• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

5-year old Idaho girl dies afterIdaho playmate gets gun

Again with the someone who no one knows expert nonsense. Again it means nothing. In fact I can honestly say if this is a real person, he is an idiot. If you and your invisible appearing out of nowhere LEO friend think open carrying is arrogant, then so be it. It is a silly blanket statement with no validity at all. Enjoy.

Well knowing him and knowing he's a great guy, a great husband/father, and a great and rational LEO, and comparing that to the person you present here, I'm more than happy to be siding with him, and look forward to many LEOs just like him, and open carry becoming illegal across the land.
 
Well knowing him and knowing he's a great guy, a great husband/father, and a great and rational LEO, and comparing that to the person you present here, I'm more than happy to be siding with him, and look forward to many LEOs just like him, and open carry becoming illegal across the land.

I'll stick with what I said as you have displayed your ignorance on this subject quite well.
 
The problem no one see's here is that these shootings are labeled as "accidental". Primarily because the acceptance gun ownership has gained in our society, we would rather call these incidents accidents instead of a crime. Because once we start calling these incidents crimes, we actually have to pass laws that might make it more difficult for people to own firearms. The NRA and its useful idiots will never allow that.
 
The problem no one see's here is that these shootings are labeled as "accidental". Primarily because the acceptance gun ownership has gained in our society, we would rather call these incidents accidents instead of a crime. Because once we start calling these incidents crimes, we actually have to pass laws that might make it more difficult for people to own firearms. The NRA and its useful idiots will never allow that.

It is an accident crime or not because of no intent to harm or kill anyone. It's like the difference between criminal trespass and burglary or Murder 1 or 2 and negligent homicide. Intent is as important as the actions involved under thew law.
 
Ah - the price we pay.
 
If the shoe fits. I'm a very slight woman, and no one ever saw my weapon. It's not that hard to accomplish.

well you have places to hide a gun that men don't:mrgreen:
 
The problem no one see's here is that these shootings are labeled as "accidental". Primarily because the acceptance gun ownership has gained in our society, we would rather call these incidents accidents instead of a crime. Because once we start calling these incidents crimes, we actually have to pass laws that might make it more difficult for people to own firearms. The NRA and its useful idiots will never allow that.

useful idiocy is blaming the NRA for the actions of someone who was most likely not an NRA members. Do you consider fatal automobile accidents intentional crimes too? How about the far more common case of kids drowning in swimming pools. Do people like you celebrate infant deaths as something you can use to bash legal gun ownership? It sure seems so And what sort of background screening checks against ACCIDENTS?
 
Ah - the price we pay.

Why don't you explain this. I know what you mean-you are trying to say that having a right to keep and bear arms costs "innocents" their lives. It is like your attempt to argue for a monument to "second amendment martyrs" claiming that our rights cause others to die
 
Why don't you explain this. I know what you mean-you are trying to say that having a right to keep and bear arms costs "innocents" their lives. It is like your attempt to argue for a monument to "second amendment martyrs" claiming that our rights cause others to die

A society which has almost as many weapons as people is going to have an amount of collateral damage. Some innocent people will pay for that reality.
 
The problem no one see's here is that these shootings are labeled as "accidental". Primarily because the acceptance gun ownership has gained in our society, we would rather call these incidents accidents instead of a crime. Because once we start calling these incidents crimes, we actually have to pass laws that might make it more difficult for people to own firearms. The NRA and its useful idiots will never allow that.
You would have made a great post if it weren't for the partisan baiting.

As a life NRA member I fully support safe storage laws for all states. Leaving your gun accessable to to any "prohibited person" (which includes 5 year-olds) is not an accident, it's negligence, and negligence IS a crime.

That the gun owner is not facing a felony child endangerment charge for this demonstrates a Law Enforcement deficiency. Passing more gun control doesn't adress problems of deraliction of duty with the District Attorney's office.
 
Last edited:
useful idiocy is blaming the NRA for the actions of someone who was most likely not an NRA members.

that might be a good bet Turtle. Only about 1/4 of Americans are gun owners and the NRA has between 4 and 4.5 million members so 90% or more of gun owners don't join up.
 
