Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Two-year-old boy shoots himself dead with father's gun

Options
1235

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Buona Fortuna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,507 ✭✭✭Buona Fortuna


    MarkAnthony wrote: »
    A homeowner doesn't need a gun if the burglar isn't armed, if they are (which they're more likely to be if they think the homeowner is armed) is just as likely, if not more likely to kill you than you are to kill them. They have the element of surprise and likely a few mates.

    Probably best just to plant a minefield in the lawn.


    They'd just stick to the path.:D


  • Options
    #123
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Sparks wrote: »
    Where I come from, they have locks. That's the point of the key.
    Not sure how your keys work, but the keys I'm familiar with can get lost or stolen or the safes can get broken into in other ways.
    Sparks wrote: »
    Robin, shove it. Lanza was not a gun enthusiast [...]
    The NYPost suggests otherwise - that he was a "regular" visitor to shooting ranges where he "blasted away targets using his mom’s small arsenal of guns" - something I'd have said was one of the main indications of a gun enthusiast.
    Sparks wrote: »
    Not having them is one method. Having them in a locked safe is another.
    And if they could never be taken out and used to shoot people, then I'd be right up there supporting the storage of guns in "gunsafes".


  • Options
    #124
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    Buona Fortuna wrote: »
    They'd just stick to the path.:D

    TBH any burglars in my gaffe will be dealt with by the dildo.


  • Options
    #125
    Buona Fortuna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,507 ✭✭✭Buona Fortuna


    MarkAnthony wrote: »
    TBH any burglars in my gaffe will be dealt with by the dildo.

    Pretty sure you'd do time for that.:)


  • Options
    #126
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    Buona Fortuna wrote: »
    Pretty sure you'd do time for that.:)

    2.— (1) Notwithstanding the generality of any other enactment or rule of law and subject to subsections (2) and (3), it shall not be an offence for a person who is in his or her dwelling, or for a person who is a lawful occupant in a dwelling, to use force against another person or the property of another person where—

    (a) he or she believes the other person has entered or is entering the dwelling as a trespasser for the purpose of committing a criminal act, and

    (b) the force used is only such as is reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be—

    I know, I know might be difficult to convince a jury ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    dodderangler wrote: »
    Possibly most retarded question ever
    Well done sir

    Or more possibly, the worst case of incorrect reading of the post:pac:


  • Options
    #128
    BorneTobyWilde
    Registered Users Posts: 35,863 ✭✭✭✭BorneTobyWilde


    The main argument for being allowed to own and carry guns is not for protection from others ,but rather protection from the Government . Protection against tyranny .
    But I doubt the men and women on the street buy guns for this reason. The guns law of the 1700's really have no place in 2014 .


  • Options
    #129
    Absoluvely
    Registered Users Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭Absoluvely


    dodderangler wrote: »
    When are they gonna fcukin learn. Guns are to be stored in a locked gun safe and nowhere else. Simple as. I got my licence on the grounds that my firearm is stored safely in a gun safe and safe is to be bolted to the floored.
    Americans they really are brain dead.
    Poor kid

    Well there's an awfully racist comment.


  • Options
    #130
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    BorneTobyWilde wrote: »
    The main argument for being allowed to own and carry guns is not for protection from others ,but rather protection from the Government . Protection against tyranny .
    But I doubt the men and women on the street buy guns for this reason. The guns law of the 1700's really have no place in 2014 .

    It does actually if you're talking about the second amendment but the current interpretation of the second amendment requires some of the words to be removed.


  • Options
    #131
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    MarkAnthony wrote: »
    A homeowner doesn't need a gun if the burglar isn't armed, if they are (which they're more likely to be if they think the homeowner is armed) is just as likely, if not more likely to kill you than you are to kill them. They have the element of surprise and likely a few mates.

    Probably best just to plant a minefield in the lawn.

    A homeowner doesn't need a gun if the burglar isn't armed? Calm down Mayweather. Who do you think you are?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    A homeowner doesn't need a gun if the burglar isn't armed? Calm down Mayweather. Who do you think you are?

    Sorry my mistake thought you were trying to have a serious conversation. Ha, ha calm down calm down, to me to you!



  • Options
    #133
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    MarkAnthony wrote: »
    Sorry my mistake thought you were trying to have a serious conversation. Ha, ha calm down calm down, to me to you!


    Anti-gunners tend to think that fighting off burglars is somehow easy and that people who want guns to shift the balance in their favour are cowards or weak.


  • Options
    #134
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    Anti-gunners tend to think that fighting off burglars is somehow easy and that people who want guns to shift the balance in their favour are cowards or weak.

    Wha?

    Although I do tend to think people who spend an inordinate amount of time thinking they're going to get broken into and interfered with tend to be nervous nellies.


  • Options
    #135
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    MarkAnthony wrote: »
    Wha?

    Although I do tend to think people who spend an inordinate amount of time thinking they're going to get broken into and interfered with tend to be nervous nellies.

    Inordinate amount of time? Do you have house insurance?


  • Options
    #136
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    Inordinate amount of time? Do you have house insurance?

    No I've a gun.


  • Options
    #137
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    The intruder is more likely to have a gun because of the nuts demanding the rights to have guns.
    Of course, but that doesn't mean homeowners should feel obliged to lead by example and relinquish their right to own firearms.


  • Options
    #138
    AlanS181824
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭AlanS181824


    Awful, Jesus Christ America!


  • Options
    #139
    2011
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 12,555 Mod ✭✭✭✭2011


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    What idiot with a kid buys a gun without manual safety.

    A safety catch is not designed to make a firearm "child proof". Many firearms do not have a safety for example revolvers. Children and guns do not mix period. Even in a controlled environment such as a shooting range safety catches should never be relied upon.

    As a responsible target shooter and parent I always unload, dismantle and split the gun up between two secure gun safes. If I felt the need to have a loaded gun "for protection" I would move somewhere safer in a heartbeat.


  • Options
    #140
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,378 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    There really should be some mandatory punishment if your child ever manages to touch a gun. I actually don't believe this couple should just be left to wallow in their guilt.. They should be put in prison, not for rehabilitation, just fairness.


  • Options
    #141
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    A homeowner doesn't need a gun if the burglar isn't armed? Calm down Mayweather. Who do you think you are?
    A burglar just wants your fncking TV. He has no interest in getting in any kind of altercation with you and would prefer that you just weren't aware he was there.

    And it's only a TV. Do you think it's OK to shoot someone dead for stealing a TV? Cos I don't.

    The problem is that if you arm all the homeowners, then burglars know they need to come prepared, and rather than try and sneak around without waking you up, they're more likely to just walk into your bedroom and loose some shells into your head, or beat you up and tie you up to ensure that they don't get shot.

    Homeowners having guns, makes you more likely to die in a violent burglary.

    Irish burglars don't carry guns, and generally don't carry any kind of weapons. In fact burglaries where the burglar and the homeowner come into physical contact are so rare that they usually make the national news. Why? Because when a burglar breaks in, he has no expectation that someone's going to put a bullet in him. He just wants to take your TV iPad and run.
    MarkAnthony wrote: »
    A homeowner doesn't need a gun if the burglar isn't armed, if they are (which they're more likely to be if they think the homeowner is armed) is just as likely, if not more likely to kill you than you are to kill them. They have the element of surprise and likely a few mates.
    They not only have the element of surprise, they have the element of preparedness. They're ready and focussed to use the weapon. A homeowner who has just been disturbed from a peaceful slumber, is not.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    TeaBagMania
    Registered Users Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭TeaBagMania


    seamus wrote: »
    A burglar just wants your fncking TV. He has no interest in getting in any kind of altercation with you and would prefer that you just weren't aware he was there.

    And it's only a TV. Do you think it's OK to shoot someone dead for stealing a TV? Cos I don't.

    The problem is that if you arm all the homeowners, then burglars know they need to come prepared, and rather than try and sneak around without waking you up, they're more likely to just walk into your bedroom and loose some shells into your head, or beat you up and tie you up to ensure that they don't get shot.

    Homeowners having guns, makes you more likely to die in a violent burglary.


    What a load of bollocks, you have no idea what’s going thru a burglars mind. They might be there to steal your TV, rape, kiddie fiddler, put a gun to your head and drive you to the ATM and empty some of your bank account, the list goes on and on.

    You know why home invasions are so low in Texas, because the criminals know almost everyone has a gun and the laws are on the side of the home owner.

    The smart burglars would pick somewhere in California as the gun laws are very strict and your chances of meeting an armed home owner drop considerably.

    seamus wrote: »
    They not only have the element of surprise, they have the element of preparedness. They're ready and focussed to use the weapon. A homeowner who has just been disturbed from a peaceful slumber, is not.

    And I have the element of knowing the layout of my home as well as every noise the house makes and creak of the wooden floors; they also don’t know where I am in the house, basement, first floor, second floor?

    By the time they make their rounds im awake and ready for them


  • Options
    #143
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    seamus wrote: »
    A burglar just wants your fncking TV. He has no interest in getting in any kind of altercation with you and would prefer that you just weren't aware he was there.

    And it's only a TV. Do you think it's OK to shoot someone dead for stealing a TV? Cos I don't.

    The problem is that if you arm all the homeowners, then burglars know they need to come prepared, and rather than try and sneak around without waking you up, they're more likely to just walk into your bedroom and loose some shells into your head, or beat you up and tie you up to ensure that they don't get shot.

    Homeowners having guns, makes you more likely to die in a violent burglary.

    Irish burglars don't carry guns, and generally don't carry any kind of weapons. In fact burglaries where the burglar and the homeowner come into physical contact are so rare that they usually make the national news. Why? Because when a burglar breaks in, he has no expectation that someone's going to put a bullet in him. He just wants to take your TV iPad and run.

    They not only have the element of surprise, they have the element of preparedness. They're ready and focussed to use the weapon. A homeowner who has just been disturbed from a peaceful slumber, is not.

