Uncle accidentally shoots 2-year-old niece in the face while trying out new Christmas gift

A 2-year-old girl in Oregon was rushed to the hospital after being shot in the face on Christmas morning by her uncle.
The Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office said officers received a 911 call just after 11:00 a.m. on Friday informing them that a child had been shot in the face with a handgun. The shooting occurred at a home near Molalla.

The uncle who shot her, 24-year-old Luke Andrew Bowman, reportedly was cleaning a .45 caliber handgun when it went off, striking the girl in the cheek.

A sheriff’s deputy told KGW the uncle had been given a gun cleaning kit for Christmas.

The girl was flown to a Portland area hospital to undergoing surgery. She is expected to survive.
The Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office said no criminal charges had been filed.

Video on link


http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/uncle-accidentally-shoots-2-year-old-niece-in-the-face-while-trying-out-new-christmas-gift/


UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Makes me so bloody angry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I didnt even need to read this to be able to say ...another ----....

1 why was he doing this where the kid was present?
2 why was he cleaning a LOADED weapon?
3 why is a brain dead moron like this even allowed in the same county as a firearm????

OI...who censored ---- ??

Censored?

yeah i wrote ----


as in female bits....

and got ----

So you should, it's a horrible word, so there!!!!!!   But I agree, he is one!

nothing wrong with it at all..its a perfectly valid anglo saxon word for a pouch into which to place ones sycthe stone....(they also used it for the other purpose, the allusion being obvious)

but hey this is discrimination in favour of thaose damned norman invaders

I mean I dont see vagina being censored

DISCRIMINATION I say....

Racist and regionalist....

pfffffft

PMSL vic

This shouldn't be made into an anti-gun control piece however, I mean, it could just have easily happened while cleaning his knife or car right????

TBH Eil I dont think this is "anti gun control fodder" or even anti gun fodder

it is however a damning indictment of the level of safety awareness that infests 90% or more of american activities.

their accident stats are appalling, their approach to health and safety, even on a personal level is appaling.

Its like

"careful with that its dangerous"

yeah? and?

sigh


guns circular saws, vehicles (as in working on them) most machinery in fact....

the ONLY thing most yanks are scared of is electricity....and they only have a puny 120v between phases,,,

and 60v to earth...


pussies....

Eilzel wrote:PMSL vic

This shouldn't be made into an anti-gun control piece however, I mean, it could just have easily happened while cleaning his knife or car right????

Oh that was gooooooooooooooooood!

Vic, I agree this is also showing up a major level of idiocy (though this kind of idiocy is far too common is most countries to be fair). But surely with such idiocy rampant, that more reason to have harsher control measures?

that, eil could be applied to many things

like cars

refugees

knives

voting

etc...


wrapping people in cotton wool is dictatorship, and the worst kind of dictatorship (or at least the most dishonest) is the dictatorsip of "for your own good"

Those things are all different though. We use knives in cooking, voting is a right to decide who governs our state, in this world travel without cars would be massively inconvenient, I don't know where refugees fit.

Guns though? Aside from the police and necessary culling of animals, and farmers, I don't see any good reason to be owning a gun. That, and they are dangerous and make killing easy.

There is a strict etiquette for handling firearms, anyone not adhering to it should be banned for life for ever TOUCHING one.

Aerosol.

Last year at a car boot sale I offered advice to a bloke selling 3 pellet guns, he pointed a rifle ant a onlooker, when told he said it was not loaded and only a pellet gun, bleedin moron.

Eilzel wrote:Those things are all different though. We use knives in cooking, voting is a right to decide who governs our state, in this world travel without cars would be massively inconvenient, I don't know where refugees fit.

Guns though? Aside from the police and necessary culling of animals, and farmers, I don't see any good reason to be owning a gun. That, and they are dangerous and make killing easy.

the differences you see in these things are merely the differences of your own predjudice

you consider you need to cook
drive
vote etc

YOU dont consider guns "necessary". YOU are not interested

therfore YOU are suffering from the typical leftist ideology of "I dont do it and I dont see why anyone else should want to do it and i'd like to take away their right to"

simply becasue I'm a miserable, boring left wing git.

I bet you are getting into collecting man hole covers

1 knives could be far more restricted witout stopping people cooking

2 voting should be restricted to those of an IQ fit to make such decisions

3 cars SHOULD have greater restrictions on them.... In the UK any idiot, criminal and such can take charge of a 1 1/2 ton guided missile

Us whites will all need guns shortly when the riots kick off..

Why do you think Bliar took our hand guns off us?

Vic, tell me how guns are necessary in the same way cars and cooking are...

my point is that "necessity" isnt the defining factor

pubs and booze are not "necessary"

nor are houses of worship

nor is TV

you have no "need" to see or hear news...you just do as you are told...

there is no "need" for anything other than standard, utilitarian clothing,

If "need" was the defining factor.... we would indeed have the leftist wet dream of little grey men in little grey boxes ...etc.....

Now I ...along with 10's of 1000's of others enjoy my shooting, both clay, game and vermin


the game I shoot ends up on my table

2/3rds of the "vermin" I shoot likewise (rabbits and pigeons) shooting the rest helps keep food costs to the rest of you sad sacks down....

personally I hate cars with music playing in them....its got to distract the driver

BAN IT

too many drivers are assholes...BAN EM and make getting a car licence as hard as a gun licence

I dont like evening town centers full of puking drunken youths when I'm returning from a night at te opera...

BAN night clubs ...in fact ban booze ????

theres a LOT that I dont like....that isnt "necessary"
(and incidently poses as big a threat to life if not bigger....than guns In this country)

all your posts so far are proving is that my suspicions are right...your objections are nothing to do with either safety or well being, but predicated on "If I dont do it , then neither should you"

cars SHOULD be far more heavily restricted, (or at least the licence to use one)

I didnt say ban cooking...but there is NO reason for the arsenal of ironmongery that folks have in their knife drawers...

the "man in the street" needs no more than one sharp veggie knife and a carving knife aside from that "safe" plastic cutlery is available and quite adequate for the purpose.

nor did I suggest not having voting....

but it should be "restricted" to those of sufficient IQ

necessity should not be the driving factor behind these things... nor, alternatively, should desire (to own) be the final factor....

Not of course to mention the economic input of shooting,

OR

more importantly, the ecological benefits

Sorry vic but that's an inane rant. I mean, just read back, you've simply piled a load of assertions on me with no real reason at all.

Of course many things we do are not 'necessary', but no I don't call for bans on them. I like gaming, travelling, reading, drinking in pubs, watching football, eating nice but unhealthy food and so on. I don't like extreme sports, watching reality TV, pop music, drinking too much or many other things- that doesn't mean I think they shouldn't be allowed. So forget that nonsense line of argument, along with your pet rant of 'lefty grey men'.

Unlile all the above mentioned things, guns are lethal weapons and have only one real purpose- to kill. There is no reason sonething solely designed to kill should be as readily available to joe public as it is in the USA.

Nothing to do with your waffle about banning everything or only wanting what's good for us (lefties), but about taking guns away from the masses and preventing and endless procession of fatal shooting victims.

Eilzel wrote:PMSL vic

This shouldn't be made into an anti-gun control piece however, I mean, it could just have easily happened while cleaning his knife or car right????

Well done les. Nicely played.

Two great arguments from both Vic and les and I cannot decide, if I was the judge of this, which side I'd pick.
I'm more leaning toward Les' side though tbf

Eilzel wrote:Sorry vic but that's an inane rant. I mean, just read back, you've simply piled a load of assertions on me with no real reason at all.

Of course many things we do are not 'necessary', but no I don't call for bans on them. I like gaming, travelling, reading, drinking in pubs, watching football, eating nice but unhealthy food and so on. I don't like extreme sports, watching reality TV, pop music, drinking too much or many other things- that doesn't mean I think they shouldn't be allowed. So forget that nonsense line of argument, along with your pet rant of 'lefty grey men'.

Unlile all the above mentioned things, guns are lethal weapons and have only one real purpose- to kill. There is no reason sonething solely designed to kill should be as readily available to joe public as it is in the USA.

Nothing to do with your waffle about banning everything or only wanting what's good for us (lefties), but about taking guns away from the masses and preventing and endless procession of fatal shooting victims.

clearly many many americans disagree with you , Eil and yet you would "dictate" whats "best for them"



and YES it is (in this country) ALL about lefty tree hugging "I dont do it so why should you " types

the rabid whingers that want to totally ban gun ownership ARE EXACTLY the same people who want to also ban angling.
and eating meat...

and......

the same cloistered fools who thing animals should be given "human rights". And incidently, are DEMANDING the right to trample over anyones and everyones land , without regard and with no responsibility...

curiously 99% of them are townies wonder if theres a connection

You are going hammer and tongs about shooting and hunting foxes with hounds, think about this, THE BARBARIC WAY FISH ARE NETTED AND HAULED ABOARD AT SEA, DYING FROM NO AIR TO BREATHE, BEING SQUASHED AND DROPPED INTO THE HOLD ALIVE
CRUELTY IS EVERYWHERE whether it be necessary to eat or not.

Halal meat slaughter??????????????

the argument is a bit blurred since the situation over in america is much different to over here

BUT the cretins of the anti shooting lobby here are the same ones that shout about america and try to conflate the two....

there is NO argument that carries any convincing weight for ANY further restrictions in this country....

the ONLY grounds on which it could be made would be safety...and any attempt to do so is rendered sheer hypocrisy by the number of vehicular deaths and injuries caused every year.

legally owned guns last year killed less than 10 ? people most of which were accidents anyway, and which accidents were generally NOT due to malicious negligence



legally owned vehicles killed over 1000, mostl;y accidents which however WERE due rto malicious negligence

speeding
using a phone
pissing about with music players or sat navs
drunk
over tired
drugs


and I'm not even suggesting banning cars

merely making the aquisition of them as difficult as a gun

and yet as seen since it doesnt "suit" (presumably becasue he thinks it might affect him) Eil cry's "foul"

my shotgun cert allows me to carry a potentially deadly weapon of certain sizes...

why shouldnt YOUR driving licence be as tough, since it clearly allows you to drive up to a 7 tonne guided missile

can ANYONE tell me why those of criminal background should NOT be allowed a licence to drive
why those who are KNOWN drug abusers (inc alcohol) should not be dis allowed (even when NOT under the influence)

etc

why shouldnt the would be driver have to PROVE his "good character" and be seen to be of "temperate habits"

oh yes...I forgot...THAT would bite YOUR ass???

Stormee wrote:You are going hammer and tongs about shooting and hunting foxes with hounds, think about this, THE BARBARIC WAY FISH ARE NETTED AND HAULED ABOARD AT SEA, DYING FROM NO AIR TO BREATHE, BEING SQUASHED AND DROPPED INTO THE HOLD ALIVE
CRUELTY IS EVERYWHERE whether it be necessary to eat or not.

Halal meat slaughter??????????????

Pfffft Stormee

you will note the whingers in this are townies and or refugees from town into the country


wall em all in their towns ...

or they will have us eating nowt but fungus and hummus (aka compost)

the same principle applies with the flooding

townies deciding what the country side needs ....

you only have to see didges so called contribution....and the depth of his PRACTICAL knowlege of how to handle a few billion gallons of wet stuff....

Have to agree with Stormee there, left out of water and squashed under tons of other fish. people who complain about Course Fishing say nothing about this.....Saw a program recently where Indonesian fisher men caught Sharks, cut of all their fins,and threw them back in the sea alive. A sickening sight to see them under water with their gills still working slowly sink to the bottom to die.Just for the fucking Chinese to enjoy their Shark fin soup!

Going back to the beginning.

The responsibility/guilt on this particular tragedy rests squarely at the door of the drongo uncle and IMO he should be put before the courts.

I have to say, the level of incompetence implied here is really hard to fathom. I don't know how you get two steps into the process of cleaning a .45 without checking the chamber. In fact, I don't know how you get two steps into the process of doing anything with a .45 without checking the chamber.

Lord Foul wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Sorry vic but that's an inane rant. I mean, just read back, you've simply piled a load of assertions on me with no real reason at all.

Of course many things we do are not 'necessary', but no I don't call for bans on them. I like gaming, travelling, reading, drinking in pubs, watching football, eating nice but unhealthy food and so on. I don't like extreme sports, watching reality TV, pop music, drinking too much or many other things- that doesn't mean I think they shouldn't be allowed. So forget that nonsense line of argument, along with your pet rant of 'lefty grey men'.

Unlile all the above mentioned things, guns are lethal weapons and have only one real purpose- to kill. There is no reason sonething solely designed to kill should be as readily available to joe public as it is in the USA.

Nothing to do with your waffle about banning everything or only wanting what's good for us (lefties), but about taking guns away from the masses and preventing and endless procession of fatal shooting victims.

clearly many many americans disagree with you , Eil and yet you would "dictate" whats "best for them"



and YES it is (in this country) ALL about lefty tree hugging "I dont do it so why should you " types

the rabid whingers that want to totally ban gun ownership ARE EXACTLY the same people who want to also ban angling.
and eating meat...

and......

the same cloistered fools who thing animals should be given "human rights". And incidently, are DEMANDING the right to trample over anyones and everyones land , without regard and with no responsibility...

curiously 99% of them are townies  wonder if theres a connection

The argument against the public having access to guns is not, as you always falsely claim, about the left dictating to gun owners what is best for them. It's about the left dictating to gun owners what is best for public safety.

There's nothing unreasonable about regulating anything that poses a threat to public safety. As in every other issue, we weigh the concerns of public safety against individual liberty and generally, as in the case of driving cars, come up with a reasonable compromise.

but ben...the driving of ars is clearly NOT a "reasonable compromise"

in fact as I understand it, your deaths from vehicles is almost the same as from guns.

doesnt that kinda ring a bell...or is the fact that any restrictions on the ownership, (or at least the PRIVILIDGE of driving one) likely to impact YOU what drives your "defense " of allowing any twat to own a car

yep by all means regulate gun use...you KNOW it makes sense...but dont play the hypocrite and defend the indefensible when it comes to letting any loon loose in a vehicle...

I have not said BAN cars...just make em (or rathere the licence) as regulated as you would gun licences...

lets make it simple

why is it accpetable to have all the restrictions on gun owners...

well here we have few killings with guns, so all is good...

BUT we have 1000+ deaths a year from vehicles....

and yet thats fine...great...carry on killing.....

hypocrisy much methinks.....

can YOU perhaps tell me why a criminal, a druggie etc can have a car....?
why should the man who indulges in domestic abuse not lose his licence to drive, on the reasonable grounds that there is good cause to doubt his self control?

can you tell me why a potential car driver should not be subject to background checks, need a referee, and show him/herself to be of temperate habits? and able to conduct him/her self in a temperate and measured manner?

what ...exactly is wrong with the above expectations?

All you are doing, by quoting "public safety" etc etc , is reinforceing the quite valid belief that you are ONLY interested in such safety when it involves something in WHICH YOU HAVE NO INTEREST and the moment anyone suggests restrictions on what you get off on , then its a different matter....no matter the fact that it is just as much a danger to public safety....

Ben_Reilly wrote:I have to say, the level of incompetence implied here is really hard to fathom. I don't know how you get two steps into the process of cleaning a .45 without checking the chamber. In fact, I don't know how you get two steps into the process of doing anything with a .45 without checking the chamber.

and with this I can only agree 100%

Stormee wrote:Going back to the beginning.

The responsibility/guilt on this particular tragedy rests squarely at the door of the drongo uncle and IMO he should be put before the courts.

quite Stormee...

child endangerment,
negligence
misuse of a fire arm
possibly even criminal assault?

perhaps he should also have his nuts chopped to stop him breeding....

Ben_Reilly wrote:I have to say, the level of incompetence implied here is really hard to fathom. I don't know how you get two steps into the process of cleaning a .45 without checking the chamber. In fact, I don't know how you get two steps into the process of doing anything with a .45 without checking the chamber.

Perhaps he shot her deliberately?

Lord Foul wrote:but ben...the driving of ars is clearly NOT a "reasonable compromise"

in fact as I understand it, your deaths from vehicles is almost the same as from guns.

doesnt that kinda ring a bell...or is the fact that any restrictions on the ownership, (or at least the PRIVILIDGE of driving one) likely to impact YOU what drives your "defense " of allowing any twat to own a car

yep by all means regulate gun use...you KNOW it makes sense...but dont play the hypocrite and defend the indefensible when it comes to letting any loon loose in a vehicle...

I have not said BAN cars...just make em (or rathere the licence) as regulated as you would gun licences...

lets make it simple

why is it accpetable to have all the restrictions on gun owners...

well here we have few killings with guns, so all is good...

BUT we have 1000+ deaths a year from vehicles....

and yet thats fine...great...carry on killing.....

hypocrisy much methinks.....

can YOU perhaps tell me why a criminal, a druggie etc can have a car....?
why should the man who indulges in domestic abuse not lose his licence to drive, on the reasonable grounds that there is good cause to doubt his self control?

can you tell me why a potential car driver should not be subject to background checks, need a referee, and show him/herself to be of temperate habits? and able to conduct him/her self in a temperate and measured manner?

what ...exactly is wrong with the above expectations?

OK, to simplify this, I'm going to use my home state of Texas as the example, because I don't think you really understand the gun issue here in America. Restrictions on gun laws vary from state to state, but this is how it works in the second-largest state in the U.S. (population and area):

* In Texas, when you buy a car, you must register it with the state. You don't have to register a gun.

* In Texas, when you apply for a driver's license, you must pass a state driving test. There is no license required to own a gun, nor is there any test gun owners must pass.

* If you want to drive, you must have an annual safety (and emissions) inspection and registration renewal, along with insurance. None of these are required of Texas gun owners.

* The only requirement when purchasing a gun from a licensed dealer is that you present a valid state ID. This is not required when buying a gun from an individual. There is no criminal background check or waiting period.

* You can obtain a license to carry a pistol concealed on your person and openly (as of Jan. 1). There is no license required to travel in public carrying a long gun.

* You can carry a loaded pistol within arm's reach in your car so long as it's concealed. You can do the same with a long gun without having to conceal it.

* There is no restriction on the number of rounds an ammunition clip is allowed to hold, nor on the amount of ammunition you're allowed to own.

* There is no restriction on ownership of AR15, FAL or G3/HK91 rifles.

So while you're arguing that car ownership isn't regulated heavily enough, I'm showing you that for Texas -- and many other states, for that matter -- there is virtually NO regulation of gun ownership.

Lord Foul wrote:All you are doing, by quoting "public safety" etc etc , is reinforceing the quite valid belief that you are ONLY interested in such safety when it involves something in WHICH YOU HAVE NO INTEREST and the moment anyone suggests restrictions on what you get off on , then its a different matter....no matter the fact that it is just as much a danger to public safety....

Who says I have no interest in gun ownership? I am a gun owner -- currently in possession of a Rock Island Armory .45 automatic and about two dozen rounds.

mmm that of course is a uniquely american problem innit.

by all means regulate your guns....

by all means...i think your statistics show the need...

but then dont stand there patting yourself on the back feeling all smug and self righteous...

1 that car licence is nothing...meaningless in real terms It says NOTHING about the "character" of the driver ...only that he has been taught to point the ruddy thing

2 as for the rest its mere commentary and has no bearing on "fitness to own"


this is part of what I mean by the hypocrisy of the regulate everything task force....

you have 2 quite equal killers at work....but only one gains the attention of the lefty tree huggers, why?? because the other might just bite them in the ass too....

over HERE of course the situation is far clearer

our gun regulation is very strong, and the results show this works...

but there is an element (and I'm sorry but) belonging entirely to the lefty dictators with the use of tree hugger hysterics who want a total ban...purely for their own selfish reasons...(its their religion you see) Yet who at the same time PROVE the lies and hypocrisy that drives them , by caring nothing for their fellow men who are mown down in droves by their guided missiles.....

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:All you are doing, by quoting "public safety" etc etc , is reinforceing the quite valid belief that you are ONLY interested in such safety when it involves something in WHICH YOU HAVE NO INTEREST and the moment anyone suggests restrictions on what you get off on , then its a different matter....no matter the fact that it is just as much a danger to public safety....

Who says I have no interest in gun ownership? I am a gun owner -- currently in possession of a Rock Island Armory .45 automatic and about two dozen rounds.

and it sits there and every aniversary holds a party for the ammunition?

why do you have it...do you actually care if you have one or not and why? the posession of a thing doesnt of necessity indicate any great proprietal interest in it

do you shoot competitively? (the ONLY reason in a sane society for a hand gun)

for "home defence"...would you be able to access it quickly enough, and be calm enough...to effectively use it (let alone have the balls to take a life)

because its a "thing to have" ? and all your mates have one, and you dont want to be known as "no gun Ben"?

or for the comming zombie apocalypse?

moreover doesnt it occur to you that, were the same rules to be applied to gun and car licences....if you held one, you could rightly claim the other so what difference does it make to you ??

or perhaps you have some dark secret that you know would disbar you from either???

Hmmmm excellent points there Vic. I'd like to know why Benji has a gun...?

Lord Foul wrote:mmm that of course is a uniquely american problem innit.

by all means regulate your guns....

by all means...i think your statistics show the need...

but then dont stand there patting yourself on the back feeling all smug and self righteous...

1 that car licence is nothing...meaningless in real terms  It says NOTHING about the "character" of the driver ...only that he has been taught to point the ruddy thing

2 as for the rest its mere commentary and has no bearing on "fitness to own"


this is part of what I mean by the hypocrisy of the regulate everything task force....

you have 2 quite equal killers at work....but only one gains the attention of the lefty tree huggers,   why??  because the other might just bite them in the ass too....

over HERE of course the situation is far clearer

our gun regulation is very strong, and the results show this works...

but there is an element (and I'm sorry but) belonging entirely to the lefty dictators with the use of tree hugger hysterics who want a total ban...purely for their own selfish reasons...(its their religion you see) Yet who at the same time PROVE the lies and hypocrisy that drives them , by caring nothing for their fellow men who are mown down in droves by their guided missiles.....

And this story is an American story (that gets played out in some form or fashion every day here). So keeping this in America:



Regulations are absolutely effective on automobiles, as you can see by how the percentage of the population killed in auto accidents continues to drop in this chart starting in 1950.

Why do we have these regulations? Because we horrible lefties care about people getting killed in auto accidents, too:

Democrats push auto safety reform bill (2015)

House bill proposes tougher auto safety rules (2014)

Democrats Revive Push for Auto Safety Bill (2010)

You can find many more examples.

eddie wrote:Hmmmm excellent points there Vic. I'd like to know why Benji has a gun...?

Because I grew up in a high-crime neighborhood and it makes me feel safer to have one. I have no idea whether I could kill someone with it, though I doubt it would have to come to that (warning shot?). I freely admit that it's mainly something to make me feel like I could protect myself if I had to. I'd happily submit to any and all regulations on it, if only we could have some ...

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Hmmmm excellent points there Vic. I'd like to know why Benji has a gun...?

Because I grew up in a high-crime neighborhood and it makes me feel safer to have one. I have no idea whether I could kill someone with it, though I doubt it would have to come to that (warning shot?). I freely admit that it's mainly something to make me feel like I could protect myself if I had to. I'd happily submit to any and all regulations on it, if only we could have some ...

Fair enough. It's hard for us to imagine, as over here it's kind of rare, for someone "ordinary" (non gang member, non-hunter etc) to have a gun.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Hmmmm excellent points there Vic. I'd like to know why Benji has a gun...?

Because I grew up in a high-crime neighborhood and it makes me feel safer to have one. I have no idea whether I could kill someone with it, though I doubt it would have to come to that (warning shot?). I freely admit that it's mainly something to make me feel like I could protect myself if I had to. I'd happily submit to any and all regulations on it, if only we could have some ...

a warning shot ???? with that cannon????



fook me...now i KNOW why americans should be disarmed....

even if you fired vertically into the air.....


what goes up....eventually comes down, and in the case of a .45 round is still capable of killing....

how far will that round go...before it runs entirely out of steam ?

I mean the humble .22 long rifle is dangerous within a mile.....

where, pray.....are you going to direct that "warning shot"??

and as far as you other post is concerned...those regs are mainly construction rules for safety....yes great as far as it goes....but what about the biggest killer....the nut behind the wheel....???

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Because I grew up in a high-crime neighborhood and it makes me feel safer to have one. I have no idea whether I could kill someone with it, though I doubt it would have to come to that (warning shot?). I freely admit that it's mainly something to make me feel like I could protect myself if I had to. I'd happily submit to any and all regulations on it, if only we could have some ...

Fair enough. It's hard for us to imagine, as over here it's kind of rare, for someone "ordinary" (non gang member, non-hunter etc) to have a gun.

non gun owners are not "ordinary" they are aberrant.

and I object to being considered in the same category as a "gang member"
the worst kind of association fallacy.....

like lumping veggies with pro life bombers


grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Lord Foul wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Hmmmm excellent points there Vic. I'd like to know why Benji has a gun...?

Because I grew up in a high-crime neighborhood and it makes me feel safer to have one. I have no idea whether I could kill someone with it, though I doubt it would have to come to that (warning shot?). I freely admit that it's mainly something to make me feel like I could protect myself if I had to. I'd happily submit to any and all regulations on it, if only we could have some ...

a warning shot ????  with that cannon????



fook me...now i KNOW why americans should be disarmed....

even if you fired vertically into the air.....


what goes up....eventually comes down, and in the case of a .45 round is still capable of killing....

how far will that round go...before it runs entirely out of steam ?

I mean the humble .22 long rifle is dangerous within a mile.....

where, pray.....are you going to direct that "warning shot"??

and as far as you other post is concerned...those regs are mainly construction rules for safety....yes great as far as it goes....but what about the biggest killer....the nut behind the wheel....???

I would fire through the wall my bedroom shares with a utility closet, at a downward angle so that it goes into the floor. The surrounding walls should be enough to make sure any shrapnel isn't lethal.

As far as bad driving goes, we're constantly running government awareness campaigns trying to get people not to drive drunk, while texting, etc. What would you do?

what would I do? make would be drivers subject to the same standards as gun owners here....

in depth backgound checks
no criminality
no domestic violence record (even suspected)
a referee
no history of excess drinking or drugs
medical records available
regular reviews
and of temperate behaviour and habits....

coupled with catstrophic sentencing for breaches of the least detail or error in paperwork relating to sales and transfers of vehicles.....

or for misuse thereof

and of course things like drink driving would instantly gain you a lifetime ban
and reckless use like excessive speeding (like 20 over the limit) would see you in gaol for at least 5 years and a life time ban
etc....