wakjak Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 His mom was a booksmart dumb blonde what do you expect??!!! -_- ugh When I got lil babies-n-kids near me I don't let em even touch my purse and I don't even gotta gun in it! Dumb blonde? She was a nuclear scientist. She was damn well smarter than 99% of the people in this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remixedcat Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Degree means diddly-squat! She's still too dumb to practice gun safety around a friggin baby!!!! and to just have it sitting in the purse like that... I wouldn't trust someone that couldn't even keep an eye on her kid's safety with a gun around anything nuclear and it's good that she's gone so we don't have negligent people in dangerous industries!!!! Simple actions like this speak volumes about people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Dumb blonde? She was a nuclear scientist. She was damn well smarter than 99% of the people in this forum. Are you familiar with the term 'educated idiot'? It generally refers to someone who is book smart but lacking in common sense. Often no small about of hubris is comorbid. A lot of academics fit that bill, the prime examples being JFK, Robert McNamara & LBJ's "Whiz Kids" that got us into Vietnam and kept us there. The 1972 book 'The Best and the Brightest' lays it all out. remixedcat 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloatingFatMan Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 There really needs to be some sort of added security added to guns so they can't be used by others but the owners. No amount of security can protect you from the owner turning it off... That's pretty much what happened in this case. Dumb blonde? She was a nuclear scientist. She was damn well smarter than 99% of the people in this forum. I beg to disagree, seeing as 99% of the people in this forum haven't got their brains splattered all over the ceiling. T3X4S and remixedcat 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arachno 1D Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 In this report it appears she was well versed in gun safety and had just started using a gun conceal purse she received for Christmas http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/idaho-mom-fatally-shot-2-year-old-son-walmart-store-n277816 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arachno 1D Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 My daughter & wife use on-their-person devices; bra mounted, thigh band, inside or outside the waistband or a fanny pack holsters. All are exponentially safer than carrying in a damned purse. Did you see this one DocM? https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=858568720829255 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloatingFatMan Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 In this report it appears she was well versed in gun safety and had just started using a gun conceal purse she received for Christmas http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/idaho-mom-fatally-shot-2-year-old-son-walmart-store-n277816 The evidence seems to outweigh reports to the contrary. If she was well versed in gun safety, she'd be alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddman Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 There really needs to be some sort of added security added to guns so they can't be used by others but the owners. Nothing more is needed. The gun was most probably already chambered. Her son reached to the weapon, turned the safety off (if it was even on in the first place) and pulled the trigger. All she needed to do was to NOT chamber it. If there is no round in there, then it will never go off. This is the result of the current trend among many gun carriers; "if you don't have a round in the chamber ALL THE TIME, then you're an idiot and shouldn't even touch one." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph3100 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 This is also what i would want... to the EXTREME though... not the weak broken system it is currently. Personal responsibility to the extreme would mean more freedom and less regulation, which sounds nothing like what you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph3100 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Apparently, now we need defenses against 2 year olds as well, since guns don't kill people, toddlers do. the more guns that are out there, the more this is going to happen. Luckily the lady was hurt instead of a non gun obsessed self centered person. keep on deflecting. So you are telling me that when a 2 year old is sitting in the cab of a pickup and accidentally puts it in gear or pops it in neutral and the car runs someone over, then we will need to reduce the number of cars on the road? The issue was inattentiveness and indifference. Buttus 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph3100 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I'm not going to carry a chambered gun around other civilians, in a restaurant or a shop or a mall or any crowded place, specially if I had a minor with me. Safety of others is more important than my ego. I'm not the only person that walks the earth. Now if I were to walk down an empty street, in a bad neighborhood, and perhaps in late afternoon or night, sure, I'd put it in condition 1. I'm not saying C1 is absolutely unsafe and an imminent danger, but it surely isn't as safe as C3. Each condition has its use cases. There is no "best" condition. We should stop thinking like we're in a warzone and use the condition that suits the situation. This woman's death could've easily been avoided. P.S. I'm not telling others what they should or should not do. If someone wants to always use C1, then Ok. That's their choice, but always consider alternatives too. Fair enough, and that is your choice to make. That is just at least one more wasted second before you have the ability to engage anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph3100 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 In this report it appears she was well versed in gun safety and had just started using a gun conceal purse she received for Christmas http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/idaho-mom-fatally-shot-2-year-old-son-walmart-store-n277816 Rule number one of security: if someone has physical access to it, then it is no longer yours. She wasn't paying attention and lost possession of her weapon. Letting someone who is not experienced with firearms handle your weapon without direct supervision is always a bad idea... much less a two-year-old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blank Posted January 2, 2015 Author Share Posted January 2, 2015 So you are telling me that when a 2 year old is sitting in the cab of a pickup and accidentally puts it in gear or pops it in neutral and the car runs someone over, then we will need to reduce the number of cars on the road? The issue was inattentiveness and indifference. A car isn't designed to kill, and isn't a killing machine, so once again your deflective comparison is just a silly as replacing the "pickup" with any object, such as a skittle candy. A car isnt a gun, as a skittle isnt a nuclear bomb, each can be potentially dangerous, yes, but the same? LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noir Angel Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Natural selection: it works. I'm normally a compassionate person but these gun toting wackos dig their own graves and I'm starting to find myself fresh out of sympathy. +Matthew S., blank and Top Qat 3 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph3100 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 A car isn't designed to kill, and isn't a killing machine, so once again your deflective comparison is just a silly as replacing the "pickup" with any object, such as a skittle candy. A car isnt a gun, as a skittle isnt a nuclear bomb, each can be potentially dangerous, yes, but the same? LOL. A car isn't a killing machine? Tell that to those who make car bombs. And I don't care what it is designed for, it is the use that matters. A machete isn't a killing machine but it makes a pretty good sword. A baseball bat isn't a killing machine, but it makes a pretty good club. A piece of steel pipe isn't a killing machine, but it makes a pretty good nightstick/shotgun/bomb. psmoked 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph3100 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Natural selection: it works. I'm normally a compassionate person but these gun toting wackos dig their own graves and I'm starting to find myself fresh out of sympathy. I'll be sure to quote this at every turn, but change toting to demonizing, when someone who doesn't like people carrying/owning firearms is shot/stabbed/beaten and killed. Disgusting. Ph1b3r0pt1c, psmoked, trag3dy and 1 other 4 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theyarecomingforyou Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Are you familiar with the term 'educated idiot'? It generally refers to someone who is book smart but lacking in common sense. Often no small about of hubris is comorbid. The term you're looking for is dysrationalia, the inability to behave rationally despite adequate intelligence. A lot of academics fit that bill, the prime examples being JFK, Robert McNamara & LBJ's "Whiz Kids" that got us into Vietnam and kept us there. The 1972 book 'The Best and the Brightest' lays it all out. This isn't the place to discuss your contempt for liberals. +Raze 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blank Posted January 2, 2015 Author Share Posted January 2, 2015 A car isn't a killing machine? Tell that to those who make car bombs. And I don't care what it is designed for, it is the use that matters. A machete isn't a killing machine but it makes a pretty good sword. A baseball bat isn't a killing machine, but it makes a pretty good club. A piece of steel pipe isn't a killing machine, but it makes a pretty good nightstick/shotgun/bomb. No, the bomb would be the killing machine, not the car. That's like saying this lady's purse is a killing machine. The bomb was designed to kill/harm, just as the gun is. A gun has no other purpose, it's intention is to be used to seriously harm or kill. But if you want to say a gun is the same as pear, or water hose, okay fine, you win.. theyarecomingforyou 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph3100 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 No, the bomb would be the killing machine, not the car. That's like saying this lady's purse is a killing machine. The bomb was designed to kill/harm, just as the gun is. A gun has no other purpose, it's intention is to be used to seriously harm or kill. But if you want to say a gun is the same as pear, or water hose, okay fine, you win.. Oh, so then how do you have an issue with guns and not just bullets? I mean, the the bullet is the part that kills. The gun is just the piece that transports it. And if you can find a way to kill someone with a pear, then I will compare it to a gun. You didn't seem to reference any of the other comparisons made though, but rather setup some strawmen to fit your schema. psmoked 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odom Member Posted January 2, 2015 Member Share Posted January 2, 2015 Are you familiar with the term 'educated idiot'? It generally refers to someone who is book smart but lacking in common sense. Often no small about of hubris is comorbid. lol Brilliant!! Never heard that term, but describes many people I work with Ralph3100 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metallithrax Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 A car isn't a killing machine? Tell that to those who make car bombs. And I don't care what it is designed for, it is the use that matters. A machete isn't a killing machine but it makes a pretty good sword. A baseball bat isn't a killing machine, but it makes a pretty good club. A piece of steel pipe isn't a killing machine, but it makes a pretty good nightstick/shotgun/bomb. Those items, when used to kill, are being used away from their intended purpose. Guns were invented for one purpose and that is to kill something/someone. Cars were invented to transport people. Machetes to cut foliage/crops. A baseball bat to hit a baseball, and a piece of steel pipe to enable to movement of water/gas or other things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wakjak Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 the the bullet is the part that kills. The gun is just the piece that transports it. Bull. Without the gun, the bullet is useless. End of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph3100 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Those items, when used to kill, are being used away from their intended purpose. Guns were invented for one purpose and that is to kill something/someone. Cars were invented to transport people. Machetes to cut foliage/crops. A baseball bat to hit a baseball, and a piece of steel pipe to enable to movement of water/gas or other things. So as long as the intended purpose wasn't to kill something, then it can't be considered a weapon? Bull. Without the gun, the bullet is useless. End of. Without the car, the bomb is useless considering how integrated car bombs are. The argument that a certain inanimate object is inherently more evil because of it's "intended purpose" is ridiculous. Alfred Nobel created dynamite and it's intended purpose was for mining and demolitions, yet he was named as the "Merchant of Death." The object does not matter. The intention doesn't matter. The actions are what matter. trag3dy and psmoked 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimeMaster Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 So as long as the intended purpose wasn't to kill something, then it can't be considered a weapon? Cars are not weapons. Sure you can put a bomb into it, but same could be said with any object. A guns only purpose is to kill or damage living creatures, which is why it is considered a weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theyarecomingforyou Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 So as long as the intended purpose wasn't to kill something, then it can't be considered a weapon? Anything can be used as a weapon but not everything is designed as a weapon. At the end of the day fear caused this woman to carry around a weapon, a weapon that ultimately ended her own life. If the society she lived in was safe she would not have needed a weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts