• 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!

Toddler Shoots Pregnant Mother

vegas giants said:
Lots of toddlers are drowning pregnant women in pools
Click to expand...

As a matter of fact a toddler can drown his mom if she tries to save him from drowning. If somebody is panicking in the water and they get ahold of you the smallest, most petite person will get you in the "death grip" and could very easily drown you. I was a lifeguard for two years so I know this.
 
DebateChallenge said:
As a matter of fact a toddler can drown his mom if she tries to save him from drowning. If somebody is panicking in the water and they get ahold of you the smallest, most petite person will get you in the "death grip" and could very easily drown you. I was a lifeguard for two years so I know this.
Click to expand...

How fascinating. LOL
 
TheGoverness said:
I heard about this, and this family should of been more smart with their guns. However, some people being irresponsible with guns, is not a sufficient argument to ban them.
Click to expand...

Seems more of a Darwin award moment to me.
 
illustrates why we need to move to smart guns
that child would have been unable to fire that pistol had it possessed a smart mechanism
 
justabubba said:
illustrates why we need to move to smart guns
that child would have been unable to fire that pistol had it possessed a smart mechanism
Click to expand...

That child would have also been unable to fire that pistol had it been kept out of reach. Your point?
 
soylentgreen said:
Seems to me that the posters here are missing a point. They do point out he was acting irresponsibly. He left a loaded gun within reach of a child. But why carry a gun in such a way in the first place. Safely installed into a locked glove box would have been more appropriate.

It may be criminal intent but would not the article have mentioned such a possibility if the police suspected such?

The more likely i would think is that this is another example of someone falling for the propaganda of the pro gun group and their argument that you need to carry a gun ready ti fire in case of meeting a criminal.

The fault here belongs to the man for believing that he needed a gun ready to fire because he believed what he had been told by pro gun groups.
Click to expand...

You have anything to back that ridiculous assertion up?
 
justabubba said:
illustrates why we need to move to smart guns
that child would have been unable to fire that pistol had it possessed a smart mechanism
Click to expand...

when the secret service, the Special forces, and big city SWAT teams use such firearms maybe the rest of us should consider them. Until then NOPE
 
Crovax said:
You have anything to back that ridiculous assertion up?
Click to expand...

As in it is a fact that that is why it happened.No, i do not.

Its called a speculation A consideration as to why someone would have left a gun in such a place.


As to the bit in bold i need not back up what is a common belief among the pro gun crowd here. That they need a gun to kill a criminal. i have even ad one pro gun texan tell me it is legal for him to kill if someone steals his dvd.

Please tell me your not about to make some of ridiculous argument that the pro gun group here have never mentioned the idea that a gun is needed to fight crime?
 
DebateChallenge said:
That child would have also been unable to fire that pistol had it been kept out of reach. Your point?
Click to expand...

my point was that a smart firearm would be child proof
it is one step of many which could be taken to prevent such misuse of firearms
 
TurtleDude said:
when the secret service, the Special forces, and big city SWAT teams use such firearms maybe the rest of us should consider them. Until then NOPE
Click to expand...

i am not seeing the misuse originate from within the ranks of "the secret service, the Special forces, and big city SWAT teams"
my inclination is not to advocate an answer in search of a problem
 
justabubba said:
i am not seeing the misuse originate from within the ranks of "the secret service, the Special forces, and big city SWAT teams"
my inclination is not to advocate an answer in search of a problem
Click to expand...

actually police are more likely to shoot the wrong person in a violent confrontation than a legally armed private citizen.
 
TurtleDude said:
actually police are more likely to shoot the wrong person in a violent confrontation than a legally armed private citizen.
Click to expand...

and a smart gun would not change that scenario in any way

time to re-load, and this time, bring a point
 
soylentgreen said:
As in it is a fact that that is why it happened.No, i do not.

Its called a speculation A consideration as to why someone would have left a gun in such a place.


As to the bit in bold i need not back up what is a common belief among the pro gun crowd here. That they need a gun to kill a criminal. i have even ad one pro gun texan tell me it is legal for him to kill if someone steals his dvd.

Please tell me your not about to make some of ridiculous argument that the pro gun group here have never mentioned the idea that a gun is needed to fight crime?
Click to expand...

As long as its a night you sure can

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41 ;  and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime;  or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property;  and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means;  or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Click to expand...

Texas Penal Code - PENAL - PENAL § 9.42 | FindLaw
 
Crovax said:
As long as its a night you sure can



Texas Penal Code - PENAL - PENAL § 9.42 | FindLaw
Click to expand...

So, good. We have then established that the pro gun group do put out arguments along the line of killing criminals is a reason to have a gun. And the guy in the article was just an example of stupidity with a gun because he believed in that bit of propaganda.

And you are mistaken if you think i was trying to say that americans do not have a right to kill. I have often argued that there in is americas problem with guns. The belief that the right to a gun is also a right to kill people with a gun. That coupled with the example given in the article of americans also believing stupidity is a right gives us the events where a woman is shot by a toddler.
 
soylentgreen said:
So, good. We have then established that the pro gun group do put out arguments along the line of killing criminals is a reason to have a gun. And the guy in the article was just an example of stupidity with a gun because he believed in that bit of propaganda.

And you are mistaken if you think i was trying to say that americans do not have a right to kill. I have often argued that there in is americas problem with guns. The belief that the right to a gun is also a right to kill people with a gun. That coupled with the example given in the article of americans also believing stupidity is a right gives us the events where a woman is shot by a toddler.
Click to expand...

soylentgreen, you said you have grandchildren in the USA. Well, its their choice if they want to live in a country where people are allowed to own guns.
 
DebateChallenge said:
soylentgreen, you said you have grandchildren in the USA. Well, its their choice if they want to live in a country where people are allowed to own guns.
Click to expand...

You have me mixed with another. Never said i had grandchildren in the use.

And once more i must point out that my argument is not that people should not own guns. I too live in a country where people can own guns. I have no problem with people owning guns.

I do, however, have a problem with the propaganda of the pro gun group that leads to this sort of stupidity not only happening but being brushed away by the pro gun group with the shallow thinking displayed so far by quite a few here.
 
soylentgreen said:
You have me mixed with another. Never said i had grandchildren in the use.

And once more i must point out that my argument is not that people should not own guns. I too live in a country where people can own guns. I have no problem with people owning guns.

I do, however, have a problem with the propaganda of the pro gun group that leads to this sort of stupidity not only happening but being brushed away by the pro gun group with the shallow thinking displayed so far by quite a few here.
Click to expand...

Alright I believe it was somebody else from New Zealand who said that they have grandchildren in the USA.

That being said I hope you're happy the way things are run in your country. I am working on how things are run in my country.
 
soylentgreen said:
Seems to me that the posters here are missing a point. They do point out he was acting irresponsibly. He left a loaded gun within reach of a child. But why carry a gun in such a way in the first place. Safely installed into a locked glove box would have been more appropriate.

It may be criminal intent but would not the article have mentioned such a possibility if the police suspected such?

The more likely i would think is that this is another example of someone falling for the propaganda of the pro gun group and their argument that you need to carry a gun ready ti fire in case of meeting a criminal.

The fault here belongs to the man for believing that he needed a gun ready to fire because he believed what he had been told by pro gun groups.
Click to expand...
Most "pro gun groups" I'm aware of don't tell you to get a gun, they tell you IF you have one handle it carefully and keep it away from kids.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom