Father kills four-year-old daughter after accidentally shooting her in the face

Well, this is true. A deadly weapon is a deadly weapon and should not be thought of as a toy. Human stupidity often leads to injuries or death.

On the subject of deadly weapons. I came across this video last year. I thought it might be of interest to you.

The Deadly Danger Of Swords - The Truth About Guns

"In many ways, being cut by a Katana is more debilitating and potentially deadly than being shot. An effective cut can and will sever not only flesh and muscle, but tendons, ligaments and even bone, penetrating to and severing internal organs. A thrust by a Katana can be more damaging or deadly than being shot."

"Drawing the weapon—drawing any sword—from its sheath/scabbard should immediately invoke an escalation to code red, and the slightest movement toward the officer must cause him to immediately shoot to stop the threat."

The Katana machetes in the video appear to be pretty sharp, but they are not as sharp as my Shinken.

 

This is true. The logic behind mandatory minimum sentencing and strike laws was to take discretion away from judges and, thus, lead to fairer and more proportional sentencing. However, this has not been the case in practice. Mandatory minimum sentences have led to even greater disproportional sentencing and overcrowding in prisons. California is a good case study for this. Mandatory minimum sentences are also not applied in a non-discriminatory manner. Prosecutors can and have found ways to get around mandatory minimum sentences, so not all defendants will be treated the same. So, the trend now is to get rid of mandatory minimum sentences, especially when it comes to drugs.

 

The Clintons are taking heat right now over some of the effects of the Crime Bill that was signed into law during his presidency. I believe mandatory minimums were among it's provisions.

 

The graphic you posted depicts the "slippery slope argument." This is commonly pointed out to be a logical fallacy and a failure of critical thinking. The issue can be dealt with without it creeping into other areas. Protecting the 2nd Amendment--although I wouldn't necessarily call what these people are doing "protecting it"--doesn't create a bulwark against an assault on other Constitutional provisions. Each can be handled separately-and is--on its own merits.

 

Except that a lot of the killing is of innocent victims, even when the gun itself is handled properly. Being "ready to kill" can mean a lot of things.

 

Yeah retconing history is always a treat. I used to give the Clintons credit for reducing crime with this legislation. Now I see that the winds of social justice are shifting and now we have to go back and judge past behaviors from a different time period by what is happening in this time period as a direct result of that very legislation. Less crime. Period. Across the board.


But, hey lets forget about that...it's time for some OUTRAGE!!!!

 

Lord forbid you use a term like "super predator". Bill summed it up here:

President Bill Clinton Defends Wife's "Super Predator" Comment

 

IIRC, there isn't agreement that the Crime Bill led to reduced crime. Historically, crime goes up and down on its own. As a matter of fact, the crime rate was already going down before the bill was passed due to the decreasing popularity of crack-cocaine.

 

Well, that wasn't what I was implying so it all works out. You'll notice I didn't say anything about private gun ownership (which, by the way, I have no problems with).

My point, as I have stated here numerous times, is that the view of gun safety has drastically shifted.

Years ago, the NRA course taught you to keep your ammo and firearm locked up separately. Now, we have a presidential contender telling us how he keeps a loaded pistol in his nightstand.

 

Crime goes up and down on its own? But then you correctly surmise that crack was a leading cause of crime. Crack smells like a cause of crime, and indeed it does go up and down but there are certainly factors that attribute to its rise and eventual downfall.


I believe getting tough on crime (3 strikes, super predators, etc) indeed had an effect on lowering crime rates. And of course those crime bills were related to crack. Crack caused crime to increase, and our more involved attention to crack (dealers) resulted in lowering crime.

 

What I meant is that crime goes up and down without intervention from the government. Governmental actions can have an effect on crime, but there isn't proof that the Crime Bill had much of an effect on the crack epidemic. As I said earlier, crack was already losing popularity and the crime rate was going down before the bill was passed. It looks like a case of politicians taking credit for something that was already occurring organically.

The same thing happened when New York implemented initiatives based on the Broken Windows Theory. They credit their crackdown on small crimes for reducing their overall crime rate, but the crime rate had gone down just about everywhere else in the country during that time period.

 

I don't know, if this dad were killing a deer and his daughter's face stepped in front of the gun, that's one thing- this guy had his gun out, loaded, safety off, and pointed IN THE HOUSE with his kid there. Reckless.

 

Rich, the condescending act is wearing a bit thin. I'm quite capable of critical thinking, thank you very much, and I can see you delivering that line with a sad shake of your head while clucking your tongue. Sometimes, common sense (often sorely lacking in academia) is more important than critical thinking.

Why do you suppose that the far left is absolutely obsessed with banning guns for ordinary citizens? It sure as hell isn't about safety, because when the phone doesn't ring, you'll know that it's a progressive fascist who wants to discuss the wholesale slaughter of blacks by other blacks with guns. The problem is that all those guns are already illegal, so that doesn't fit their agenda of disarming the populace. It's much more politically viable for them to go after "assault weapons" (a false characterization, they've been illegal since 1934), which are used in 1/10th of 1 percent of violent crimes.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it;

National Review Online

 

Oh, I'm sure one who dishes it out in such copious amounts can handle a little bit in return--even if it's just his imagination.

 

You think I'm condescending?

You've GOT to be kidding......

 

There are all kinds of people in this world... Sure a ban on guns can be imposed, but that won't guarantee a decrease in people's dumbness!