Yet Another Toddler Accidentally Shot And Killed His Mother

What if the child had died from drinking window cleaner thinking it was koolaid? Would we ban Windex?

Or does it all circle back around to bad parenting?

Well it's almost baby falling out the window weather around here so we better get busy removing all those windows
 
Good thing mommy had a gun to protect her


the 1,500,000 million Americans who use guns to stop violent criminal attack and to save lives would agree that guns save lives.......

Stupid mother bought into the NRA myth that she needs a gun to protect her from bad guys

Too bad Dr Petit from CT didn't have a gun maybe his wife and daughters wouldn't have been raped and burned alive in their own home
 
Almost 600 dead in accidents already. Clearly they are dangerous.


in a country with over 357,000,000 guns and only 505 accidental gun deaths in 2013........

2013...accidental car deaths...35,000

2013...drowning deaths....3,000

Keep the gun, stay out of cars and pools.

We have almost 600 more than any other civilized country. You don't value life.


And the civilized countries in Europe murdered 12 million unarmed, innocent men, women and children....excuse me if I don't hold them in much regard.....

You are going back to a very different time. That is nonsense.


Not a different time moron......it happened in a modern nation state, with great universities, a democratic form of government, modern sciences.......and then they decided to murder 12 million people......first...they made sure to take away their guns....then they murdered the men, women and children....simply because they didn't like them...they had committed no crime, they did not make war against the Germans........and they were murdered....


Just across our border....drug cartels and agents of the Mexican government are also murdering men, women and children....those innocent victims are also unarmed.......and the killing is starting to spill onto our side of the border.......

Genocide, mass murder and ethnic cleansing all begin with disarming the victims....

It happened in a country destroyed by a world war. There was no United Nations, smart phones, Internet... A completely different time.
 
Link to one without Lott to review. Pick one and stop whining.


I linked to over 15 and looking at the rest that Lott did would be informative since he is the resident expert in the field.....which is why you hate him so.....

You linked garbage from lotts site. Why are you scared to link a study that doesn't involve Lott?


moron.....I linked to 15 peer reviewed studies.......in addition to Lott...who is the expert in the field....

Yes garbage from lotts site. I'm asking you to link to a good study that doesn't involve Lott. You seem incapable of doing that.


I guess you can't read......I posted a list of over 15 studies...15 were not done with Dr. Lott...the expert in the field.

So you can't link one. Even you know the Lott list is garbage.
 
Guns are America. In America, guns are acceptable risk. Just like our diversity experiments.

-Geaux
 
SOme cop responds to a call where a guy says he scared off a person breaking and entering with his gun. That story never makes it to the national wire.

Some kid accidentally shoots mommy and it's picked up by every major national news outlet

You have to be especially naive to think otherwise

Really? Because those stories do make the news.

Not the national news. It's not news unless someone gets killed.

Even you can't be so stupid to think that simply because something doesn't get national coverage that it didn't happen


Either he knows and is simply trolling...or he actually thinks that.....which one do you think it is...?

It is a fantasy. You have posted many defenses that didn't involve shooting yet made the news.
We all know that one can use a gun to stop a crime and not have to fire it.

So there are many times where there is no shooting at all even though a gun was used. Those instances do not make the news

And shows we should have smart guns.
 
I linked to over 15 and looking at the rest that Lott did would be informative since he is the resident expert in the field.....which is why you hate him so.....

You linked garbage from lotts site. Why are you scared to link a study that doesn't involve Lott?


moron.....I linked to 15 peer reviewed studies.......in addition to Lott...who is the expert in the field....

Yes garbage from lotts site. I'm asking you to link to a good study that doesn't involve Lott. You seem incapable of doing that.


I guess you can't read......I posted a list of over 15 studies...15 were not done with Dr. Lott...the expert in the field.
Hey he said he wants a "good" study which means one that supports his position

No just a link to a study that doesn't involve the disgraced Lott. I guess they don't exist.
 
