Skip to main content

View Diary: Another Toddler Dies. A 3-Year Old In Arizona Shoots Himself In The Face (192 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I blame the people AND the gun (42+ / 0-)

    Guns kill.  And they are far too readily available to any moron who comes down the pike who desires to own one.

    When they are less available, fewer children will be killed with them.

    To say, "I don't blame the gun" is to bury your head in the sand, or perhaps equal to plugging up your ears like a child and saying "Lalala!  I don't hear you!"

    We have an intelligence problem, I agree with you.

    I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

    by coquiero on Mon May 06, 2013 at 09:11:37 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  'less available' how? should they be given an IQ (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Norm in Chicago, Kickemout

      test before being allowed to obtain a gun? Or what are you suggesting?

      "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

      by eXtina on Mon May 06, 2013 at 09:45:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Problem is, need a legal standard to discriminate (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eXtina, Liberal Heretic

      What does "less available" mean in a legal sense?  Does that mean people who want guns should fail background checks and be told no?  If so, by what standard?

      See I would say that anyone stupid enough to be a grandmother at 32 is too stupid to own a gun.  But I'm sure many here will disagree with that characterization.  Is she really too stupid to be trusted or not?  We know that now, but how do we know that beforehand?

      Given a law that says everyone is equal, how do we then discriminate and separate the population into those who can be trusted, and those who clearly cannot?

      Also, we know that education levels follow social-economic structure.  So what happens when the stripping of gun rights begins to look like racial profiling simply by the nature of who is most likely to be poor?

      If I could snap my fingers and disarm every moron in America I would have do it.  But I can't.  So do we trust everyone equally, or do we figure out a way to legally discrimiate against morons?

      •  watch this . . . . . .. . . (14+ / 0-)
        If I could snap my fingers and disarm every moron in America I would have do it.  But I can't.  So do we trust everyone equally, or do we figure out a way to legally discrimiate against morons?
        Hey Norm, should gun owners who accidentally shoot themselves or someone around them, have their guns taken away from them?
        •  What the hell is your problem, Lenny? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Norm in Chicago, eXtina
           watch this . . . . . .. . . (1+ / 0-)
          If I could snap my fingers and disarm every moron in America I would have do it.  But I can't.  So do we trust everyone equally, or do we figure out a way to legally discrimiate against morons?
          Hey Norm, should gun owners who accidentally shoot themselves or someone around them, have their guns taken away from them?
          So trollish...ANNOUNCING that you're trolling someone by trying to get a 'gotcha'. If you spent less time trolling and writing (snicker) in your posts, and got to know some of the posters here or at least paid attention to their comments and writing, you would know that Norm would seemingly be OK with a general ban on civilian gun carrying IF it extended to police as well. And that's not a 'out' for him to 'really support no restrictions on guns', but Norm is a big advocate of much less police power, as he sees it.

          so, 'watch this', Lenny: Don't.Be.A.Dick.

          I see what you did there.

          by GoGoGoEverton on Mon May 06, 2013 at 10:21:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I notice you didn't answer the question. again. (10+ / 0-)

            And your lack of answer is pretty eloquent all by itself.

            That's why I keep asking.

            Thanks for helping me again.

            •  You didn't ask me any question, you asked Norm. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              eXtina, Ginny in CO

              Try to keep up with your own trolling.

              And I don't answer your bullshit, trolling questions because they're not worthy and you don't converse in anything anywhere near good faith. So yes, going after someone else here did bring me to actually reply to you, but only that, and I shall not waste another pixel on your junk for at least the near time being.  

              I see what you did there.

              by GoGoGoEverton on Mon May 06, 2013 at 10:26:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  then why are YOU talking . . . . (10+ / 0-)
                And I don't answer your bullshit, trolling questions because they're not worthy and you don't converse in anything anywhere near good faith.
                See, GoGo, that's where you are wrong.  You don't answer because you know the reaction your answer will get.  Because, you see, you and most of your posse DON'T think people who shoot themselves or others should have their guns taken away and prevented from having any more,  all your happy talk about "we WANT to keep guns from the irresponsible" is pure baloney--and you don't want to say any of that out loud because most people here already think the gun nuts are nuts, and you don't want to reinforce that view.

                That's why I keep asking every one of you, even though I know as well as you do that none of you will answer.

                •  Innocent until proven guilty, then loss of rights (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  eXtina, Ginny in CO, GoGoGoEverton

                  Lenny,

                  I'll happily answer your questions, but I don't think you'll like the answer.  As everyone is equal under the law, all adults have the right to own a gun per the 2nd Amendment.  The only way a constitutional right can be taken away is through due process in a court of law.