    Yeah because burglars never rape. Families never get tied up in their home. Christ. They don't even want your tv anymore. Those are worth f-all on the black market these days. They often confront you with a weapon and demand cash, take your atm, tie you up or knock you out and come back and rape or kill you or your family if the PIN you gave them is wrong. When they're inspecting the bedrooms to find daddy daddy can be cocking his pistol for the scumbag.

    Where there are a lot of guns, burglars don't "come prepared" they choose a different profession hen the risk reward profile shifts dramatically. The reason they commit burglary is generally to avoid confrontation like in armed robbery, but that doesn't mean you should consider them a benign annoyance and wait for them to politely leave with your tv. Your home is your castle. If people can walk through it against your will with impunity then it's no home at all.


  • Options
    #144
    firefly08
    Registered Users Posts: 856 ✭✭✭firefly08


    2011 wrote: »

    ...

    . If I felt the need to have a loaded gun "for protection" I would move somewhere safer in a heartbeat.

    That's a luxury that many people in America don't have. "Safer" almost invariably means "more upmarket" and is just not an option in many cases.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    There really should be some mandatory punishment if your child ever manages to touch a gun. I actually don't believe this couple should just be left to wallow in their guilt.. They should be put in prison, not for rehabilitation, just fairness.

    Problem is, they likely won't be charged at all. I'm not familiar with this particular case but it's fairly common in these situations. Prosecutors have total discretion. They see their job being basically to hand down maximum jail time for the taxpayer's dollar, and they typically don't bother with cases if it would be hard to secure a conviction. The prevailing attitude tends to be "they've suffered enough, let it go".
    seamus wrote: »
    A burglar just wants your fncking TV. He has no interest in getting in any kind of altercation with you and would prefer that you just weren't aware he was there.

    And it's only a TV. Do you think it's OK to shoot someone dead for stealing a TV? Cos I don't.

    The problem is that if you arm all the homeowners, then burglars know they need to come prepared, and rather than try and sneak around without waking you up, they're more likely to just walk into your bedroom and loose some shells into your head, or beat you up and tie you up to ensure that they don't get shot.



    They not only have the element of surprise, they have the element of preparedness. They're ready and focussed to use the weapon. A homeowner who has just been disturbed from a peaceful slumber, is not.

    They frequently don't have the element of surprise. It's not unusual for them to just kick in the door or window. Unarmed occupants in those situations have little choice but to sit and wait for whatever's coming to them. Armed invasions of occupied homes and businesses are pretty frequent where I live, and a good proportion of them end with the invaders being shot.


  • Options
    #145
    NachoBusiness
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,389 ✭✭✭NachoBusiness


    Latest installment..
    A three-year-old has shot his father and pregnant mother inside a motel room in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

    The boy was able to remove a loaded handgun from his mother’s purse, before shooting his father in the lower backside on Saturday.

    The bullet then exited the man’s body and struck the pregnant woman in the shoulder, according to local police.

    Both parents were treated at a nearby hospital. The father has since been released, but the mother, who is eight months pregnant, was hospitalised.

    She is believed to be in a stable condition, however the condition of her unborn baby is unknown.

    Liam Neeson has yet to comment.


  • Options
    #146
    mikeym
    Registered Users Posts: 3,985 ✭✭✭mikeym


    In many American homes the guns arent locked away in a secure place.

    Why was there ammunition in the gun in the first place?

    Hope the father is proud of himself.


  • Options
    #147
    diomed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,744 ✭✭✭diomed


    ^
    I defend the right of the two-year-old to keep and bear Arms.


  • Options
    #148
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    The intruder is more likely to have a gun because of the nuts demanding the rights to have guns.

    I agree with you on this. The question then becomes about whether the private individual's right to hold a firearm is more important than the public need for safety from firearms, which would probably mean revoking the right for any private citizen to hold a gun. It's a tricky process and there is gun control. Obama is more focused on healthcare insurance for all for which is more commendable and achievable imo.


  • Options
    #149
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,759 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Bad parenting, pure n simple, leaving a gun where a child could access it.


  • Options
    #150
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    Yeah exactly. Hence, gun rights.

    300 million guns. Even if you got 99% of them that still leaves 3 million guns in the hands of people who chose to act outside the law. What does that mean for the rest of the population?


    So then why not legislate to allow the average Joe arsehole have a flame thrower or hand grenades if there is such a need for weaponry?
    Why, if there is such a threat out there, can't someone have explosives and rig them up all around the perimeter of their damn house?
    Surely if you had bombs connected to trip wires all over the place you wouldn't even need a gun since this mythical bogeyman intruder would be blown to atoms before even getting to your bedroom window.
    No?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    K4t wrote: »
    I agree with you on this. The question then becomes about whether the private individual's right to hold a firearm is more important than the public need for safety from firearms, which would probably mean revoking the right for any private citizen to hold a gun. It's a tricky process and there is gun control. Obama is more focused on healthcare insurance for all for which is more commendable and achievable imo.

    A very simple question ....call it a comparison if you like, would be:

    How many people have preserved their own lives thanks to the ownership of a firearm as opposed to those who have died as a result of the unintended defensive purpose of a firearm?

    Put more simply or bluntly, do the pros outweigh the cons? Because if not then something ought to be revisited and redressed.


Advertisement