Toddler shoots parent dead in Super Market

UCDVet

diomed wrote: »

Anything is possible.
She could have killed her child.
Her child could have shot a terrorist.
She could have got into an argument with another customer and shot them.

There is no denying the facts here. There was not a single al queda terrorist attack during any of her shopping. Some people will sit there and say it has nothing to do with her gun....but come'on. We know the truth.

Without guns, where would we be?

Smiles35

Harry Palmr wrote: »

I wonder how old the child will be when he is told about what he did.

Poor chap.

pmasterson95

UCDVet wrote: »

It's easy to blame the victim here - but what if she'd be attacked? That gun could have saved her life!

You could say she was attacked....by her own gun. The gun actually took her life.....ironic.

Egginacup

GalwayGuitar wrote: »

Well no ones going to mess with you if your strapped. I believe in Alabama you can go anywhere with your gun as long as its visible.

Personally if I lived in America I'd keep a gun in the house for defense but I wouldn't carry one around with me.

Why wouldn't keep a dog and a telephone instead?

pmasterson95

Egginacup wrote: »

Why wouldn't keep a dog and a telephone instead?

Not as good at murdering.

StudentDad

Strider wrote: »

It has been confirmed that it was the child's mother on several sites; www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/30/woman-shot-with-own-gun/21062089/

What consequences would you like to see?

I do not know if this has been suggested before. Probably has. I would restrict the right of private citizens carry firearms, esp handguns. Put simply I would make it a criminal offence to carry a weapon concealed or otherwise onto property or premises either in public or private ownership where the general public has routine or otherwise unfettered access. I would also hold the owners of such properties strictly liable for any damages that flowed from the breach of such laws.

SD

jimboblep

end of the road wrote: »

having a different opinion does not a troll make. mind you i wouldn't expect someone who posts rabel rabel to realize that

Is that all you have rabble rabble?
what would you have done if somone was trying to rape your grandchild in front of you.
everyone can have an opinion but they should expect to be called on the idiotic ones

pmasterson95

jimboblep wrote: »

Is that all you have rabble rabble?
what would you have done if somone was trying to rape your grandchild in front of you.
everyone can have an opinion but they should expect to be called on the idiotic ones

Are you quadreplegic? Granted blasting there head off is an effective way to kill them but general melee approach could yield results...aim nose, crotch, back of knee.....that fails maybe a knife?
I think most humans have some form of defence without needing a gun.

GalwayGuitar

end of the road wrote: »

so you have no point then in relation to what i said? grand, thought so

You have to be trolling. I find it hard to believe anyone is heartless enough to think a man should be sent to jail for shooting the men trying to rape his granddaughter.

sonofenoch

She should have had a 2nd gun.....they could have had a shootout like real cowboys and injuns

mylefttesticle

The thing is if you think you need a gun to protect yourself then your living life wrong.

Witcher

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Are you quadreplegic? Granted blasting there head off is an effective way to kill them but general melee approach could yield results...aim nose, crotch, back of knee.....that fails maybe a knife?
I think most humans have some form of defence without needing a gun.

The guy is 67, do you think he could have gone toe to toe with three lads of around 20? There are people in the prime of life that couldn't do that ffs.

GalwayGuitar

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Are you quadreplegic? Granted blasting there head off is an effective way to kill them but general melee approach could yield results...aim nose, crotch, back of knee.....that fails maybe a knife?
I think most humans have some form of defence without needing a gun.

And if you're outnumbered 3 to 1?

Only pity is he didn't kill all three.

Capt'n Midnight

pmasterson95 wrote: »

There was a 96 year old woman robbed on Christmas Day (in Waterford I think was it?).....but those who believe guns can do no wrong dont like facts much.

So you're saying she'd have been able to out-shoot intruders ?

MadsL

UCDVet wrote: »

Without guns, where would we be?

Still governed by Westminster

StudentDad wrote: »

I do not know if this has been suggested before. Probably has. I would restrict the right of private citizens carry firearms, esp handguns. Put simply I would make it a criminal offence to carry a weapon concealed or otherwise onto property or premises either in public or private ownership where the general public has routine or otherwise unfettered access. I would also hold the owners of such properties strictly liable for any damages that flowed from the breach of such laws.

SD

The rights of private citizens to carry are already restricted in the US. You cannot carry firearms onto property where the owner has posted that firearms are not permitted. That is slightly different than what you are proposing, in the sense that it is the owner that decides. Famously Starbucks just got some backlash for banning carry on their premises.

