Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
First Person Shooters (Games)

damn_registrars's Journal: Bad Gun Owner of the Week 54

Journal by damn_registrars
Will we see slashdot (and other) conservatives describe this one as a suicide as well?

Yellowstone National Park officials are investigating after an Idaho woman reported her 3-year-old daughter shot herself with a handgun in a campground.

So which backwoods state did these shithead gun owners come from?

He said he didn't know how many family members were camping or where they are from in Idaho. Names haven't been released.

Apparently they weren't far from home, then. Most likely they will receive no punishment whatsoever for their wanton irresponsibility. In a sane country we would be asking whether they would face more or less prosecution for leaving a loaded unlocked weapon sitting around in a public campground.

While

A federal law went into effect Feb. 22, 2010, allowing visitors to possess firearms in the park.

That doesn't mean that people have the right to be so utterly careless with them.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bad Gun Owner of the Week

Comments Filter:
  • No amount of fines or prison could be worse than that.

    • No amount of fines or prison could be worse than that.

      The problem though is that the gun culture in this country will encourage them to just sweep it under the rug. The mainstream media here will basically do the same as well, as they fear the NRA and similar groups. As long as people are encouraged to not take these things seriously they will continue to happen. The rest of the people at the campground are (relatively) lucky in that the kid shot him/herself and didn't pull the trigger while the weapon was aimed elsewhere.

      If people want to own guns the

      • . . .just sweep it under the rug. The mainstream media here will basically do the same as well, as they fear the NRA and similar groups.

        Are you saying that the NRA is careless about gun safety? Or that the "gun culture" is careless about gun safety?
        Kind of a startling claim, in either case.

        • . . .just sweep it under the rug. The mainstream media here will basically do the same as well, as they fear the NRA and similar groups.

          Are you saying that the NRA is careless about gun safety? Or that the "gun culture" is careless about gun safety?

          They aren't quite careless about gun safety as much as they are unconcerned about the consequences of gun owners who are. At least once a week in this country we have another story of someone who was horribly injured or killed as the direct result of a careless gun owner, and yet nothing really ever happens. Clearly, people are not getting the message that guns are lethal instruments that should not be casually left around.

          So while the NRA may publish pamphlets on gun safety, the gun culture in this

          • Do you feel your assertions apply equally to the case of the auto industry, pursuant to traffic deaths?

            At least once a week in this country we have another story of someone who was horribly injured or killed as the direct result of a careless gun owner, and yet nothing really ever happens.

            What of the number of crimes precluded or having their impact minimized by firearms. For example, women who ventilate would-be rapists?
            I understand you experience visceral repulsion at the thought of guns, sir.
            However, given the worst-case scenarios of disarmed people [wikipedia.org], one wonders if the anti-firearm angst isn't misplaced.

            • Do you feel your assertions apply equally to the case of the auto industry, pursuant to traffic deaths?

              No. Nobody promotes the use of cars as tools of death. Nobody strives to give absurdly powerful cars to people who have less regard for personal responsibility than gerbils and less emotional stability than rabid dogs.

              The gun culture, however, by way of their going far beyond mere complacency, is actively placing guns in the hands of people who are not capable of owning them responsibly.

              What of the number of crimes precluded or having their impact minimized by firearms. For example, women who ventilate would-be rapists?

              First of all, it is nearly impossible to say that those cases were prevented solely by someone having a gun. Do w

              • Interesting. I am not a gun owner.

                It's a shame the kid didn't manage to kill the idiot who left a deadly unlocked weapon sitting around instead, it would have done the world a favor.

                And you, sir, are better than that. Wanton destruction is uncool.

                • Interesting. I am not a gun owner.

                  That is indeed interesting. You defend the gun owners - and arguably even more so the gun culture - quite a bit. Yet you made the personal choice to not purchase a gun.

                  That said, the guns that I own are entirely for personal enjoyment and not at all for self defense. In fact none of my guns are even currently in my house as I don't want to have to worry about children getting to them, and I haven't owned any ammunition for them in years. Of course I acknowledge that gun safes in the house, when use

                  • I don't own a gun, because they're expensive to acquire, and ammo the moreso.
                    Nor do I feel anxious enough about my personal safety to acquire on right at the moment.
                    My brother-in-law has an arsenal. I told him "Hey, if the bubble goes up, I'm coming to your house." To which he replied "I got more guns than I got hands."
                    My reactionary attitude about the topic stems from the understanding that this country is founded upon the individual as the unit of analysis. Those that worship the state are after crushi
                • Wanton destruction is uncool.

                  Yes, but if was accidental, we can write it off as collateral damage.

                  • Unless that child was yours. Lord preserve my little 2yo.
                    • That's kind of my point. When it's not your child, I would expect you to feel the same way.

                    • *My* child is growing up in a country that doesn't have an addiction to guns, something for which I am eternally grateful.

                      The addiction to guns is an addiction to death.

                      THE GUN CULTURE IS A CULTURE OF DEATH.

                    • The gun culture is a culture of death.

                      I say the same of the abortion culture.

                    • It is proper to mourn the death of a child for any accidental reason.
                      It is also fitting to ignore the Pavlovian training attempted by Zontar the Mindless below your comment.
                    • That article deserves recognition for excessive spin of the week. They tried to make the claim that this couple was somehow proud of their abortion and included it in their wedding announcement. However upon further analysis it is clear that is not actually the case. The wedding announcement did not mention the abortion, regardless of how much the author of that piece wants to claim.

                      Furthermore, the couple aborted the fetus because they could not financially afford to raise a child. They were both c
                    • the couple aborted the fetus because they could not financially afford to raise a child

                      You were you when the information that defines you was complete. I reject your feckless distinction, and find it central to our societal corrosion. Repent.

                    • the couple aborted the fetus because they could not financially afford to raise a child

                      You were you when the information that defines you was complete. I reject your feckless distinction, and find it central to our societal corrosion. Repent.

                      The distinction - or perceived absence thereof - is at best tangential to the point that the site you linked to what very dishonest in their presentation. The couple did not "bond" through the abortion, even though the came to the decision together. They made the decision because they realized they were incapable of being adequate parents. And they most certainly did not include mention of it in their wedding announcement, as much as the blatantly false title and first paragraph of the article tries to

                    • They made the decision because they realized they were incapable of being adequate parents.

                      So we can't control our hormonal urges, but we can rationalize murder rather than face the consequences.
                      In my estimation, the original idiot parents in this thread, who started raising a child and then negligently let the child blow herself away, are further along the "human" development curve.
                      This legal fiction that the unborn are merely a "decision" is odious.

                    • They made the decision because they realized they were incapable of being adequate parents.

                      So we can't control our hormonal urges, but we can rationalize murder rather than face the consequences.

                      You're making a lot of assumptions there based on very little actual information. We don't know anything about the health of the unborn or the fitness of the mother to carry the child to term. But even if you want to go ahead and make the assumptions that everything was honky-dory - which are assumptions you appear plenty willing to make - you still need to acknowledge the fact that you would be significantly crippling the child's chance at a better life. If mom doesn't graduate, the chances of the chil

                    • As far as trolls go you aren't even very good at wasting my time as I can quickly shoot down your stupid assumptions.

                      There's something you like about poverty, dr, hence your support of ObamaCare.

                      If you read pretty much anything I've ever wrote on health care reform here on slashdot you would know that I have been opposed to the Health Insurance Company Bailout Act (or as you call it "ObamaCare") since it first was proposed as a bill on the floor.

                      ObamaCare premium increases do FAR MORE monetary damage to a couple's budget then the addition of a single child would.

                      That statement is baseless for several reasons. One, the rates would have gone up regardless. Two, raising kids is incredibly expensive

                    • This legal fiction that the unborn are merely a "decision" is odious.

                      Oh! If we'd only see the same respect for the already born, then your post would damn near make sense. How many fetuses do the bombs and bullets kill and are written off as collateral damage? Your distinctions are no better than his or anybody else's. Why can't you accept the mother as the ultimate authority of the fate of her child? Is this some anti-woman thing? I mean, nobody has a right to force her to carry and deliver the child. Inst

                    • You're making a lot of assumptions there based on very little actual information. We don't know anything about the health of the unborn or the fitness of the mother to carry the child to term. But even if you want to go ahead and make the assumptions that everything was honky-dory - which are assumptions you appear plenty willing to make - you still need to acknowledge the fact that you would be significantly crippling the child's chance at a better life. If mom doesn't graduate, the chances of the child having academic success drop significantly. Being as you are supporting the government telling the woman how to deal with this situation, it is reasonable to expect that you wouldn't want her to be able to give the child up for adoption, either; which means she would be raising the child as a single mother. Why is it that you want to see more people in that situation?

                      If the task is to rationalize murder, the mental gymnastics & rationalizations are boundless.

                    • Oh! If we'd only see the same respect for the already born

                      Are you saying that weaponeers are wantonly tossing dumb munitions about? Carpet bombing hasn't been prevalant (if engaged in at all) since Vietnam.
                      That said, indeed: we need to tighten up our policy level decisions, so that our strategy is less kinetic.
                      Finally: the idea that, since politicians authorize military force that kills people, killing the unborn is somehow justified has got to be the diabolical non-sequitur of the day. Bravo.

                    • You're making a lot of assumptions there based on very little actual information. We don't know anything about the health of the unborn or the fitness of the mother to carry the child to term. But even if you want to go ahead and make the assumptions that everything was honky-dory - which are assumptions you appear plenty willing to make - you still need to acknowledge the fact that you would be significantly crippling the child's chance at a better life. If mom doesn't graduate, the chances of the child having academic success drop significantly. Being as you are supporting the government telling the woman how to deal with this situation, it is reasonable to expect that you wouldn't want her to be able to give the child up for adoption, either; which means she would be raising the child as a single mother. Why is it that you want to see more people in that situation?

                      If the task is to rationalize murder, the mental gymnastics & rationalizations are boundless.

                      Oh, come on smitty. Don't clam up on me now. You can build a much better argument than that and are well above slinging silly put-downs; I've seen it. This has nothing to do with "rationalizing murder", especially when we don't have anywhere near enough information to make such a claim. There are far more questions than answers, and the best answers we have so far are that the person who wrote that lousy page you linked to has an obvious axe to grind and does not fear crapping all over the truth to pus

                    • Killing is killing. You cannot distinguish the military from the abortionist (as you see the abortionist). If abortion is to declared murder, then surely war (and the death penalty, to throw another 'non-sequitur' at ya) must be also. There's no getting around it And the simple fact remains that the mother is the decision maker, not you, your priest, your god, nobody. No man has any right to judge. And speaking of non-sequiturs, who brought up the issue of abortion in the first place, hmmm? This JE started

                    • A high-minded appeal to low-mindedness? I admit: it's an interesting form of argument.
                    • Yours is the pacifistic argument. And I am not opposed to it. For example, I do respect the Amish, for all I fall short of agreeing with them on everything.
                      But if your argument is really to be driven to its logical extreme, then meat, too, is murder. You really need to be a vegan.
                      Also, you should probably never take action against any insect, however poisonous.
                      I note, as an amateur Bible scholar, that David was both 'a man after God's own heart', and 'a man of blood'. Hence his disqualification from cons
                    • Thank you?

                      I should mention there is another problem I have with your "information" argument regarding when a fetus is a person, one that anyone who is educated in human genetics should share with me. You say that once all the information is there, it is endowed with rights as a human being, even if it is only a single cell. If that is the case, then you should be defending the rights of the skin cells that you so callously wash off into the sink many times a day, as they have all the same genetic info
                    • Are you now going to tell me that Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq(twice), and Teddy Roosevelt's big di... er stick were 'righteous'?? Well,you know what? You're right! Within the strict confines of might make right, they were indeed totally righteous and quite justifiable. But in terms of morality (of the Christianity I was taught and remember), they were everything but.. they were premeditated mass murder. American history throughout is one of extreme aggression. I remain very interested in the thought proc

                    • Are you now going to tell me that Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq(twice), and Teddy Roosevelt's big di... er stick were 'righteous'??

                      No. There seems to be a challenge here in discussing:
                      (a) the abstract principle by which one may argue force is justified, and
                      (b) a concrete instance of force, which may not.
                      Not sure if you're missing the point, or getting the point, and being obtuse.

                    • Obligatory Monty Python:masturbation needs to be criminalized [youtube.com]
                      Off-beat jokes aside (see what I did there?) the issue here isn't whether you washed your hands, it's the motive for murder.
                      In other words,
                      1. If we start with asking ourselves: Why are we alive?
                      2. Then we ask: What is the purpose of sexuality?
                      3. Then continue further to: Given that life has been conceived, what should be done?

                      We may not arrive at the worldly conclusion that sex is a video game, and liquidating some innocents here and there is kosher

                    • Both had vastly negative effects, both for the innocents who lost their lives, and on the women in question.

                      So if the only two abortions you are familiar with directly had negative effects on the women who had them, then why do you insist on making the claim that people you don't know are having these so casually? More so, you said:

                      the vast, overwhelming majority of the cases, where abortion is just a means of birth control

                      Here we have another massive problem. There are no meaningful statistics supporting that notion, only - at best - anecdotal evidence. We really have no idea what the rationale is for the majority of abortions. The statistics simply do not exist. You can go for whatever claim you

                    • Here we have another massive problem. There are no meaningful statistics supporting that notion, only - at best - anecdotal evidence. We really have no idea what the rationale is for the majority of abortions. The statistics simply do not exist. You can go for whatever claim you like for those statistics not being available (we mostly just need to look at HIPAA amongst others) but the end result is the same - your statement is making a conclusion in the absence of facts.

                      So, because we have a non-falsifiable proposition that we don't have "enough" facts, let the pagan offerings to Moloch continue?
                      Let me try to find some middle ground here, and say: sure, let abortion not be a federal concern. Let states set up their wretched Kermit Gosnell temples, and leave the judgement to the Almighty.
                      Not. One. Single. Federal. Dollar. To. This. Holocaust, say I.

                    • Here we have another massive problem. There are no meaningful statistics supporting that notion, only - at best - anecdotal evidence. We really have no idea what the rationale is for the majority of abortions. The statistics simply do not exist. You can go for whatever claim you like for those statistics not being available (we mostly just need to look at HIPAA amongst others) but the end result is the same - your statement is making a conclusion in the absence of facts.

                      So, because we have a non-falsifiable proposition that we don't have "enough" facts, let the pagan offerings to Moloch continue?

                      What I'm saying is that your sweeping generalizations that have no factual basis in support are foolish and make you look foolish. You can construct better arguments, I have seen you do so in discussions on other matters. It appears from my vantage point that like a lot of other people in this matter you let your emotions get the better of you and don't care about the fact that you have no facts to support the message you want to convey.

                      Let me try to find some middle ground here, and say: sure, let abortion not be a federal concern.

                      That isn't necessarily a bad starting point.

                      However, when the sta

                    • Irrelevant. Can you look your god in the eye and justify it? Or does the state do your thinking for you?

                    • Some sort of type casting error here. I am responsible to God for my sins of comission & omission.
                      I'm as on the hook for the deeds of the state as I am for YOUR deeds.
                      Thus, it's unclear HOW I could justify what others do, or how you even think to connect me to those deeds, except as some sort of Alinsky play. Which would be foul of you, if that's your thrust here.
                    • Can you point to a federal dollar that has gone towards actually providing abortions? Planned Parenthood does a lot more than just provide abortions, and they are almost entirely funded by states anyways (this is why you see "Planned Parenthood of Virginia", for example). There may well be a case that I am not aware of, but I have yet to see an instance of federal dollars going towards an abortion actually being performed.

                      Well:

                      If you want to trust these Kermit Gosnellites, go right ahead. Trust the NSA, the IRS, &c as well.

                    • I believe 'accomplice' is the legal term..

                      And Alinsky is a dork

                    • If that person believes that Planned Parenthood was actually promoting abortion then he managed to work for them without ever understanding what they actually existed for.

                      Actually, having read that intriguing bit of writing that you linked to, I see that the person who made that quoted statement did not actually accuse PP of using abortion "as a means of planning a family" - in fact that line comes up earlier in the page before they even introduce that woman who claims to have been director, and that li
                    • Dork he may be, but Alinsky's anti-intellectual tactics loom large in what passes for rational discourse in this country.
                    • Well jeeze! It's not his fault for being popular... I don't blame Rush for the morons that follow him. Or Robertson or Falwell or any of those people.

                    • So you're agreeing with my point that assigning causality between individuals and groups is fraught with peril?
                    • Any particular direction?

                      I have never blamed the 'leader' for the behavior of his followers. Not even the little general himself. Animal instinct is always much more powerful in the group, where the individual loses his mind, and effective leaders know how to direct those instincts. It's still not the leader's fault. He is merely exploiting a vulnerability. They prove that psychology is a science and show its biological, instinctive roots, some of the time, inadvertently, because some of them don't understa

                    • Alinsky, getting back to him, is running a business. Free market, remember?

                      Oh, absolutely. If individual liberty means squawk-all, then the Alinsky potential must remain there.
                      It's incumbent upon everyone to grow up & think for themselves, and recognize that Alinksy's genius is rooted in tricking people to violate the 10 Commandments in a systematic way.

  • Just released in the Chicago Tribune [chicagotribune.com]:

    The first child to die from gunfire in Yellowstone National Park in three-quarters of a century was a 3-year-old girl killed over the weekend by a bullet shot from her father's handgun

    This was not an easy one to find, most other news stories covering this are feeding the standard NRA-censored BS. We'll see if it sticks or disappears.

    Unsurprisingly, though, we're already seeing spin applied even in this article:

    Authorities have declined to say whether investigators believe the shooting was accidental or deliberate.

    So apparently some of the hack "reporters" who believed in the utter bullshit that the conservative voice here on slashot called the Wii suicide [slashdot.org] are influencing the way this is being reported.

    NEWS FLASH SHITHEADS: Toddlers don't commit

Chemist who falls in acid is absorbed in work.

Working...