If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(KUSA - Denver)   Dad shot and killed while teaching gun safety to his 13-year-old son   (9news.com) divider line 437
    More: Ironic  
•       •       •

12276 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Mar 2003 at 3:38 PM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



437 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-03-06 07:18:37 PM  
The gun control debate is so pointless, each side "proves" they're in the right and the other is a gun fellating maniac/tree hugging hippie and it goes nowhere.

That's what makes it so fun!

The other side is wrong and stupid and they know it!!!!!
 
2003-03-06 07:20:27 PM  
03-06-03 04:25:09 PM Millay
Serial:

"How foolish was I living my life thinking that one is a method of transportation and the other is a tool of destruction."

Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun.

Touche!
 
2003-03-06 07:22:20 PM  
Heh daraymann...

maybe for you sir but not for me. I like threads where i can do two out of three of the following:

a) learn something
b) teach something
c) pick on texans

i bet in this thread i can only do one of those. :)
 
2003-03-06 07:22:33 PM  
Ooh! Lets compare the 11,071 gun related homicides to the intential killings by MDs! Let's see now, how many people did that Oregon euthanasia doctor cause?
 
2003-03-06 07:25:55 PM  
I agree that the relative numbers are meaningless. I put that up there to make that point, because I also think that the number of suicides, murders or accidents that occur because of illegal or improper use of firearms is meaningless.

Gun ownership is legal, constitutionally protected, (BTW, it says the right of THE PEOPLE shall not be infringed, THE PEOPLE being, well, the people,) and supported by the vast majority of the population.

People who don't like guns don't have to own one, but they should be used to the fact by now that this country's citizens are armed to the teeth.
 
2003-03-06 07:27:19 PM  
Father_Jack:

Heh heh heh. Well this IS Fark.
 
2003-03-06 07:27:55 PM  
Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun.

That is the third time in this thread that someone has pulled this one out. We all know that people die in cars. So I wear a seat belt. If other people do no wear thiers it does not affect me. But, if people don't use thier firearms properly, I am affected.
 
2003-03-06 07:29:37 PM  
Burn98

Ooh! Lets compare the 11,071 gun related homicides to the intential killings by MDs! Let's see now, how many people did that Oregon euthanasia doctor cause?

Why?
 
2003-03-06 07:29:49 PM  
Burn, how have you been affected?
 
2003-03-06 07:30:55 PM  
Let's see now, how many people did that Oregon euthanasia doctor cause?

Did that doctor kill! Not cause.

My thinking is clearer then my typing.

No really!
 
2003-03-06 07:33:02 PM  
what few people realize is that in the 2nd amendment, it also mentions that the right to bear arms should be for protecting the state in a well-regulated militia.

Bowling for Columbine...watch it sometime
 
2003-03-06 07:33:07 PM  
Fishrockcarving:
Burn, how have you been affected?


I would refer you to my previous post on the four times I have had a gun pointed at me.
 
2003-03-06 07:35:39 PM  
Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun.
------------
That is the third time in this thread that someone has pulled this one out. We all know that people die in cars. So I wear a seat belt. If other people do no wear thiers it does not affect me. But, if people don't use thier firearms properly, I am affected.


Well, this would make sense until you get ran over trying to cross the street. It all boils down to irresponsibility. If someone dose not use there car responsibly, you have the potential to be affected. It's just to scary out there.

Now would somebody post a boobie link?
 
2003-03-06 07:36:19 PM  
Ok, so let's take oil out of the car pic and switch to hydrogen fuel cells.

Now what is the argument with the gun lobbyists?

People KILL other people with GUNS. That is a guns sole purpose. I've read the "pointing" theory above, and that holds no weight. If just the image of gun was necessary, why not just hold up a picture of one? Hmmmm, maybe because the picture can't KILL you!

/my 2 (I really miss the "cents" sign on a keyboard)
 
2003-03-06 07:37:00 PM  
No one on either side of this argument will ever convince anyone on the opposite side of anything, except that the other side is stupid.

Wow, that line made as a little sense as I intended it to. These endless flamewars are pointless, kids. Gun-haters/lovers have emotion-based arguments, and, wrong or not, they are simply impossible to argue with.