                  If someone shoots themselves and live, should they be banned from owning a gun?  Sure, if they are found to be legally mentally ill, a danger to themselves and others, and are to be locked in a padded room for the rest of their lives, then sure, take their gun rights away for ever.

                  Shooting another person is a felony.  Puting a loaded weapon in the hands of a child is reckless behavior and manslaughter or such.  I have absolutely zero issue with a person convicted of a felony in court being denied gun ownership rights for life.

                  Gun rights can and should be taken away from individuals in court for their individual behavior.

                  •  OK, so that would be "no, a moron who shoots (10+ / 0-)

                    himself or someone else should NOT have his guns taken away and be prevented from having any more".

                    And all this happy talk of yours:

                    If I could snap my fingers and disarm every moron in America I would have do it.
                    Is just BS.

                    Got it.

                    Thanks for confirming.

                    •  If I could make every gun disapear I would (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      GoGoGoEverton, Ginny in CO

                      I don't own guns, I don't love them, I have no desire to ever shoot one.

                      But my discussions are always about rights and equality.  So if I could make every gun on Earth disapear and have everyone be equal that way, I would.

                      And like GoGoEverton said, I will legally accept any and every gun ban so long as that gun ban is applied equally to civilians and police.  The police can be morons too.  They can go crazy and start shooting people.  If civilians don't need 30 round magazines and AR-15s, then neither do the cops.

                      I support Constitutional rights and equality.  What do you support?

                    •  P.S. How did you get "No" out of my post above? (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      GoGoGoEverton, Ginny in CO

                      I clearly stated:

                      Gun rights can and should be taken away from individuals in court for their individual behavior.
                      And you said:
                      OK, so that would be "no, a moron who shoots himself or someone else should NOT have his guns taken away and be prevented from having any more".
                      Clearly Lenny, reading comprehension is not one of your strong suits.  If you're going to ignore what I said and state the exact opposite, then just go away and let the adults talk.
                      •  do I really need to repeat, Norm? Just because you (4+ / 0-)

                        are being obtuse again?

                        Ok, I will once more emphasize for everyone why you are full of it:

                        If a gun owner irresponsibly shoots himself or someone around him (and to be clear I'll point out that this is NOT A CRIME and virtually NONE of these morons gets charged with anything), should they have their guns taken away from them and be prevented from getting any more?

                        Does "shooting myself or someone else" rise to the standard of "maybe I should not be allowed to have a gun"?

                        •  Sounds like your problem is with the law (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          GoGoGoEverton, Ginny in CO

                          I agree with you Lenny, that most of those "accidental" shootings involve criminal levels of stupidity and therefore they should be crimes.  If I were King, I would make them crimes.

                          However, I'm not king and I'm not a DA, so I can't make something a crime if the law says it isn't.  I can't take rights away from people who have not been charged with crimes.  Doesn't work that way.

                          But you asked me if those irresponsible gun owners SHOULD have their guns taken away.  And I replied, Yes, they SHOULD have their guns taken away.  They SHOULD be charged with crimes.

                          But SHOULD is not the same as SHALL.  Should is my opinion, Shall is the law.  If the law says they get to keep their guns, what would you like me to do about it?

                          I support charging these gun nuts with felonies and taking their guns away.  If that doesn't happen to your satisfaction, go complain to the DA.

                        •  P.S. You really don't like due process, do you? (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          GoGoGoEverton

                          Lenny, I would like you to explain something for me, else I may have to suspect that you are full of it.

                          Please explain the process by which you would strip Constitutional rights from someone who has not been convicted in court of any crime.  Please explain where in the Constitution that it says we only have our rights so long as Lenny Flank says we do.

                          Furthermore, please explain how that extrajudicial process would be limited to 2nd Amendment, and ONLY 2nd Amendment rights.

                          Take your time...

                  •  Unless you're black & want to vote which doesn't (3+ / 0-)

                    Involve violence.

                    Must be way more dangerous.

                  •  Without registration and universal checks, (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Norm in Chicago, PsychoSavannah

                    loss of rights is meaningless. Case in point is the Minnesota terror suspect. His rights to a gun had been legally taken away but since he can go to his local gunshow and buy one, that action was meaningless. And since there is no tracking of purchases in the US, there is no way to know from whom he acquired his arsenal. These issues need to be addressed from a public safety point of view, in my opinion.

