PDA

View Full Version : Stray bullet kills toddler in car seat


Kunal
Apr 18th, 2006, 04:58 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/17/toddler.shot.ap/index.html

Stray bullet kills toddler in car seat
Mother begs police to find shooter

NEW YORK (AP) -- Sobbing and clutching her son's toy, the mother of a 2-year-old killed when a stray bullet pierced their minivan on Easter urged police to find her son's killer.

"I want him to wake up every day and see my face and hear my voice and see my son's picture every day," Joanne Sanabria told reporters.

David Pacheco Jr., dressed in his Easter best, was strapped in a car seat Sunday afternoon as the family drove through the Bronx a few miles from home.

"I was driving and I heard the gunshot and I heard my son screaming," Sanabria, 28, said Monday. "God only knows how much I wish that bullet would have hit me."

Her daughters, ages 8 and 11, and her sister's family were also in the vehicle but unharmed.

According to police, the shots were fired as two groups of men argued.

An off-duty emergency medical technician, Angelo Cruz, heard the gunfire and ran to help the toddler, but the shooter disappeared.

The little boy had been struck in the chest and was pronounced dead about 45 minutes later.

His father, David Pacheco, said Monday he owes his thanks to Cruz. He said the resuscitation effort gave him time to see his son alive one last time.

Grieving family and friends described the boy as energetic and always smiling. "He was a happy kid," his uncle Victor Castillo said.

Pheobo
Apr 18th, 2006, 05:36 AM
:sad:

It's these kind of things that make me want guns outlawed very badly.

UDACHi
Apr 18th, 2006, 05:38 AM
Oh my god. Ruined my night. :sad:

Wigglytuff
Apr 18th, 2006, 05:46 AM
:fiery: :fiery: :fiery:
that i so fucked up!!! ugh!!! and to think these are people out there who say guns dont kill people, that its no different than having a knife at home... monsters... they are the ones who make things like this happen as often as they do!

skanky~skanketta
Apr 18th, 2006, 06:29 AM
what a horrible thing to happen to that family. :mad: :sad:

Kunal
Apr 18th, 2006, 04:25 PM
luck cannot be more shitty

timafi
Apr 18th, 2006, 04:31 PM
oh noooo,poor baby :sad: :sad:

John A Roark
Apr 18th, 2006, 04:40 PM
:sad:

It's these kind of things that make me want guns outlawed very badly.
A firearm is an unconscious, unthinking tool made of dead metal. It does not work unless there is a finger on the trigger. You want justice? You want this to stop? You better address the underlying problems and leave the inanimate object alone.

GrandSlam05
Apr 18th, 2006, 04:41 PM
:fiery: :fiery: :fiery:
that i so fucked up!!! ugh!!! and to think these are people out there who say guns dont kill people, that its no different than having a knife at home... monsters... they are the ones who make things like this happen as often as they do!
Meh, unless the U.S. can do something drastic to secure it's border, gun violence will be a problem, illegal or not. And just banning guns isn't really the answer anyway. If there are more jobs and more opportunities, then there's less likely to be crime.
There's actually a town not far from here that made it a city ordinance everyone had to own a gun and the town has a 0% crime rate LOL. Of course it's probably only got about 1000 people.
But if you get outside of a big city, people use guns for what they were meant for and you don't have such a negative view of them.

*JR*
Apr 18th, 2006, 05:17 PM
A firearm is an unconscious, unthinking tool made of dead metal. It does not work unless there is a finger on the trigger. You want justice? You want this to stop? You better address the underlying problems and leave the inanimate object alone.
Stop the BS, Jack. If they didn't have guns, they might have had a fistfight, or @ worst tried to stab eachother. (I'm sure one or both sides in this urban "OK Corral" felt that the other did them wrong). And B4 you trot out the usual NRA BS about (NYC, like many cities) having a ban on guns, one doesn't get automatically searched crossing a city or state line in a car. :rolleyes:

Veritas
Apr 18th, 2006, 05:32 PM
A firearm is an unconscious, unthinking tool made of dead metal. It does not work unless there is a finger on the trigger. You want justice? You want this to stop? You better address the underlying problems and leave the inanimate object alone.

So while we figure out what these "underlying problems" are, we just happen to let these people roam around the streets with a gun in their pockets and expect them to show self-restraint :tape:

TF Chipmunk
Apr 18th, 2006, 05:36 PM
Stop the BS, Jack. If they didn't have guns, they might have had a fistfight, or @ worst tried to stab eachother. (I'm sure one or both sides in this urban "OK Corral" felt that the other did them wrong). And B4 you trot out the usual NRA BS about (NYC, like many cities) having a ban on guns, one doesn't get automatically searched crossing a city or state line in a car. :rolleyes:I can't believe I'm actually agreeing with you on this one :)

GrandSlam05
Apr 18th, 2006, 05:36 PM
A law is useless unless you can enforce it. With the ease at which illegal firearms could be smuggled into the US and sold on the black market, there is no way to enforce gun control.

Wigglytuff
Apr 18th, 2006, 06:26 PM
Meh, unless the U.S. can do something drastic to secure it's border, gun violence will be a problem, illegal or not. And just banning guns isn't really the answer anyway. If there are more jobs and more opportunities, then there's less likely to be crime.
There's actually a town not far from here that made it a city ordinance everyone had to own a gun and the town has a 0% crime rate LOL. Of course it's probably only got about 1000 people.
But if you get outside of a big city, people use guns for what they were meant for and you don't have such a negative view of them.
what a load of crap. nambla logic at its finest. and is sad that this is the kind of crap that lead to that boy dying they way he did.

he was so cute. his mother appeared in the spanish language papers of the city.

TeaMMashA
Apr 18th, 2006, 06:28 PM
The bastard will only get charged with Manslaughter if caught now also so he wont get the full sentence for murder i would assume

tenn_ace
Apr 18th, 2006, 06:29 PM
I would strangle the bustard who made a shot with my own hands :fiery:

Wigglytuff
Apr 18th, 2006, 06:35 PM
A law is useless unless you can enforce it. With the ease at which illegal firearms could be smuggled into the US and sold on the black market, there is no way to enforce gun control.
that is soooooo not true.

if it were (and thank god its not) nothing, i mean, NOTHING would ever be illegal to own.

thats right we could all get deadly gases, tiger penises, elephant tusks, name it you can get it easily because its all legal, because why make something illegal because people can still get it, so the logical response is to not ever make anything illegal. wait. wait.

no thats not how it works at all. in fact its quite the opposite, making something illegal DOES make it more difficult to acquire. whats more, with education and other forms of enforcement the instance of ownership and abuse drasticly decreases, the exception being when the human body is chemically addicted to the banned goods. who would of ever thought? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

GrandSlam05
Apr 18th, 2006, 06:46 PM
that is soooooo not true.

if it were (and thank god its not) nothing, i mean, NOTHING would ever be illegal to own.

thats right we could all get deadly gases, tiger penises, elephant tusks, name it you can get it easily because its all legal, because why make something illegal because people can still get it, so the logical response is to not ever make anything illegal. wait. wait.

no thats not how it works at all. in fact its quite the opposite, making something illegal DOES make it more difficult to acquire. whats more, with education and other forms of enforcement the instance of ownership and abuse drasticly decreases, the exception being when the human body is chemically addicted to the banned goods. who would of ever thought? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Oh please, look what the drug war has done? It was easier where I was from to get a joint than get a bottle of booze. All it has caused is massive amounts of money and lives.
If guns are banned, the ways things are , hunting rifles and shotguns are the only things that will be gone. Assault rifles and handguns will still be smuggled in.
All the stuff you mentioned is for a VERY small market. Even if it were legal, how many people would want to handle a deadly gas? How many would actually want a tiger penis? Drugs and firearms are a HUGE market.
Edited to add: I am against assault rifles and most handguns, but I don't have problems with hunting rifles and shotguns. And of course we need very thourough background checks. But just a total ban on all guns is not the answer IMO.

Dawn Marie
Apr 18th, 2006, 06:47 PM
A firearm is an unconscious, unthinking tool made of dead metal. It does not work unless there is a finger on the trigger. You want justice? You want this to stop? You better address the underlying problems and leave the inanimate object alone.

So a firearm can't feel or think. The gun is made to shoot. When you shoot you want to kill.


The inanimate object is a tool for conscious people to use to kill others. Bullets hae no TIME allowed. No time for people to cool off. No time for the child who kills himself with the hangun to fight to live. Alot of children in America would not be dead if it weren't for the guns.

Tell that bullshit statement to many mothers/fathers and loved ones who have lost loved ones by another human's finger on the trigger.

The laws are not strict enough. Anyone can own and kill with a handgun.

John A Roark
Apr 18th, 2006, 07:17 PM
So a firearm can't feel or think. The gun is made to shoot. When you shoot you want to kill.


The inanimate object is a tool for conscious people to use to kill others. Bullets hae no TIME allowed. No time for people to cool off. No time for the child who kills himself with the hangun to fight to live. Alot of children in America would not be dead if it weren't for the guns.

Tell that bullshit statement to many mothers/fathers and loved ones who have lost loved ones by another human's finger on the trigger.

The laws are not strict enough. Anyone can own and kill with a handgun.
You were doing good right up until the end.
Yes, a handgun has ONLY one purpose--to kill other humans.
No, you NEVER point a weapon at something you don't intend to shoot.
Absolutely, a firearm is an unforgiving son-of-a-bitch.
But PCP is a horse tranquilizer, not a recreational drug.
An automobile gets you to where you're going, until some psycho decides to use it as a projectile weapon into a crowd of schoolkids.
I can't imagine how many more examples I could come up with of inanimate objects MISUSED by humans to cause pain and suffering.
But you get the idea.
And neither you nor anyone else will ever convince me that outlawing the possession of any object is effective in dealing with the problem. Sure, you might mask the short-term consequences, but no more than that.

I have indeed told that to grieving parents, BTW.

Grachka
Apr 18th, 2006, 07:29 PM
You were doing good right up until the end.
Yes, a handgun has ONLY one purpose--to kill other humans.
No, you NEVER point a weapon at something you don't intend to shoot.
Absolutely, a firearm is an unforgiving son-of-a-bitch.
But PCP is a horse tranquilizer, not a recreational drug.
An automobile gets you to where you're going, until some psycho decides to use it as a projectile weapon into a crowd of schoolkids.
I can't imagine how many more examples I could come up with of inanimate objects MISUSED by humans to cause pain and suffering.
But you get the idea.
And neither you nor anyone else will ever convince me that outlawing the possession of any object is effective in dealing with the problem. Sure, you might mask the short-term consequences, but no more than that.

I have indeed told that to grieving parents, BTW.
You sound rather like the pro-choice candidate for the Deadly Weapons Party.

Just because restricting gun use wouldn't totally eradicate the problem, does not meant that it won't help in the process of tackling this problem. Your laissez-faire approach is at best naive and at worst dangerous.

It's all about minimising the risk of something like this happening. If you had a child that was bullying another child, you wouldn't provide a vast choice of objects and tools, sharp or blunt, for them to keep doing it, just because 'they'd find a way of doing it anyway'. You'd take them away to minimise the risk of it happening.

It's the same idea with gun laws - you cannot just trust in human nature for people to just conform in the meantime, because we all know that humans often enjoy their rights whilst abusing their responsibilities, which ended up in tragedy in this case.

:sad: for the toddler.

John A Roark
Apr 18th, 2006, 07:40 PM
You sound rather like the pro-choice candidate for the Deadly Weapons Party.

Just because restricting gun use wouldn't totally eradicate the problem, does not meant that it won't help in the process of tackling this problem. Your laissez-faire approach is at best naive and at worst dangerous.

It's all about minimising the risk of something like this happening. If you had a child that was bullying another child, you wouldn't provide a vast choice of objects and tools, sharp or blunt, for them to keep doing it, just because 'they'd find a way of doing it anyway'. You'd take them away to minimise the risk of it happening.

It's the same idea with gun laws - you cannot just trust in human nature for people to just conform in the meantime, because we all know that humans often enjoy their rights whilst abusing their responsibilities, which ended up in tragedy in this case.

:sad: for the toddler.
You're right--I wouldn't. But neither is it my place to control others, until they get in my space. Ganging up with a bunch of others to force the minority to do something is called democracy. It isn't always right.

Grachka
Apr 18th, 2006, 07:54 PM
You're right--I wouldn't. But neither is it my place to control others, until they get in my space. Ganging up with a bunch of others to force the minority to do something is called democracy. It isn't always right.
It is the role of a democratic society to act in a representative manner, which is NOT the same as ganging up on a minority to coerce it into doing what the majority want. If that were the case, it would legitimise all sorts of horrors that have gone on in the world, from ethnic genocide (at the point of gun, ironically) to marginalisation of the social and political rights of ethnic minorities in many countries (Yugoslavia, Soviet Union, Baltic States, Britain, US...), just because it had support of the majority. It might be seen as democracy in it's purest form, but it's a rather twisted interpretation of democracy all the same.

Anyway, if you take away the right to own a gun, you take away the responsibilities that go with it. It's not controlling someone, or infringing a personal right, as the same rule applies to all.

Kunal
Apr 18th, 2006, 08:05 PM
i kinda think that its true.........esp after watching bowling for columbine... i know it was biased, it gave a very convincing story though.

senseless killings have a good chance of reducing if guns are banned

John A Roark
Apr 18th, 2006, 08:15 PM
It is the role of a democratic society to act in a representative manner, which is NOT the same as ganging up on a minority to coerce it into doing what the majority want. If that were the case, it would legitimise all sorts of horrors that have gone on in the world, from ethnic genocide (at the point of gun, ironically) to marginalisation of the social and political rights of ethnic minorities in many countries (Yugoslavia, Soviet Union, Baltic States, Britain, US...), just because it had support of the majority. It might be seen as democracy in it's purest form, but it's a rather twisted interpretation of democracy all the same.

Anyway, if you take away the right to own a gun, you take away the responsibilities that go with it. It's not controlling someone, or infringing a personal right, as the same rule applies to all.
You seem to have yourself convinced. You'll never convince me.
Outlawing inanimate objects, rather than the behavior with which they are used, has always struck me as too facile.
Politically, there are two kinds of people in the world--those who want others to be controlled and those who have no such desire. It should be obvious where I stand, for it is just as obvious where most in this thread stand. Hitler, Mao and Stalin all wanted to eradicate private ownership of firearms, too--for what was, I'm sure, the very best of reasons and the highest of motives.

*JR*
Apr 18th, 2006, 08:32 PM
You're right--I wouldn't. But neither is it my place to control others, until they get in my space. Ganging up with a bunch of others to force the minority to do something is called democracy. It isn't always right.
OK, why stop with handguns? Let's legalize the private ownership of machine guns, rocket launchers, even weapons of mass destuction. :rolleyes:

(@ least Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld will be able to find some then). :tape:

Grachka
Apr 18th, 2006, 10:10 PM
You seem to have yourself convinced. You'll never convince me.
Outlawing inanimate objects, rather than the behavior with which they are used, has always struck me as too facile.
Politically, there are two kinds of people in the world--those who want others to be controlled and those who have no such desire. It should be obvious where I stand, for it is just as obvious where most in this thread stand. Hitler, Mao and Stalin all wanted to eradicate private ownership of firearms, too--for what was, I'm sure, the very best of reasons and the highest of motives.
WTF. We are talking about an inanimate object that, when used, makes a person inanimate - it serves no other purpose other than to kill and maim, unlike, say, a kitchen knife, which, while it could be used to stab someone to death, can actually be used to cut bread too, hence why it's difficult to ban. I don't see anyone weeding their flowerbeds with a pistol anytime soon. Restricting gun ownership is not going to hinder any way of life other than those that shoot people regularly.

Hitler, Mao and Stalin were all meglomaniacs, and hence none of them objected to the use of 'legitimate' state violence, but it's rather obvious why they'd be against the private use of guns :lol:

GrandSlam05
Apr 18th, 2006, 10:17 PM
OK, why stop with handguns? Let's legalize the private ownership of machine guns, rocket launchers, even weapons of mass destuction. :rolleyes:

(@ least Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld will be able to find some then). :tape:
machine guns, rocket launchers, and WMDs aren't used for hunting and sport. I suppose you would ban archery too? :lol:

Grachka
Apr 18th, 2006, 10:20 PM
machine guns, rocket launchers, and WMDs aren't used for hunting and sport. I suppose you would ban archery too? :lol:
Then again, there are not many cases of someone 'arching' an enemy to death. :rolleyes:

Helen Lawson
Apr 18th, 2006, 10:28 PM
I get drunk too much to have a gun around the house, or to live above the 3rd floor.

GrandSlam05
Apr 18th, 2006, 10:35 PM
Then again, there are not many cases of someone 'arching' an enemy to death. :rolleyes:
That's not to say there wouldn't be if guns were banned. People that want to kill will kill with the most convenient means possible. 1,000 years ago it was bow and arrow or sword or poison. Nowadays it's guns. If not guns, then what knives or cars or cyanide.
Humans are wicked by nature and guns didn't make them that way. Some people who use guns for legit reasons should not be made to suffer for the actions of thugs. Besides, good people deserve to have them for defense.
Also, we live in very "comfortable" times right, but what if it's not like that forever? What if some day the world economy collapsed or a worldwide disaster happened and people actually have to kill their food. I could see why having a hunting rifle might be useful.
SOME people having the right to own guns for these reasons. If you've had a firearm conviction, too bad.

Niunia
Apr 18th, 2006, 10:53 PM
:sad: :sad:

Grachka
Apr 18th, 2006, 10:54 PM
That's not to say there wouldn't be if guns were banned. People that want to kill will kill with the most convenient means possible. 1,000 years ago it was bow and arrow or sword or poison. Nowadays it's guns. If not guns, then what knives or cars or cyanide.
Humans are wicked by nature and guns didn't make them that way. Some people who use guns for legit reasons should not be made to suffer for the actions of thugs. Besides, good people deserve to have them for defense.
Also, we live in very "comfortable" times right, but what if it's not like that forever? What if some day the world economy collapsed or a worldwide disaster happened and people actually have to kill their food. I could see why having a hunting rifle might be useful.
SOME people having the right to own guns for these reasons. If you've had a firearm conviction, too bad.
This post is amusing on so many levels :lol:

Firstly, like I said to Mr Roarke, just because someone wants to kill, and may try to do it at any cost, does not mean that we should kit him out with all he needs. We should be minimising the risk.

Secondly, humans are inherently selfish and potentially dangerous, yes. That is the entire reason we have a state, no? To set the rules that we all stick to, so that we are protected from each other. Having a state that sets the rules, and punishes those that break them, makes the idea of a personal punitive regime redundant.

Finally, the world's economy will not collapse to such an extent that we will have to return to hunter-gathering stage.

GrandSlam05
Apr 18th, 2006, 11:03 PM
This post is amusing on so many levels :lol:

Firstly, like I said to Mr Roarke, just because someone wants to kill, and may try to do it at any cost, does not mean that we should kit him out with all he needs. We should be minimising the risk.

Secondly, humans are inherently selfish and potentially dangerous, yes. That is the entire reason we have a state, no? To set the rules that we all stick to, so that we are protected from each other. Having a state that sets the rules, and punishes those that break them, makes the idea of a personal punitive regime redundant.

Finally, the world's economy will not collapse to such an extent that we will have to return to hunter-gathering stage.
I'm glad you're so confident because I'm not. I used the world economy as ONE example. But yes, it could happen even if not likely. So many other things could happen. Just because things have been so hunky dorey for 100 years, you think they'll be that way FOREVER? :lol: Ever heard of plagues, natural disasters, etc. We haven't come far enough that we're about it.
And sorry, we need to worry about pollution and population way more than gun control. Things like gun control will seem trivial when faced with a destroyed Earth.
I'm a liberal on pretty much every issue, except extreme gun control. The fact is most advocates of this have only seen guns used for violence (mostly from tv). I'm guessing it's the same for you.

Grachka
Apr 18th, 2006, 11:13 PM
I'm glad you're so confident because I'm not. I used the world economy as ONE example. But yes, it could happen even if not likely. So many other things could happen. Just because things have been so hunky dorey for 100 years, you think they'll be that way FOREVER? :lol: Ever heard of plagues, natural disasters, etc. We haven't come far enough that we're about it.
And sorry, we need to worry about pollution and population way more than gun control. Things like gun control will seem trivial when faced with a destroyed Earth.
I'm a liberal on pretty much every issue, except extreme gun control. The fact is most advocates of this have only seen guns used for violence (mostly from tv). I'm guessing it's the same for you.
Yes, we need to worry about pollution and population, perhaps more than gun control. But surely you are not advocating that we only worry about a select number of very troubling problems? One of the great things about humans is that we have the capacity to multitask, and the mind if capable of worrying about more than 2 important things :) It's quite a dangerous frame of mind when you start saying that because one problem is perceived to be more important, that we abandon trying to tackle the others entirely.

And you are wrong, naturally. I grew up in rural Scotland, surrounded by farms and the grouse hunting industry. I've seen more birds killed than you can ever imagine ;) Can't say I've seen many people being killed...but then again I live in a country in which gun control is extremely limited :)

controlfreak
Apr 18th, 2006, 11:33 PM
Seriously, I think there is something wrong with me, but I fail to see how this can affect any of you emotionally. Thousands of people die every day. Many wrongfully. Some of them are 2 years old. I don't get why everybody feels the need to break out all the sad/death/angry/electric chair smileys. Looks to me like y'all need to work on your emotional detachment skills and start looking out for numero uno.

John A Roark
Apr 21st, 2006, 03:56 AM
just because someone wants to kill, and may try to do it at any cost, does not mean that we should kit him out with all he needs.
I cannot understand why you insist on laying at another's feet the responsibility for supplying the weapons, as though that's what everyone who does not favor draconian control wishes to do.
You're not in control, here--if they want the gun, they'll go get it without your or my help, no huhu.
And you seem to be fixated on the notion that if YOU don't 'kit him out,' he'll never get the weapons.

You're not in control!

The only way to do it is to open the door to let someone else tell you that what he deems dangerous, you must relinquish, as well. You might hurt someone with your car--walk.
You might hurt someone with your poker--brick up your fireplace.
And yes, all the statistics in the world can be used to back up claims of any sort, firearms included. *deep sigh*
Thank goodness the controllers haven't taken over every office...

gentenaire
Apr 21st, 2006, 07:05 AM
Outlawing inanimate objects, rather than the behavior with which they are used, has always struck me as too facile.
Politically, there are two kinds of people in the world--those who want others to be controlled and those who have no such desire. It should be obvious where I stand, for it is just as obvious where most in this thread stand. Hitler, Mao and Stalin all wanted to eradicate private ownership of firearms, too--for what was, I'm sure, the very best of reasons and the highest of motives.

What if I want to acquire an atomic bomb? Just to protect myself, of course. Would you be okay with that?

Sevenseas
Apr 21st, 2006, 07:55 AM
This is so devastating. Poor little babyÖ :sad: :sad: :sad:



You better address the underlying problems and leave the inanimate object alone.


I totally disagree. That inanimate object is fatal not only towards the people who are involved in the fight but also the ones -like this baby- who have no relation whatsoever with the fight itself.

Are people supposed to walk on the streets wondering in fear whether or not a stray bullet will knock them dead? So how should we protect ourselves in such situations? Simply by hoping and wishing not to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? Huh, very practical!

Unfortunately, your argument will in no way console that poor mom in deep agony. Thatís the fact we should consider thoroughly.

John A Roark
Apr 22nd, 2006, 08:42 PM
Humans behave.
Humans act.
Objects do not.
What's so hard about that concept?

Kunal
Apr 22nd, 2006, 09:03 PM
guns dont kill people

people kill people

*JR*
Apr 22nd, 2006, 09:40 PM
Humans behave.
Humans act.
Objects do not.
What's so hard about that concept?
First Jack, you ducked the question about privately owned atomic bombs (directed 2U) in Post 38. Has "Teddy Roosevelt" turned too cowardly to answer it? :scratch: (BTW, you never answered mine about machine guns, either).

Second, re. your bland cliche above, let me paraphrase Albert Einstein from early in the nuclear age:

"I don't know what weapons the 3rd World War will be fought with. But the 4th will be fought with sticks and stones".

As you would say: what's so hard about that concept? And if you can't see the direct connection between that and this shooting in terms of the amount of lethal force available when hostilities break out, you simply choose not to consider inconvenient facts.

Sevenseas
Apr 24th, 2006, 08:49 AM
Humans behave.
Humans act.
Objects do not.
What's so hard about that concept?

If you reduce this particular incident to such simple terms, thatís your preference, but please be advised that your approach is very far from solving this problem.

gentenaire
Apr 24th, 2006, 05:56 PM
Humans behave.
Humans act.
Objects do not.
What's so hard about that concept?

People without guns don't shoot people
guns don't shoot people

People with guns shoot people

So it's the combination of people and guns that is causing damage.

So as long as people can't hold guns, there's no problem. As long as the guns just stay locked away, where no human can touch it, there's no problem.

The concept that objects don't act, is only true as long as no one is touching it. The moment someone touches it, the object can act.

If those people had never touched that gun, that baby would still be alive today. How hard is that to understand?


And I would like a an answer to my atomic bomb question.

John A Roark
Apr 24th, 2006, 07:11 PM
Folks, no.
Just no.
NO.

The principle here is the same as prohibition.
All a ban does, all control does, is make you feel good, and annoy honest people.
It addresses a symptom. It does not address the problem.
I believe in freedom, responsibility, and the notion that I am neither wise enough nor powerful enough to control others. Nor do I want to be controlled--I think I can handle myself, just fine.

But I'll tell you what:
You make any laws you think are necessary for your comfort, safety, etc.
If I find such laws tolerable, I'll tolerate them.
If I find them too obnoxious, I'll break them at will.
I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.
So is everyone else.

That, gang, is the last you'll get out of me. Condemn me at will--not that it makes a tinker's damn.

*JR*
Apr 24th, 2006, 08:09 PM
Folks, no.
Just no.
NO.
......

That, gang, is the last you'll get out of me.
(Johnny picks up his ball and goes home). :baby:

Fingon
Apr 24th, 2006, 08:16 PM
You can see this from several different angles.

The first question that arises is, why would someone want to own an object that is specifically designed to kill people? Other than security forces or security guards, body guards etc., there is no practical reasons.

Some people own weapons as a hoby, a collection like others collect stamps, some people like to hunt, or simply go and shoot cans.

So, it's easy to think that there isn't a "need" to own weapons (except for the case mentioned) and they represent a danger, so why not to ban them?

Fair enough, but now let's think of the practical effects.


1) Police officers, soldiers, security guards, bodyguards and the likes (I don't think we are discussing THEIR right to own or carrry a weapon).
2) Thugs, gang members, drug dealers, hitmen and the like.
3) Accidental shoots.
4) rage, people that are not normally thugs but react like that and have a weapon.

Ok, group 1 is not under discussion, police officers MUST carry a weapon, I don't think anybody is discussing that.

groups 3 and 4 are the ones that would be reduced if weapons were banned, but realistically, what percentage of gunshots against people fall into these groups?

So, the problem is group 2, and do you think they give a shit to whether weapons are legal or not? Do you think they would have any problem finding a weapon if they are illegal? Sure, you can say that there are cases that weapons are stolen from their legal owners and used to commit crimes, but so are cars.

Now, think about it, I might be wrong but I believe that there are significantly more deaths caused by traffic accidents (eg cars) than by weapons (not talking about war times here), they are rarely intentional but in most cases are due to negligence, impaired driving or whatever, so, should be ban cars? surely the number of deaths from traffic accidents (including children) would drop significantly.

You could argue that cars are not inherently dangerous, they are not designed to harm people but the fact is that they are harming more people than weapons.

The point is, where do you stop? if instead of focusing on attacking the problem of why this shooting happen (that would be an entirely different discussion, but take it as you like, whether tougher sentences, social programs or whatever you want) and instead we try to take away the instruments used to commit crimes, we are going nowhere.

the thugs will still get their weapons and we will only hurt the rights of law-abiding weapons owners. Sure, the right to own a weapon doesn't seem too critical but again, where do we stop? If we are going to ban objects that harm people in high proportion, then we should ban cars, knives, dogs, airplanes, even computers. As somebody say, you are attacking the symptoms, not the problem.

gentenaire
Apr 24th, 2006, 09:36 PM
That, gang, is the last you'll get out of me. Condemn me at will--not that it makes a tinker's damn.

Still ducking the question, I see.

gentenaire
Apr 24th, 2006, 09:48 PM
groups 3 and 4 are the ones that would be reduced if weapons were banned, but realistically, what percentage of gunshots against people fall into these groups?.

