Mother Mistakes Daughter for Intruder, Shoots and Kills Her.

[carolinajazz]

Societies Transformed by Guns
“The proliferation of weaponry, in particular small arms, is so widespread that it is responsible for the death of one person every minute and more than 500,000 killings a year [worldwide],” reveals London’s newspaper The Independent. “In 2001, 16*billion units of military ammunition were made, enough to shoot everyone in the world twice.”

Nearly eight million firearms are manufactured annually, the majority for civilian use. As the study by Amnesty International, Oxfam, and the International Action Network on Small Arms points out, “societies that were once largely peaceful, with any scores being settled with fists or knives, have been transformed by guns.”

In one country, assault rifles are used as currency. In another, an English teacher who gave lessons to an elderly woman was paid in hand grenades. And in a third country, “babies are named ‘Uzi’ and ‘AK’ after their fathers’ favorite assault rifles,” the paper said.

 

[carolinajazz]

“A gun gives the ordinary citizen courage. He thinks he is protected, but he is also really running great risk of becoming a criminal,” says police chief Nelson Silveira Guimarães of São Paulo, Brazil, speaking of the many people in the city who are carrying guns for protection. “The vast majority are not fit at all to have a gun,” adds Robinson do Prado, civil police investigator. “They are people without any emotional control to deal with situations of high tension.” It does not take much for one to lose self-control, notes the Brazilian newspaper Jornal da Tarde. “A provocation, a controversy, an uncontrolled gesture, and anyone can go from being a victim to being a murderer.”

 

[The Midnight]

“A gun gives the ordinary citizen courage. He thinks he is protected, but he is also really running great risk of becoming a criminal,” says police chief Nelson Silveira Guimarães of São Paulo, Brazil, speaking of the many people in the city who are carrying guns for protection. “The vast majority are not fit at all to have a gun,” adds Robinson do Prado, civil police investigator. “They are people without any emotional control to deal with situations of high tension.” It does not take much for one to lose self-control, notes the Brazilian newspaper Jornal da Tarde. “A provocation, a controversy, an uncontrolled gesture, and anyone can go from being a victim to being a murderer.”

True... good post.

 

[The Thriller]

This happens 10+ times every day in America.

It sucks.

But because you can breathe in this country that entitles you to own a military base supply of guns and ammo, no background checks require. We reap what we sow.

I'm all about responsible gun ownership.

 

[The Thriller]

We have courses and tests to pass before driving.

Why shouldn't guns be any different?

the second part of the second amendment talks about REGULATION. The NRA and idiotic conservative Supreme Court doesn't want you to know this inconvenient detail.

 

[The Midnight]

Can it really be this easy to walk into a gun shop, get a gun, go home, and kill your girlfriend?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymKvDj_4Omk

 

[Bronco70]

That's unfair. Either everyone can own a gun or no one can (except the police of course). Fair is fair.

This is beyond retarded.




Sent from the JazzFanz app

 

[Bronco70]

We reap what we sow

What we've sown is a society of entitled whiners that aren't familiar with the concept of personal responsibility.

We've sown division instead of unity. We are too busy finding offense and spreading blame to talk about strategies for working together to overcome our problems.

We've sown rage as the accepted reaction for any trespass or unpleasant turn of events, regardless of how minor or unintentional.

Guns have always been around. Why haven't they always been a problem?


Sent from the JazzFanz app

 

[The Thriller]

What we've sown is a society of entitled whiners that aren't familiar with the concept of personal responsibility.

We've sown division instead of unity. We are too busy finding offense and spreading blame to talk about strategies for working together to overcome our problems.

We've sown rage as the accepted reaction for any trespass or unpleasant turn of events, regardless of how minor or unintentional.

Guns have always been around. Why haven't they always been a problem?


Sent from the JazzFanz app

A. They were better regulated in the past.
B. We didn't always have America's #1 terrorist organization, the NRA, pumping out propaganda 24/7. At one point they actually taught personal responsibility. At one point one of their presidents admitted to refusing to carry a gun because it was too great of a responsibility. Today? It's used to compensate for your own inability to attract members of the opposite sex. Who needs a girl when you've got a gun?