Guns, bans or not, are here to stay. If you don't believe that, check Britain where guns are illegal, yet they still have people getting shot by thugs on a regular basis.

And as to your pointless "guns are only designed to kill things, period" arguments, is the computer you're using to post that silliness designed originally to surf the web and post such comments?
 
2003-03-06 07:37:49 PM  
Hip_about_time

Great story....did anyone consider calling the police or was that just not a macho/weapon lovin'/american enough response to a potentially armed assailant?

Have you Americans not noticed the snickering that comes from the Brit, Australian and Canadian farkers whenever you argue this subject amongst yourselves?
 
2003-03-06 07:38:59 PM  
Have you Americans not noticed the snickering that comes from the Brit, Australian and Canadian farkers whenever you argue this subject amongst yourselves?

Sometimes, but I didn't really care.
 
2003-03-06 07:40:17 PM  
A pistol is not an arm. A rifle is an arm.
We have the Constitutional right to own rifles and shotguns.
Saying anything else is a matter of deliberate misconstruance of the words of our founding fathers.

Once again, use the word "gun" or "firearm" and be automatically wrong, to some degree.

"you got to keep 'em separated"
 
2003-03-06 07:40:32 PM  
"Can you defeat me and force me to conform using a blade or a staff? You cannot. You who depend on a gun for safety, are a coward. There is no other word for you. But coward."
So a Marine Sniper is,by your definition, a coward? I own 2 swords and 3 rifles,if someone broke in,I'd use what I had to. Preferably the '03 Springfield under the bed. Defending a house with a sword = not practical,unless you live in a BIG house,there's not enough enough room to swing,a rifle requires less room to use. Yeah,I know about thrusting but I own no short-swords. Also,you can't tell me it doesn't take a sh!tload of courage to advance under fire.
BTW,I feel kinda bad for the kid,how would you feel if you killed your father?
 
2003-03-06 07:40:59 PM  
MilkBone

A typical Amercian reaction. :)
 
2003-03-06 07:41:16 PM  
Milkbone:

Comparing MD related killings to gun related killings makes absolutely no sense. That was the first clue that my suggestion was sarcastic.

I was responding to Darayma who posted comparing MD related accidental deaths with gun related accidental deaths. That post was also senseless.

The context of the discussion was the second clue.
 
2003-03-06 07:42:15 PM  
People KILL other people with GUNS.

Let's redo that just a little bit:

PEOPLE kill other people with guns.

/My 2 cents don't count 'cause I have no sense.
 
2003-03-06 07:42:17 PM  
03-06-03 05:43:24 PM EnemyFrank
To all the self impressed idiots making Darwin references:

For every idiot like this there are a millions responsible gun owners. My great uncle (a WWII vet) taught me gun safety and how to shoot when I was 10. I've been a gun owner ever since. Somehow I've managed not to kill anyone.

I'm sure most farkers would be annoyed if all pot smokers were portrayed as retarded Cheech & Chong clones.

ummmm, "somehow" you managed? Wtf?
 
2003-03-06 07:43:22 PM  
Long live swords.
 
2003-03-06 07:45:50 PM  
03-06-03 07:37:00 PM Moonduck
No one on either side of this argument will ever convince anyone on the opposite side of anything, except that the other side is stupid.

likely

Wow, that line made as a little sense as I intended it to. These endless flamewars are pointless, kids. Gun-haters/lovers have emotion-based arguments, and, wrong or not, they are simply impossible to argue with.

Guns, bans or not, are here to stay. If you don't believe that, check Britain where guns are illegal, yet they still have people getting shot by thugs on a regular basis.

there is an enormous discrepancy between shooting deaths in America and Britain per capita. On the order of hundreds to one or something, too lazy to pull stats.

And as to your pointless "guns are only designed to kill things, period" arguments, is the computer you're using to post that silliness designed originally to surf the web and post such comments?

huh? No my computer wasn't designed to surf the web, what are you saying? I'd love to hear your spiel on the diversity and evolution of the technological splendor of guns. The irony is that the computer you use as an example was initially designed as a learning tool to help man, in a way the very antithesis of your beloved amorphous firearm. One purpose since inception, kill people, it just got better at it. Until someone finds some way of using handguns to sort gene sequences to help cure genetic diseases for children, keep the inane analogies off the board

 
2003-03-06 07:46:35 PM  
Burn98
I like your autobiographical political history. hehhe!!