Also licensed premises (bars, clubs) are generally places where carry is prohibited by state law, although recently there has been a relaxation on tthis rule for restuarants where most sales are food. It is also generally against state law to consume alcohol and carry. People who carry are liable for breach of these rules, up to and including felony offences and penalties. If you are convicted of a felony you are automatically barred from even touching a firearm.

pmasterson95

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

So you're saying she'd have been able to out-shoot intruders ?

No I was pointing out to eejits that were trying to claim elderly dont get attacked.

pmasterson95

Strider wrote: »

The guy is 67, do you think he could have gone toe to toe with three lads of around 20? There are people in the prime of life that couldn't do that ffs.

GalwayGuitar wrote: »

And if you're outnumbered 3 to 1?

Only pity is he didn't kill all three.

Wait there was 3 toddlers? What the **** case are the gun fanatics on about to sate their gun boners? Jesus boards threads are getting bad for completely changing subject matter at the drop of a hat to suit own needs.

MadsL

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

So you're saying she'd have been able to out-shoot intruders ?

Her ability to do so is rather hampered by the law in Ireland wouldn't you say? She has zero chance to do so with no licensing allowing her to posses a firearm for self-defence.

http://archive.cincinnati.com/article/20120903/NEWS010703/309030021/92-year-old-Verona-man-shoots-intruder-home

This made me chuckle

Jones didn’t like how deputies treated him. “They stood down there with their guns on me, yelling, `Get your hands up! Get your hands up!’” he said. “I told them, `I’m not putting my damn hands up.’”

jimboblep

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Wait there was 3 toddlers? What the **** case are the gun fanatics on about to sate their gun boners? Jesus boards threads are getting bad for completely changing subject matter at the drop of a hat to suit own needs.

Maybe you should read whats being talked about before jumping in feet first.
we are talking about a poster who said that a 67 year old grandfather who shot one of three guys who broke into his house and tried rape his granddaughter should be punished for doing so.
so maybe try and keep up rather than looking for a chance to throw insults

GalwayGuitar

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Wait there was 3 toddlers? What the **** case are the gun fanatics on about to sate their gun boners? Jesus boards threads are getting bad for completely changing subject matter at the drop of a hat to suit own needs.

Lol ur so funni xD!

pmasterson95

jimboblep wrote: »

Maybe you should read whats being talked about before jumping in feet first.
we are talking about a poster who said that a 67 year old grandfather who shot one of three guys who broke into his house and tried rape his granddaughter should be punished for doing so.
so maybe try and keep up rather than looking for a chance to throw insults

Obviously thats bull****. I thought that this thread was discussing a gun toting toddler. Goalposts moved to suit gun fanatics. Okey dokey.

expectationlost

don't guns have safetys

Omackeral

MadsL wrote: »

Also licensed premises (bars, clubs) are generally places where carrying a firearm is prohibited by state law, although recently there has been a relaxation on this rule for restuarants where most sales are food. .

Thank god for that. Falling Down would have sucked had Michael Douglas not been allowed to shoot up the burger joint.

jimboblep

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Obviously thats bull****. I thought that this thread was discussing a gun toting toddler. Goalposts moved to suit gun fanatics. Okey dokey.

Go back through the posts another poster brought it up in relation to how firearm ownership is not evil and can if fact save people.
for my part I was calling out the poster who said the man should be punished for defending him self and his family.
and its not moving the goalposts its just the nature of discussion

MadsL

pmasterson95 wrote: »

I thought that this thread was discussing a gun toting toddler.

Toting means carrying. Clearly this wasn't the case.

Goalposts moved ... Okey dokey.

That's quite some moving yourself.

MadsL

Omackeral wrote: »

Thank god for that. Falling Down would have sucked had Michael Douglas not been allowed to shoot up the burger joint.

If you only take your percention of American life from movies then really we cannot discuss reality can we?

pmasterson95

jimboblep wrote: »

Go back through the posts another poster brought it up in relation to how firearm ownership is not evil and can if fact save people.
for my part I was calling out the poster who said the man should be punished for defending him self and his family.
and its not moving the goalposts its just the nature of discussion

It certainly saved this womans life cant disagree with that.

pmasterson95

MadsL wrote: »

Toting means carrying. Clearly this wasn't the case.



That's quite some moving yourself.

Your murica gun fetish is clear. Not much point tryna discuss with likes of you made that mistake before.

MadsL

pmasterson95 wrote: »

It certainly saved this womans life cant disagree with that.

^^ Deliberately misunderstanding jimbo's point.

Sigh.

Impossible to have any meaningful discussion with people like you.

MadsL

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Your murica gun fetish is clear. .

Explain to me how my posts explaining the laws in the US = a fetish?