What is worse? Law abiding citizens not being able to have a trophee weapon or innocents getting killed?

Besides, stricter gun control doesn't mean no one should have a weapon, it simply means people shouldn't consider it their god given right. It should also make it a lot easier to arrest thugs when they can be arrested for carrying an unregistered weapon. Too often they get away with things because of lack of evidence.
Law abiding citizens who register their gun have nothing to fear.
We need a license to drive a car, methinks it's only normal to expect people with guns to get a license as well.
There are too many guns around in the US right now. There's no way you can get all those guns back. But having stricter rules is possible! Telling people to register their guns is possible.

Fingon
Apr 24th, 2006, 10:10 PM
What is worse? Law abiding citizens not being able to have a trophee weapon or innocents getting killed?

yes, I agree, however, you can ask the same question, what is worse? people not allowed to drive their cars and forced to walk or innocents getting killed?

Besides, stricter gun control doesn't mean no one should have a weapon, it simply means people shouldn't consider it their god given right.

I have no problems with that.

It should also make it a lot easier to arrest thugs when they can be arrested for carrying an unregistered weapon. Too often they get away with things because of lack of evidence.

well, yes, and accused of what? violating a restriction? that wouldn't deter them. To start with, registered or not I don't see why anyone would carry a weapon (except when you are going to a shooting range for example?) but the problem is how you enforce that? do you stop anyone that looks suspicious in search for weapons?, do you check everyone? do you do like with cares? put the police in an interesection and check everyone? ask them to show their guns licenses and maybe prove they know how to shoot it?
or you will wait until they actually use them? chances are they will get rid of them, just like they do now, if the gun can incriminate them, otherwise, you will still arrest them for a minor violation (gun possession) and not for murder.

Law abiding citizens who register their gun have nothing to fear.
We need a license to drive a car, methinks it's only normal to expect people with guns to get a license as well.

I don't see a problem with that, except that it doesn't work, they tried to do it in Canada at a much lesser scale, they just spent billions and got nowhere, how many million of guns are already out there?
Yes, true, you can force all gun owners to register theirs and they might do it, but it will take resources and money that should be used to get the CRIMINALS, while not producing any practical effort.
The point is not possessing a gun without a license, but possessing a gun that is used to commit a crime, and ballistics and not a registry will tell you that.
Even if someone has a valid license, that doesn't mean they didn't kill someone, you would still have to do all the ballistic tests.
I know I use the car as a comparisson, but only as something that is dangerous like weapons are, but the similarities stop there.
You get a license to drive a car, but that's because some skills are required to do it, to protect yourself and others, there isn't such a thing with weapons, will you require them to be able to shoot it properly?
The other kind of license or documentation you get with cars is about ownership and that's designed to protect the owner, not the general population, has nothing to do with the danger or driving a car but attempts to keep control on who owns assets that are expensive, just like houses or yachts or airplanes.

There are too many guns around in the US right now. There's no way you can get all those guns back. But having stricter rules is possible! Telling people to register their guns is possible.
yes, but while you are doing it, people will keep dying, resources are not unlimited, the police officers and administrative personal used to track that down should be used to track criminals down. You are admitting yourself you can't get those guns back so what's the point? there are tens of millions of guns out there, what are you going to achive spending billions of dollars and using people, computers and other resources to get a registry that will serve no purpose? while criminals will get away with a "manslaughter" offense.
I tell you what, change the law, if you fire a gun, and the bullet kills someone, whether you intended to hit that person or not is irrelevant, you are guilty of first degree murder and will spend the rest of your life in prisson, end of story, THAT'S what you need, really tough laws on crime, really tough sentences, and give police the tools to get the criminals, not the guns.

meyerpl
Apr 25th, 2006, 02:17 AM
It seems that the places where most of the gun violence occurs are congested areas in American cities, places where gun ownership is certainly much less common than rural America. I believe the problems that lead to the violence are many and varied and need to be addressed seriously, but trying to get rid of guns isn't going to have any meaningful effect. I live in an area where guns are ubiquitous. I only have seven guns in my home, which almost makes me anti-gun where I live. People are suspicious . I also live in an area where people don't lock there homes or cars and gun related crime is virtually non-existent.

Here's the bottom line: Guns don't kill people. I do.