FISHROCK
--I agree that the relative numbers are meaningless. I put that up there to make that point, because I also think that the number of suicides, murders or accidents that occur because of illegal or improper use of firearms is meaningless.--

Well, suicide statistics are meaningless in this case, but i dont think murders are. I think murders are the heart of the matter.

I think the majority of the gun folks believe that more murders are prevented or deterred by legal firearm ownership than are committed using firearms illegally, and the anti-gun folks believe the exact opposite, and therein lies the endless debate.

To me it looks like this:

People who are raised in places where guns are and have always been a part of their lives, know how to use, clean, care for and store a weapon find it preposterous and down right offensive that their gun could be used in a crime and they're not capable of responsible ownership. The pleasure and/or sense of security derived from owning a gun is more than offset the comparitively mild risk this person has in owning one. For these people, we'll call them Group A, they are absolutely right, and their position is understandable; they are no risk to anyone except an intruder.

People who have been raised in environments where guns are only used by criminals in car jackings, bank robberies and other types of violent crime (ie, inner city or urban areas of the US where gun crimes are bad) cant open the paper in the morning without reading about some story involving the illegal use of a gun and think "dammit, guns are too easy to get here, that guy bought that handgun legally and blew away his wife and 3 of his neighbors, if there'd been more gun control that never wouldve happened!" These people, we'll call them Group B, live in a very different world than Group A. Group B, like Group A, is trying to do all they can to preserve their quality of life, and push for more restrictions on guns which they view as an important factor in the destruction of quality of life.

These groups of people are, in my opinion anyway, as different as night and day. A deer hunter in rural Ohio or razorback hunter in arkansas has no farking clue about life in an inner city, and vice versa, and each side will interpret laws and the constitution in ways which will most benefit them. The pros say what you said FISH, "for the people". The cons say "what about the militia part? Are you in a militia? No? Then gimme that gun!"

This is why this argument is, like the abortion debate, fundamentally unsolveable because it goes down to people's fundamental beliefs, and those cant be changed on a message board.
 
2003-03-06 07:46:59 PM  
Darayma:
Well, this would make sense until you get ran over trying to cross the street. It all boils down to irresponsibility. If someone dose not use there car responsibly, you have the potential to be affected. It's just to scary out there.


Agreed. I am not in favor of banning cars or guns. But I sure will kick up a fuss when anyone is irresponsible with either. I keep hoping to get through to a few.
 
2003-03-06 07:46:59 PM  
Sounds like it was probably a good twist of fate that he was shot. He tried to teach his son gun safety.....and was killed by the gun. I'd say that lesson was a failure.

I feel bad about the kid though. He probably doesn't feel so good about shooting dad.
 
2003-03-06 07:47:33 PM  
I was responding to Darayma(nn) who posted comparing MD related accidental deaths with gun related accidental deaths.

Wasn't me. Nope. Someone else.

I posted a comparison between car related deaths and gun related deaths. Someone else did the MD thing. Let's keep the flaming accurate.
 
2003-03-06 07:47:49 PM  
Burn, I saw that, just didn't remember the poster. Leave the robbery aside. The other times you did not get shot. People protecting their homes is a legitimate reason for displaying firearms, and your protagonists did not just start shooting blindly into the dark, and showed enough restraint to determine that you were not a threat and did not need shooting.

The robbery sucks, but he probably picked the 7-11 because he knows 7-11's have ridiculously firm policy of compliance with armed robbers. Armed robbers get away with armed robbery, they are likely to keep doing it and they'll choose soft targets. Armed robbers get shot, they are likely to stop, or go someplace that doesn't shoot back.

Not to minimize having a gun pointed at you, and I might have shown a bit more tact than the guy who opened the door with the gun pointed at you, but, you didn't get shot.
 
2003-03-06 07:48:10 PM  
Bill_Wick's_Friend

Thanks! I figured someone around here would appreciate that.

Burn98

That was the first clue that my suggestion was sarcastic.

Didn't have my sarcasm radar on.
 
2003-03-06 07:48:42 PM  
Bill_Wick's_Friend

A predictable european response.

