This is horribly tragic and unfortunately, horribly stupid

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

I know that tragic accidents happen that no one could have foreseen, but this one really *could* have been prevented. I have nothing but sympathy for the dead woman's family, but how she died is unreal.

http://www.kmbc.com/news/15701029/detail.html

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

That could only happen in America. I know you all love your precious guns, and are prepared to argue black is blue that you have the god given right to own one. For the rest of us however, they are seen as very dangerous things to keep around the house.

 

Yes, he should go down for manslaughter. He's a fool who pulled off the most stupid stunt ever. Idiot!

 

I posted this less as an indictment against "the right to bear arms" as one regarding the stupidity of humanity. People misuse many different tools and items resulting in such tragic events happening.

 

Yes, i know, but there aren't any other tools that i can think of apart from weapons, that can kill someone the other side of a house wall.

 

Have you ever seen a nail gun with the saftey off? They can go though a wall if they miss a stud. But I agree, while I am for my rights to own a gun people that stupid should not have one. It is the children my heart goes out to now.

 

daft tit.

On the matter of guns, whilst it is a tool I suppose, its only purpose is death. A nailgun, at least, has a non-death dealing purpose in life, if it is used (deliberately or accidentally) to deal death, then that is a misuse of a tool from its intended purpose.

In a society where killing another is frowned upon (to the point of illegality), should ownership of a tool designed for the sole purpose of meting out death to other living beings be permitted so loosely? I'm not against guns per se - they have their uses to the lawkeeping forces of the world, and are good for hunting, but I dont think joe public should be easily able to attain one. I think any country allowing the private ownership of guns should have very VERY strict rules as to who can own one, and what they have to do to attain one. America's 'consitutional right' to bear arms (a right Im led to believe is only negated (in some states) if you are a felon) is something I feel is just downright dangerous and asking for trouble. Perhaps it should be amended to something along the lines of:

'It is the constitutional right of any american to bear arms, provided that they are proven to be of sound mind.'

Should any nutter be able to own one? Negative. I disagree that the civilian world has much use for guns, and therefore much justification in owning one (outside certain circumstances such as farming, etc - and certainly not within cities). If you simply must allow your civilians to privately own guns, make it tough as hell to get a license.

 

Firearms ARE dangerous... if you don't know how to properly use them. Most people with half a lick of sense wouldn't attempt to SHOOT through the walls of their house... that's what a drill is for. I'm sad that the woman died... but a bit of common sense and forethought would have prevented the accident from occurring in the first place.

I'm all for the right to bear arms... but I'm certainly not against requiring that a gun owner take classes to learn how to responsibly use a firearm... including how, when, and where to NOT use one. I don't know what the regulations are for owning a gun in Missouri... but a gun safety class might have prevented this from happening.

 

So... what happens if my home is invaded by someone who could care less about whether they can legally carry a gun or not? Do I stand idly by while my possessions are stolen, or worse, while my wife is raped or my children are kidnapped?

There's a reason why homes aren't invaded in my neighborhood; criminals understand that there's a good chance that they'll encounter the business end of a firearm. Thus, you can call guns what you want; I call it a deterrent. And the great thing is... I don't even have to own a gun for it to be a deterrent... as long as there's a chance that I've got one, criminals are much less likely to try anything.

 

perhaps, perhaps not. What gives you the right to deal punishment to a lawbreaker? Our countries have dedicated law enforcement officers, and legal systems designed to determine the truth of a crime, and punish based on that, what makes you think you have a greater right to decide on the punishment by shooting the offender at the scene?

 

The right to defend my life. The fact that they're intruding on my property simply makes it clear cut as to who is attacking and who is defending.

I don't have a dedicated law enforcement officer posted outside my front and back door.

It's a bit late after someone in my family is dead or savaged, isn't it? I don't want justice. I want protection.

I have a right when the offender invades MY property. The offender loses his rights when he sets one toe in my house.

I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm simply stating my viewpoint.

I pray that you or your family never finds out what it's like to be helpless at the hands of a criminal.

 

Oh krap. I should have seen this coming. Just to be clear, this is *not* a thread (at least in terms of my intent) on the whole guns-are-good-or-evil debate. This is a thread on just how stupid some people could be. Think of it as a "Darwin Award" kind of thread but this time, the person needing the award missed himself and killed his spouse.

