A sad gun nut reality

[MichaelSoE]

[TxDemChem]

1. That is sad

This child's parents should be arrested

[baldguy]

2. For too many RW gun weirdos, their gun is more important in their life than their own children.

And for the great majority of RW gun weirdos, their gun is certainly more important than other people's children.

[alcibiades_mystery]

5. Gun weirdos and nuts of all kinds: gun nuttery is one area where big "P" politics doesn't matter

The gun nuts are all the same in their assholery, regardless of the side of the aisle they usually vote for.

[DrDan]

27. why "RW"? seems to me from posts here this also applies to gunners of both sides

[ZombieHorde]

54. I think they see gun ownership as a way to protect their families.

They seem to think there is a much greater likelihood of people raiding their home than common gun accidents.

[AndyA]

3. If that little girl ever hurts or kills someone with that gun

it will be the parent's fault for instilling such an interest in her. That is not responsible gun ownership.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. "instilling such an interest"

How do you feel about toy guns, movies, cartoons, music, video games and fingers held in the position of an "L"?

[EOTE]

15. Much less severely.

Just as I feel much less severely about a kid playing cops and robbers versus a kid actually robbing a bank. There IS a rather significant difference between a kid playing games with his/her friend and a kid handling an actual gun, don't you think?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. No. My SIL went shooting with us this past weekend and it wasn't her first time.

She's pretty well-versed in the safety rules and proper handling. I trust her to react responsibly when in the presence of a gun, more than I would a child whose parents might stick fingers in their ears, close their eyes and babble "nyah-nyah-nyah!" approach to safety. I would find them no different than the parents who think that avoiding "The Talk(s)" will keep l'il Jimmy and l'il Suzie from playing doctor behind the shed, drinking when they're only 15 or experimenting with hard drugs.

Education saves lives. Not that the OP image is education. It's manifestly dangerous for the sake of cheap propaganda -- also known as hypocritical.

[EOTE]

25. Are you aware that having a gun in the house makes it far more likely

that someone in that house will die by a gun? Idiots like whoever it was provided that little girl a gun get innocent people killed. Those parents with a "nyah-nyah-nyah" approach to safety tend to NOT have dead kids. Those idiots who have children like the one above tend to have dead kids. It's REALLY FUCKING STUPID to let a kid that age play with a real gun. It is a fact that kids who receive comprehensive sex education are less likely to get pregnant or impregnate others while in their teens. It is also a fact that kids who grow up in households with guns are a good deal more likely to die by a gun. But then again, gun nuts have an utter disdain for facts.

On edit: The real hypocrisy is idiotic gun nuts who insist they're trying to protect children. You want to protect a kid from guns? Don't have a fucking gun in your house.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

37. It looks like it's a staged photo, so that leads me to believe the "idiot" is

an anti-rights activists who staged the photo for propaganda purposes.

It is also a fact that kids who grow up in households with guns are a good deal more likely to die by a gun. But then again, gun nuts have an utter disdain for facts.

On edit: The real hypocrisy is idiotic gun nuts who insist they're trying to protect children. You want to protect a kid from guns? Don't have a fucking gun in your house.

Are there any of "things" that are just as deadly if not more so that you might not be telling us or are you asserting guns are the #1 killer of children? Last I heard underage drinking kills 4700 minors annually. That's the equivalent of 4.5 Sandy Hook tragedies PER WEEK. Yet, oddly, no one is rending their garments over the fact that having alcohol in a house makes children more likely to use alcohol. Alcohol -- unlike self-defense -- is not a human right. It serves no utility. It has no practical place in society (I'm not advocating Prohibition, just noting the plain facts).

If actually saving lives was the true agenda then the facts you pretend to give heed to would speak for themselves.

Other facts being ignored:

* good people are preyed upon by criminals every day and they have a right to defend themselves
* the overwhleming majority of gun crimes are perpetrated by repeat offenders
* the police cannot prevent crime, they can only respond to crimes already in commission

[EOTE]

39. It's staged because it's more convenient for you to believe that?

That's certainly what it seems like to me.

And you have a VERY hard time accepting facts. The fact that good people die from murderous assholes does NOTHING to negate that having a gun in your house makes it FAR more likely for your child to die by a gun. You completely deny or ignore everything that doesn't fit with your pro-gun agenda. That's called confirmation bias. There's really very little point in discussing this with you further because you'll ignore the wealth of information which disagrees with your preconceived notions and gleefully choke down the propaganda that confirms what you already believe.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

40. Or it's not staged because it'smore convenient for you to believe that.

Extreme close-up, soft light, posed shot.

Kinda reminiscent of stage portrait shots --




Meanwhile, people who actually take pictures of their kids with guns take pictures like this --





I found this photo, it looks pretty damning --

[EOTE]

41. So, ignore facts and then accuse the OP of being a fake.

Ignore the myriad other idiots on the internet who treat guns as toys with fatal consequences. Whatever you do, don't suddenly develop a conscience, that might ruin guns for you forever.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57561884-71/teen-poses-with-gun-for-facebook-photo-accidentally-kills-brother/

http://patterico.com/2013/03/20/facebook-photo-of-child-holding-gun-leads-to-a-law-enforcement-knock-on-the-door/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2246032/Boys-14-pose-guns-Facebook-hours-fatally-shooting-woman-22.html

[Nuclear Unicorn]

42. That's why I'm a proponent of gun safety education

Do you care as much for the glamorization of alcohol consumption and the deaths of minors in underaged drinking incidences? or would that ruin your good time too much?

[EOTE]

43. Let me tell you this for the hundredth time or so. Listen up.

Having a gun in your house makes it far more likely for you and your children to be killed by a gun. I think parents should teach there kids about drugs and alcohol, all the science suggests that it makes them into more responsible adults. The science is also very clear as to what having a gun in your house means. Something that you conveniently ignore (much like all facts which don't support your preconceived notions).

Yes, of course I dislike the glamorization of alcohol consumption, that's why I set a good example for my child with regard to alcohol consumption. I also don't want my child to die by a gun, that's why I keep guns far away from me and my family. Gun nuts don't so much give a damn about the lives of their children, or at least their biological children. They care far more for their other 'precious', their guns.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

46. And my husband, FIL and myself set a good example for my SIL on gun safety

because even if we didn't keep guns in our homes we have no way of guaranteeing one of her friends wouldn't have a gun in their home. We're not worried about the guns we control -- because we control them -- we're worried about the variables we cannot control and we want her to be strong and sensible.

Gun nuts don't so much give a damn about the lives of their children

Your definition of "gun nut" is as staged as the photos you peddle.

[EOTE]

48. Uhhh, you were the one peddling photos, not me.

So, thinking might help before your next post.

A good example for a kid in terms of gun safety is to tell them that guns kill people and you should stay far away from them. If you encounter one at your friends place, immediately leave the room and find an adult. That is NOT what the gun nuts teach. Funny how children of gun nuts die so much more often from guns compared to children with sane parents.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

50. It's telling how you work so strenuously to make "gun nut" equal all gun owners

It's as absurd as claiming all parents are child abusers. You aren't judging by action, you're judging by a characteristic the same as any other bigot.

[EOTE]

52. I think "gun nuts" are the parents who let their children handle guns.

Those parents who tell their children anything other than "leave the room and find an adult" if they find a gun. Those parents who are against gun control because they just can't stand the thought of not having access to 30 round magazines. In short, the idiots who care more about their guns than they do their children's lives. There are plenty of those idiots in all aspects of society. It's a damned shame that we even have a few of them here.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

57. My SIL is well-instructed in "leave the room and find an adult"

But mostly "leave the room/house" because someone who allows their child such easy access to guns has a generally ill-educated child and a dangerous home. She's been taught to tell her dad or my husband and I and we will straighten out the other family. Just because she has been allowed to shoot doesn't mean her instinct is to grab the first gun she sees and start shooting.

It's a damned shame that we even have a few of them here.

I haven't seen any gun nuts at DU. I have only seen responsible owners advocating for safety, education and trying to avert electoral disasters for the Democratic party. I have -- unfortunately -- also seen plenty of arrogant, judgmental sorts who are more determined to ignore facts and cast insults than actually discuss a topic like a rational adult.

[EOTE]

58. If you haven't seen any gun nuts on DU, then you haven't been paying attention.

Because they tend to infect just about every conversation involving guns here. There are loads here who have issue with magazine restrictions and even something as big of a no-brainer as background checks. And that whole canard about "trying to avert electoral disasters for the Democratic party" is utter bullshit. The public by a large majority wants these items in place. It's only NRA bullshit that says that democrats are risking an electoral backlash by implementing common sense gun control. I see Mr. LaPierre has taught you much.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

62. For someone who pretends to be worried about reckless and hostile people

you sure spend a lot of time on insults and name-calling. It's a good thing you don't own a gun because you're a manifestly irresponsible and belligerent personality.

they tend to infect just about every conversation involving guns

Conversations are multi-party by definition. There is no infection, there is participation. Democracy is the same thing. If everyone agreed there wouldn't be a need for voting but even democracy must yield to basic human rights including the right of self-preservation. That's why mobs are not allowed to lynch 1 man but 1 man is allowed to defend himself from a mob.

The best solution is to cultivate a society that not only recognizes these rights but encourages the safest practices. Prohibitions are neither practical or in society's best interest.

As for NRA talking points, in an earlier post you wrote --

A good example for a kid in terms of gun safety is to tell them that guns kill people and you should stay far away from them. If you encounter one at your friends place, immediately leave the room and find an adult.

Weird --

About 50 children between the ages of 3 and 10 participated in the free, hour-long sessions that teach youngsters to “Stop. Don’t Touch. Leave the Area. Tell an Adult.” whenever they find an abandoned gun.

http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/courier/news/nra-gun-safety-program-a-hit-with-kids/article_66e24628-3e3a-5005-ba15-8aa8225e8d93.html

Mr. LaPierre has taught you much -- or so the saying goes.

[EOTE]

66. Yeah, awful me, hurting those gun nuts' little feelings.

What will they do with their widdle feelings hurt? Shoot me?

Gun nuts do not add anything worthwhile to the conversation. They care far more about their toys than they do about human lives. "Prohibitions are neither practical or in society's best interest."? Really? You honestly believe that? So you'd be fine if any billionaire could purchase his own aircraft carrier or Apache attack helicopter? I'm kind of guessing you don't believe that, though you're free to correct me if you do.

And wow, the NRA has done something responsible so that means they're in some way good? Ever hear about broken clocks? Did you know that Hitler was staunchly anti-smoking? Must have been a great guy, huh? Are you capable of making an argument that makes even the least bit of sense?

[DrDan]

61. oh really - a poll on DU2 showed a half-dozen or so (minimum) who believe in NO control over guns

not based on age, criminal history, mental capacity . . . nothing. NO CONTROL.

That, my friend, is a gun nut.

We also have some here who believe that shooting and killing someone for stealing something as insignificant as an ink pen is justified - even in the back. Do you consider that sane gun ownership?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

63. I call shenanigans.

[EOTE]

69. Easier than putting some thought into it, I suppose.

Everyone who disagrees with you is lying. Don't let those gun grabbers make you think!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

70. A posters interpretation of an unscientific poll on a closed forum?

Find something else to complain about.

[EOTE]

72. You said you don't believe it.

Not that it was unscientific, you said you didn't believe it. It doesn't matter how many people here are against even the most meager gun control measures, in your mind, they don't exist.

[DrDan]

82. of course you do - just like the validity of the picture

[Nuclear Unicorn]

91. It's your subjective interpretation of an unscientific poll on a closed forum.

There's nothing valid in your post to argue for or against.

[DrDan]

92. typical denial - do you happen to have a pitbull also?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

94. What I don't have is a link to a poll from DU2.

[DrDan]

104. now you do

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x476795

[Nuclear Unicorn]

106. Would it make you feel more confident if I said I do not place myself amongst

the 5, nor do I consider their contention reasonable. I have not seen anyone openly advocate "no restrictions" hence my reluctance to accept the statement without basis. I would readily argue against such assertions.

Some people forfeit their rights by their actions. Such forfeitures are subject to probable cause, due process, etc. but the fact remains some people -- too many people -- decide they want to victimize others.

[DrDan]

107. we are in agreement

[sarisataka]

65. So am I a gun nut then?

I let my children come around when cleaning a gun. All ammunition is locked in a container in another room- personal rule #2, Right between Rule #1- make sure the gun is unloaded and Rule #3-make sure the gun is unloaded again.
I answer all of the questions they have on what I am doing, what the parts are, how far can a gun shoot, why is the sky blue, etc.

In return I quiz them
Three rules of gun handling 1-always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction, 2- always keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot, 3- never load a gun until ready to use it
When are they allowed to touch a gun- after asking permission and I check to see it is not loaded, then hand it to them.
What do they do if they find a gun- Stop, Do not touch it,tell any other kids not to touch it, go tell an adult
If anyone else says they can handle a gun, are they allowed- no. I or their mother must be there and handle it first.

When done, we go and lock the gun back up- after checking that it is unloaded and then wash our hands and change clothes to avoid any unnecessary lead contamination.

Neither of the kids have fires more than a airsoft with the plastic BBs, which we proved will not even pop a balloon.

[EOTE]

67. Do you match any of the criteria I provided? My words are there for you to see.

If you are, then yes, you're a gun nut.

Again, a child (or an adult, for that matter) is far more likely to die by a gun when there is a gun in the house. Having a gun in your house with a child is an extremely bad idea.

[sarisataka]

71. You have several criteria...

Parents who allow kids to use real guns as toys, parents who let kids handle guns (which is vague), parents who own guns, parents who do not oppose 30 round magazines...

I fit some, but not all. I favor several forms of gun control, but not ever proposal that is thrown out there. I firmly believe not everyone should own a gun and never doubt any person who chooses to not own, or dispose of any they have.

Owning a gun is a risk, as is owning a car or keeping hazardous substances in the house. If you have any of these, you must take steps to mitigate the risks. I also keep all cleaning substances, insecticides and paint locked as well.

It is a fact that kids who receive comprehensive sex education are less likely to get pregnant or impregnate others while in their teens.

Would education on firearms help reduce accidents and perhaps teens using them for violence?

[EOTE]

73. Education is fine, just don't let kids handle guns.

Again, and I'm getting rather tired of repeating this, IF YOU HAVE A GUN IN YOUR HOUSE, BOTH YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN ARE FAR MORE LIKELY TO DIE FROM A GUN THAN THOSE WITHOUT A GUN IN THEIR HOUSE.

Do you not understand that? Cars provide transportation, it could well be considered a hardship being without a car. GUNS KILL THINGS. That's all they're good for. If you're without a car, you may be less likely to be killed in a car, but you're also going to miss out on all that owning a car entails. If you're without a gun, that means you and your family are less likely to die by a gun. But what will you be missing out on? Well, firing a gun, I suppose. The gun nuts tend to think that that alone is worth risking their family's life. And that's pretty fucking sad.

[sarisataka]

77. May I assume you are against guns?

Education an be effectively conducted without ever using an actual firearm...

IF YOU HAVE A GUN IN YOUR HOUSE, BOTH YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN ARE FAR MORE LIKELY TO DIE FROM A GUN THAN THOSE WITHOUT A GUN IN THEIR HOUSE.

I saw that, even understand it, though even with no gun in the house the risk is more than zero. Millions of people have guns for many reasons, recreation, hunting, protection, employment etc. That is not going to change and people are entitled to make their own choices.
As with anything, we educate people on the risks of owning something and educate them as to how to reduce those risks. Guns are on the high end of risk as one of their main purposes is to inflict harm. Knowing the risks, some will choose to not own the dangerous item, some will choose to own and take all precaution to prevent harm some will own it and not care. The last group is the one who needs the most help.
Broad brushes are not the most effective...

[EOTE]

80. Sure, the risk will NEVER be zero.

But why on earth would you want to INCREASE your odds of you or your children dying from a firearm?

Sure that last group needs the most help. However, that doesn't negate the fact that legislation should be used in order to bring us more into line with the industrialized word in terms of gun fatalities.

[pintobean]

44. "develop a conscience"

[EOTE]

45. Some people care more for their guns than they do the lives of their children.

Pretty sick, huh?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

47. Some people care more for their alcohol than they do the lives of their children.

Some people care more for their fast cars than they do the lives of their children.

Some people care more for their cigarettes than they do the lives of their children.

Some people care more for their recreational drugs than they do the lives of their children.

Some people care more for abusive stalkers than they do the lives of other people's children.

Some people care more for cheap rhetoric than they do the lives of children.

Pretty sick, huh?

[EOTE]

49. Yeah, that's pretty sick in all cases.

However, in pretty much everyone of those cases, the sick fucks who don't care very much for their children don't go around suggesting that cigarettes should be more easily available for children, that recretaional drugs should be more available for children, that parents who don't teach their 5 year olds to drive are being irresponsible, etc. Nope, that particular bit of evil bullshit seems confined to the typical gun nut.

Keep trying, I'm sure you'll start to comprehend soon.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

53. So now you're judging by action rather than characteristic

BUT WAIT! Sometimes parents do promote bad behavior!

http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/Mother-arrested-for-boozed-up-house-party-for/-yZUNDEEekCXemsbdjrbCg.cspx

http://www.wltx.com/news/article/56986/0/Mom-Boyfriend-Arrested-for-Throwing-Alcohol-Party-for-Teens

http://newstimes.augusta.com/latest-news/2012-04-16/mother-arrested-teens-cited-for-drinking-at-after-prom-party

http://www.staceypageonline.com/2012/10/23/mom-hosting-underage-drinking-party-arrested/

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/01/03/police-mom-arrested-for-supplying-keg-to-teens-at-putnam-county-party/

http://www.wave3.com/story/12728724/mother-arrested-for-marijuana-and-alcohol-parties-for-teens

Obviously the only solution to dealing with partying nuts is to have registration and capacity limitations if not an outright ban. And if you say "no" you hate children -- or something.

[EOTE]

55. No shit, there are actions and characteristics which are unsafe for children.

The parents who promote bad behavior are typically punished for it. If they aren't, they should be.

A parent who is against a capacity limitation on magazines is a really fucking shitty parent. That parent cares more for his or her fetish than about his/her child. That's really fucking sick.

When kids started getting really sick from Four Loco and other similar beverages, they got rid of them. When legislation is proposed to protect children from guns, the gun nuts don't give a fuck. Let's not let anything get in the way of our REAL children (the guns). These sick fucks fight EVERY single proposed piece of legislation to protect kids. It's utterly disgusting how little these cretins care for kids.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

64. How would a capacity limit have saved any lives in an accidental discharge?

Or saved any lives when the perp makes every effort to inflict maximum harm through planning and preparation?

When kids started getting really sick from Four Loco and other similar beverages

And what has this done to curb underaged drinking fatalities?

[EOTE]

68. Why is "accidental discharge" the only criteria you're looking at?

That is insanely stupid. In Newtown, MANY children would have been saved if that gun nut Adam Lanza had to reload another 6 times. Are you seriously not bright enough to understand that? It takes time to load a gun, the more time these nuts spend loading their guns, the more chances people have to escape with their lives. Yet you think this isn't a good thing because it wouldn't save lives in an accidental discharge? Really, thinking helps when addressing these issues.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

74. "Why is "accidental discharge" the only criteria you're looking at?"

A gross mischaracterization of my post.

I posed 3 questions: 1 about accidental discharges, which are what most childhood gun fatalities involve and your current bugbear; 1 about deliberate, planned attacks anticipating a moving of the goalposts; and 1 about why you still are not trying to solve the issues that claim more children by orders of statistical magnitude.

[EOTE]

75. The magazine capacity issue is obviously not meant to address accidental discharges.

That's an incredibly stupid issue to bring up. So because a magazine capacity limit would only prevent deaths in mass murders and not in accidental discharges, that means it shouldn't be addressed? That's ridiculously stupid.

And you know nothing of the other issues I'm involved with, so you bringing them up is utterly meaningless, much like the rest of your pablum I've had to address.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

78. You're the one who spent most if the time complaining about guns in the home

making children more likely to suffer a gun-related injury. I seriously doubt these injuries are a result of 15 or more rounds being expended. In fact, I'll hazard a guess it overwhelmingly involves a single round being fired. Since that was the focus of your conversation and you complained that any parent that dosen't support a capacity restriction doesn't love their children I wanted to inquire as to why the magazine capacity restriction was supposed to alleviate your concern.

And capacity limitations would do no good as demonstrated at the VT tragedy and others --

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data

Spree killers, by their nature, get to reload and most of the weapons listed aren't 30-round capable, i.e. pistols and shotguns. Even Lanza reloaded prior to exhausting his magazines (My husband surmises it was from a habit developed playing video games).

And you know nothing of the other issues I'm involved with, so you bringing them up is utterly meaningless, much like the rest of your pablum I've had to address.

uh huh

So do you support in principle the registration of alcoholic beverages and sale capacity limits to curb underaged drinking fatalities as the number of children killed weekly by underaged drinking is equivalent to 4.5 Sandy Hook tragedies?

Or do you hate children?

[EOTE]

81. Christ, there are a multitude of issues, do you not really understand that?

And do you not understand that Lanza fired 150+ bullets? Of course he needed to reload. He would have needed to reload a good deal more times IF HE DIDN"T HAVE MAGAZINES WITH 30 ROUND CAPACITY! But you and fellow nutters think that Lanza can't be denied his constitutional right to have guns just as awesome as he wants. It doesn't matter what common sense gun control you and your fellow nutters address, the answer will always be the same. Magazine limit? Oh, well a magazine limit wouldn't have helped in THIS particular tragedy, so it's no good. It's utter idiocy.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

84. A magazine limit wouldn't have helped ANY tragedy or so few as to be

statisitically insignificant. Even at Sandy Hook, Lanza was leaving magazines half-full. But you aren't fighting to save lives, you're fighting to control others. You don't judge people based on their individual actions, you judge entire groups based on your fear and prejudices.

It doesn't matter what common sense gun control you and your fellow nutters address, the answer will always be the same. Magazine limit? Oh, well a magazine limit wouldn't have helped in THIS particular tragedy, so it's no good. It's utter idiocy.

If Remedy X is useless for Situation Y then stop pushing Situation Y as a reason to apply Remedy X. You're just exploiting the deaths of innocents to silence dissenting voices. Perhaps that's why the nutters see the grabbers as a threat to multiple human rights and liberties -- no self-defense allowed, no dissent allowed, no presumption of innocence, collective punishments, no probable cause, no prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure, slander, name-calling, vitriol. As if anyone with those traits should be trusted with power.

[EOTE]

86. Are you fucking kidding me? Lanza fire 150+ shots!

If he was using 10 round rather than 30 round magazines, he would have needed to reload at least another 8 times. Math apparently isn't your strong suit.

There are MANY things which need to be addressed regarding our gun culture. Magazine limits are one of them. Background checks are another. Getting rid of the gun show loophole is yet another. These are all vitally important for different reasons.

But the idiot gun cultists will take every single common-sense proposal and say "Well, X wouldn't have helped with this particular massacre, so it shouldn't be addressed." But you and the nutters think it's far more important to have no restrictions on your toys than it is to save lives. As if anyone with a trait like that should be trusted with power.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

88. Maybe you should learn to lead from the front

Don't bemoan the absence of humanity in the mind of Adam Lanza and then dedicate your every response to dehumanizing everyone who doesn't blindly fall in line with you. It's not the guns that are the issue; it's treating people as disposable objects for the sake of self-empowerment and you are a prime example of that malady.

[EOTE]

90. So you're going to change the topic once again?

Now that your defense of unlimited capacity magazines has been exposed as the NRA dream that it is? Of course it's the guns. It's the NRA that believes it's not the guns. I treat people like disposable objects? If you say so. At least I'm not one who cares more about guns than human lives.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

93. No, that is the topic, by your own declaration: a callous disregard for other people

All you do is insult people, talk down about them and to them and treat them as inferior, stupid and malicious. Nothing in what you say or how you say it in any way portrays an actual care for humans as humans. If you want a culture that embraces the value of human life start with yourself.

[EOTE]

95. I treat inferior arguments as inferior.

And stupid arguments as stupid. I see you've given up on actually trying to defend your views and instead are attacking me for pointing out why your arguments will get people killed. I respect myself just fine, thanks.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

96. You call people "stupid" and "cultists" and "nutters" for pointing out something is

pointless and then you complain --

I see you've given up on actually trying to defend your views and instead are attacking me

And then finish with --

I respect myself just fine, thanks.

Which actually proves my point.

[EOTE]

97. I call nutters nutters because they care more about their toys than they do lives.

For instance, supporting unlimited magazine capacity. You told me that limiting magazine capacity wouldn't save any lives and I responded to you with a specific case in which it would have saved a number of lives. You ignored that and changed the subject at that time. You think that limiting magazine capacity is pointless, but the facts say that it will save lives. That makes you fairly nutty, wouldn't you say? I prefer to live in a reality based world.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

99. "You think that limiting magazine capacity is pointless, but the facts say that it will save lives."

How many lives in which incidences?

[EOTE]

100. In Newtown it could have saved the bulk of them.

In other tragedies it could have saved varying amounts. But not enough lives to make you want to part with your unlimited capacity magazines, that's for sure. It would take millions of kids' deaths to make you want to part with that, huh? Or would millions be insufficient for you to part with that particular liberty?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

101. "The bulk of them"?

Lanza had more than 5 uninterrupted minutes. It takes mere seconds to reload. He left magazines half full. He killed himself once he heard sirens. These are all valid data points that cannot be ignored.

You can't stop "things." The technological djinn is out of the bottle. You have to stop the bad actors. Railing against parents keeping guns in the family home and teaching their kids to be safe isn't going to help either.

Neither will arrogance and dehumanization. All that does is create the undercurrents for tragedy.

[EOTE]

102. He fired 150+ rounds!

And a number of children were able to escape during those seconds that he used to reload. The most he left in any one mag was 15, so it doesn't take a whole lot of brains to see that he would have needed to reload AT LEAST twice as much if the magazines were restricted to 10. Not to mention that 6 children were able to escape when he jammed during reloading. But no, can't have common sense, can we? We can't possibly have legislation to limit the capacity of magazines whose sole purpose is pretty much to take out large amounts of people at one time. Nope, you can't turk away errr freeeedum!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

103. 152 rounds in (roughly) 5.5 minutes

That's 330 seconds.

That's 1 shot every 2.17 seconds.

1 casualty every 5.42 shots

He did not fire full magazines but PRETENDING he did he would have gone from 5 magazines to 15.

Assuming 1 magazine change takes roughly 4 seconds a 10 round magazine would have displaced 40 seconds of firing.

That would displace 18 rounds / 5.42 rounds per casualty would mean possibly 3.4 casualties.

