Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Bad Gun Owner of the Week

damn_registrars (1103043) writes | about a year ago

First Person Shooters (Games) 54

Will we see slashdot (and other) conservatives describe this one as a suicide as well?

Yellowstone National Park officials are investigating after an Idaho woman reported her 3-year-old daughter shot herself with a handgun in a campground.

So which backwoods state did these shithead gun owners come from?

Will we see slashdot (and other) conservatives describe this one as a suicide as well?

Yellowstone National Park officials are investigating after an Idaho woman reported her 3-year-old daughter shot herself with a handgun in a campground.

So which backwoods state did these shithead gun owners come from?

He said he didn't know how many family members were camping or where they are from in Idaho. Names haven't been released.

Apparently they weren't far from home, then. Most likely they will receive no punishment whatsoever for their wanton irresponsibility. In a sane country we would be asking whether they would face more or less prosecution for leaving a loaded unlocked weapon sitting around in a public campground.

While

A federal law went into effect Feb. 22, 2010, allowing visitors to possess firearms in the park.

That doesn't mean that people have the right to be so utterly careless with them.

cancel ×

54 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Their kid died (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year ago | (#44798897)

No amount of fines or prison could be worse than that.

Re:Their kid died (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#44799061)

No amount of fines or prison could be worse than that.

The problem though is that the gun culture in this country will encourage them to just sweep it under the rug. The mainstream media here will basically do the same as well, as they fear the NRA and similar groups. As long as people are encouraged to not take these things seriously they will continue to happen. The rest of the people at the campground are (relatively) lucky in that the kid shot him/herself and didn't pull the trigger while the weapon was aimed elsewhere.

If people want to own guns they need to be responsible for them. The gun owner should be charged with murder for being an idiot.

That said, we don't know yet if the gun belonged to mom, dad, or some other relative. The news release did not say how many people were at the campsite. This kid may have died from someone else's weapon.

Re:Their kid died (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44799115)

. . .just sweep it under the rug. The mainstream media here will basically do the same as well, as they fear the NRA and similar groups.

Are you saying that the NRA is careless about gun safety? Or that the "gun culture" is careless about gun safety?
Kind of a startling claim, in either case.

Re:Their kid died (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#44799387)

. . .just sweep it under the rug. The mainstream media here will basically do the same as well, as they fear the NRA and similar groups.

Are you saying that the NRA is careless about gun safety? Or that the "gun culture" is careless about gun safety?

They aren't quite careless about gun safety as much as they are unconcerned about the consequences of gun owners who are. At least once a week in this country we have another story of someone who was horribly injured or killed as the direct result of a careless gun owner, and yet nothing really ever happens. Clearly, people are not getting the message that guns are lethal instruments that should not be casually left around.

So while the NRA may publish pamphlets on gun safety, the gun culture in this country isn't really that concerned about it. Hell, how many people are injured at gun shows every year or carry in guns for sale / trade that are loaded? You can pretend that the NRA is concerned about gun safety based on its official message, but there really is no strong argument to be made that the gun culture at large really worries that much about it. If the gun culture was honestly concerned about safety then this crap would never happen. Instead it happens at least once a week, and often gets quickly pushed aside by the media and the PR machines of the NRA and gun culture.

So is the NRA careless? Careless to me suggests that they would be encouraging people to disregard common sense gun safety. I don't see the NRA as careless. I do, however, see them as being more concerned about other things - including getting these types of incidents out of public attention ASAP.

Re:Their kid died (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44800025)

damn_registrars is a slinky. He's generally worthless, but at least he'd be kind of fun to push down stairs.

My recommendation? Don't even try to argue with him. He's completely wrong, but likes to feel like he's SMRT!!11oneoneone

Re:Their kid died (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#44800381)

blah blah bargle snarf read my hilarious aserrf awertz glkweur!!

Wow, an AC troll, and not even a good one. If I had that little to say I would probably post anonymously too.

Re:Their kid died (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44800635)

Do you feel your assertions apply equally to the case of the auto industry, pursuant to traffic deaths?

At least once a week in this country we have another story of someone who was horribly injured or killed as the direct result of a careless gun owner, and yet nothing really ever happens.

What of the number of crimes precluded or having their impact minimized by firearms. For example, women who ventilate would-be rapists?
I understand you experience visceral repulsion at the thought of guns, sir.
However, given the worst-case scenarios of disarmed people [wikipedia.org] , one wonders if the anti-firearm angst isn't misplaced.

