2 year old shot in head by 4 year old. (Houston, TX) (page 4)

bisous

So Avi, tell me. Would you (or maybe did you) shoot the intruders?

SixofNine

:Bullshit. I've lived in two houses where the dog has been killed before a home invasion robbery.

Bullshit? I think not, your odd experience notwithstanding.

xenawarrior

Before you break out your usual toxic reply, please keep in mind my husband was killed by a drunk driver. Does this influence my opinion? Damn Skippy.

I'm sorry that your husband was killed and in such an awful way.

My "usual toxic reply"? So replies that offer an idea or a way of thinking that is different from your own are considered "toxic"? I've simply presented the other side of the issue and I"ve done so in a civil manner. If you find toxicity in that, it has nothing to do with me.

I guess I don't see apples and oranges. Both drinking and owning a gun are rights that come with responsiblity. If that responsibility is shirked or abused in either case it can result in accidental death. Most gun owners, like most who drink alcohol, do so responsibly and no one gets killed because of it. Although I don't have statistics for it- I would venture a guess based on the accidental deaths of children in the studies, that out of those numbers, there are just as many children accidently killed by drunken drivers as guns. I don't believe taking away the rights the many to serve the few in either case is the answer.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. ~~ John Adams

Avi- I agree. That woman should have been in control of that gun. I've also owned dogs and still had guns in the house. I figured- someone coming to rob my house isn't going to enter with the barking of what is obviously two large dogs and if they do, they are there to harm me and then I will protect myself.

mkr32208

yeah well IMO the reasons our founding fathers wanted to include the right to bear arms are not valid in today's society, 200+ years hence

Actually the way the goverment is headed in this country I think armed citizens are the only thing keeping this country free...

btw folks, a dog is far better protection for your home and person than a gun is, if a tad higher maintainence.

My dear sweet loving family dog that we never ever had a problem with decided one day that my daughter that she always got along with famously was pissing her off she bit her in the face I was less than 10 feet away she never growled or snarled or gave any sign of distress just jumped her... my daughter needed 107 stitches to her face and head... this was not a bad dog or from a bad breed she had NEVER bitten anyone or even tried (she never will again either I loved that dog but I love my daughter more) When I worked in the ER we averaged 3 dog attacks a week to children most by the family dog that never had a problem before... We had one accidental gunshot every six months max... Fatalities ran about the same rate maybe even higher with the dogs!

Don't run your F*CKING trap about things your don't know or understand!

mkr32208

My "usual toxic reply"? So replies that offer an idea or a way of thinking that is different from your own are considered "toxic"? I've simply presented the other side of the issue and I"ve done so in a civil manner. If you find toxicity in that, it has nothing to do with me.

Well you are a GD apostate!

upside/down

Another case supporting gun control. Since the owners cannot responsibly manage their rights, the government should.

I hear the WTS is always looking for some good "government" people... You have "mangement" written all over you! u/d

avishai

So Avi, tell me. Would you (or maybe did you) shoot the intruders?

In both cases I was out of the house. No one was at home, I gues they wanted to be sure. At the other house they hanged my friends pit bull and slit it's throat and then robbed it.

If I was alone and they were on there way out, hell, i'd throw 'em a bag of chips. At this point, I choose not to have a gun in my own house. But. If an intruder is in my house and a threat to me and my family? I will pick up anything i can including a gun and do whatever I have to to stop them. Your damn right. Is there anything wrong with that?

bisous

Is there anything wrong with that?

Avi, can't say that there is. Wondered what happened, that's all. Hope for your sake it never comes to that in the future.

So replies that offer an idea or a way of thinking that is different from your own are considered "toxic"? I've simply presented the other side of the issue and I"ve done so in a civil manner. If you find toxicity in that, it has nothing to do with me.

XW - your past words prove otherwise and have driven me to this conclusion. Perhaps our personal definition of civil differs. I'll continue with my opinion as I am certain you will with yours.

U/D - you're funny.

the_classicist

Canada: After enacting stringent gun control laws in 1991 and 1995, Canada has not made its citizens any safer. "The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic," says Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. "Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted."

There's a reason why Canada's "stringent gun control laws" don't work: they police citizens who have not committed crimes. You see, the so called "stringent laws" were just a gun control registry, one that was full of waste and abuse of funds by senior bureaucrats (but we don't have whistleblower protection in Canada, and basically the whole government is corrupt but those lefties in Toronto won't do anything about it).

Canada's gun problems come mainly from the US. The criminals who do the shootings use weapons obtained in the US and smuggled over the border (you see it works like this: we ship pot down there, and you guys ship drugs and machine and hand guns up here). The registry doesn't work b/c criminals don't register their guns (so basically these "stringent laws" aren't really that stringent, and mainly useless as you pointed out).

There are only three types of people that should have guns: cops and the military, and hunters (but the hunters only get rifles). I don't see why you need an Armalite to shoot down a duck. Handguns for protection? It leads down a slippery slope, especially when everyone gets handgun b/c they don't feel safe. Eventually everyone else gets handguns, especially the criminals, and no one feels any safer! Using a handgun as a remedy for fear is about as smart as using a bandaid to heal a wound that need stitches.

Simon

xenawarrior: You seem to have a real problem keeping on topic. We are not talking about gun crime, although there too the UK generally has much less, we're talking about gun control and how the simple concept of having fewer guns relates to having fewer gun accidents.

And yes, if people cannot generally do something safely then legislation can remove the right of everyone. eg. **some** people can drive at 175 MPH in total control but most people cannot.

I think the whole gun thing is part of the general American paranoia - you seem to live in total and constant fear. How sad.

2 year old shot in head by 4 year old. (Houston, TX)

Share this