                    I won't believe corporations are people until Texas executes one. Leo Gerard.

                    by tgrshark13 on Mon May 06, 2013 at 06:30:13 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  And I seriously believe (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    coquiero

                    that any person shown to be reckless in their handling of guns--leaving a loaded one in a backpack, or being surprised in the airport TSA line that the gun was in their purse, or sadly being discovered to be reckless when a child is injured or killed--should have their right to have a gun permanently lost. Period. There is NO fuzzy ground about gun ownership responsibility in my mind, and no need to determine mental status. They are too dangerous to allow for second chances.

                    I am a proud Vagina-American!

                    by Jabus on Tue May 07, 2013 at 06:22:16 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  ps: (4+ / 0-)
            Norm would seemingly be OK with a general ban on civilian gun carrying IF it extended to police as well
            Yes, we already know Norm is. . . um . . .  a little odd that way.

            But hey, if it makes you feel better, I'd be all in favor of an AK47 fully-loaded in the hands of every American--IF the space aliens invaded and we had to fight them off. But since neither of those is about to happen in our lifetimes, I think we can safely not waste our time on either of them, and instead ask Norm what he REALLY thinks about this "taking guns away from the morons" that he is happy-talking about in an actual existing real-world situation---some moron carelessly shoots himself or someone else.

            Well, Norm?  Whaddya think? Should the irresponsible moron get to keep his gunz or not?

            •  You have to find the moron mentally ill first (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              GoGoGoEverton

              If you're talking about disarming before a crime...
              You can disarm every moron in America as soon as you put each and every single one of them in court and find them legally insane and/or a danger to the public.  But that pretty much means taking all rights away from them.  They don't get to own so much as a pointy stick.  No cars, knives or chainsaws either.  If they are so mentally unstable that they can't be trusted with a gun, they can't be trusted at all.

              •  Why? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DefendOurConstitution, coquiero

                If you shoot yourself or someone else, you have proved that you are a danger to yourself or others - very, very clearly. I mean, there's a bullet lodged in someone that proves you could not handle the gun safely.

                I don't think we have to add "mentally ill" to the list in order for it to be legitimate to take all guns away from someone who demonstrates so clearly that they are incapable of proper gun handling. Proving that you are a danger by actually shooting someone is all that should be needed to remove your right to have guns. I would not then extend that to cars and knives (or pointy sticks), unless you also grievously harm yourself or someone else with one of those objects.

                I could see allowing a cooling off period, followed by a whole slew of safety training courses, special insurance, and inspected lock-boxes to earn reinstatement of the right to have a gun, but no second chances if the shooting was intentional (attempted suicide or assault) - no matter who was shot. In either of those cases you're incapable of handling your anger, incapable of handling depression, or you have another mental illness.

        •  Yes. Committing a crime results in loss of rights (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GoGoGoEverton

          The real question is, who loses their rights before committing a crime, because someone decides they're likely to do something stupid.

          Who is that person, and what standard do they use?

        •  Short answer - no (0+ / 0-)

          long answer - not if you want to adhere to the Constitution

          "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

          by eXtina on Mon May 06, 2013 at 01:44:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Something to consider (0+ / 0-)

        before you go judging the 32-year-old grandmother: Poverty takes its toll on life expectancy. It also closes off opportunities that would make a young person living in better circumstances think twice about putting her future in jeopardy. If your socioeconomic status is going to wreck your health and looks before you're 30, and if you have no better future to look forward to, having children as early as possible makes perfect evolutionary sense.

        Which is not to justify the sheer stupidity of using meth or leaving guns where toddlers can get at them, only to point out that these are the things that deserve the harshest judgment here, not being a grandmother at 32. And also that the best way to keep kids from getting pregnant at 16 is to give them reasons not to, starting with creating the possibility that their future might be better than their present, rather than level the blamethrower at their own too-young parents.

        "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is the first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk. Every state is totalitarian at heart; there are no ends to the cruelty it will go to to protect itself." -- Ian McDonald

        by Geenius at Wrok on Tue May 07, 2013 at 07:23:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  3D guns! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PsychoSavannah, lyvwyr101
      5/6/13....The world's first gun made with 3D printer technology has been successfully fired in the US.

      The controversial group which created the firearm, Defense Distributed, plans to make the blueprints available online.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/...

      "Tax cuts for the 1% create jobs." -- Republicans, HAHAHA - in China

      by MartyM on Mon May 06, 2013 at 10:40:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Absolutely. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DefendOurConstitution, coquiero

      If Grandma had left a coloring book and crayons on top of the dryer--instead--we wouldn't be having this conversation.

      Mayan Word For 'Apocalypse' Actually Translates More Accurately As "Time Of Pale Obese Gun Monsters."......the Onion

      by lyvwyr101 on Mon May 06, 2013 at 04:48:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site