Re:Their kid died (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#44802059)

Do you feel your assertions apply equally to the case of the auto industry, pursuant to traffic deaths?

No. Nobody promotes the use of cars as tools of death. Nobody strives to give absurdly powerful cars to people who have less regard for personal responsibility than gerbils and less emotional stability than rabid dogs.

The gun culture, however, by way of their going far beyond mere complacency, is actively placing guns in the hands of people who are not capable of owning them responsibly.

What of the number of crimes precluded or having their impact minimized by firearms. For example, women who ventilate would-be rapists?

First of all, it is nearly impossible to say that those cases were prevented solely by someone having a gun. Do we know that other weapons would not have been effective? Do we know, with the other person being dead, what their intent was? And what about when the weapon doesn't work in the way the person carrying it wants it to, and it misfires, hurts someone else, or ends up being used against the owner?

Second, looking at the number of cases where one can even make a somewhat reasonable argument that the gun was actually useful, you still have fewer cases of that happening than cases of gun accidents where people are maimed or killed by or via stupid bastards such as the ones in the article I linked to in this JE.

I understand you experience visceral repulsion at the thought of guns, sir.

No, you do not. Smitty you are better than that. Don't go putting words into my mouth because they fit the NRA mantras. I am a gun owner myself. However unlike these stupid fuckers whose child is now dead I am responsible with my guns. It's a shame the kid didn't manage to kill the idiot who left a deadly unlocked weapon sitting around instead, it would have done the world a favor.

Re:Their kid died (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44802915)

Interesting. I am not a gun owner.

It's a shame the kid didn't manage to kill the idiot who left a deadly unlocked weapon sitting around instead, it would have done the world a favor.

And you, sir, are better than that. Wanton destruction is uncool.

Re:Their kid died (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#44803453)

Interesting. I am not a gun owner.

That is indeed interesting. You defend the gun owners - and arguably even more so the gun culture - quite a bit. Yet you made the personal choice to not purchase a gun.

That said, the guns that I own are entirely for personal enjoyment and not at all for self defense. In fact none of my guns are even currently in my house as I don't want to have to worry about children getting to them, and I haven't owned any ammunition for them in years. Of course I acknowledge that gun safes in the house, when used properly, are more than adequate to keep guns safe from errant use; I just choose to keep my weapons elsewhere when I don't need access to them. I so seldom have time to shoot them that I don't see a need to keep them nearby; I generally schedule shooting sessions weeks to months in advance which is more than enough time to get them from the place where I store them (about 20 miles from home).

It's a shame the kid didn't manage to kill the idiot who left a deadly unlocked weapon sitting around instead, it would have done the world a favor.

And you, sir, are better than that.

Thank you.

Wanton destruction is uncool.

I don't seek the death of anyone, but if someone should die from the irresponsibility of a gun owner, it should be the owner and nobody else. If it were up to me the gun owner would be tried for first degree murder and child endangerment. I predict the gun owner - regardless of their relation to the dead child - will likely face little if any actual charges for their stupidity.

Re:Their kid died (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44804045)

I don't own a gun, because they're expensive to acquire, and ammo the moreso.
Nor do I feel anxious enough about my personal safety to acquire on right at the moment.
My brother-in-law has an arsenal. I told him "Hey, if the bubble goes up, I'm coming to your house." To which he replied "I got more guns than I got hands."
My reactionary attitude about the topic stems from the understanding that this country is founded upon the individual as the unit of analysis. Those that worship the state are after crushing the Bill of Rights, termite-style. All of the ideas I think are REALLY stupid, from disarming the people, to butchering the unborn, to using the EPA & Agenda 21, to Socialism, to Quantitative Easing, to amnesty for those who've no respect for our immigration laws, are mostly (but by no means exclusively) clustered on the Left.
And even if you want to be an apologist for all of this, and claim that it's all done with absolutely the swellest of motives, there is no guarantee that the next crop of nitwits are going to be an improvement. The trend over the last century has been to deepen debt, to concentrate power, to crush the states, and grind the people down to powder with unrepayable debt.
Back to the idiot gun owner who lost their child: hopefully wisdom descends upon them from this tragedy.

Re:Their kid died (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#44803503)

Wanton destruction is uncool.

Yes, but if was accidental, we can write it off as collateral damage.

Re:Their kid died (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44804049)

Unless that child was yours. Lord preserve my little 2yo.

Re:Their kid died (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#44804153)

That's kind of my point. When it's not your child, I would expect you to feel the same way.

Re:Their kid died (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year ago | (#44805121)

*My* child is growing up in a country that doesn't have an addiction to guns, something for which I am eternally grateful.

The addiction to guns is an addiction to death.

THE GUN CULTURE IS A CULTURE OF DEATH.

Re:Their kid died (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44805275)

The gun culture is a culture of death.

I say the same of the abortion culture.

Re:Their kid died (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44805443)

Re:Their kid died (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#44806303)

That article deserves recognition for excessive spin of the week. They tried to make the claim that this couple was somehow proud of their abortion and included it in their wedding announcement. However upon further analysis it is clear that is not actually the case. The wedding announcement did not mention the abortion, regardless of how much the author of that piece wants to claim.

Furthermore, the couple aborted the fetus because they could not financially afford to raise a child. They were both college students at the time. Now of course adoption may have been an option as well, but the article doesn't say why they did not opt for it if it was. But if a couple knows they cannot financially afford to raise a child, why would you force them to do so? Is there something you like about poverty?

I would say it would have been better if they would have properly used protection at the start, but the site you linked to doesn't give us nearly enough information to know the circumstances.

Re:Their kid died (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44807053)

the couple aborted the fetus because they could not financially afford to raise a child

You were you when the information that defines you was complete. I reject your feckless distinction, and find it central to our societal corrosion. Repent.

Re:Their kid died (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#44807487)

the couple aborted the fetus because they could not financially afford to raise a child

You were you when the information that defines you was complete. I reject your feckless distinction, and find it central to our societal corrosion. Repent.

The distinction - or perceived absence thereof - is at best tangential to the point that the site you linked to what very dishonest in their presentation. The couple did not "bond" through the abortion, even though the came to the decision together. They made the decision because they realized they were incapable of being adequate parents. And they most certainly did not include mention of it in their wedding announcement, as much as the blatantly false title and first paragraph of the article tries to claim.

Now personally, if all the facts are being presented honestly - although there is no reason to suspect they are at this point - I would have preferred them to have given the child up for adoption. However it is not for me to make that decision for them. Carrying a child to term is no small demand to place on a woman's body, and the government should not be forcing women to do such a thing against their will. If we were sentient descendants of seahorses - and the males had to carry the offspring to term - I doubt you would be making such a demand.

Re:Their kid died (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44807779)

They made the decision because they realized they were incapable of being adequate parents.

So we can't control our hormonal urges, but we can rationalize murder rather than face the consequences.
In my estimation, the original idiot parents in this thread, who started raising a child and then negligently let the child blow herself away, are further along the "human" development curve.
This legal fiction that the unborn are merely a "decision" is odious.

Re:Their kid died (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#44808093)

They made the decision because they realized they were incapable of being adequate parents.

So we can't control our hormonal urges, but we can rationalize murder rather than face the consequences.

You're making a lot of assumptions there based on very little actual information. We don't know anything about the health of the unborn or the fitness of the mother to carry the child to term. But even if you want to go ahead and make the assumptions that everything was honky-dory - which are assumptions you appear plenty willing to make - you still need to acknowledge the fact that you would be significantly crippling the child's chance at a better life. If mom doesn't graduate, the chances of the child having academic success drop significantly. Being as you are supporting the government telling the woman how to deal with this situation, it is reasonable to expect that you wouldn't want her to be able to give the child up for adoption, either; which means she would be raising the child as a single mother. Why is it that you want to see more people in that situation?

In my estimation, the original idiot parents in this thread, who started raising a child and then negligently let the child blow herself away, are further along the "human" development curve.

At this point we don't know who owned the gun. Frankly, I would be surprised if we ever hear who the owner was, as the media has already pretty well forgotten about it. I was not specifically describing the parents as idiots; I was specifically describing the gun owner as an idiot. Of course, if the gun owner was one of the parents, then indeed that parent is an idiot. However we likely won't see that relationship divulged in the media.

Re:Their kid died (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44812565)

You're making a lot of assumptions there based on very little actual information. We don't know anything about the health of the unborn or the fitness of the mother to carry the child to term. But even if you want to go ahead and make the assumptions that everything was honky-dory - which are assumptions you appear plenty willing to make - you still need to acknowledge the fact that you would be significantly crippling the child's chance at a better life. If mom doesn't graduate, the chances of the child having academic success drop significantly. Being as you are supporting the government telling the woman how to deal with this situation, it is reasonable to expect that you wouldn't want her to be able to give the child up for adoption, either; which means she would be raising the child as a single mother. Why is it that you want to see more people in that situation?

If the task is to rationalize murder, the mental gymnastics & rationalizations are boundless.

Re:Their kid died (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#44812929)

You're making a lot of assumptions there based on very little actual information. We don't know anything about the health of the unborn or the fitness of the mother to carry the child to term. But even if you want to go ahead and make the assumptions that everything was honky-dory - which are assumptions you appear plenty willing to make - you still need to acknowledge the fact that you would be significantly crippling the child's chance at a better life. If mom doesn't graduate, the chances of the child having academic success drop significantly. Being as you are supporting the government telling the woman how to deal with this situation, it is reasonable to expect that you wouldn't want her to be able to give the child up for adoption, either; which means she would be raising the child as a single mother. Why is it that you want to see more people in that situation?

If the task is to rationalize murder, the mental gymnastics & rationalizations are boundless.

Oh, come on smitty. Don't clam up on me now. You can build a much better argument than that and are well above slinging silly put-downs; I've seen it. This has nothing to do with "rationalizing murder", especially when we don't have anywhere near enough information to make such a claim. There are far more questions than answers, and the best answers we have so far are that the person who wrote that lousy page you linked to has an obvious axe to grind and does not fear crapping all over the truth to push their own agenda.

Don't lower yourself to their level. I know you are opposed to abortion, and there are good arguments against it. But when you support someone who is openly making shit up, and then resorting to silly one-liners when challenged to look at the matter in a non-partisan manner, you don't do yourself or your cause any favors.

Re:Their kid died (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44814823)

A high-minded appeal to low-mindedness? I admit: it's an interesting form of argument.

Re:Their kid died (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#44815437)

Thank you?

I should mention there is another problem I have with your "information" argument regarding when a fetus is a person, one that anyone who is educated in human genetics should share with me. You say that once all the information is there, it is endowed with rights as a human being, even if it is only a single cell. If that is the case, then you should be defending the rights of the skin cells that you so callously wash off into the sink many times a day, as they have all the same genetic information as your very first cell did when your mother and father first created you. The same applies to hair follicles, which have cells attached to them, and for that matter to your own fecal matter which more often than not has cells from your intestine in it.

Ultimately the only difference between those shed cells and your very first cell is at the epigenetic level. And if you want to go to that level then masturbation needs to be criminalized as every sperm has that information, and you would similarly need to restrict the freedoms of women of child-bearing age to prevent them from ever passing a non-fertilized egg as the egg has the epigenetic information as well.

Re:Their kid died (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44817473)

Obligatory Monty Python:masturbation needs to be criminalized [youtube.com]
Off-beat jokes aside (see what I did there?) the issue here isn't whether you washed your hands, it's the motive for murder.
In other words,
  1. If we start with asking ourselves: Why are we alive?
  2. Then we ask: What is the purpose of sexuality?
  3. Then continue further to: Given that life has been conceived, what should be done?

We may not arrive at the worldly conclusion that sex is a video game, and liquidating some innocents here and there is kosher under some rectally-plucked SCOTUS decision.
It's actually not my interest to set myself in judgement over others. Rather, I'm out to tease them into thinking for themselves and realizing that hedonism retards growth.
This is certainly true for the two abortions of which I have some knowledge. Both were examples of piling sin on sin. Both had vastly negative effects, both for the innocents who lost their lives, and on the women in question. Both events echo oddly through their lives.
Note that I'm not making some absolutist argument here. I'm not saying that some medical situation could arise where a doctor might have to make a tough call. E.g., the baby has no head.
No, my point is directed at the vast, overwhelming majority of the cases, where abortion is just a means of birth control, and cheapening our view of human growth and maturity blights us individually, and seems to have us cratering demographically.

Re:Their kid died (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#44817643)

Both had vastly negative effects, both for the innocents who lost their lives, and on the women in question.