A society which has almost as many weapons as people is going to have an amount of collateral damage. Some innocent people will pay for that reality.

places like Mexico have few legal firearms and far higher rates of gun deaths
 
It is an accident crime or not because of no intent to harm or kill anyone. It's like the difference between criminal trespass and burglary or Murder 1 or 2 and negligent homicide. Intent is as important as the actions involved under thew law.


You just unknowingly proved my point. I did not say anywhere in my post that the owner of the weapon should be charged with murder, but they should be charged with negligent homicide, or something along those lines.
 
that might be a good bet Turtle. Only about 1/4 of Americans are gun owners and the NRA has between 4 and 4.5 million members so 90% or more of gun owners don't join up.

the NRA has far more members than say the NAACP. yet the NAACP is seen as the voice for black americans. More than one fourth of americans of adult age own guns. Many of those who do won't tell pollsters they own firearms though.
 
You would have made a great post if it weren't for the partisan baiting.

As a life NRA member I fully support safe storage laws for all states. Leaving your gun accessable to to any "prohibited person" (which includes 5 year-olds) is not an accident, it's negligence, and negligence IS a crime.

That the gun owner is not facing a felony child endangerment charge for this demonstrates a Law Enforcement deficiency. Passing more gun control doesn't adress problems of deraliction of duty with the District Attorney's office.

Then as an NRA member, you and your NRA buddies should get together and ask lawmakers to prosecute those who's unattended weapon has "accidentally" killed someone.
 
useful idiocy is blaming the NRA for the actions of someone who was most likely not an NRA members.

The NRA is a mouthpiece for gun owners. I have not heard any other more vocal gun advocates out there then the NRA. Or any other gun group with more lobbying power either.

Do you consider fatal automobile accidents intentional crimes too?

Even if they are not intentional, automobile accidents that occur due to negligence are prosecuted. Hell, if you get into a one car accident and injure no one buy yourself, you will still get a ticket.

How about the far more common case of kids drowning in swimming pools.

Depending on the circumstances, either the adult responsible for watching the child should be charged with neglect, or the owner of the property charged if the pool in question was not sufficiently / resonably protected from such an occurrence should be charged with a crime.

Do people like you celebrate infant deaths as something you can use to bash legal gun ownership?

Probably celebrate them as much as gun owners like yourself chalk it up to an "accident"

It sure seems so And what sort of background screening checks against ACCIDENTS?

How about a law that charges people for negligence..... Sounds fairly rational to me.. But as I said in my argument, any law on guns will be fought against by people like you no mater how rational the law might be.
 
Then as an NRA member, you and your NRA buddies should get together and ask lawmakers to prosecute those who's unattended weapon has "accidentally" killed someone.
If only we didn't have to fight off gun control nutters, there would be time and money to do that.

This child is dead because you wanted an assult weapon ban. How many more children will the Left sacrifice for their anti-American agenda?
 
If only we didn't have to fight off gun control nutters, there would be time and money to do that.

When the gun nuts start being part of the solution rather then the problem, the "gun control nutters" will stop fighting you. It is a fight you will loose in the long run. As I have said many times before, you can either come to the bargaining table and be part of the solution, or be left out and let us "gun control nutters" solve the issue without you. The country has been on a liberal track for a few hundred years. It is about time you come to terms with that. The south lost the war, slavery was abolished, women were allowed to vote and gay marriage is now becoming legal in most states. How many more wars do you want to lose? I highly suggest to you "gun nuts" out there that you come meet the "gun control nutters" half way on some issues to take some of the heat off, or else you will be handed a deafening defeat.

This child is dead because you wanted an assult weapon ban. How many more children will the Left sacrifice for their anti-American agenda?

I think the assault weapon bad is stupid. Any ban on firearms is stupid. Would I like to live in a world without firearms, YES!!! But the reality is that is impossible. In an idealistic world, I would like all firearms banned. Unfortunately we do not live in such a world, so any bad would be ineffective.
 
You just unknowingly proved my point. I did not say anywhere in my post that the owner of the weapon should be charged with murder, but they should be charged with negligent homicide, or something along those lines.

No? I was agreeing and explaining why. I think they should be charged as well. I was pointing out it is also still an accident.
 
When the gun nuts start being part of the solution rather then the problem, the "gun control nutters" will stop fighting you. It is a fight you will loose in the long run. As I have said many times before, you can either come to the bargaining table and be part of the solution, or be left out and let us "gun control nutters" solve the issue without you. The country has been on a liberal track for a few hundred years. It is about time you come to terms with that. The south lost the war, slavery was abolished, women were allowed to vote and gay marriage is now becoming legal in most states. How many more wars do you want to lose? I highly suggest to you "gun nuts" out there that you come meet the "gun control nutters" half way on some issues to take some of the heat off, or else you will be handed a deafening defeat.



I think the assault weapon bad is stupid. Any ban on firearms is stupid. Would I like to live in a world without firearms, YES!!! But the reality is that is impossible. In an idealistic world, I would like all firearms banned. Unfortunately we do not live in such a world, so any bad would be ineffective.
The civil war has nothing to do with the issue of gun ownership, and I've never lived in a southern state anyway. Nice try but your hyperbolic bull**** is weak.
 
No? I was agreeing and explaining why. I think they should be charged as well. I was pointing out it is also still an accident.
The owner knew unauthorized use could occure if they didn't secure the gun, so this wasn't an accident. The owner failed to properly secure the gun, so it's negligence.
 
You just unknowingly proved my point. I did not say anywhere in my post that the owner of the weapon should be charged with murder, but they should be charged with negligent homicide, or something along those lines.
Police are still investigating. There is a good chance that the owner would be charged with something if possible.
 
The civil war has nothing to do with the issue of gun ownership, and I've never lived in a southern state anyway. Nice try but your hyperbolic bull**** is weak.

You obviously missed my point. I was not saying that gun owners wish the south had won, or that slavery should return, or that gays should not be able to marry each other... Although I do believe that if you looked at the statistics, you will find that more gun owners hold those views then people who do not own guns, it was not my point. My point is that our country has always moved in a liberal direction. If you go back 50 years, no one could have imagined two men getting married. Today it is more acceptable and less controversial. Today many would never imagine an America with strict gun laws, but following other examples, 30-40-50 years from now, there will be because that is the direction our country is headed in. Like it or not....
 
You obviously missed my point. I was not saying that gun owners wish the south had won, or that slavery should return, or that gays should not be able to marry each other... Although I do believe that if you looked at the statistics, you will find that more gun owners hold those views then people who do not own guns, it was not my point. My point is that our country has always moved in a liberal direction. If you go back 50 years, no one could have imagined two men getting married. Today it is more acceptable and less controversial. Today many would never imagine an America with strict gun laws, but following other examples, 30-40-50 years from now, there will be because that is the direction our country is headed in. Like it or not....


Actually gun control has been moving more "libertarian" over the past 30 years.


30 years ago, only Florida had "shall issue" concealed carry permits... now almost 40 states have them, or no permit required.

Assault weapons ban sunset, not renewed.

Heller decision.

Etc.
 
Actually gun control has been moving more "libertarian" over the past 30 years.


30 years ago, only Florida had "shall issue" concealed carry permits... now almost 40 states have them, or no permit required.

Assault weapons ban sunset, not renewed.

Heller decision.

Etc.

If you have not been watching the news lately, there is a lot of coverage painting guns in a negative light. As history has shown, with examples like the vietnam war, Iraq war, gay rights, womens rights, racism...ect..ect... Anything the media portrays as negative and in need of change, the American populous generally follow. Guns, among other things, are next on the chopping block. It will only take continuing gun violence and heart breaking stories on how gun violence effects families of those who are victims. It started with school shootings, and now has spread to coverage on almost any shooting. Which instantly sparks a gun rights debate. If it were not such a controversial issue, I would agree, but since it is, its obviously a sign that the tide is changing and that the push for gun regulation is getting stronger.
 
Back
Top Bottom