Topic: Pro gun mom got shot by her 4 years old son - page 2. (Read 2238 times)

No, you didn't, but your "simple" ideas will easily lead to people being stripped of those rights. There are no laws that allowed her to do this,she did it because she is irresponsible. Laws won't make irresponsible people magically more responsible. In fact what she did is already illegal! The prosecutor just decided that she was the injured party, she had already suffered enough and decided not to prosecute which is at their discretion as prosecutors, it doesn't mean there isn't a law against it. Also its not just the NRA, THE PEOPLE largely do not want gun control. Mostly a minority of hysterical control freaks driven by media fear mongering are the ones pushing gun control, and 9 times out of 10 they have never even held a gun and know nothing about firearms to begin with to even make an informed decision about them. Gun control freaks ALWAYS appeal to emotion to sell their ideology. Debating gun control advocates is like debating moody teenage girls on their periods. Everything upsets them to tears, and their emotional trauma is obviously caused by guns, certainly not their own emotional instability!

It is very simple.  Some people should not be allowed to own or use guns.  Guns should be confiscated from those people as they are endangering themselves and others around them.  Yes, guns will be used to confiscate guns from them.  How in the world you got to the hypocrite part?  Do you even know what the word means?

How do you disarm a lunatic with a gun in a theater?  With other guns.  No sure what is your point?

If you change the laws, that 2nd amendment right will not apply to you if you don't meet new legal requirements.  So your guns would be confiscated from you.  If you resist, guns will be used to force you
to comply with the law.  If you confront police with fire, you'll be dead.  Just like today, if you try to fire at a cop, you'll be dead within minutes, hours or days.

Which part of my argument you don't understand?

...and even more shifting goal posts! We are arguing you are a hypocrite demanding the use of guns to disarm people. Your inability to have this contradiction enter your brain doesn't invalidate the argument.

You are so focused on your own righteousness that you can't even see the nose on your face. His point is gun control MUST be enforced, you guessed it, by using guns. Armed police with guns will be required to enforce your anti-gun policy, but hey lets not let something minor like hypocrisy get in the way of a good antigun hysteria eh?

You pass the laws.  If someone breaks guns laws, it is a matter for police and courts.

If the existing gun owners don't meet the new legal requirements, their guns would be confiscated by police and sold at auctions.  Proceeds can be used to pay off some of US 19T+ debt  

I won't add anything to the irony of this situation. It's just incredible that she doesn't realize how lucky she was to have a second chance. Most never had it.
30 000 deaths every year by guns in the USA. The highest murder rate of the Western world. Maybe start to think about it?
Anyway, seems at least her son can't aim well!

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/progun-mum-jamie-gilt-will-never-give-up-her-guns-despite-being-shit-by-son-family-say/news-story/36303137d00bab41c3e8eaa936e3319f

---

A MUM who was accidentally shot by her four-year-old son “will never give up her guns”, her family have announced.
Family members said Jamie Gilt will still be pro-gun — despite being almost killed in an accidental shooting in her truck.
Ms Gilt, 31, is in a stable condition and faces criminal charges after her son found a fully loaded .45 handgun next to his child booster seat and pulled the trigger.
The boy’s grandmother Jane Bramble told The Sun the youngster has no idea that he had almost killed his mum.
And she insisted her daughter would not change her opinion about owning guns — and will keep the semi automatic gun fired in the incident.
“This was an accident and nothing more,” said the 71-year-old from Palaka, Florida.
“All the gun control people are jumping on this, but it will not change her opinion about owning guns.
“She is very pro-gun and will not change her opinion about owning them.
“She will keep her guns and I’m happy that she will.”

Ms Bramble said her grandson was unaffected by the shooting.
“He is sitting opposite me eating pancakes and has no idea what he did. It was an accident, that is all it was.”
Ms Bramble refused to say how her grandson got hold of the loaded weapon.
“I don’t want to go into that now,” she said.
“I want to thank everyone for their support and prayers in this difficult time.
“The family wants to remain private and focus on the long road of healing ahead.”
Days before the shooting Ms Gilt had used social media to support the right to own guns and boasted that her son knew how to shoot.
“All of ours know how to shoot too. Even my 4-year-old gets jacked up to target shoot the .22,” she wrote in a Facebook posting.
As well as a personal account Ms Gilt has a Facebook page called “Jamie Gilt for Gun Sense”
The four-year-old boy has not been named and is in the care of his grandmother while social services launch an investigation. Police said he will not face any charges.
Ms Gilt was driving to her sister’s home near Jacksonville, Florida, when the youngster fired a single shot into the driver’s seat.

The bullet passed through her back and exited out of her stomach.
A police officer saw the driver waving at him frantically and when he approached the vehicle Ms Gilt said her son had shot her in the back.
Police found a handgun on the floor of the vehicle and the boy was unrestrained in the child booster seat.
Ms Gilt was flown by air ambulance to the UF Hospital in Gainesville where she remains in a stable condition.
She has yet to be interviewed by police as doctors have said she is not medically fit to make a statement.
The Putnam County Sheriff’s Office said Ms Gilt could face a negligence charge if it was found the boy had easy access to the gun.
However, a former state prosecutor said it was unlikely Ms Gilt would be charged as she had suffered enough.
Harry Shorstein said “You have to put great weight on the fact that the person who is criminally liable is the one who was shot.
“I’d be very reluctant to prosecute in this situation.”

---

You are so focused on your own righteousness that you can't even see the nose on your face. His point is gun control MUST be enforced, you guessed it, by using guns. Armed police with guns will be required to enforce your anti-gun policy, but hey lets not let something minor like hypocrisy get in the way of a good antigun hysteria eh?

Giving access to all citizens because of 2nd amendment is just too broad so you allow all people to own guns, people who should not be trusted with screwdrivers, never mind guns.

So you want some people to stop other people from having guns? How would they do it? By using guns?
...

2nd amendment is too broad. We are not equal.  We have lots of morons.  Morons should not have access to guns, ever!

BTW, if you think you can win with the present day US army with your rifles and handguns, you should make an appointment to see a psychiatrist.