# Teenage babysitter shoots baby while taking selfie



## ChibiMofo (Feb 27, 2020)

We are so much safer with guns everywhere. Thank you, NRA and your idiot members.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51663212

By the way, the usual response from the NRA is that if the baby had been armed, this wouldn't have happened. Their answer is always "moar guns!"


----------



## notimp (Feb 27, 2020)

World News, Current Events and Politics?

He guy, 'omg, so sad, omg so horrible, omg so important to know, omg so funny' works on facebook. What are you posting this in a forum for?

Likes?

Discussion?

Attention?

Laughter?

Noise?

Ok, lets use this opportunity... Media literacy education is about you all, at some point learning how to filter out the noise. That spreads very fast. And is very popular. But is entirely useless, and is just you hitting a button to trigger emotional feedback. For a while you are very satisfied emotionally. But in the end everyone loses.

In this case - there is not even an ironic angle here, or any aspect people could identify as additional value through an 'artful play with concepts'.

Its just... The most plain form of emotional outrage bait.

Not even the parents of that child would find it valuable, that you shared this information. They would not benefit from our shared condolences in the least. While posting, you had to know, that this would also draw malice, of people simply ridiculing the situation.

Is this you - Donald?

Oh sorry - yes gun debate. Thank you for making it so emotional. One person. Accident. Everyone saw it coming. Sure. Lets have the 'should you ban guns' discussion again, over this. Because Baby. After the five times we had it last year.

I'll start.

I am pro babys life, so we should ban guns. Whos against it?

No one? Great.

So why isn't it a law already?

#sosad #sounnecessary

:sademoji: :_prayemoji: :candleemoji:

edit: Hopefully without being too insensitive, lets look at this purely statistically this time:


> 505 deaths due to accidental or negligent discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms use with "undetermined intent".[9]


In 2013 (in US). First figure is the one relevant for in here.
src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

You can also take this graphic from the UK:


Spoiler











src: https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/nov/06/deaths-mortality-rates-cause-death-2011

And multiply its numbers by 5x (to get an equivalent to US population figures) to get other causes of death that might be relatively speaking as common.
(Accidental poisoning, accidental hanging, accidental falling, ...)


----------



## yuyuyup (Feb 27, 2020)

A good guy with a gun could have shot the bullet away


----------



## smileyhead (Feb 27, 2020)

Can I see the selfie?
I am going to Hell for this.


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 27, 2020)

I read the article. Lotsa stupid caused that child to be harmed. Stupid babysitter. Stupider parents. Stupid public education system that won't even teach the most fundamental, practical basics of living to students. (That's a personal peeve of mine - schools should teach how to use basic hand tools and make simple repairs, how to keep personal finances and manage a budget and bank account, basic first aid, basic safety practices with firearms, knives/axes, power tools * and the consequences if not followed * , basic civic obligations such as paying annual income and property taxes, renewing vehicle registration, legal functions of local government.) Blaming an inanimate object for harms is likewise stupid. When someone gets stabbed, do you blame the knife? When someone is killed by a drunk driver, do you blame the car? Besides being protected by the Constitution, firearm ownership provides weaker persons the possibility of defending themselves against more powerful aggressors (and don't pretend such events don't occur). But stupid is as stupid does, and stupid people cause serious harm to others every damned day simply by virtue of their stupidity and ignorance, no gun required. When some mishap with a firearm committed by a 19 year old moron does occur, because her older, adult sibling and their spouse left the 19 year old and their 10yr old child alone in the home with an unsecured _and loaded_ weapon, please have the sense to blame all the stupid involved.


----------



## notimp (Feb 27, 2020)

Oh btw. when are we invading Iran over 'people falling over stairs' (equivalent of 3000 deaths each year in the US - so the same as on 9/11)?

Thats your chance to put me on the ropes, by arguing, that you cant look at this plainly in a statistical fashion, because some deaths are more problematic and maybe more in vain than others. 

(Thats my present for having been so rude in the first place.  )


----------



## yuyuyup (Feb 27, 2020)

notimp said:


> Oh btw. when are we invading Iran over 'people falling over stairs' (equivalent of 3000 deaths each year in the US - so the same as on 9/11)?
> 
> Thats your chance to put me on the ropes, by arguing, that you cant look at this plainly in a statistical fashion, because some deaths are more problematic and maybe more in vain than others.
> 
> (Thats my present for having been so rude in the first place.  )


I think the time for argument is gone, the time for voting is nigh.  And that's all that really matters.


----------



## notimp (Feb 27, 2020)

yuyuyup said:


> I think the time for argument is gone, the time for voting is nigh.  And that's all that really matters.


Issue might be too small. Or not.

Thats what activism is for.

But in this case it may be more suited for facebook or other social platforms, that dont have people actually addressing the issue for lets say a week - until it is on page two (and with that out of our minds..  ). The temptation to just address this rationally, at least after a short while, is too high here..  (And yes, there is irony in me saying that..  )


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 28, 2020)

You do realize that even if guns were magically banished from existence (Or however you think Gun Control works), she could just as easily have gone to the kitchen, grabbed a knife and carried out the same exact actions, right?