That's hardly the "bulk" of the 28 casualties -- per your declaration -- nor would it have silenced impotent proposals. What would have ended this sooner would be confronting the shooter as the mere sound of sirens was enough to get him to take his own life.

[EOTE]

105. 6 kids escaped just while he jammed.

And chances are he would have jammed some more if he had to load twice as much. So not only would there be additional time reloading, but additional time trying to unjam his gun. Regardless, the fact that you're playing such a pedantic game regarding just how many lives a capacity limitation would save rather than saying "Hey, a lot of kids would be alive now if we had this, it's a good thing." shows that you are firmly entrenched with the gun nutters. Ask 99% of the people here and they'll tell you that a high capacity magazine ban is a no-brainer. But you and your ilk respond "It probably wouldn't save TOO many kids lives, I'm not willing to give up my cool toys for THAT." That is absolutely a sickness. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

89. In other words, you made shit up to fit your worldview

Thank Christ we don't have to count on your judgment for anything of importance.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

98. I posted examples of staged and non-staged photos, so I have a reasonable supposition

And the URL links to a professional photographer's website. It's not impossible the photo is from a pro-gun advocate (the caption obviously isn't) but it obviously has a very dramatic, deliberate framing, composition, etc. Whoever took that photo is trying to prove some sort of point. As the child has her finger on the trigger and the gun is not pointed in a safe direction I am skeptical the point is gun ownership advocacy.

[DrDan]

26. I wonder if Nancy Lanza would have said the same thing - he's "pretty well-versed

in the safety rules and proper handling. I trust" him "to react responsibly when in the presence of a gun . . . " nyah-nyah-nyah

[EOTE]

29. But those kids have incredible knowledge of guns when they die before reaching their teens.

And isn't that what little baby Jesus wants anyway?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

33. Are you seriously equating every gun owner with Nancy Lanza?

Is that the rhetorical road you actually want to go down? I can play the game if those are the rules but don't complain if the score doesn't go your way.

[DrDan]

56. are you saying there are not other gun owners, like Nancy Lanza, who put lives of others at risk

through reckless and careless attitudes toward guns?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

60. It's not my broad brush, it's yours.

I know there are irresponsible/malicious gun owners just as there are irresponsible car owners, alcohol drinkers, penis-possessors, etc. But just because someone is irresponsible doesn't mean that other people who are responsible should be pre-emptively treated as criminals. People should be judge by what they ACTUALLY do not by what someone else, somewhere else might do.

[DrDan]

83. I never made the claim that all owners were like Nancy Lanza - you made that leap

[Nuclear Unicorn]

85. The why did you compare the safety and education prvoided to my SIL

to whatever it was Ms. Lanza was or was not supposed to have provided Adam Lanza?

Was it your intent to discount the efficacy of safety training and education?

[DrDan]

87. not at all - and I never did as claimed - my point was

that statements similar to yours are often shown to be completely incorrect at a later date - not unlike a pitbull owner claiming their dog "could never, ever hurt anyone". I am sure Nancy Lanza would have made such a statement last November.

[Aristus]

23. Yeah, because you can kill people with a movie, a cartoon and fingers in the shape of an "L".

[Nuclear Unicorn]

31. I was replying to the statement "instilling an interest"

A statement that makes no distinction about technical capability but speaks about supposedly making people interested in acts of violence.

Holding a gun does not "instill an interest" in commiting acts of violence. Holding a gun improperly with callous diregard for safety instills a disregard for safety. I replied to a silly statement but a statement that betrays a mindset that leads to kids being suspended for making an L-shape with their fingers.

[Politicub]

4. Heartbreaking

Release the crime scene photos from Newtown now.

Each of us must bear witness to the carnage that our country's lack of gun control policy has caused.

Too many people are averting their gaze, only to temporarily pay attention again when the next Newtown happens. And the next. And the next.

I care nothing about what second amendment absolutists believe. They have proven themselves to be completely devoid of a moral core and unable to use common sense.

[mgardener]

6. So sad

She doesn't even seem interested in the gun, I wonder why the picture.

[MichaelSoE]

12. Just to clarify

I heard the comment while watching the Jeselnik Offensive and it struck me as a very powerful message. The picture; I took off the interweb.


edited for sp and punc.

[jmg257]

17. Nice idea - but, in the nicest way I can suggest this, fix the text - its frustrating.

"5 year daughter..."

[MichaelSoE]

18. doh ... i'm on it ... also missed a comma ... brb

[pintobean]

19. Can you specify where you got the pic?

A link maybe?

[MichaelSoE]

24. Just a search on google images "toddler with gun"

It was in the search ... i clicked on "more sizes" and copied the largest image out of the 4 that came up. I didn't visit the web sites where the pictures were located.