If you all were permitted firearms for private use, you might have a different POV. I know in GB, other than for private defense, there is no reason to own a firearm. You have no game left, and do not like to hunt what fowl you do have. Therefore, I don't consider it odd that the GB response to private gun ownership, is almost always, predictably, negative. In the US, however, there is a large contingent of people that engage in the recreational use of firearms, responsibly, to hunt, or as protection from large animals in rural settings.
 
2003-03-06 07:53:03 PM  
Burn98

We have enlightenment and agreement on the part of two Farkers! Due to this, I now declare this thread boring.

Now here is a small Boobie link of my very own that I put together to help us all recover.

http://home.att.net/~rayman1729/nudie/index.html

Err, NSFW. (Duh)
 
2003-03-06 07:56:45 PM  
Daraymann

Outstanding little montage ya got there.
 
2003-03-06 07:59:09 PM  
Daraymann:

Sorry! you were quoting Fishrockcarving and I thought it was yours.
 
2003-03-06 08:01:07 PM  
Daraymann:

Now here is a small Boobie link of my very own that I put together to help us all recover.


Hey! I'm at work. Why do you think I am hanging out here talking about guns ;-)
 
2003-03-06 08:01:40 PM  
Sn0wsuit4,
We also find it amusing that all the NRA types down there can't read your constitution properly - it says the right to bear arms to maintain a militia (ie when the Brits take over again or some such).


I'm glad you're Canadian and can't vote here. Take an English lesson.
 
2003-03-06 08:02:07 PM  
Father Jack, I am saying that the numbers are meaningless because I don't care how many people are murdered by guns. They were murdered, and that is all I care about, as much as I can. That a gun was used is meaningless. Murder is illegal, gun ownership is not.

The political ideology that supports gun control is the same political ideology that opposes capital punishment, three strike laws, harsher prison terms, etc. The people who complain about all the murders are the ones who say that the state should not kill the murderers.
 
2003-03-06 08:02:26 PM  
MilkBone:

Thank you, thank you. You know, being out of work for six months really help you keep up on the quality porn.
 
2003-03-06 08:11:19 PM  
ChadManMn

Word.

/wigger
 
2003-03-06 08:13:24 PM  
Guns should be outlawed becaused they are useless. The only use is to kill people. Killing people are bad. If there were no guns then there would be no murderers. Without guns murderers would have to kill people with knives and stuff, so it would be harder to do.

And now a word from opposing view:
Stupid liberals want guns to be banned so they can gain absolute power and take away peoples rights. Would you feel safe in a place where only the criminals had guns? People who aren't criminals should be able to have guns because need to protect themselves from criminals. The statistics about gun deaths are biased, and include all deaths; most of which are suicides and not murder. England doesn't have guns and is a horrible socialist shiathole. The US has guns is a nice socialist shiathole.


/average Farker logic.
 
2003-03-06 08:14:46 PM  
Oops. Forget to add "with average Farker grammar" after logic.
 
Kiz
2003-03-06 08:18:16 PM  
A few random notes:

1) I've only ever used a gun for target shooting, which was an amusing way to spend a couple of afternoons. Don't own one, but if I was forced to live in the sort of area where I felt I needed one, I'd want to able to get one. Since I live in a relatively nice neighborhood with fairly minimal crime, I don't bother.

2) The sort of "militia" we have today didn't exist during colonial times. The kind of militia that the Constitution is talking about basically amounts to all white males within a certain age group who are expected to take up arms to defend the state in emergencies. Because of the "in emergencies" bit, it was important that they already be familiar with guns (no time for additional training) and preferably be able to provide their own.

3) Handguns were called "equalizers" when they first became prevalent. Some of them were marketed to women on the grounds that no woman could be expected to successfully defend herself against a male attacker unless she had a firearm.

4) I wouldn't mind a handgun ban (but not a rifle ban) if I really thought that it would work. Unfortunately, in the US handguns are so widespread that loose gun laws and concealed carry permits generally end up LOWERING violent crime because criminals worry more about getting shot. Of course, crimes such as burglary go up, since folks are less likely to have their guns on them when they're in bed asleep or just not there at all.

5) A holstered firearm is difficult to draw and ready before a charging opponent reaches you, thus the value of the police demonstration mentioned. If the gun is already cocked and pointed in your direction, you don't "charge up and take it away from them" unless you REALLY know what you're doing... you're way too likely to get shot.