I'm not trying to make light of this at all and yes, if a pistol hadn't been available (and this guy should never have been allowed to own one), then in all likelihood, the fellow's wife would still be alive, but anyone who knows a lick about firearm safety wouldn't have used it for this purpose in a million years.

Stupidity is a human trait...not specifically a trait of gun owners.

 

I agree. If the rest of the world can get along fine without legislation that allows John/Jane Doe to own a gun, I'm sure the USA could do the same.

In my opinion nobody except those with a specific necessity (ie: the military) to own/use a weapon should be given the right to bare arms (vest tops excepted, sorry had to add humour there!). Screw amendments and bills of rights that were written in times of a mentality where war was akin to that of the times of Alfred The Great, this is 2008, guns don't belong in private homes. Guns have one sole purpose, to kill.

Here's a prime example. Whoever thinks someone has a right to own one of these or one of these for private home use needs their head examining.

End of story.

 

I dont disagree with your right to protect yourself or your family. Hell, I even agree with your assessment that a criminal voids certain rights the moment they break the law. I'm even willing to go so far as to state that you are right that you should be able to fire a gun at them, should they bring a gun to bear on you.

But defence of you and your family is not the same as shooting an offender. Equal force, disabling shots/strikes, these are self defence, finding someone breaking into your property and killing them by shooting them in the face is excessive to the point of taking the law into your own hands.

What I dont agree with, is how damn easy it seems to be to own a gun in the US (as a specific example). I don't think any civilian has a right to possess a weapon created with the sole intention of killing. It's something that should be earned. You should have to prove you are of sound mind, and capable of wielding, and caring for the weapon in a responsible manner.

Using the argument that just because these criminals can obtain weapons easily and without regard to the laws, then you should be able to easily obtain a weapon just in case is illogical. All that happens, for a start, is an escalation process. Just like in the Cold War, the criminals carry guns, so you carry guns. The criminals step up with machine guns, so you get them. The criminals start carting around cruise missiles, so you get them too. Additionally, instead of making it easier for civilians to possess guns just to deter would be assailants and level the playing field, perhaps more should be done to restrict and reduce those illegal guns in the first place.

 

Have to disagree with you there BM. Guns themselves are inherently not dangerous. If you leave a gun on the table and walk away it will still be there when you come back, without having killed anyone. If you put a bullet in it, the bullet will still be there in a hundred years if a person doesn't pull the trigger.

The problem here is that people are dangerous, not guns. I say ban people.

 

Is a sad story, dont agree at all with americas law on guns, but im not from there.

 

I don't really like repeating myself, but in this case, I guess I will (literally) to try and get my point across. For those of you who missed it, here it is again:

 

...that's why I included, "...if you don't know how to properly use them," in the very same sentence. As you say, it's the stupid people that cause them to be dangerous.

 

No... but it's gonna happen, Trip. You can't post an article about how irresponsible use of a firearm killed someone and expect - or demand - that people not post about the dangers of firearms. It's like posting an article about how a Windows vulnerability caused a massive virus outbreak, and not allowing people to post about the dangers of Windows vulnerabilities.

 

Although US law says that I have the right to defend my property if I feel that I or my family is in danger, I never said I was going to automatically shoot someone in the face. If faced with the situation, I'd likely threaten him with violence if he didn't leave immediately, and that would likely be that.

And if that didn't work... unless he was also brandishing a weapon, I'd likely aim for his kneecaps.

I've driven someone off at swordpoint before. He wasn't a criminal... but he was an unwanted stranger in my house without my permission.

And no, I didn't skewer his face. Ridiculous, huh? You probably never assumed I'd do that. But assuming I would shoot someone in the face is just about the same, is it not?

But... I never used that argument. In fact, I'm all for making it more difficult to get a gun.

Of course, I'm trained in firearm usage. I had to be... check the sig.

Ah, but you see, the Cold War was successful.

Yeeeeeah... we all see how well that's worked with restricting and reducing illegal drugs...

I think I'll stick with the laws we've got, thankyouverymuch. If you don't like them... you don't EVER have to come here. Me, I have to live here.