So if the only two abortions you are familiar with directly had negative effects on the women who had them, then why do you insist on making the claim that people you don't know are having these so casually? More so, you said:

the vast, overwhelming majority of the cases, where abortion is just a means of birth control

Here we have another massive problem. There are no meaningful statistics supporting that notion, only - at best - anecdotal evidence. We really have no idea what the rationale is for the majority of abortions. The statistics simply do not exist. You can go for whatever claim you like for those statistics not being available (we mostly just need to look at HIPAA amongst others) but the end result is the same - your statement is making a conclusion in the absence of facts.

If you want to try to support the claim above with hand waving I can point out that birth defects are also on the rise, and many of them have environmental triggers that are often brought on in economically depressed areas and by economically depressed lifestyles.

Re:Their kid died (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44818195)

Here we have another massive problem. There are no meaningful statistics supporting that notion, only - at best - anecdotal evidence. We really have no idea what the rationale is for the majority of abortions. The statistics simply do not exist. You can go for whatever claim you like for those statistics not being available (we mostly just need to look at HIPAA amongst others) but the end result is the same - your statement is making a conclusion in the absence of facts.

So, because we have a non-falsifiable proposition that we don't have "enough" facts, let the pagan offerings to Moloch continue?
Let me try to find some middle ground here, and say: sure, let abortion not be a federal concern. Let states set up their wretched Kermit Gosnell temples, and leave the judgement to the Almighty.
Not. One. Single. Federal. Dollar. To. This. Holocaust, say I.

Re:Their kid died (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#44819347)

Here we have another massive problem. There are no meaningful statistics supporting that notion, only - at best - anecdotal evidence. We really have no idea what the rationale is for the majority of abortions. The statistics simply do not exist. You can go for whatever claim you like for those statistics not being available (we mostly just need to look at HIPAA amongst others) but the end result is the same - your statement is making a conclusion in the absence of facts.

So, because we have a non-falsifiable proposition that we don't have "enough" facts, let the pagan offerings to Moloch continue?

What I'm saying is that your sweeping generalizations that have no factual basis in support are foolish and make you look foolish. You can construct better arguments, I have seen you do so in discussions on other matters. It appears from my vantage point that like a lot of other people in this matter you let your emotions get the better of you and don't care about the fact that you have no facts to support the message you want to convey.

Let me try to find some middle ground here, and say: sure, let abortion not be a federal concern.

That isn't necessarily a bad starting point.

However, when the states are free to get as arbitrarily close to an outright ban as they want, they end up putting lives at risk. We have seen what happens before when abortions are illegal completely, and it doesn't play out well for anyone.

Not. One. Single. Federal. Dollar. To. This. Holocaust, say I.

Can you point to a federal dollar that has gone towards actually providing abortions? Planned Parenthood does a lot more than just provide abortions, and they are almost entirely funded by states anyways (this is why you see "Planned Parenthood of Virginia", for example). There may well be a case that I am not aware of, but I have yet to see an instance of federal dollars going towards an abortion actually being performed.

Re:Their kid died (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44824633)

Can you point to a federal dollar that has gone towards actually providing abortions? Planned Parenthood does a lot more than just provide abortions, and they are almost entirely funded by states anyways (this is why you see "Planned Parenthood of Virginia", for example). There may well be a case that I am not aware of, but I have yet to see an instance of federal dollars going towards an abortion actually being performed.

Well:

If you want to trust these Kermit Gosnellites, go right ahead. Trust the NSA, the IRS, &c as well.

Re:Their kid died (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#44825803)

If that person believes that Planned Parenthood was actually promoting abortion then he managed to work for them without ever understanding what they actually existed for.

Actually, having read that intriguing bit of writing that you linked to, I see that the person who made that quoted statement did not actually accuse PP of using abortion "as a means of planning a family" - in fact that line comes up earlier in the page before they even introduce that woman who claims to have been director, and that line is not a quote from any person. The notion is allegedly sourced from standard PP questions, although the links they give that should have sources for those questions are broken (they called them links v and vi, in particular).

FWIW, when I click on those links firefox returns "corrupted content error". Maybe the Mozilla foundation is pro-choice - or just anti-bullshit - as well?

Re:Their kid died (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44821271)

...abortion is just a means of birth control...

It's not even that. It is cosmetic surgery for a temporary condition, like plucking eyebrows. That's how shallow people are. We can blame the Hollywood glamor industry and womens' desire to be one of the guys for this (I would agree with you) holocaust. Women who have an elective abortion should be sterilized.

