11-year-old boy shot several times while protecting 2-year-old sister

[dacoolist]

I can't even imagine what it took for that young kid to protect someone like that, it's almost unheard of at that age - Major Salute to him.

Second: Yeah.. this isn't something that happens all the time here in the USA.. deaths to firearms happen for sure - but something like this isn't just a normal everyday thing. Other parts of the world have CHEM WARFARE going on killing HUNDREDS of kids in a single drop.. stop nation shaming for a minute and get a fucking grip

[LoLcano]

Shots broke out at toddlers birthday party ! another episode of things that only happen in best,most free ,greatest country in world, 'Murica FUCK YEAH!

[Lokryn]

The constitution was drafted by men, just out of a bloody independence war, looking toward harsh time ahead and a country to build.

I think it is fair to say that time has changed, situation, context has changed, the united states of america is not the same as it was in 1789.
I have always been a believer that laws should evolve as society evolve to fit the world.

The constitution is an important document of the past, but it's a 200+ years documents, it need to be actualized, modernized.
America has its own army, it's own law enforcement agencies, it's own government, it's not at risk to crumble under exterior threat.

I'm sorry, the more i see it, the less need for guns i see for a modern western society to have (for its civilian). If i have to choose between a gun or a master's degree, what will help me more in the current society?

I am not against armies or local armed law enforcement agencies, just against firearm sale to civilians. It is not needed and causes insecurity.
I know the argument, protecting oneself, against stronger aggressors. And in some occasions, guns save life. But in so many more guns take lives.
It basically creates much more problems than it solves.

Well, it's not just about safety but also against the tyranny of the government. I agree it sounds ridiculous on its face but who's to say what could change in the next hundred years. Maybe government grows more and more corrupt and starts stripping rights away or become violent against its citizens. Should the citizens have a right to defend themselves against a tyrannical government? Like I said, it sounds crazy but you never know what the future will bring.

[Deleted]

Same goes for private transportation with the same amount of deaths or more per year.

With the difference guns are entirely made to be arms.

And have no other use. You compare apples with oranges.

[Ravex]

I'm aware of human biology and the fact an appendix is largely considered a vestigial organ. Let me spin it this way so maybe you can understand. Let's say you had a hard drive with a capacity of 1 terabyte. Then somehow the drive failed but was able to be recovered except after recovery it now has a capacity of 800gb. Would you say your hard drive fully recovered?

That is a terrible analogy.

A guy wished the kid a full recovery and you decided to push your glasses a bit up your nose, snort, and tried to shoot him down and failed.

For whatever reason I will not understand.

That is all what happened here.

[Vankrys]

Depends on where you live here. lol. But all it takes is one case of you needing a firearm to effectively defend yourself or your loved ones, for one to appreciate the value and meaning of the 2nd amendment. Which can happen to anyone, or any place exposed to the public. Or even in the privacy of your home.

I agree that occasionally, a weapon may save your life.

But i think that politician and lawmaker have to look at the big picture. I think they cannot afford to be emotional.
The question is, does it solve more problems than it creates?

I think the free circulation of guns, even with wait period and background check, contrubute largely to the circulation of illegal guns finding their way into the hands of criminals.

It's very simple, if there is not market for it, there is no manufacturing plant and thus a lot less gun, even on black market.
The everyday law abiding citizen, even if he own gun, don't practice daily with it, is not obsessed, don't really care about it.

Guns favors criminals much more than regular citizen. In a situation of conflict, it is always better to retract yourself from danger than engage in a firefight.

If a man enter my home, i rather grab my cell and call 911 than grab my gun. I call 911, hide or get out and wait. Engaging in a firefight is the last thing i'd do.
Call me a coward if you wish, i just taking the most reasonable action to live and move on with my life.

[Ghostpanther]

With the difference guns are entirely made to be arms.

And have no other use. You compare apples with oranges.

They are made to shoot a projectile at a high speed at a target. Nothing more. Cars are made to move us down the road at a much higher speed than we can by walking or running. Nothing more. There are actual similarities between the two.

[Yot]

That is a terrible analogy.

Fine, how about this one? Say a man/woman develops breast cancer. They're able to perform a mastectomy and rid the patient of cancer. Would you say they fully recovered now they're sans breasts?

[Deleted]

They are made to shoot a projectile at a high speed at a target. Nothing more. Cars are made to move us down the road at a much higher speed than we can by walking or running. Nothing more. There are actual similarities between the two.

No, there isnt. A car is meant to be for transportation. And not just to deal damage, as like a gun is.

As i said, you compare apples with oranges. Better ask the NRA for better arguments.

[Ghostpanther]

I agree that occasionally, a weapon may save your life.

But i think that politician and lawmaker have to look at the big picture. I think they cannot afford to be emotional.
The question is, does it solve more problems than it creates?

I think the free circulation of guns, even with wait period and background check, contrubute largely to the circulation of illegal guns finding their way into the hands of criminals.

It's very simple, if there is not market for it, there is no manufacturing plant and thus a lot less gun, even on black market.
The everyday law abiding citizen, even if he own gun, don't practice daily with it, is not obsessed, don't really care about it.

Guns favors criminals much more than regular citizen. In a situation of conflict, it is always better to retract yourself from danger than engage in a firefight.

If a man enter my home, i rather grab my cell and call 911 than grab my gun. I call 911, hide or get out and wait. Engaging in a firefight is the last thing i'd do.
Call me a coward if you wish, i just taking the most reasonable action to live and move on with my life.

I like the old saying, " God created mankind, but Samuel Colt made them equal." A firearm can give a weaker person against a stronger person, a more equal stance to defend themselves. But I do agree if it is possible to retreat, one should. Outside the home or car that is.

The police can take several mins to reach your home. It is up to you how you want to defend yourself, but you could be dead several mins. before the police arrive. And since I can not read the minds of intruders to know for sure if they mean me or my family harm or not, I rather just attempt to stop the threat. Which thankfully I am justified by law to do so.

[Lokryn]

If a man enter my home, i rather grab my cell and call 911 than grab my gun. I call 911, hide or get out and wait. Engaging in a firefight is the last thing i'd do.
Call me a coward if you wish, i just taking the most reasonable action to live and move on with my life.

By the time you grab your cell (if it is even close) and dial 911, they could have easily already found you. Then you have to wait for the police to get there which varies wildly by location. Some areas out in the rural areas have a 15 minute or more wait time.

[Vankrys]

Well, it's not just about safety but also against the tyranny of the government. I agree it sounds ridiculous on its face but who's to say what could change in the next hundred years. Maybe government grows more and more corrupt and starts stripping rights away or become violent against its citizens. Should the citizens have a right to defend themselves against a tyrannical government? Like I said, it sounds crazy but you never know what the future will bring.

realistically speaking, even in the Trump administration so blatantly corrupt and clearly russian influenced, people will not take arms and shoot at the white house.

Even in country like UK, France or Germany, with no civilian owned guns, the government of these countries will never return to a dictatorship, will never violated civil and human rights.

Finally, history have shown that bad or evil government will be removed, even with torch and pitchfork if need be.

So i hear your argument but i think it's a weak justification, and once against i think the risks far outweigh the potential benefit.

[Ghostpanther]

No, there isnt. A car is meant to be for transportation. And not just to deal damage, as like a gun is.

As i said, you compare apples with oranges. Better ask the NRA for better arguments.

Do need to because that is false. There are firearms designed specifically for target shooting. I guess if you want to count paper target damage as damage then you are right. :P
But regardless, there are a lot of things which can kill people, but may not be designed for that purpose was my point.

[Deleted]

I like the old saying, " God created mankind, but Samuel Colt made them equal."

.. an old saying from the "Big book of NRA propaganda"..

A firearm can give a weaker person against a stronger person, a more equal stance to defend themselves.

If everyone just defends himself, why was the little boy shot 3 times?

You are blind on one eye.

Which thankfully I am justified by law to do so.

The guys which shot the little boy also wer "justified by law" to buy guns. Or those at the flint massacre. Or just think about any other school shooting in your country.

[Ravex]

Fine, how about this one? Say a man/woman develops breast cancer. They're able to perform a mastectomy and rid the patient of cancer. Would you say they fully recovered now they're sans breasts?

So in your world someone losing an appendix is the same as your hardrive shrinking by 20% or a woman losing their breasts?

Really?

[Vankrys]

By the time you grab your cell (if it is even close) and dial 911, they could have easily already found you. Then you have to wait for the police to get there which varies wildly by location. Some areas out in the rural areas have a 15 minute or more wait time.

i can't imagine it takes more time to grab your cell than your gun. I mean, where do you keep your gun, on your nightstand, ready and loaded?

Beside, let's talk realistic situation. Robbers will enter premises when they expect it to be empty. If someone enters your home with the intention of harming you, they would be prepared for it, even the gun on your nightstand, loaded and ready, will not give you an advantage.

Let's talk realistic scenario here.

[Deleted]

But regardless, there are a lot of things which can kill people, but may not be designed for that purpose was my point.

But actually guns are entirely being designed to destroy, they have no other purpose. And thats the reason to get rid of them so people will not have an easy opportunity to kill kids or do mass shooting at their local inn.

And again, comparing them with spoons, cars or planes does not work. Because you ignore the fact guns are just arms.

[Ghostpanther]

.. an old saying from the "Big book of NRA propaganda"..



If everyone just defends himself, why was the little boy shot 3 times?

You are blind on one eye.



The guys which shot the little boy also wer "justified by law" to buy guns. Or those at the flint massacre. Or just think about any other school shooting in your country.

It is true however in my opinion.

The boy was 11 years old. It is unlawful for anyone under the age or 18 or 21 to buy a firearm in every state.

Then he should be punished according to the law. Same if someone who is drunk, plows into another car and kills a child.

[Yot]

So in your world someone losing an appendix is the same as your hardrive shrinking by 20% or a woman losing their breasts?

Really?

It isn't the same. It's similar. The point you're missing is the before is different than the after. I stated from the start my problem was with the article itself where they stated "expected to make a full recovery." In my eyes that's dishonest. Expected to make a recovery, but less than full.

[Ghostpanther]

But actually guns are entirely being designed to destroy, they have no other purpose. And thats the reason to get rid of them so people will not have an easy opportunity to kill kids or do mass shooting at their local inn.

And again, comparing them with spoons, cars or planes does not work. Because you ignore the fact guns are just arms.

Well guns are not going to be got rid of. Not sure where you live, but if it is in the US, then you have steps you can take to start the process if you want. And if you live outside of the US, does not matter what you think of our 2nd Amendment.