• 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!

4-year-old boy shot dead allegedly by 5-year-old sibling while mom slept in another room: Police

AProudLefty said:
Native Americans vs the well trained and well armed US military. :lamo
Click to expand...

I love it when they try that argument... We see how well AK-47's worked for the Taliban too... against an Apache helicopter or Predator Drone they are really effective!! :lol:
 
Crosscheck said:
Name one Native American gun manufacturer.
Click to expand...

I think that this is an attempt to add levity because it is a statement that otherwise would be so ignorant that it would kinda defy belief.

But I don't get it... how is your statement funny? What am I missing?
 
Waddy said:
They were there to get a CC permit. And only because that training was mandatory in order to get the permit. And because it was mandatory, I doubt if many of them got much out of it. One hour spent on gun safety will soon be out of sight, out of mind. If you think of the millions and millions of guns sold, you would know very few people ever get any gun safety training.
Click to expand...

Ah...well that by no means indicates that they wouldnt have gotten it on their own OR continued shooting. it is fun after all and range shooting, esp. with all the rules, is also training. That's what I did. Training wasnt a requirement for us but it was so much fun that I continued to do so.

And you bring up, tangentially, another good reason why 'mandatory' is wrong IMO...because all the states that require it have different training requirements. Nobody knows "how much training is enough." It's another one of those 'feel-good' measures. And that's on top of the, IMO unConstitutional, burden that paid training puts on a right.
 
Scarab said:
If contrition and a guilty conscience were acceptable legal defenses, we could probably close half of our prisons.
Click to expand...

I'd like to believe that...but I dont.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Good. So you will stop using that silly analogy... I win.



Native Americans had guns... pretty much all of them. ...and they got slaughtered...
just as Americans would if the US Military was unleashed upon them.

Dude, your AR-15 ... ain't ... gonna ... do ... **** ...
Click to expand...
Is why Posse Comitatus is so important and that civilians have the same weapons as agencies like the EPA, Bureau of Land Management, FBI etcetera.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
Eriech said:
Is why Posse Comitatus is so important and that civilians have the same weapons as agencies like the EPA, Bureau of Land Management, FBI etcetera.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying that they have to have guns to defend themselves from the EPA... :lol:
 
The real question is did he even know it was a gun and how he was able to aim and pull. :shock:
 
Lursa said:
And yet...didnt answer my question. Are you as eager to try again?



Meaning, your comment can be applied to *everything.* It's kind of a 'duh.' So...what is the point of your comment?

Do you weight your comment the same as..."if you dont give kids solid food, they cant choke to death on it?"
Click to expand...

Hi. Final response. I've made my statement. You can accept it as true or prove it as false. I've nothing further to add.

Regards, and enjoy the evening. It promises to be a lovely one here on the NE coast.
 
AProudLefty said:
The real question is did he even know it was a gun and how he was able to aim and pull. :shock:
Click to expand...
Knew it was a gun, probably so. Able to distinguish it from a toy gun, probably not.

In all likelihood it was more of an unlucky shot rather than an intentional aim and shoot scenario.
 
Lursa said:
What benefit would society gain from jailing the man who came home, found his wife in bed with another man, and shot them both?

He's not anymore likely to kill again than that mother.
Click to expand...

NOt a relevant comparison. He intentionally killed someone.
 
MSgt said:
...because
Click to expand...

I deleted the actual post because it was long I couldn't post it and my response.

long winded nonsense. so many stupid points I am laughing-like preventing minors on a shooting range. And we get the fact you don't believe there is an actual right when it comes to keeping and bearing arms.
 
Torus34 said:
Hi. Final response. I've made my statement. You can accept it as true or prove it as false. I've nothing further to add.

Regards, and enjoy the evening. It promises to be a lovely one here on the NE coast.
Click to expand...

Yes, I could tell that. I dont accept it, as already written.
 
TurtleDude said:
NOt a relevant comparison. He intentionally killed someone.
Click to expand...

Why does that matter? Heat of the moment, not in his right mind, etc.

He's still not likely to do it again and thus not a danger to society. If he deserves to be punished, taken away from his kids...what is the distinction between him and the woman in the OP?
 
Lursa said:
Why does that matter? Heat of the moment, not in his right mind, etc.