 

[Stoked]

Oof, this thread...

 

[Bronco70]

A. They were better regulated in the past.

Really? Care to elaborate?

The rest of your post boiled down to two things:

1. The NRA is bad. (I agree)
2. People are stupid (I agree)

As long as we continue to blame inanimate objects for the bad decisions, neglect, and stupidity of people, we will never solve these problems.

I am done with this thread now. These never go anywhere productive.


Sent from the JazzFanz app

 

[Gameface]

The point of this thread is that gun owners need to hold their fellow gun owners accountable for things like this. Not make excuses, not make it legal to blast away into the darkness. This incident was not one that is unavoidable as long as guns are around. Even with the prevalence of guns in the U.S. this sort of incident should be extraordinarily rare. And I do blame pro gun groups. like the NRA, in part. The ideology has been that the more guns the better and that every law abiding citizen should have a gun on them as much as humanly possible, and that it's as simple as that. It isn't as simple as that. There needs to be a culture of discipline and responsibility that accompanies gun ownership.

So as a supporter of gun rights I just wanted to go on record as saying that this is not an understandable incident that just happens because we all have the right to own a firearm. This was a case of extreme negligence that violated the most basic rules of firearm safety and therefore, in my opinion, means that the shooter committed a criminal act. Not just an innocent mistake. Not just that it might have been a burglar so she was right to roll the dice and shoot at a shadow just in case. When pulling the trigger there is no room for speculation. You can't think that it might be a threat so I need to gun it down, you either know or you don't know, and if you don't know you don't fire. Period.

 

[babe]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Gameface again.

So I'm not going to just go around passing out rep just to get the "right" to make a positive mark on Game's comments. This is about the fourth time I've run into this mindless bureaucratic stipulation.

Everybody knows if I wanna pass out rep to Game he's no homie of mine or best friend or anything else, it's because he's right about something.

I wouldn't agree about not "shooting into the darkness" as a matter of law. It could be important to do so in some instance. But yah, we got light switches in our homes, and lights, and even yard floodlights. I'd prefer to have the light if I needed to shoot a gun. That's a very smart item to consider. I might consider if I actually know where my dogs and my kids are before I shoot at something messing with my trash cans, too. I wouldn't shoot a raccoon, a cat, or a homeless dumpster-diver either.

As a rule, if someone is close enough to knife me within five seconds, and coming in fast, and not announcing or answering who they are, I would shoot, even in the dark.

Most laws are stupid. Not because there are not reasons for them, or good sense behind them, but because they cannot be written so that they cover every possibility. And because some people wanna hijack common sense and people's rights any way they can, and laws can always be pushed in their interpretations to suit their agenda.

 

[babe]

A. They were better regulated in the past.
B. We didn't always have America's #1 terrorist organization, the NRA, pumping out propaganda 24/7. At one point they actually taught personal responsibility. At one point one of their presidents admitted to refusing to carry a gun because it was too great of a responsibility. Today? It's used to compensate for your own inability to attract members of the opposite sex. Who needs a girl when you've got a gun?

obviously, a few people won't think before talking. Guns were a problem in the Old West sometimes, and sometimes a bold Sheriff or Marshall put a stop to the craziness by making people turn in their guns at the saloon or sheriffs office. In Old Frisco mining town in Utah, it was so bad the new sheriff rode into town and announced that he was not going to put any troublemakers in jail, he was gonna shoot them outright and be done with it. And he did. After about six stupid people died, there was no more nonsense in that town.

I wouldn't be his critic. The rowdies where just shooting people down for no reason in the town. It took someone to just put a stop to their "liberties" as they presumed they had the power to do as they thought.

The NRA is an excellent, responsible civic organization. I count them as our best citizens, responsible people who are not out on any propaganda binge or movement to overthrow any human rights.

Thriller is beyond irresponsible, and has perhaps been reading too much uninformed yellow journalism.

 

[babe]

So I'm pretty disappointed in OL's recent rhetoric.

I thought moderators were supposed to be quieting down the extremists whose rants are beyond the pale of polite society.

Can it really be this easy to walk into a gun shop, get a gun, go home, and kill your girlfriend?