Link to one without Lott to review. Pick one and stop whining.


I linked to over 15 and looking at the rest that Lott did would be informative since he is the resident expert in the field.....which is why you hate him so.....

You linked garbage from lotts site. Why are you scared to link a study that doesn't involve Lott?


moron.....I linked to 15 peer reviewed studies.......in addition to Lott...who is the expert in the field....

Yes garbage from lotts site. I'm asking you to link to a good study that doesn't involve Lott. You seem incapable of doing that.


I guess you can't read......I posted a list of over 15 studies...15 were not done with Dr. Lott...the expert in the field.

Here is what Gary Kleck has to say about those studies. And we know you love Kleck:
Finally, Lott claims that “the vast majority of” studies of the impact of right-to-carry laws indicate that they reduce crime. Unlike Lott, I do not believe that truth is determined by majority vote. It is not the most popular conclusion that is most likely to be correct; it is the one supported by the methodologically strongest research, no matter how numerous or rare the technically stronger studies may be. Lott’s primary research, and that of others who drew the same conclusions, relied on county crime data that were essentially worthless for tracking crime trends before and after right-to-carry laws were passed, because they did not correct for widespread failures of law enforcement agencies to report their crime data to the Uniform Crime Reporting program. The technically soundest studies that were not afflicted by this problem have found that right-to-carry laws have no net effect one way or the other on crime rates.
 
Recently, a three-month-old boy was caught in crossfire on a street and his little hand was shot off. Three months old, in his car seat. A two-year-old girl found her daddy's loaded gun (stolen, incidentally) and shot and killed herself. Daddy took the time to hide the gun in a bathroom vent before he went screaming into the street with his daughter's lifeless body. More guns for everybody!
 
Really? Because those stories do make the news.

Not the national news. It's not news unless someone gets killed.

Even you can't be so stupid to think that simply because something doesn't get national coverage that it didn't happen


Either he knows and is simply trolling...or he actually thinks that.....which one do you think it is...?

It is a fantasy. You have posted many defenses that didn't involve shooting yet made the news.
We all know that one can use a gun to stop a crime and not have to fire it.

So there are many times where there is no shooting at all even though a gun was used. Those instances do not make the news

And shows we should have smart guns.

It shows no such thing.
 
Recently, a three-month-old boy was caught in crossfire on a street and his little hand was shot off. Three months old, in his car seat. A two-year-old girl found her daddy's loaded gun (stolen, incidentally) and shot and killed herself. Daddy took the time to hide the gun in a bathroom vent before he went screaming into the street with his daughter's lifeless body. More guns for everybody!

Stupid people are stupid nothing you can do about that
 
Not the national news. It's not news unless someone gets killed.

Even you can't be so stupid to think that simply because something doesn't get national coverage that it didn't happen


Either he knows and is simply trolling...or he actually thinks that.....which one do you think it is...?

It is a fantasy. You have posted many defenses that didn't involve shooting yet made the news.
We all know that one can use a gun to stop a crime and not have to fire it.

So there are many times where there is no shooting at all even though a gun was used. Those instances do not make the news

And shows we should have smart guns.

It shows no such thing.

Your statement shows there is no downside to smart guns.
 
Either he knows and is simply trolling...or he actually thinks that.....which one do you think it is...?

It is a fantasy. You have posted many defenses that didn't involve shooting yet made the news.
We all know that one can use a gun to stop a crime and not have to fire it.

So there are many times where there is no shooting at all even though a gun was used. Those instances do not make the news

And shows we should have smart guns.

It shows no such thing.

Your statement shows there is no downside to smart guns.
Of course there is.

There are many actually but here's just one.

A guy and his wife are walking the streets of Boston in the winter taking in the sights and two piece of shit criminals set upon them so the guy pulls his gun and then politely asks the two piece of shit thugs to kindly wait while he takes his solves off so the fingerprint scanner can then disengage the safety of his gun.
 

Forum List

Back
Top