to target shoot with the .22'

- Gilt was reportedly on her way to pick up a horse when she was shot

32084BE200000578-0-image-a-2_1457534590194.jpg
 
Last edited:
Anyone who leaves a loaded handgun in a place that is easily accessible by a 4 year old deserves to shot in the back.
 
It's idiocy like this that hurts those that always practice safe handling and storage of firearms. You make the rest of us look like idiots.

I had no idea who this lady was until clicking in this thread, btw.
 
I don't think she deserved to get shot in the back but what a terrible decision. Leaving them accessible to a 4 year old...
 
If someone is going to advocate for firearm rights they ought to at the very least handle them in a safe fashion. A .45 semi-auto bouncing around on the back seat where her 4 year old is? Yeah, that's dumb.
 
ElRoach0 said:
All it ever takes is one lapse in judgement..
Click to expand...

Which is one big reason I've become disheartened by the turn the gun rights movement has taken. I believe gun ownership requires a significant degree of discipline and diligence. The first and last thing anyone in possession of a firearm should be thinking about is the safe handling of their weapon, according to a rigid set of standard criteria that is well practiced and never deviated from.

Instead, gun rights seems to mean that anyone should be able to own and carry a gun and that we should place no obstacles in their way. Also, advancing the cause through fear mongering and promoting the idea (well above safety and responsibility) that you're very likely going to have to blow someone away, and that you need to be ready and not hesitate when the opportunity to do so arises. It's soooo important to be ready to kill a "bad guy" you can't be hindered by having to load the firearm, or remove a lock, or open a safe. You need to be able to kill "bad guys" on a split seconds notice. And when in doubt assume that shadow, or that noise, or the person on the other side of that door is about to gun YOU down so you better fire first.
 
Gameface said:
Which is one big reason I've become disheartened by the turn the gun rights movement has taken. I believe gun ownership requires a significant degree of discipline and diligence. The first and last thing anyone in possession of a firearm should be thinking about is the safe handling of their weapon, according to a rigid set of standard criteria that is well practiced and never deviated from.

Instead, gun rights seems to mean that anyone should be able to own and carry a gun and that we should place no obstacles in their way. Also, advancing the cause through fear mongering and promoting the idea (well above safety and responsibility) that you're very likely going to have to blow someone away, and that you need to be ready and not hesitate when the opportunity to do so arises. It's soooo important to be ready to kill a "bad guy" you can't be hindered by having to load the firearm, or remove a lock, or open a safe. You need to be able to kill "bad guys" on a split seconds notice. And when in doubt assume that shadow, or that noise, or the person on the other side of that door is about to gun YOU down so you better fire first.
Click to expand...

You really hit the nail on the head. And the longer any one group(just happens to be the right at this point) pushes that it's more important to let as many people as possible have guns than it is to let as many appropriate people have guns(responsible, disciplined, diligent, intelligent), the more poorly I'll look on that group.
 
Gameface said:
If someone is going to advocate for firearm rights they ought to at the very least handle them in a safe fashion. A .45 semi-auto bouncing around on the back seat where her 4 year old is? Yeah, that's dumb.
Click to expand...

Someone posted some screen grabs of Facebook posts she's made in the past (they've since been taken down). They were dripping with sarcasm and condescension against anyone who didn't share her extreme views - typical far left/right wing stuff.

As someone said before no one deserves to get shot but I wouldn't shed a tear over this woman for an instant and we can only thank God that the kid didn't get killed.
 
candrew said:
Someone posted some screen grabs of Facebook posts she's made in the past (they've since been taken down). They were dripping with sarcasm and condescension against anyone who didn't share her extreme views - typical far left/right wing stuff.

As someone said before no one deserves to get shot but I wouldn't shed a tear over this woman for an instant and we can only thank God that the kid didn't get killed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the kid only has to deal with being traumatized for life over killing his own mother.
 
King Cy said:
I believe it's called "Natural Selection".
Click to expand...

Alas, here they have already reproduced.

Gameface said:
Which is one big reason I've become disheartened by the turn the gun rights movement has taken. I believe gun ownership requires a significant degree of discipline and diligence. The first and last thing anyone in possession of a firearm should be thinking about is the safe handling of their weapon, according to a rigid set of standard criteria that is well practiced and never deviated from.

Instead, gun rights seems to mean that anyone should be able to own and carry a gun and that we should place no obstacles in their way. Also, advancing the cause through fear mongering and promoting the idea (well above safety and responsibility) that you're very likely going to have to blow someone away, and that you need to be ready and not hesitate when the opportunity to do so arises. It's soooo important to be ready to kill a "bad guy" you can't be hindered by having to load the firearm, or remove a lock, or open a safe. You need to be able to kill "bad guys" on a split seconds notice. And when in doubt assume that shadow, or that noise, or the person on the other side of that door is about to gun YOU down so you better fire first.
Click to expand...

What? A centrist position on gun rights! Unbelievable!
 
Gameface said:
Which is one big reason I've become disheartened by the turn the gun rights movement has taken. I believe gun ownership requires a significant degree of discipline and diligence. The first and last thing anyone in possession of a firearm should be thinking about is the safe handling of their weapon, according to a rigid set of standard criteria that is well practiced and never deviated from.

Instead, gun rights seems to mean that anyone should be able to own and carry a gun and that we should place no obstacles in their way. Also, advancing the cause through fear mongering and promoting the idea (well above safety and responsibility) that you're very likely going to have to blow someone away, and that you need to be ready and not hesitate when the opportunity to do so arises. It's soooo important to be ready to kill a "bad guy" you can't be hindered by having to load the firearm, or remove a lock, or open a safe. You need to be able to kill "bad guys" on a split seconds notice. And when in doubt assume that shadow, or that noise, or the person on the other side of that door is about to gun YOU down so you better fire first.
Click to expand...

Great post.
 
King Cy said:
Yeah, the kid only has to deal with being traumatized for life over killing his own mother.
Click to expand...
Did she die?
In the op it says she was wounded.
(I didn't read the link)
 
Gameface said:
Which is one big reason I've become disheartened by the turn the gun rights movement has taken. I believe gun ownership requires a significant degree of discipline and diligence. The first and last thing anyone in possession of a firearm should be thinking about is the safe handling of their weapon, according to a rigid set of standard criteria that is well practiced and never deviated from.

Instead, gun rights seems to mean that anyone should be able to own and carry a gun and that we should place no obstacles in their way. Also, advancing the cause through fear mongering and promoting the idea (well above safety and responsibility) that you're very likely going to have to blow someone away, and that you need to be ready and not hesitate when the opportunity to do so arises. It's soooo important to be ready to kill a "bad guy" you can't be hindered by having to load the firearm, or remove a lock, or open a safe. You need to be able to kill "bad guys" on a split seconds notice. And when in doubt assume that shadow, or that noise, or the person on the other side of that door is about to gun YOU down so you better fire first.
Click to expand...

I believe that.

There is no safety class or lock in the world that is gunna stop this person from being a stupid *** hole. She was negligent in the welfare of her child so throw her *** in jail.

This lady didn't have her child in a safety seat! Driving in a car is the most dangerous thing for a child to do and she didn't bother to protect him. Then she leaves a loaded firearm in his reach without supervision(being present does not count as supervision). What makes you think that if there was a law to require a gun lock, or a safe, or that it wasn't loaded(which I'm pretty sure there is a law against driving with a fully loaded firearm everywhwere), that this lady would have followed it? She could have prevented this by keeping it away from him and my guess is, seeing that she was shot by a 4 year old, that she had one in the chamber and didn't have the safety on!

I am totally fine with punishing people who are clearly negligent with their firearms, but most people aren't. There are over 300 million firearms in this country and more than 99% of them will never fire a bullet that pierces human flesh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top