Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

TruthVsComfort

Kentucky Shooting: Boy, 5, Shoots And Kills 2-Year-Old Sister, Police Say

Recommended Posts



I haven't read all of them, but the one I randomly clicked on - New Republic - was called "yes. really. ban all guns." and linked to a washington post article that supposedly called for it. I read it. It didn't

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More on this same story:

 

 

 

"Down in Kentucky where we're from, you know, guns are passed down from generation to generation," White said. "You start at a young age with guns for hunting and everything."

 

What is more unusual than a child having a gun, he said, is "that a kid would get shot with it."

 

In this case, the rifle was made by a company that sells guns specifically for children – "My first rifle" is the slogan – in colors ranging from plain brown to hot pink to orange to royal blue to multi-color swirls.

 

"It's a normal way of life, and it's not just rural Kentucky, it's rural America – hunting and shooting and sport fishing. It starts at an early age," said Cumberland County Judge Executive John Phelps. "There's probably not a household in this county that doesn't have a gun."

 

 

 

 

White said the shooting had been ruled accidental, though a police spokesman said it was unclear whether any charges will be filed.

 


"I think it's too early to say whether there will or won't be," Trooper Billy Gregory said.

White said the boy received the .22-caliber rifle as a gift, but it wasn't clear who gave him the gun, which is known as a Crickett.

 

"It's a little rifle for a kid. ... The little boy's used to shooting the little gun," White said.

The company that makes the rifle, Milton, Pa.-based Keystone Sporting Arms, has a "Kids Corner" on its website with pictures of young boys and girls at shooting ranges and on bird and deer hunts. It says the company produced 60,000 Crickett and Chipmunk rifles for kids in 2008. The smaller rifles are sold with a mount to use at a shooting range.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/02/kristian-sparks-shoots-sister_n_3199807.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read all of them, but the one I randomly clicked on - New Republic - was called "yes. really. ban all guns." and linked to a washington post article that supposedly called for it. I read it. It didn't

 

That's the way it is. Psychologically, you can't really be for something without being against something else. Gun nuts are so into their guns that in order to rationalize their fanaticism, they need an evil boogeyman that wants to take away their fun, and will make one up to do so. NO ONE HERE HAS EVER SAID anything approaching this, yet we are treated like we do, because if we aren't, it takes away the psychological foundation of the rationalization. See: Terrorists want to take away our "Freedom", the stupidest saying of the 2000s. Terrorist don't give a crap about our freedom, they give a crap about their own freedom to do what they want - and they also demonize the US in front of their own local corrupt governments so they have their own boogeyman.

 

This last gun show loophole thing was a no brainer, the NRA used to view it as a common sense idea - but hey, now the "bad guys" want to do it, it's suddenly an attack on "gun rights". It's as clear as freaking day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read all of them, but the one I randomly clicked on - New Republic - was called "yes. really. ban all guns." and linked to a washington post article that supposedly called for it. I read it. It didn't

i took a few links out because of things like that. either i missed one or you didn't read the entire article. i do remember a Washington post article somewhere from 1991 that called for the banning of private firearms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i took a few links out because of things like that. either i missed one or you didn't read the entire article. i do remember a Washington post article somewhere from 1991 that called for the banning of private firearms.

that's actually the only one I'd clicked on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




First two are the same one guy.

 

Third one is a blogger who does not even have their real name in the title.

 

Fourth one does not say it other than in the title. again, its one guy blogging.

 

Fifth one is again, one guy - from 2001.

 

 

Seventh one, again, one guy blogging (Sixth didn't open anything for me).

 

Last guy makes some great points, but also acknowledges that banning guns is a target, not a possibility.

 

So, I asked for information on the the "ban all guns crowd" and I get 5 or six people blogging their opinions. This is what is getting all of you thinking that there's some kind of giant movement out there to take your guns. I get more stupid memes from people on FB that I know, that are less sensical on the subject from the gun nut side EVERY DAY without even looking.

 

Hopefully you see what I am talking about here. If you don't, well, you have to be kind of dumb and I mean that in the nicest possible way.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's actually the only one I'd clicked on

Actually you may want to re-read the first paragraph. He linked to the Post page because it agrees with a previous blog entry about guns doing more harm than good.

Banning guns is his idea, not the op ed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First two are the same one guy.

Third one is a blogger who does not even have their real name in the title.

Fourth one does not say it other than in the title. again, its one guy blogging.

Fifth one is again, one guy - from 2001.

Seventh one, again, one guy blogging (Sixth didn't open anything for me).

Last guy makes some great points, but also acknowledges that banning guns is a target, not a possibility.

So, I asked for information on the the "ban all guns crowd" and I get 5 or six people blogging their opinions. This is what is getting all of you thinking that there's some kind of giant movement out there to take your guns. I get more stupid memes from people on FB that I know, that are less sensical on the subject from the gun nut side EVERY DAY without even looking.

Hopefully you see what I am talking about here. If you don't, well, you have to be kind of dumb and I mean that in the nicest possible way.

Ok then. one up me. show me the people you often reference saying civilians should carry nukes.

e: and my list was done in 5 minutes from the first page of a Google search. you seem to be thinking i put some effort into it.

All i did was prune duplicates (obviously i missed the first two) and one calling for a ban in Canada (oddly enough, that article said 1 in 4 Canadians pack heat vs 1 in 6 Americans.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conservative:

"Personal responsibility, Parents at fault and should be prosecuted, example made."

 

Liberal.

"Freedom, 2nd amendment!11!!11!!11!!!1"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

by the way i think we should make a clear differentiation between fringe loons and significant voter blocs.

 

the fringe of the liberal voting bloc wants to ban guns. there are very few of them.

 

meanwhile a significant voting bloc of the republican party is on the rabid NRA track of "give everyone a gun."

 

yes, there are extremists on both sides, but that's a fallacious point to make unless you note that the extremist "gun grabbers" are few and far between while the extremist "arm everbody" crowd is indeed a crowd, and a very large one at that. the framework of the debate has been skewed to create an alleged powerful body who wants your guns to counterbalance the crazies rallying against it with equal extremity. it's probably the biggest national-scale strawman attack i've seen in my lifetime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



×