only the cops, and criminals have guns
and some pvt people
but like i said i live in a civilized state
and in some states you dont need a permit.
![]() | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
Discussion is locked
only the cops, and criminals have guns
and some pvt people
but like i said i live in a civilized state
and in some states you dont need a permit.
that can kill a child just as easy. Take for instance the chemicals under the sink in the kitchen and the drugs (even OTC Aspirin)in the bathroom and all the stuff in the laundry room, and that's just ingestion. Add to that lethal cocktail all the pointy things and falling hazards and scalding hazards and falling/crushing hazards and you have your typical home.
Singling out a gun accident (the millions of others don't get national press) shows big time bias and does no good. The anti-gun people that want my gun taken away are to the point of nagging now.
Gun, knife, bow and arrow, wooden stake ... whatever. It was deliberate. That's what so sad and scary.![]()
... the scary part was a FOUR year old's desire to kill (or seriously harm) his TWO year old brother over a toy. Something VERY wrong there ![]()
One of the reports I read indicated that the 4-year old had no idea of what he was doing or what he had done. After the whole process was all over and the kid was back home, he wondered where his little brother was and when he would be coming home. I don't think there was a desire to kill, just the usual spat over a toy between little kids. I think what is different here is (and I'm speculating, trying to fit an adult analysis into a child's mind) that the older brother acted out the "standard" resolution of such disputes as shown on TV (both cartoons and dramas with live actors) - just get a gun and shoot the person you don't like. Except that on TV, there are no real consequences, including the high probability in cartoons that the dead character will be back in tomorrow's episode.
dw
... my brother was two years older than me and suffice it to say we fought all the time. We had cap guns and bow and arrows with metal tips, etc. etc. I can't imagine him even pointing one of those fake guns at my head. Have kids changed that much since "my day"?? Haven't observed it with my friends', neighbors' and family's kids.
Evie ![]()
there isn't much here that adds up to sanity. And yes, I think things are both the same and different. My brothers and I "fought" too, sometimes because one of us was pissed about something and sometimes just because we liked wrasslin' or cowboys'n'injuns or playing Army. We "shot" each other with those cap guns all the time. Except my mother forbid the caps or any that shot a projectile of any sort. Note that the games in those days were re-enactments of glorious battles between the forces of good and evil that were important to our national sense of ourselves, but which wouldn't pass muster in today's PC - the Allies vs. the Axis (and I, being the younger, was always the German or Nip or Korean) or western pioneer vs. marauding redskin (and likewise, I was always the Indian - perhaps that should qualify me for a prestigious tenured professorship at the university of one of our western states?). But now the violence ingrained in popular culture is not so much for the resolution of good vs. evil, but gratuitous for the sake of keeping the action flowing (and therefore eyeballs glued to the screen long enough for the next commercial) or portrayed as the means by which one attains/maintains the "respect" of one's peers in the course of daily life - e.g., Dirty Harry. That poor kid is not some warped social misfit, but rather is the epitome of our current popular culture, albeit unwittingly so.
dw
... as kids we "shot" at each other all the time -- in role playing games. We had bows with metal tipped arrows and we lined up on opposite sides of the lawn and launched them at each other. Man o' man can you imagine we all still have our eyesight?
Still, I can't recall getting in a fight with my brother or sister and going to find one of those weapons in the deliberate attempt to do harm. Rather I was on the receiving end of more than a few "dead legs" and "dead arms". Again, I don't have kids, but I am around them quite a bit. They argue and the fur flies, one doesn't take the time to "go get" something to role play killing them. I wonder if the gun wasn't even more accessible than in her purse and she is covering?
Evie ![]()
Oh my, bow and arrow "games" - we never were allowed to shoot any sort of projectiles at each other, just thrown dirt clods and stick spears or imaginary "shooting" with the play guns, at which time you were bound by the honor system to fall down and "die" when told that you had just been "hit."
When it came to real sibling scuffling, weapons were uncommon in the comparatively rare outbreak of fisticuffs, but rather it was a process of escalating taunts and retorts with actions that are known to irritate the opponent over whole afternoons until somebody tattles "Mommy, he won't leave me alone." All sorts of otherwise innocuous little things would come out during those exchanges. And thirty years later, it was deja vu all over again with my 2 boys.
I think you've hit on one of the missing pieces, though... "she is covering" something for her own culpability in this tragedy.
dw
maybe i wasnt clear mark. sorry.
what i mean is if there is 500 thing that can kill a child (many of them need for a normal life like knifes) why add a thing that isn't needed for a normal life? i know many people without guns or firearms in there homes. firearm isn't a basic need (if you are not a person who use it in your job) and not a toy.
isn't for you to decide, IT'S MY RIGHT. I was in Detroit during the riots when the armed Police Officers 'pulled back' for their own safety. The people were left to defend themselves against fire and criminals. Does that make it a basic need? Your call.
Didn't they do the same thing in California in Watts and again when Reginald Denny was drug out of his truck and left for dead? And again when ...
I know my basic needs, even if you don't know when the riots will start again, or the cops will have the blue flu or ordred to 'pull back' from protecting the citizens. The fact that many criminals don't know which home owner has a gun, is protecting you too.
The gun that was used in Atlanta was taken from a 51 year old female that had a basic need.
If she wasn't having it, what will happen? Maybe no killing.
... he overpowered her. There should have been a minimum of two guards with him at all times, and if one had a gun on their person it would be the one standing at a short distance.
All Women, note that this person would deprive you of access to The Great Equalizer. Thereby leaving you at the mercy of any physically stronger (male) rapist or murderer.
All (single) Mothers, note that this person would deprive you of access to The Great Equalizer. Thereby leaving you unable to protect your children, should a convicted sex offender move in next door.
All Men, is this the situation you want for you wives and daughters?
"if noone had gun" - Mark
Had she been armed, it's quite likely that this would've gone down differently, if at all.
And how do you propose that the police enforce the law if they themselves are unarmed?
Mark