[pintobean]

28. So, you just pulled a child's picture off the internet

without knowing who she is, who took the picture, who originally uploaded the image, or why it was done. No matter who did it, it was stupid and thoughtless. This little girl has to live the rest of her life with that image being public. I wouldn't want to be any part of that.

[EOTE]

30. It's already on the internet.

Once things are on the internet, they're there for good. Regardless, if there has to be a picture of a toddler holding a gun, at least it can do some good.

[pintobean]

32. Yes, someone did something stupid

and it gives us all the right to follow suit. It's exploitation every step of the way. What if this was a child that you loved and a babysitter posted that picture thinking it would funny? Would that make you any more sensitive?

[EOTE]

34. If it was a child I loved, he/she wouldn't have had a gun in the first place.

But if that did happen, I'd be VERY upset at whoever took the picture and posted it to the internet. I wouldn't even give a passing thought to the person who used that picture to make an anti-gun message.

[sarisataka]

35. Follow the links...

It appears the OP used a picture and added the caption, not sure if it violates copyright but, as even some pro-control have stated, it is ethically questionable to use children in such fashion.

As for the source, the first hit on searching the image leads here:http://blogiverstravels.wordpress.com/2013/01/08/pistols-for-montessori/
a satire piece on putting a gun range in school. Somewhere humorous, though a couple sections are in poor taste re:children from other countries.
That site credits the photo source as: http://penigma.blogspot.com/2012/07/unsafe-guns-minnesota-child-care.html
which does not further credit the photo. There are several familiar names at that blog site which would be recognizable to many DUers.
Now I am not saying anyone is a returning banned poster, but it is interesting the blog site does link back to DU...

[pintobean]

36. TinEye takes it to a Russian site

but the link is a '404 not found' error.

http://www.tineye.com/search/48286fb01b8711926740dd5cae1226c94f8ffcaf/

[JimDandy]

16. Yes, and that's the youngest looking 5 yr old I've ever seen.

More like 3 1/2 yrs. Really sick. Why isn't it illegal for a minor this young to even have possession of a gun?

[IdaBriggs]

76. I was thinking the same thing! Lol! I have certain (not worth $$ skills)

to age puppies and children. I looked at the photo, went "Nope, not 5 - that child is probably 3!"

Don't get me started on her having a gun. Sigh.

[mercymechap]

7. It's just a big joke to most gun nuts!

[SheilaT]

8. And the likelihood of that actually happening

-- someone prying the gun from her cold dead hands, is far greater than the idiot who made that little picture realizes.

Remind me again about responsible gun owners?

[The Wizard]

9. Not all gun owners are

violence prone lunatics, but all violence prone lunatics would love to own a gun.

[mountain grammy]

11. This is a powerful anti gun message!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

13. Note in the upper left the chin of the adult supposedly supervising her. Note finger on the trigger.

It would seem her father approves of wreckless gun handling by incompetent persons.

Might not have to pry it from her hands after she drops it when she shoots her brother.

[NightWatcher]

14. When I was a kid I saw my dad's colt .38 and even handled it

only when he was around to supervise.

It demystified the gun and I never tried to climb up in the closet to get it. It was metal, ugly, and it smelled funny.

[Fla_Democrat]

21. Miko Andres

He seems pretty curious for a 6 year old.

[yellowcanine]

22. I hope that is photoshopped. If not it is child abuse.

Either way, it is shameful. Shame. Children should not be used to make political points, however valid.

[EOTE]

51. If only OUR children had such a healthy respect for the 2nd amendment.

I can accept our children being behind the rest of the world in terms of knowledge of history and writing. I can even accept our children being behind the rest of the word in terms of math and science ability. But when our children start lagging behind in shooting people, THAT is when I put my foot down.

[Life Long Dem]

59. "Ginning Up Fear"

"Obama: Gun Lobby "Ginning Up Fear" That Government Will Take Away All Your Guns

As far as people lining up and purchasing more guns, you know, I think that we’ve seen for some time now that those who oppose any common-sense gun control or gun safety measures have a pretty effective way of ginning up fear on the part of gun owners that somehow the federal government’s about to take all your guns away. And you know, that -- there’s probably an economic element to that. It obviously is good for business."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/01/14/obama_gun_lobby_ginning_up_fear_that_government_will_take_away_all_your_guns.html

[Cali_Democrat]

79. That little girl should be placed into custody of child protective services

and the parents should be jailed.

Immediately.

[Niceguy1]

108. not commenting on this photo

(I think using children for politics is wrong).

At what age do you think it is ok to train your children to safely use firearmz, a legal activity?