This kind of a comment is imo inflammatory and the kind of thing that prejudices people in the extreme, and destroys reasonable conversation.

Of course, someone intent on murder can walk out the door and find a rock in the landscaping, and go indoors and smash a skull. Or whatever. The kitchen drawers have steak knives too.

This is actually an irresponsible direction for a moderator to take this thread, and I object. I think it should be an infraction, to set an example.

Game has a very good thread, potentially, where the discussion could actually join some folks whose views are opposed, and generate a positive step forward in our thinking.

When people act irresponsibly, we should make sure we can send the right messages through framing laws requiring responsible behavior, and punishing those who are irresponsible, particularly when they kill someone (manslaughter in this case, or possibly a cleverly contrived murder), or cause other serious harm.

And it shouldn't make any difference how they do it, it's the consequence of irresponsible conduct.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

So I'm pretty disappointed in OL's recent rhetoric.

I thought moderators were supposed to be quieting down the extremists whose rants are beyond the pale of polite society.



This kind of a comment is imo inflammatory and the kind of thing that prejudices people in the extreme, and destroys reasonable conversation.

Of course, someone intent on murder can walk out the door and find a rock in the landscaping, and go indoors and smash a skull. Or whatever. The kitchen drawers have steak knives too.

This is actually an irresponsible direction for a moderator to take this thread, and I object. I think it should be an infraction, to set an example.

Game has a very good thread, potentially, where the discussion could actually join some folks whose views are opposed, and generate a positive step forward in our thinking.

When people act irresponsibly, we should make sure we can send the right messages through framing laws requiring responsible behavior, and punishing those who are irresponsible, particularly when they kill someone (manslaughter in this case, or possibly a cleverly contrived murder), or cause other serious harm.

And it shouldn't make any difference how they do it, it's the consequence of irresponsible conduct.

I don't think what you are responding to was anywhere close to OL's strangest contribution to this thread, but on a side note you made me realize that maybe we ought to require a background check for rocks.

 

[Stoked]

I don't really hold to this notion that mods cannot/should not have strong opinions on issues. Certainly there are ways they should and should not express them.

But while I certainly do not agree with OL's stance in here I don't think he should be prevented from voicing it. He has not been crude, rude or offensive in his stance. Even if I consider it unreasonable.

 

[The Midnight]

I've obviously stumbled upon a pretty sensitive subject here and I'm obviously a minority in my view on this partly because gun ownership here in NZ is pretty low and we have hardly any issues with gun violence... the same goes with Australia IIRC as other Australian posters have alluded to in other gun related threads previously.


If I've been rude or offensive to anyone here I do apologise from the bottom of my heart I mean no harm.


Peace & Love.

 

[Gameface]

I've obviously stumbled upon a pretty sensitive subject here and I'm obviously a minority in my view on this partly because gun ownership here in NZ is pretty low and we have hardly any issues with gun violence... the same goes with Australia IIRC as other Australian posters have alluded to in other gun related threads previously.


If I've been rude or offensive to anyone here I do apologise from the bottom of my heart I mean no harm.


Peace & Love.

You've been fine. I think your posts have been sincere so I don't have a problem with them at all. The have been a few I've wanted to respond to but I've been working a lot and hate posting from my phone.

 

[babe]

You've been fine. I think your posts have been sincere so I don't have a problem with them at all. The have been a few I've wanted to respond to but I've been working a lot and hate posting from my phone.

OK, my point was that a good discussion might benefit from staying on topic, and not particularly pushing some hobby horse. If the topic is how to achieve a community that has standards for responsible conduct, like the gun rules, it's not benefited by phrasing it in the precise terms used by total gun rights abolitionists. That might make a good thread on it's own merit. But if you have all the guns in official government-approved hands then the issue of responsibility goes to how to weed out the Stalin's and Pol Pots who sometimes just walk into the political store and walk out with all the guns it takes to kill millions. While that has not happened in any British commonwealth country since the Magna Carta, and everything might be just fine in NZ or Australia, Game's OP was actually about some gun rules a community could put on the law books as a deterrent to obvious irresponsible use of a gun. Kinda like traffic rules. I liked that thread.