Three year old fatally shoots herself in Yellowstone (drug, lawyer, activist)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is not rocket science man. Figure it out for yourself.
The answer should be, do not go to a location with a 3 year old where there is the potential that you will have an immediate need for a loaded firearm to defend yourself. This applies to everyone, not just gun owners.
Lets be completely honest here, if they were not in Yellowstone and concerned of the risk of being attacked by a predator (regardless of type) then the gun need not be in a loaded condition where the child could have access to it. I'm pretty sure living in bear country myself and seeing how non-locals act that fears of a bear/mountain lion/"big animal that kills people" attack was probably pretty high on their list of concerns.
This is especially true when you know that native peoples have been using crying infants and toddlers for bear lures for centuries (end of interesting history lesson).
I know that this is probably not the answer you're looking for, but it is the rational solution.
What I bolded, sure, I'd say given the right circumstances around it, I'd support.
Frankly, when I am on the road, the mental state of other drivers does cross my mind. I disagree that the items you mentioned can "easily kill" like a gun. When a person is in possession of a gun, it cannot be the fuel source of a grill, it cannot power a truck, it cannot help grass or plants grow, it can't open boxes, it can't treat a cold, etc. Guns are not multi-purpose devices.
Once again, your entirely too defensive and cannot acknowledge the fact that I personally am not on one entire side of the argument. Your nature seems to come across that if a person isn't 100% pro-gun, they're just as bad as the person who feels guns shouldn't exist on the Earth.
What constitutes someone not being mentally stable enough to own a gun then? You realize psychology is not an exact since, you can't run a blood test to determine if someone is crazy or not. By the way, we already have a process in place through the court system that determines ones competence, why doesn't the current process work? Why should someone loose their civil rights without due process (a psychologist deciding you are unfit is not due process)? Who decides what disorders prevent someone from owning a gun? Why are certain disorder more dangerous than others? Should someone with a mild case of autism not be allowed to own a gun? If not, why not? How about someone who is on an anti depressant because a loved one died? They are just going through a little rough patch in their life, should they loose their civil rights as well?
If you tie gun ownership to mental health many people would not seek treatment causing even more problems.
You have good intentions, but you do not understand the full consequences of these regulations you want put in place.
And a gun is just as useful for personal protection and less dangerous than many of the items mentioned, but you do not bat an eye at someone owning any of those things. Did you forget what happened in Boston with presure cookers?
I get defensive because you and people like you come in here like everyone is crazy because people do not think your "reasonable restrictions" are a big deal and we should just "compromise" and use "common sense." The thing is, I have been "compromising" my civil rights since the 1930's. You are just the newest person to be for gun ownership but just not certain guns, and not certain gun accessories and you can't take them anywhere to protect yourself, and you need to she a shrink to purchase them, and you need to pay for that shrink becuse its not right for tax payers to foot the bill, but I support gun ownership.
what gun would you recommend for somebody who has never fired a gun before, but wants one for home security.
i would never bring it outside and would just keep it nearby in an area where only i can reach it.
thanks.
I would recommend they take a class for new shooters, the NRA puts them on all the time. Many times people would be able to try many different guns to figure out what works best for the at them at the class.
The biggest issue is usually hand size/strength and how much time someone is going to put into being proficient with the specific gun to determine which gun would be best for certain individuals.
I love your handle. Tell you what city boy, go walk through Yellowstone with no protection whatsoever. I'm sure the rangers will find what is left of you in a few weeks.
BS, people have been doing it forever.
I went backpacking in Denali alone for a week with no protection whatsoever except for a walking stick with bells attached.
I would recommend they take a class for new shooters, the NRA puts them on all the time. Many times people would be able to try many different guns to figure out what works best for the at them at the class.
The biggest issue is usually hand size/strength and how much time someone is going to put into being proficient with the specific gun to determine which gun would be best for certain individuals.
have you heard of the just in case gun
a big gun guy i know recommended it to me.
he said basically point it in the general direction of the invader and he'll be decimated.
This is not rocket science man. Figure it out for yourself.
I have my personal solution. Nobody will ever be injured by my firearms. I'd like to know what your solution is as a liberal who seemingly wants to infringe on the rights of others due to their own beliefs.
I have seen my unfair share of dead kids.
Not one died of being shot.
Most of them died from bad/negligent parenting or abuse.
Over and over, I see the same demographic of parents showing up...and it ain't the well-to-do conservative.
Wow, you've got special powers.
You know the political leanings of everyone whose kids have died.
Have you considered taking your show on the road?
I think they should ban freedom of speach to prevent idiots from posting on the Internet.
Well, it's evident that they don't ban freedom from spelling errors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life
All of my responses have plenty to offer. It is a direct example of taking the same policies and applying it to other civil rights. Sorry this is hard to grasp.
I love your handle. Tell you what city boy, go walk through Yellowstone with no protection whatsoever. I'm sure the rangers will find what is left of you in a few weeks.
People have been walking through Yellowstone with no protection for over 75 years. A visitor is more likely to scald to death in the geyser basins than death by wildlife, and in the other areas of the park, the animals don't make a regular practice of killing humans. It only happens when some city folk get into an animal's treat zone and the critter has no escape.
And nothing is going to stop a buffalo or an elk at range that close.
I live close to the Park, and have visited it hundreds of times in all seasons and weathers. I've seen every species that lives in the park over the years, and none has ever threatened me. Rangers are armed, and they are very protective. They also know where the wildlife is much better than any tourist.
Allowing guns in Yellowstone is only going to lead to more deaths similar to the little girl's.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