6) When fools die because they don't pay attention to gun safety, I have difficulty getting worried about it. It's about like teens who manage to splatter themselves over a wide area by drag racing... I really don't miss them when they're gone. I only care if they manage to take other, less deserving folks with them.
 
2003-03-06 08:18:26 PM  
Nanookanano:"A pistol is not an arm. A rifle is an arm. We have the Constitutional right to own rifles and shotguns. Saying anything else is a matter of deliberate misconstruance of the words of our founding fathers."

(a) Check me if I'm wrong, sir, but wasn't the pistol invented after the Constitution was written? Like, in 1836? And why is a pistol not an arm? Another word for pistol is "sidearm", isn't it? I don't think it's a stretch to say that the Second Amendment covers personal firearms, whether they're pistols, rifles, shotguns, or, in the future, phasers set on stun.

(b) If you're going to play the Founding Fathers card anyway, you also have to step in line with their infinite wisdom that said blacks weren't people and that women shouldn't be allowed to own property or vote.
 
2003-03-06 08:20:55 PM  
oh you asinine people
i comment since im a moderate (when it comes to gun control issues) and extremists from either end of the spectrum scare off most moderates

guns can be like little metal terrorists
they kill, they maim, they are very threatening if they are pointed at you, they scare the pants off most people regardless
but they really aren't statistically that dangerous
not so much that i would advocate "gun-grabbing", as you put it
background checks and fingerprinting maybe, as they would help to a point (and its easy enough to stop if it ends up being a complete waste of time)
and maybe banning the personal use of weapons that are only useful for assault (that's already done pretty well - i see no need for the public to have access to HMGs, M80s and bazookas - and as far as i know you can't go into a gun store and buy them)
i think most people think like me - and most people try not to get drawn into debates w/ extremists from either spectrum

i dont think either side of the "gun debate" will win
we'll never be able to walk around with assault rifles (even though the most powerful lobbying group in the united states IS the NRA - that's a fact, although I'm guessing that statistic doesn't count energy and insurance companies)
and we'll never round up and burn all the guns

question tho - this is serious, not rhetorical
why are the most outspoken pro-gun folk also extremely religious? is it just that those are the ones who get the most air time? or is there some biblical precident for owning firearms?
 
2003-03-06 08:23:29 PM  
Father_Jack: You speak with wisdom. As far as "solving" the problem, let the cities and/or states set their gun laws - not the Feds.

Thanks for another drop of sense in this thread. It is appreciated.

Now if you'll pardon me, I really do need to pay attention to the President talking about blowing the fark out of some people. Praise "Bob" for the DVR and it's instant relplay...
 
2003-03-06 08:34:01 PM  
Flg8or: Check me if I'm wrong, sir, but wasn't the pistol invented after the Constitution was written?

I call Check, sir. The hand held pistol was used in the Revolutionary war:

http://www.greeceny.com/arm/welch/weapons.htm

...and I have no doubt there are references to pirates using Dragoons long before that, but I'm too lazy to look it up.

Once you understand the basics of gunpowder, firearm design and size is largely moot. Strong tube + gunpowder behind tightly place projectile == Boom. Big boom, small boom, just a matter of scale. The real trick is Trajectory, which largely drove the development of what you're reading this on right now ;)

I would also point out that at the time of the ratification of the Constitution there was legal private ownership of some of the most powerful artillery weapons (cannon) on the globe - stuff that would knock you house right off it's foundations. Just a bit of trivia.
 
2003-03-06 08:38:01 PM  
Doctechnical: I stand corrected, again. I was going by Colonel Colt's credited invention of the pistol in 1836.

You could own cannons during the Revolutionary war? Now that would be cool. Do you think Poor Richard's Almanack had an article titled "Man accidentally kills self while teaching son cannon safety"?
 
2003-03-06 08:57:00 PM  
Doctechnical: I stand corrected, again. I was going by Colonel Colt's credited invention of the pistol in 1836.

Didn't Colt invent the revolver?
 
2003-03-06 09:04:15 PM  
Colt didn't invent the revolver per se, but made the first one that was widely used in America, and became the standard.
 
Displayed 50 of 437 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report