That is one of the fundamental flaws about gun control; The root issue is never addressed, you're just going after a symptom *(Violent unhinged people being Violent & Unhinged)*. Now granted, we can't know in advance which people are going to commit violent crimes, so while I do not agree with disarming the population (Which thankfully is against the 2nd Amendment), I get that the next best scenario is to somehow limit the possibilities of more at risks populations from getting guns; However, the problem with those types of policies becomes a question of, who gets to *define "At Risk Populations"*, what is the *criteria to be considered "At Risk"* and finally is there sufficient *Due Process*? 

Here is a great example of the insidious nature of these types of policies and the tactlessness of their proponents.
no fly no buy

In a nutshell, if you were one of the unfortunate American Citizens to end up on the *"No Fly List",  *you would also be *disqualified to purchase a gun*. That sounds all well and good, until you realize that* ANYONE could end up on the No Fly List for virtually any reason or no reason at all*, and *WORSE*, *there is no Due Process and no way to appeal against the decision after the fact*!  This is just one of countless examples of the *disgusting overreach* that the so called *"Public Servants"* *of the Federal Government* *are guilty of *_(and this goes for both of the major Political Parties, just so we're clear)_*. *

The whole issue is just a damn mess, and while I personally would much rather have a _population that is capable of defending themselves* (Including it's most vulnerable members such as the Elderly & Physically Disabled neither of which could reasonably be expected to fight off a random thug, Burglar, etc in a fair fight)*_, and are* not at the mercy of corrupt Law Enforcement Agents or other Violent Unhinged people*, I concede that as things currently are, it is up to individual state's how they decide to regulate the purchase and possession of weapons within their borders.

Bottom line, the issue is not so Black & White, and it is *EXTREMELY* *naive* to expect Gun Violence *(or Violence in general) to cease* if Guns were banned, confiscated, or whatever on a national level *(Criminals don't care about the Law, they were never going to comply anyways*). At least if *law abiding citizens* (AKA The majority of people) are able to *obtain guns with as few obstacles as possible*, then most people would *at least stand a chance of defending themselves* against their would be assailants (*Whom again, were never going to abide by Anti Gun Laws anyways)*; Heck, even if one chooses to opt out of owning/possessing a gun under such a system (Myself for example because of depression), those people would still benefit from a sort of *"Herd Immunity"* So to speak, in that *many gun owners* *choose to Conceal Carry*, so without knowing who is carrying, the safest solution from the assailants POV would be not to take any chances* (Or do and find out the hard way).*

Just some food for thought.


----------



## morvoran (Feb 28, 2020)

https://q13fox.com/2020/01/28/polic...abbed-little-sister-while-saying-die-die-tmw/

OMG!!!  Here's a story i found where a 9 year old stabbed his 5 year old sister.  Why are so many knives able to get into the hands of children?  Why won't our governments ban these deadly weapons?  Why???  Please think of the children.  Damn you chefs of the world promoting the use of these evil assault weapons and you idiots who have knives in your homes.  Shame!!!  Shame!!!!

Please @ChibiMofo, calm down, take a deep breath and think rationally about this.  The world is full of idiots who will kill others regardless of the tool to do so.  If guns are banned, they'll use knives, hands, hammers, axes, vehicles, acid, poison................. I can go on. 
Just remember that guns are not alive or self aware.  They don't kill; only tools used to kill.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 28, 2020)

morvoran said:


> https://q13fox.com/2020/01/28/polic...abbed-little-sister-while-saying-die-die-tmw/
> 
> OMG!!!  Here's a story i found where a 9 year old stabbed his 5 year old sister.  Why are so many knives able to get into the hands of children?  Why won't our governments ban these deadly weapons?  Why???  Please think of the children.  Damn you chefs of the world promoting the use of these evil assault weapons and you idiots who have knives in your homes.  Shame!!!  Shame!!!!



Shhh! Don't give them any ideas

UK: Hold my beer

*Facepalms*


----------



## puss2puss (Feb 28, 2020)




----------



## mrdude (Feb 28, 2020)

Some people have been killed by a single punch - we should also ban people from having hands! In fact how many people die each year in road traffic accidents - should we also ban cars/trucks?

Banning stuff is just plain silly - people that are intent on killing others will just find another way to do it if guns were banned. The bottom line is that some people are just mental.


----------



## puss2puss (Feb 28, 2020)

mrdude said:


> Some people have been killed by a single punch - we should also ban people from having hands! In fact how many people die each year in road traffic accidents - should we also ban cars/trucks?.


well to be fair on both side, atleast dont compare hands with guns  i mean, you can kill with anything obviously, but, a gun is made for this.. 

in the end the real issue is not necessarly the number of death by guns, but the fact that humans have access to them easely, allowing them to ''feel'' the possibility to kill if needed.. just having this way of thinking, is an issue.

i dont like saying that..but.. there are parts in my life when i cant imagine what i would have done if i have had a gun..pretty sure i would have kill myself or hurt someone..  Guns would be fine if people knew how to behave.


----------



## DarkFlare69 (Feb 28, 2020)

This has nothing to do with the NRA or the "lenient" firearm laws. This was not her gun to use and she obviously had zero training with firearm usage/safety and no license to use this gun, or any gun for that matter. It disgusts me that people are going to sit here and defend some dumbass who thinks it's a good idea to steal someone else's gun, take pictures with said gun, and then to point the gun at a 10 year old child with her finger on the trigger. Yes, believe it or not, she did indeed point the gun at the child. The bullet did not magically bend space and then bounce off of every wall in the house and land directly in the boys stomach. A mentally well person would never even think of doing something like that. If you threw a mentally well person into a pool of guns and let them choose their gun of choice and do whatever they wanted without any consequences, I guarantee you none of them would even think about killing another human being. If they did think about killing another human being, then they're not mentally well.

Stop blaming guns for everything and start solving actual problems.


----------



## Dimensional (Feb 28, 2020)

The problem isn't that the person had a gun in their hand and assumed it wasn't loaded. The problem is the person wasn't educated in the ways of safety around firearms. Whether or not there is a firearm in someone's vicinity, everyone should be educated in how to safely and properly handle a firearm, as to avoid things like this. One, never leave firearms laying around IN THE OPEN! Two, if someone is going to handle a firearm, ensure they have proper education to ensure they know how to check if it's loaded or not, and unload it if they have no intent to use it.


----------



## chrisrlink (Feb 28, 2020)

isn't there an age restriction at least for teens not to use guns unsupervised any smart person would lock  in a gun vault with the ammo as for protection food for thought if your dog bites a burglar breaking into your house they would be quarantined regardless if the burglar is armed or not and if the dog killed the burglar they'll be put to sleep like if it mauled a bystander to death


----------



## Viri (Feb 28, 2020)

OH NO, a teen shot a baby while taking a selfie! Quick, we need to ban all guns, so this doesn't happen again!


----------



## notimp (Feb 28, 2020)

Ok. Hold your horses.

The idea in asking 'what are you doing' was to emphasize how unlikely the idea was to reach any productive or desired outcome with sharing a story like this.

Not to mobilize a bunch of people who then saw this as a threat to their beloved individual gun rights, took a cue - and started ridiculing even more.

My point was - that a story like this will never lead to political mobilization, not that it needs the entire friends of the NRA fraction in here to ensure that outcome.

If you've argued the initial position into the defensive already, dont kick people holding it around a bunch more, just for good meassure... I already dialed back on tone, because I felt bad, after venting, but Jesus - people, no one is taking away your manhood replacement toys over this.

And just for the record, not all gamers are gun nuts.


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 28, 2020)

DarkFlare69 said:


> .... to point the gun at a 10 year old child with her finger on the trigger. Yes, believe it or not, she did indeed point the gun at the child.




AND she pulled the trigger. No other explanation for the gun discharging. The gun was in her hand when it discharged, her finger was on the trigger, she applied pressure. They don't just just "go off."


----------



## Jokiz (Feb 28, 2020)

Getting tired of reading about Americans constantly using the "guns don't kill people" when something like this happens.
Fact of the matter is that countries with stricter gun laws have proven that it works.
Yes, a lot of people will still be able to get guns, and both accidents and murders will continue to happen, but these occurrences will decrease drastically!

The constitution was made in a time where people used single shot muskets, not getting automatic weapons at your local flee marked.


----------



## morvoran (Feb 28, 2020)

Jokiz said:


> Fact of the matter is that countries with stricter gun laws have proven that it works.
> Yes, a lot of people will still be able to get guns, and both accidents and murders will continue to happen, but these occurrences will decrease drastically!


 You should tell the people in Chicago they need stricter gun laws..... Oh, wait, they have the strictest gun laws in the US and also the highest gun related deaths per capita.  Hmm, why don't these gun laws work there?

Also, here's a good read:  https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-australias-gun-laws-reduced-gun-homicides/


----------



## Jokiz (Feb 28, 2020)

morvoran said:


> You should tell the people in Chicago they need stricter gun laws..... Oh, wait, they have the strictest gun laws in the US and also the highest gun related deaths per capita.  Hmm, why don't these gun laws work there?



And I guess most of those gun related deaths are similar to the one linked in this thread?
Besides, does strictest gun laws in the US really say much?


----------



## Pipistrele (Feb 28, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> But stupid is as stupid does, and stupid people cause serious harm to others every damned day simply by virtue of their stupidity and ignorance, no gun required.


Still, there's way more room for violence by stupidity when guns are involved. You bring a valid point in that people are way too stupid and irresponsible, but the whole point of gun control is in exactly that - keeping stupid and irresponsible people away from lethal weaponry.


----------



## morvoran (Feb 28, 2020)

Jokiz said:


> most of those gun related deaths are similar to the one linked in this thread..


 No, they're mostly linked to "gang violence".



Jokiz said:


> Besides, does strictest gun laws in the US really say much?


 the gun laws in chicago are similar to london and australia, but they don't have the same amount of overcrowded cities and gangs that the big cities in the US have.  In other words, gun laws don't mean anything if you have an overwhelming amount of violence.  Look at london and the knife related violence there.



Pipistrele said:


> but the whole point of gun control is in exactly that - keeping stupid and irresponsible people away from lethal weaponry.


 The point of gun control is to keep guns out of *everybody's* hands, not just the stupid ones with mental issues.  Plus guns aren't the only "lethal weaponry" available to killers.


----------



## Jokiz (Feb 28, 2020)

morvoran said:


> The point of gun control is to keep guns out of *everybody's* hands, not just the stupid ones with mental issues.  Plus guns aren't the only "lethal weaponry" available to killers.



Maybe off-topic with the thread, but I don't think the casualties of a school shooting would be the same if the killer ran around with a knife. 

If you blame the high numbers of gun-violence in the US on mental health issues and stupidity only, then your country really is more behind the rest of the world than I want to believe.


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 28, 2020)

The issue really boils down to responsibility. People who aren't trained in the use of firearms really have no business having them. If you can't be responsible with the weapons you own, you don't deserve to have them either. The problems of rising knife crime in London, like gun violence problems in large American cities, are the result of the social aspect of our culture being neglected.


----------



## Pipistrele (Feb 28, 2020)

morvoran said:


> The point of gun control is to keep guns out of *everybody's* hands, not just the stupid ones with mental issues.  Plus guns aren't the only "lethal weaponry" available to killers.


So far, whatever gun control measures are being applied in US states fail horribly at that task - especially since, as mentioned, it's not "just the stupid ones with mental issues" who can be dangerous in posession of guns, and lack of responsibility is a big factor too. Guns aren't the only "lethal weaponry" available to killers, but it's by far the most effective one. I mean, may as well up the ante and make landmines and grenades commercially legal, because"it's not explosives that kill people" and all.


----------



## notimp (Feb 28, 2020)

Jokiz said:


> and both accidents and murders will continue to happen, but these occurrences will decrease drastically!


The point also is, that those death rates are at the same level as -
- Fall out of/from/through a bulding structure
- Cystic vibrosis
and are only half as common as deaths related to
- Deseases of male genital organs

Furthermore, if you take death counts from school shootings in the US from 2014 to 2018 those average out at 35 a year - which is bad enough.

But you have to attest at some level that whats happening here is people taking public rituals of grievance to help people over traumatic events (terrorism, ...), caused by society, as seen in the media, as hyped by politicians (but thats actually good, because it makes those rituals more effective for once), take them entirely out of context in terms of day to day dangers in their daily lives - and just play 'something has to change, because pictures in the media' activism.

And if you have a problem such as this. Your role as a politician is to be there, to hug people and hold speeches. Maybe to crack down on the availability of some weapons that could easily be substituted in the male phantasy model of 'thinking you are powerful' with something far less dangerous. But to never make a structural change as 'impactful' as outlawing weapons straight out. (Economic considerations, adverse effects of them becoming more desirable (black market),..)

Now - not even in europe, where weapon laws are far more strict, and weapons are much less prevalent in daily live, would that baby have been saved in that situation by any laws imaginable, but only, maybe, by overall reduced probability.
-

Why are we much more 'clued in' on deaths in school shootings having to stop? (Allthough they are more than 10 times less likely than even those accidents) Because thats a delegation of responsibility of your child to society, and then society not being able to do something, while its being killed, because of societal conflicts (in the minds of nutcases). So for people to not freak and go - f*ck this societal model, it took my child away - you have massive condolence / grieving rituals, so people have a chance to get over those instances without radicalizing themselves.
Also because children are experiencing collective trauma here, and none of this is fun.

But in terms of pure statistical importance, it makes no sense for this to pop up seven times over a year in a forum like this. When another mass shooting atrocity happens, you give people the space and the time to address it, also in groups, to contextualize it, to try to make sense of it, to grieve, ... Obviously.

But when you are confronted with an accident, and people want to throw it out of proportion again? Then you could try for once to lay out how irrational peoples feeling based perceptions of the world really are.

Now in case anyone ever was personally affected by any of this - I'm sorry for my words. I'm doing the a-hole thing of only looking at this from  a macro/meso perspective. As in where individual peoples experiences, dont matter so much.


----------



## DarkFlare69 (Feb 28, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> AND she pulled the trigger. No other explanation for the gun discharging. The gun was in her hand when it discharged, her finger was on the trigger, she applied pressure. They don't just just "go off."


Yeah, exactly. I was about to say that but then I figured people would quote me and say "Well it could have been an accident, her finger could have slipped..." and a bunch of other very unlikely scenerios to try and make it seem like it's the guns fault. Pulling a trigger on a gun is not an automatic process where it can just accidentally happen. I don't understand at all how someone can "accidentally" do that. It's not like it's featherweight or something to where the slightest touch sets it off. In the unlikely scenerio that she actually did not want to shoot the child, then she must have been carelessly pushing the limits of the trigger, playing with it to see how far it could could depress before it would fire a shot. I'm just speculating at this point, trying to get into her mind and see what the hell she was possibly thinking during this.


----------



## morvoran (Feb 28, 2020)

Jokiz said:


> Maybe off-topic with the thread, but I don't think the casualties of a school shooting would be the same if the killer ran around with a knife.


 I'm sure somebody in a crowded place, such as a full subway car or a nightclub, could kill several people in a small amount of time with a knife.



Pipistrele said:


> So far, whatever gun control measures are being applied in US states fail horribly at that task


  Well, the US gives its citizens rights unlike your country, obviously.  Our second amendment gives us the right to protect ourselves.



Pipistrele said:


> it's by far the most effective one.


  I would think poisoning or explosives would be more effective than guns.



Jokiz said:


> If you blame the high numbers of gun-violence in the US on mental health issues and stupidity only, then your country really is more behind the rest of the world than I want to believe.





Pipistrele said:


> especially since, as mentioned, it's not "just the stupid ones with mental issues" who can be dangerous in posession of guns, and lack of responsibility is a big factor too.


I don't have the same outlook on people as you two. Anybody who would kill another with a gun that was not to protect themselves is both stupid and must have mental issues.  I can't see a mentally stable and intelligent person pointing a gun at somebody and pulling the trigger.  Maybe you have different standards than me.


----------



## notimp (Feb 29, 2020)

DarkFlare69 said:


> Pulling a trigger on a gun is not an automatic process where it can just accidentally happen.


*Watches my hand facing my face*
*Makes motion of hand trying to grab something*
*Looks at index finger*
*Remembers that people have to be taught to straighten their index finger as a default, when operating a gun*

*oh the lies.. *

At least in europe guns have to be stored in compartments that are our of reach of people who dont know how to operate them, and children. Would that be a solution?

If you buy a gun you also buy the safe/guncase for it, with it. Or some people then still complaining, that they cant put them under their pillows anymore, because robbers?

This one was moreso the fault of the adult that left that gun lying around, than the babysitter (who acted irrationally, themselves being a child(?)). Also something you have to explain to tempers?

Here is another fun statistic.



> When we checked 2015 FBI figures, for example, there were 13,455 reported homicides, and 102 of those happened during burglaries.


Lets say all of them where committed using guns. Lets recognize that about a third of those are not the burglars dying.
src: https://www.politifact.com/factchec...l-moore-flubs-stats-people-killed-guns-durin/

So plain and simply, you are far more likely (about 5x) to accedently kill someone else with your gun, than you are killing a burglar.

So the 'I need it to protect myself' excuse is emotionally hyped bullsh*t as well (at least the 'from burglars' part). To sell guns.

And if you are into the - no no, 'but shooting them in the legs stopped them' excuse - it is not very likely, that if you are catching people during a robbery, where they'd try to do anything other than scram. (How many other people are in the house, do you really want to cross the line from robber to murderer, ...) To prove that you would need statistics, that go into which party in the homicides above was killed in cold blood, which you don't have. But that statistically that number is far lower, should be pretty obvious.

So to the people arguing 'don't take aways my gun!' you are still the most irrational in the the entire debate. Its just, that 'outlawing all guns' wouldnt necessarily work, and 'cost jobs'. So you dont do it.


----------



## DarkFlare69 (Mar 1, 2020)

notimp said:


> *Watches my hand facing my face*
> *Makes motion of hand trying to grab something*
> *Looks at index finger*
> *Remembers that people have to be taught to straighten their index finger as a default, when operating a gun*
> ...


I completely agree that the owners of the gun should have kept it locked away and yes it is mostly their fault. They are the root cause of the problem here. Regardless, a 19 year old, a legal adult, should know better than to pick up a gun they don't know how to use, and then aim and fire it at a child. I think guns should be locked up under the bed of the property owner. I also agree the point of owning a firearm is not to walk out of your room and kill the intruder, it's to protect yourself. If the weapon is locked up, then the best thing to do in case of an intruder is to lock the door, and then call the cops and unlock the weapon while still in the locked room. We seem to be on the same page pretty much.

I don't think there will ever be a solution to most problems between liberals vs conservatives, gun rights being one of them. There's just too much variation in the stupidity and mental stability of people for there to be solution that fits everyone. I'm from the USA and I'm not afraid to admit that most people I met (besides people at my college or from online) are dumb. People don't know how to properly store a gun. People don't know how to properly use a gun. You can never guarantee anyone's intentions when using or purchasing a gun. There is too much variation for there to ever be a proper solution.


----------



## subcon959 (Mar 1, 2020)

Nobody mentioned the real scurge.. selfies.

Btw, I clicked to complain about the tabloid post, but since it turned into the usual gun debate I'll just leave it to the pros.


----------



## MohammedQ8 (Mar 1, 2020)

Selfie to Cellfee

Act 1

Baby sitter: hey guys guess who will shoot herself today. (Pointing at her head)

baby sitter: No No too dangerous plus I didnt bring comb to fix my hair.

act 2

baby sitter: hey guys guess who is sick oooooof sitting babies.

pointing at the child. (Clicked her phone)

baby sitter: I want in gif format.

act 3

Dooom.


----------



## notimp (Mar 1, 2020)

DarkFlare69 said:


> Regardless, a 19 year old, a legal adult, should know better than to pick up a gun they don't know how to use, and then aim and fire it at a child.


Tend to agree (read for the first time that they were 19 years old), because our legal system does as well. But what does that buy you?

If you always argue to come out at 'it was their individual responsibility' all of the cases become individual cases.

In that case, dont bother with politics all. Shrug it off always and go your merry ways.

What I'm trying to do is to give you an institutional perspective. Where you at one point say - ok, individual behavior is sometimes stupid (group behavior even more so), reasoning for people wanting to own guns is stupid, outlawing them doesnt work.

What do you do?

And the answer to that always is mitigation. Meaning give them gun safes, say they have to buy and use them (at least for ammunition and anything thats loaded). Cuts down on people hording weapons for no rational reason. Gets them accustom to safety protocols that can be implemented for saving other people from themselves. Has gun nuts not up in arms too much, because they probably find safes sexy too. And them having been seen as even more responsible members of their broader community is also something they'd ultimately like. Doesnt have the gun stores up in arms that much (markup for a safe). But has the NRA up in arms, because they'll know that this cuts down on gun purchases overall.

Ban high velocity rifles/automatic rifles or severely limit access to ammunition, or require of them to be stored at gun ranges. Because ultimately you have to take responsibility for irresponsible or careless people accessing your guns as well.


I can tell you one more thing, your behavior is typical of the most irrational crowd behavior that there is, namely scapegoating. Take someone with the same emotional corset as you all have (fascination of guns, getting a powertrip when holding them), but maybe without weapons training (which is just conditioning, so dont get too proud over it) (as a 19 year old babysitter), exorcise their behavior, for feeling and acting just like you, just more irrational - that one time it backfired, crush them in public rituals, feel better about yourselves.

And no the solution to all this is not 'gun training for everyone'. 

It literally is - layering in more stumbling blocks to be able to access guns 'as freely', but trying to make them stumbling blocks, that gun owners maybe dont mind as much.

Which is where the NRA isnt helping, because, talking about hardliners... I mean those guys sell their members the believe of acting as counterinsurgency forces against their own governments, (using drone warfare  ), on TV channels they own - just to hype up concern and romanticism at the same time. Which is pretty crazy, if you are looking at it from my perspective. So reasoning currently doesnt work. Which means standstill.

Also doing nothing is easier. So... sadly more likely.


----------



## WeedZ (Mar 3, 2020)

morvoran said:


> You should tell the people in Chicago they need stricter gun laws..... Oh, wait, they have the strictest gun laws in the US and also the highest gun related deaths per capita.  Hmm, why don't these gun laws work there?
> 
> Also, here's a good read:  https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-australias-gun-laws-reduced-gun-homicides/


Cause you can drive like 50 miles in any direction and all those laws disappear.


----------



## Waygeek (Mar 3, 2020)

notimp said:


> nonsense



I think you hit every handwaving deflecting argument possible here, well done. The NRA would be proud.



mrdude said:


> Some people have been killed by a single punch - we should also ban people from having hands!



Assault is banned, it's a crime to do it...


----------



## notimp (Mar 3, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> I think you hit every handwaving deflecting argument possible here, well done. The NRA would be proud.


Should I jump for that? Ok, here I come.. 

Numbers of instances are so low it might not even be worth talking about them. Trying to minimize them is still a 'noble' cause - if you are so inclined.

Numbers of people killed in school shootings is a factor lower, than that. Yet people talk about them with much more urgency. With a higher emotional connection. And with more identification.

THEN I EXPLAINED WHY.

Because after school schootings, society holds mass rituals, with figures of importance holding speeches, with children in states of shock, crying their eyes out, with media reporting on that. (Aiding a shared 'healing' and 'mourning' process.) And every emotionally driven idiot in the world, SUDDENLY. Brews up a storm, and formulates in one insanely loud voice: "This has to stop. Never ever again."

NICE SENTIMENT.

I agree. But you still only did it, because you thought by media representation of an event, you could judge, the size of an issue. Which you couldnt. (Not fake news though, reporting of an actual event, thats different, Its just that 'what that event means (in terms of influencing realpolitics)' that peoples opinions might diverge on.)


Now, lets change it (play through that process), because getting those numbers down is still a noble cause.

I basically insisted, that you cant ban guns.

I havent yet explored argumentatively why not.

Because laws, dont make a thing, go away. If you ban something, and cant enforce it - you loose societal recognition as a state.

Because if you ban something categorically, and this something has an aura of power, or forbiddeness to it, it automatically becomes more desireable.

Because if you as a nation serve the function of offing every other interest group that even remotely objects to the current international order, its hard to then integrate your soldiers back into your societies, if you tell them - you know what, guns - very bad, so bad. You wouldnt know.


So as a freaking insult throwing, non arguments wielding SJW, could you please have the decency to acknowledge, that those are real arguments as used in politics today (not in activism coming from the NRA), and that you poor wanting to make the world better people, based on everything emotional you see in your social media feeds, have to acknowledge political realities at some point, and dont just make up the world in a fashion, that you decided on - but people never agreed or voted on.

I hate this attitude so much, that I want to leave you with the following outro. If you have something to say - come prepared to discuss, and not to preach. Bring arguments. Be prepared not to just being the bestest white knight in the room, by simply signaling some virtues.

And check your sources - because none of that was "deflecting as taught by the NRA". I presented what I indicated to present in here, which was an 'institutional perspective' on the matter.

Also look at numbers for once in your life, and not just at feels.

It is possible to reduce the number of people dying from school shootings even more. Look at europe as an example. But you dont do that, by stating - you are more noble than anyone, and therefore should be allowed to draw up bans and prohibition on all guns.

And a little thank you would be nice, if someone like me tells you not to spread stories like in the OP for 'activism' purposes, because they backfire. Watch and learn.

You campaign on parents being very concerned and having done everything right, and still having lost their children. Not on parents having left their gun laying around and having hired the wrong babysitter. Because the second one produces so much cognitive dissonance, that no one will be in favor of your cause after having milked that story for more than a faint glance of it in a social media feed.

You dont know what you are doing. If you are part of an organisation that works towards banning guns, ask your PR person.


So how do you do it? Mitigation. You make guns harder to acquire. You make people think about them differently (not letting them just lay around), you implement procedures that might help them doing so. You basically manipulate the living sh*t out of them ("Look, bullets are so dangerous, I have to put them in a safe!"), but as a result everybody wins.

You dont play SJW has seen the light, and now does some activism. And if you are very attached to activism, good luck - again, the cause is noble, its just that the issue might be too small once anything comes along that removes it from the top of other peoples minds. Activism still works. Just rarely. And never in the way you are proposing that it should. ("Just because my opinion is so obviously the truth, no argumets are needed. I'm a SJW. I'm the better person.".)

Just never, and thats life advice, tell people how much your feelings dictate reality, and then leave the room waiting for everyone to be impressed.


----------



## Waygeek (Mar 3, 2020)

Found the gun nut who unironically uses the word 'sjw'.

Your Nazi armband animu waifu avatar is missing, better get on that.

Strange of you to throw Europe in as an argument attempt. Europe is disgusted with the States on this issue among many issues. As a European, I would know. You however, have no clue what you're on about.


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 3, 2020)

There's more good than bad babysitters, but there's a channel on YouTube which compiles photos and info of children that were murdered either by, you guessed, babysitters, boyfriend/stepfather, mother, grandfather, etc... I just can't understand why they would harm a child.

We once were all kids and they didn't deserve to have their lives taken away. This stuff really upsets me because someday I want to be a father and even though those people are, they treated their kids horribly.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



mrdude said:


> Some people have been killed by a single punch - we should also ban people from having hands! In fact how many people die each year in road traffic accidents - should we also ban cars/trucks?
> 
> Banning stuff is just plain silly - people that are intent on killing others will just find another way to do it if guns were banned. The bottom line is that some people are just mental.


Some by knocking their head to the floor, mainly because of the stupid challenge called "Skullbreaker" that began in Brazil, but seems it has died down. However, it appears it took a few victims. At least one or two.



0:57 The guy in the middle was either knocked out or dead from the blow, and the moron on right was laughing about it. Son of a b"tch.


----------



## mrdude (Mar 4, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> I think you hit every handwaving deflecting argument possible here, well done. The NRA would be proud.
> 
> 
> 
> Assault is banned, it's a crime to do it...



Haha, yes OK - whatever you say, many Boxers will disagree though, so will many cage fighters - and it also depends where in the world you live and who's doing the punching and under what circumstances. You can kill people that come into your property illegally in some places, also you can defend yourself if being assaulted quite legally as well - if you so happen to kill your attacker with one punch - you are using minimum force and will get off with it. Also if someone it trying to rape a kid for example and you go to help - nobody is gonna be arsed if you assault the child molester.....your 'assault is banned' is only in your head dude, bloody snowflake.


----------



## Waygeek (Mar 4, 2020)

mrdude said:


> Haha, yes OK - whatever you say, many Boxers will disagree though, so will many cage fighters



Yeah, holding a gun at your nephew is a sport now...



mrdude said:


> - and it also depends where in the world you live and who's doing the punching and under what circumstances.



No, assault is still assault, and assault is not the same thing as self defence.

Love the little bit of projection at the end there too, you're practically melting you delicate little frozen water crystal.


----------



## notimp (Mar 4, 2020)

Is this a new way of shutting down a discussion now? Making claims that are so outrageous, people will stop reacting, thereby giving the person on the loosing end of the argument, struggling to get back in, a few freebees, stating that 'pointing a gun at your nephew is not a sport'?

Why does every opinion (comment) have to matter the same amount in an open discussion again? (Facebook made it a default?)


----------



## Waygeek (Mar 8, 2020)

The only outrageous claim in this thread is that it is fine that a dumb teenager had access to a loaded gun at all. 

Pretending otherwise exposes you are intellectually dishonest and have an agenda and therefore are not worth having a discussion with.


----------



## teamlocust (Mar 8, 2020)

Stupid Canadians and Americans, that's all I have to say, gun laws are pathetic


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 8, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> *The only outrageous claim in this thread is that it is fine that a dumb teenager had access to a loaded gun at all. *
> 
> Pretending otherwise exposes you are *intellectually dishonest *and have an agenda and therefore are not worth having a discussion with.




Well first off, the 'dumb teenager' is an adult and should have received education at some point in her life before reaching adulthood  that would've prevented what happened. But putting that aside, _who_ are you suggesting made that claim?  I don't see anyone in this thread saying "it's fine" that the babysitter had access to a loaded gun. Nobody said that. SO, _who's_ outrageous??? _Who's_ intellectually dishonest???

Typical.




Viri said:


> OH NO, a teen shot a baby while taking a selfie! Quick, we need to ban all guns, so this doesn't happen again!



No, ban all selfies!


----------



## slaphappygamer (Mar 8, 2020)

This is a sad situation. Sadly, it won’t be the last. No law can change that. People will still possess guns, wether for protection or for sport. There will also be that creeper in the corner with nothing to lose. No matter the country. This is just a reminder that YOU are responsible for YOUR family. YOU can’t control OTHER PEOPLES actions. Lock up your dangerous shit.


----------



## Viri (Mar 8, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> No, ban all selfies!


I wish. The amount of people who do stupid dangerous shit to take a selfie is pretty amazing!


----------



## limpbiz411 (Mar 8, 2020)

ChibiMofo said:


> We are so much safer with guns everywhere. Thank you, NRA and your idiot members.
> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51663212
> 
> By the way, the usual response from the NRA is that if the baby had been armed, this wouldn't have happened. Their answer is always "moar guns!"


is it the guns fault?, no so shut up


----------



## notimp (Mar 9, 2020)

mrdude said:


> if you so happen to kill your attacker with one punch - you are using minimum force and will get off with it. Also if someone it trying to rape a kid for example


??

Twitch suspends gamer Carl R. after shooting gun

You will never fix stupid.



> In the live footage, R. is seen playing Call of Duty, before pausing to pretend to threaten someone with his handgun. He appeared to empty the chamber, but a bullet remained.





> "I was clearly intoxicated, but the fact of the matter is... guns are not a toy. They are not to be messed with," he said later, in a filmed apology.





> "It's a mistake, but it's a mistake that could have cost somebody their life," he said. "I'm so broken about this."





> "I made my biggest mistake of my entire life last night, and it could ruin my life," he said.





> "I could have hurt somebody, I could have hurt myself, I could have hurt one of my animals - and that's unforgivable."





> "I'm not in SoaR anymore, and that is rightfully so. I hope you guys know I have no hatred toward them or anything like that... they did what they needed to do because I'm an idiot."



Four words. Children in your audience.
(No one much cares about virtue signaling about animals in comparison.)

src: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51768454

He had RGB though.






You will never fix insane.

You will never fully outlaw guns.
Because you cant. Its like a candy bar that gives people the a power rush and a sense of being in a deciding role over life and death. In the example above, the play acting began - as someone accused the Twitch streamer of having no money. Power trip on demand, with gun, followed. People will not give them up freely. You may make them illegal, but there will still be proliferation regardless, and you will have less of a grip on it in cases where it really matters for a state (organized crime accumulating more money).

You can ban high velocity automatic guns, if you pair that with social shunning for people who want to have them (even more so than thats already the case), but then you also have to look at if what you are doing is for symbolic value (look at statistics).

You will never fix peoples emotional truth reaction on 'anything with baby in it'.
(So discuss those matters with 'baby' removed from the argument, just to get a more rational argument. Swap it with 'people'.)

In politics, if you are implementing new systems, you usually don't go with what an activist group says (they just produce the public pressure, so you do anything at all) - but what worked in other countries, or 'model projects' (some regions trying it first, and reporting outcomes), yet I have to see the first debate where someone would even argue on that level.

All that those discussions ever turn out to be is "good vs evil" accusations, with everyone wanting to represent good, because of feelings that are internalized.

Also , lets repeat this once more, locking your guns away is a really good idea. You also have to take responsibility for other people around you (for their actions) in situations where the outcome, frankly, can be that grave.


----------



## Waygeek (Mar 15, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Well first off, the 'dumb teenager' is an adult and should have received education at some point in her life before reaching adulthood  that would've prevented what happened.



No, 'how not to kill someone with a gun' should not be mandatory learning for a TEENAGER. Yes, she is a TEENAGER, Mr. Intellectually Dishonest.
_


Hanafuda said:



			Who's
		
Click to expand...

_


Hanafuda said:


> intellectually dishonest???



You.

_Typical._


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 15, 2020)

Waygeek said:


> _Typical._




You didn't even respond to the actual question. You said, "The only outrageous claim in this thread is that it is fine that a dumb teenager had access to a loaded gun at all."

I will ask you again ... who made that claim? Who said that is fine?


We can disagree on whether basic firearm safety should be a part of young adult mandatory education. I think "don't point the end of the gun at another person" is a given, whether that education happens or not.


----------



## Waygeek (Mar 15, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> You didn't even respond to the actual question.



There is no question. You are an intellectually dishonest gun nut, who doesn't care that people die because MUH FREEDUM. That's all there is to know.


----------



## morvoran (Mar 16, 2020)

WeedZ said:


> Cause you can drive like 50 miles in any direction and all those laws disappear.


 Oh, ok, got it.  All the gun violence in Chicago is imported from surrounding cities/states.


----------



## WeedZ (Mar 16, 2020)

morvoran said:


> Oh, ok, got it.  All the gun violence in Chicago is imported from surrounding cities/states.


What? If you cant buy a gun in Chicago, you can drive outside of Chicago, buy a gun, drive back, and commit gun related crimes. If they have strict gun laws, and high gun crime rates, how do you think they have guns?


----------



## validator111 (Mar 18, 2020)

Guns legalization is useful, however some control practices should be if we speak about babysitting


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 18, 2020)

WeedZ said:


> What? If you cant buy a gun in Chicago, you can drive outside of Chicago, buy a gun, drive back, and commit gun related crimes. If they have strict gun laws, and high gun crime rates, how do you think they have guns?



Question is, are the gun violence rates in these places outside the city where guns are less controlled _higher_ than in the city, where gun control is strict?? Or is it the other way around?


----------



## supersega (Mar 18, 2020)

Oh, so is this cesspool the GBATemp version of the Neo-Geo War Room? Great.


----------



## WeedZ (Mar 18, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Question is, are the gun violence rates in these places outside the city where guns are less controlled _higher_ than in the city, where gun control is strict?? Or is it the other way around?


Sure. But my point is you cant use Chicago as evidence for gun control not being able to work on a national level. Of course it wouldn't work just there. You can go freely anywhere in the country where laws vary greatly state to state.

You have to look at places that gun control has been enforced across the board. Australia and the UK for example.

I agree, guns dont equal crime. But when criminals can take a leisurely sunday cruise and buy guns (which makes crime easier) and bring them back home, then you haven't really done anything about the gun crime.


----------