Re:Their kid died (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#44811587)

This legal fiction that the unborn are merely a "decision" is odious.

Oh! If we'd only see the same respect for the already born, then your post would damn near make sense. How many fetuses do the bombs and bullets kill and are written off as collateral damage? Your distinctions are no better than his or anybody else's. Why can't you accept the mother as the ultimate authority of the fate of her child? Is this some anti-woman thing? I mean, nobody has a right to force her to carry and deliver the child. Instead why not castrate the men? Problem solved, no?

Re:Their kid died (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44812613)

Oh! If we'd only see the same respect for the already born

Are you saying that weaponeers are wantonly tossing dumb munitions about? Carpet bombing hasn't been prevalant (if engaged in at all) since Vietnam.
That said, indeed: we need to tighten up our policy level decisions, so that our strategy is less kinetic.
Finally: the idea that, since politicians authorize military force that kills people, killing the unborn is somehow justified has got to be the diabolical non-sequitur of the day. Bravo.

Re:Their kid died (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#44813451)

Killing is killing. You cannot distinguish the military from the abortionist (as you see the abortionist). If abortion is to declared murder, then surely war (and the death penalty, to throw another 'non-sequitur' at ya) must be also. There's no getting around it And the simple fact remains that the mother is the decision maker, not you, your priest, your god, nobody. No man has any right to judge. And speaking of non-sequiturs, who brought up the issue of abortion in the first place, hmmm? This JE started out as a tragic story about an idiot and his gun, who, by the way, should be sanctioned for his negligence and public endangerment on top of his personal loss of the kid.

Re:Their kid died (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44814899)

Yours is the pacifistic argument. And I am not opposed to it. For example, I do respect the Amish, for all I fall short of agreeing with them on everything.
But if your argument is really to be driven to its logical extreme, then meat, too, is murder. You really need to be a vegan.
Also, you should probably never take action against any insect, however poisonous.
I note, as an amateur Bible scholar, that David was both 'a man after God's own heart', and 'a man of blood'. Hence his disqualification from constructing the Temple.
As a retired Navy type, this is something I've pondered at length. I accept accusations of being a rationalizer; such would certainly be the case if someone were doing unrighteous things under the guise of 'military' action.
Someone still has to deal with the Goliaths out there.

Re:Their kid died (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#44817053)

Are you now going to tell me that Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq(twice), and Teddy Roosevelt's big di... er stick were 'righteous'?? Well,you know what? You're right! Within the strict confines of might make right, they were indeed totally righteous and quite justifiable. But in terms of morality (of the Christianity I was taught and remember), they were everything but.. they were premeditated mass murder. American history throughout is one of extreme aggression. I remain very interested in the thought process that divines otherwise. Consider that, instead of dismissing it, while you ponder. I truly wish you would ponder the reality of consequences instead the fantasy of idealism. And I shall ponder that, in the garden, my privileged life is very good, regardless, or because of, the consequences outside the wall.

Re:Their kid died (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44817411)

Are you now going to tell me that Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq(twice), and Teddy Roosevelt's big di... er stick were 'righteous'??

No. There seems to be a challenge here in discussing:
(a) the abstract principle by which one may argue force is justified, and
(b) a concrete instance of force, which may not.
Not sure if you're missing the point, or getting the point, and being obtuse.

Re:Their kid died (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#44820237)

Irrelevant. Can you look your god in the eye and justify it? Or does the state do your thinking for you?

Re:Their kid died (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44824557)

Some sort of type casting error here. I am responsible to God for my sins of comission & omission.
I'm as on the hook for the deeds of the state as I am for YOUR deeds.
Thus, it's unclear HOW I could justify what others do, or how you even think to connect me to those deeds, except as some sort of Alinsky play. Which would be foul of you, if that's your thrust here.

Re:Their kid died (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#44825137)

I believe 'accomplice' is the legal term..

And Alinsky is a dork

Re:Their kid died (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44827281)

Dork he may be, but Alinsky's anti-intellectual tactics loom large in what passes for rational discourse in this country.

Re:Their kid died (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#44827521)

Well jeeze! It's not his fault for being popular... I don't blame Rush for the morons that follow him. Or Robertson or Falwell or any of those people.

Re:Their kid died (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44832043)

So you're agreeing with my point that assigning causality between individuals and groups is fraught with peril?

Re:Their kid died (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#44838227)

Any particular direction?

I have never blamed the 'leader' for the behavior of his followers. Not even the little general himself. Animal instinct is always much more powerful in the group, where the individual loses his mind, and effective leaders know how to direct those instincts. It's still not the leader's fault. He is merely exploiting a vulnerability. They prove that psychology is a science and show its biological, instinctive roots, some of the time, inadvertently, because some of them don't understand the mechanics either. They just know which buttons to push.

Alinsky, getting back to him, is running a business. Free market, remember? In the grand scheme, beware of the buyers... always. Idealism, it doesn't matter whose, may be good for business, but it really isn't good for the psyche. It inevitably ends in madness. To me it is self evident.

Re:Their kid died (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44839045)

Alinsky, getting back to him, is running a business. Free market, remember?

Oh, absolutely. If individual liberty means squawk-all, then the Alinsky potential must remain there.
It's incumbent upon everyone to grow up & think for themselves, and recognize that Alinksy's genius is rooted in tricking people to violate the 10 Commandments in a systematic way.

Re:Their kid died (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44808639)

There's something you like about poverty, dr, hence your support of ObamaCare.

ObamaCare premium increases do FAR MORE monetary damage to a couple's budget then the addition of a single child would.

Diapers are expensive -- blah blah, use cloth diapers.
Formula is expenseive -- blah blah, breastfeed.

Clothes are expensive -- no, they aren't. Go to Carters and get an outfit for your kid for 7 bucks. Give up your daily Starbucks double mocha expresso venti or whatever the hell it's called and by your kids some clothes.

Children do NOT cause poverty. Poor decisions by the parents do, and slaughtering your child because it's "inconvenient" is the pinnacle of evil.

Re:Their kid died (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#44809067)

As far as trolls go you aren't even very good at wasting my time as I can quickly shoot down your stupid assumptions.

There's something you like about poverty, dr, hence your support of ObamaCare.

If you read pretty much anything I've ever wrote on health care reform here on slashdot you would know that I have been opposed to the Health Insurance Company Bailout Act (or as you call it "ObamaCare") since it first was proposed as a bill on the floor.

ObamaCare premium increases do FAR MORE monetary damage to a couple's budget then the addition of a single child would.

That statement is baseless for several reasons. One, the rates would have gone up regardless. Two, raising kids is incredibly expensive - if you had one you would know that.

Children do NOT cause poverty.

Did someone claim that in this discussion? You really suck at reading comprehension. No wonder you posted AC.

Poor decisions by the parents do, and slaughtering your child because it's "inconvenient" is the pinnacle of evil.

Who said "inconvenient"? I didn't. Go troll someone else you've had your 30 seconds of my attention.

Re:Their kid died (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44810671)

Did someone claim that in this discussion?

DR wrote:
But if a couple knows they cannot financially afford to raise a child, why would you force them to do so? Is there something you like about poverty?

So yes, you inferred that very thing. And you complain about my reading comprehension?

Re:Their kid died (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44808603)

No, the abortion culture is a culture of death.

Guns are simply tools.

Re:Their kid died (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#44805285)

It is proper to mourn the death of a child for any accidental reason.
It is also fitting to ignore the Pavlovian training attempted by Zontar the Mindless below your comment.

Update: it was dad's gun (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#44808155)

Just released in the Chicago Tribune [chicagotribune.com] :

The first child to die from gunfire in Yellowstone National Park in three-quarters of a century was a 3-year-old girl killed over the weekend by a bullet shot from her father's handgun

This was not an easy one to find, most other news stories covering this are feeding the standard NRA-censored BS. We'll see if it sticks or disappears.

Unsurprisingly, though, we're already seeing spin applied even in this article:

Authorities have declined to say whether investigators believe the shooting was accidental or deliberate.

So apparently some of the hack "reporters" who believed in the utter bullshit that the conservative voice here on slashot called the Wii suicide [slashdot.org] are influencing the way this is being reported.

NEWS FLASH SHITHEADS: Toddlers don't commit suicide. Period. End of fucking story. Don't even try to pretend that a three-year-old would intentionally end their own life, you only make yourself look like a total fucking idiot.

Uh Ohh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44836601)

Responsible gun owners at play [washingtonpost.com] ...

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>