He's still not likely to do it again and thus not a danger to society. If he deserves to be punished, taken away from his kids...what is the distinction between him and the woman in the OP?
Click to expand...

look up mens rea and get back to me
 
Scarab said:
Oh, this is too perfect. A mother commits at least three crimes while caring for her two young children. The commission of her crimes results in the death of one of the children. And not only do you want this criminal to go without so much as a trial, but you also want me to repeat for the third time what she did wrong.

Keep your generalized liberal bashing crap out of my face and learn how to take a side with independence of brain control from the mother hive at the RNC.
Click to expand...

Clarification noted.

Liberals gotta liberal, alas.

:hm
 
TurtleDude said:
lets run with your argument

I agree, people should not leave loaded firearms in areas where untrained or too young to be trained children can get hold of them, and I have no problem with fining people or removing the firearm if they do that

however, now that the child is dead, tell us what benefit society would gain by jailing the mother (assuming she was the one who left the gun out)
Click to expand...

^ ^ Too sensible.
 
TurtleDude said:
I understand all of that but we have a remaining child who (I assume it was negligent with no mal intent) now has the blood of a sibling on its (the article did not specify the gender of the shooter) hands for the rest of its life. Is that child more likely to end up a productive member of society if its mother is jailed at a time that the child needs its mother in a most serious way?
Click to expand...

^ ^ Waaaaaaaaay too sensible.
 
Lursa said:
No...please make your argument here.
Click to expand...

two issues. The action of leaving a firearm where a child could get it is not one that suggests an intent to cause harm. Shooting someone does

secondly involves societal cohesion. If we don't jail the mother, who is going to take revenge against her? the father? the other sibling? the fact is, society will not be torn apart if the mother is not jailed. Now let's look at the other case. two people are murdered. If we don't punish the shooter, than those who are friends or family of the slain victims might well look for revenge. And it will go on and on.
 
TurtleDude said:
two issues. The action of leaving a firearm where a child could get it is not one that suggests an intent to cause harm. Shooting someone does

secondly involves societal cohesion. If we don't jail the mother, who is going to take revenge against her? the father? the other sibling? the fact is, society will not be torn apart if the mother is not jailed. Now let's look at the other case. two people are murdered. If we don't punish the shooter, than those who are friends or family of the slain victims might well look for revenge. And it will go on and on.
Click to expand...

Everyone understands the guy who shoots his cheating wife and lover. Doesnt make it right but we all know he's not likely to kill again. He 'wasnt in his right mind.'

How is he more culpable than the woman? And how is his loss less important to his kids than hers?
 
Lursa said:
Everyone understands the guy who shoots his cheating wife and lover. Doesnt make it right but we all know he's not likely to kill again. He 'wasnt in his right mind.'

How is he more culpable than the woman? And how is his loss less important to his kids than hers?
Click to expand...

you didn't address my main point. You want to put the mother in jail? good thinking there.
 
TurtleDude said:
you didn't address my main point. You want to put the mother in jail? good thinking there.
Click to expand...

How is this about what I want? It's about a comparison so we can look at why she (perhaps) should go to jail.

I just asked you...why is it then ok for the father to go to jail? He was temporarily out of his mind but still has a family to care for.
 
Lursa said:
How is this about what I want? It's about a comparison so we can look at why she (perhaps) should go to jail.

I just asked you...why is it then ok for the father to go to jail? He was temporarily out of his mind but still has a family to care for.
Click to expand...

will there be anarchy if she is not jailed? will her other child be better off if she is jailed

as to a guy who guns down two people and society says-no we won't punish him--is there a good chance the brother of the slain woman or the slain man might whack the shooter? I think a lot of people might
 
TurtleDude said:
I understand all of that but we have a remaining child who (I assume it was negligent with no mal intent) now has the blood of a sibling on its (the article did not specify the gender of the shooter) hands for the rest of its life. Is that child more likely to end up a productive member of society if its mother is jailed at a time that the child needs its mother in a most serious way?
Click to expand...

That child deserves a better mother than the one he has now. Get the message out that there will be severe civil and criminal consequences for that kind of reckless negligence and watch how fast people begin to get the message and take it as seriously as they should.
 
Lursa said:
What benefit would society gain from jailing the man who came home, found his wife in bed with another man, and shot them both?

He's not anymore likely to kill again than that mother.
Click to expand...

Not so, he decided that he alone had the right to take someone's life for making him mad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom