Gun control

So this happened:

Hobart man 'devastated' over shooting 9-year-old daughter in head, attorney says

....

Hummel’s two sons were cleaning their bedroom when Hummel walked in and told them to “never mess with the gun,” which his sons told police was not loaded at the time, court records said. Hummel reloaded the 9 mm semi-automatic handgun, and when Olivia walked into the room, the older boy told police Hummel was “messing around” by pointing the gun at her. He apparently forgot he had reloaded it when he pulled the trigger, police said.

Both boys told police Hummel had pointed and fired the gun at them two or three times when it was not loaded, and that it made a “pop” sound, records state.

...

Hummel was quoted as saying, “I was showing the boys the gun and told them not to ever play with it because it can kill someone, then she walked in the room and I pointed it at her and pulled the trigger, thinking it was empty,” the probable cause affidavit states.
Click to expand...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/subur...obart-man-shoooting-death-20170617-story.html

I have no words.
 
Rado_N said:
So this happened:



http://www.chicagotribune.com/subur...obart-man-shoooting-death-20170617-story.html

I have no words.
Click to expand...

He needs to go to jail. I fell horrible that the young girl paid for his stupidity with her life and it is something he will have to live with and his family will also. But to me part of gun control laws should be making gun owners responsible for what happens with their fire arms when they are in their possession. In this case he violated the very rules he was trying to teach his sons, there is no excuse for what he did.
 
JustAFan said:
He needs to go to jail. I fell horrible that the young girl paid for his stupidity with her life and it is something he will have to live with and his family will also. But to me part of gun control laws should be making gun owners responsible for what happens with their fire arms when they are in their possession. In this case he violated the very rules he was trying to teach his sons, there is no excuse for what he did.
Click to expand...
Agree 100%.

How do you forget you loaded the gun FFS.
 
That is just... wtf. What he did goes against every rule of gun safety that I've been taught since I was a kid.

He will be behind bars for that.
 
Own a gun and kill someone you should go to jail. Time to stop saying they've paid a high enough price already. As the GOP say it is all about taking personal responsibility. Take it!
 
JustAFan said:
Which is why you NEVER point a gun at someone, especially in the situation he was in. Even if he had not loaded it, you just don't fecking do that. Basic gun safety and I don't even own any guns.
Click to expand...
Bingo. I can hear my dad's voice in my head saying that exact thing and added to it "treat EVERY gun as if it is loaded, even if you know it isn't"
 
Did they test him for drugs and alcohol? Not in any way, shape or form asking that as a way of giving him an excuse, I am just wondering why the feck they all even found themselves in that situation.
 
JustAFan said:
Which is why you NEVER point a gun at someone, especially in the situation he was in. Even if he had not loaded it, you just don't fecking do that. Basic gun safety and I don't even own any guns.
Click to expand...
Indeed, even me as a raging anti-gun Brit know the "treat every gun as if it's loaded" rule.
 
“The idea that Eric knowingly endangered any of his children is ridiculous,” Stracci said. “Anyone who knows him knows he loves his kids more than anything in the world and would never do anything to hurt them.”
Click to expand...
Absurd argument by his attorney.

Did you point a gun at her? Yes
Is having a gun pointed at you dangerous? Yes
Did you know you were pointing the gun at her? Yes

So you knowingly endangered her.
 
senorgregster said:
Really? Wow, I stand corrected. I thought I heard the "already paid enough" line.
Click to expand...

But have you heard it in the majority of these types of cases or did you hear it said about one case. Was it someone associated with prosecuting the case or deciding the trial or was it some pundit, defense lawyer, internet poster who said it?
 
senorgregster said:
Really? Wow, I stand corrected. I thought I heard the "already paid enough" line.
Click to expand...
Accidentally shooting someone typically carries a manslaughter/reckless homicide (same thing) charge, which is a felony. He's been charged with that and with reckless endangerment and neglect/abuse of minors for pointing the gun at his other kids before.

If they establish a pattern of recklessness (habitually pointing gun at kids) then the fact that it led to him shooting and killing his daughter accidentally, I don't see how he doesn't get put away.
 
Carolina Red said:
Accidentally shooting someone typically carries a manslaughter/reckless homicide (same thing) charge, which is a felony. He's been charged with that and with reckless endangerment and neglect/abuse of minors for pointing the gun at his other kids before.

If they establish a pattern of recklessness (habitually pointing gun at kids) then the fact that it led to him shooting and killing his daughter accidentally, I don't see how he doesn't get put away.
Click to expand...

His defense will of course play up the grieving father aspect as much as they can in the trial, the question will be will a judge or jury buy it or anything else the defense peddles/
 
JustAFan said:
His defense will of course play up the grieving father aspect as much as they can in the trial, the question will be will a judge or jury buy it or anything else the defense peddles/
Click to expand...
Yes they will. That's why the prosecution needs to hammer home that this is a pattern of recklessness for him. He very well could have done that to any of his kids if their stories are true.
 
A Minnesota woman has been charged over the fatal shooting of her boyfriend, in what authorities say was a social media stunt gone wrong.
Monalisa Perez, 19, was booked into county jail after shooting at Pedro Ruiz as he held a book to his chest, believing it would stop the bullet.
The couple's three-year-old child and nearly 30 onlookers watched as she fired the fatal bullet into his chest.
Ruiz's aunt said they did it to increase their social media following.

County Attorney James Brue described the book as a hardcover encyclopaedia, and said the weapon used was a .50-calibre Desert Eagle handgun.
Police have seized two cameras, which are said to have recorded Monday's incident.
The single gunshot was fired from about one foot (30cm) away as neighbours gathered to watch outside their Minnesota home.
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-...social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook

How fecking stupid can you be? :lol: They didn't even test it first to see if the book would stop the bullet.
 
Rado_N said:
A .50 calibre was definitely the sensible choice.
Click to expand...

I know this will sound heartless, but I do with they had pulled this stunt BEFORE deciding to procreate. Not just for the two kids who have lost a father and will have a mother behind bars, but those are some genes that did not need to be passed on to the next generation.
 
When you have the right to own guns but not the right to healthcare :lol:
 
When I heard those news I somehow expected a lot of green smileys, Darwin references, and general gloating over here. Sadly I wasn't wrong.
 
Synco said:
When I heard those news I somehow expected a lot of green smileys, Darwin references, and general gloating over here. Sadly I wasn't wrong.
Click to expand...
I'm not quite sure what you expect.....I have sympathy for anyone who dies or suffers through no direct fault of their own, I feel for the kids of these two drooling halfwits, but as for the morons themselves? Not a jot of sympathy.
 
Synco said:
Just basic human decency in the face of someone's death, no matter if it's self-inflicted.

Yet you obviously have some kind of urge to insult someone who has died and someone who just destroyed her life. Grand.
Click to expand...
She shot her partner, expecting a book to save him, they had no safety measures in place. All for the purpose of social media......if someone commits suicide through depression or mental illness that is awful and deserving of compassion, people dying by doing something stupid to boost their subscriber count......that's Darwinism.
 
Sparky_Hughes said:
She shot her partner, expecting a book to save him, they had no safety measures in place. All for the purpose of social media......if someone commits suicide through depression or mental illness that is awful and deserving of compassion, people dying by doing something stupid to boost their subscriber count......that's Darwinism.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but there's a reason social darwinism was a fundamental principle of Nazi ideology. That's why up until now I thought the Darwinism references were only tasteless jokes, a little thrill people get out of barbarism without really meaning it. But do you actually think mankind will be improved by getting rid of humans 'unfit' to live?
 
Synco said:
Sorry, but there's a reason social darwinism was a fundamental principle of Nazi ideology. That's why up until now I thought the Darwinism references were only tasteless jokes, a little thrill people get out of barbarism without really meaning it. But do you actually think mankind will be improved by getting rid of humans 'unfit' to live?
Click to expand...
In this case he got rid of himself and did no Sparky is not a Nazi nor associated with them.
 
JustAFan said:
In this case he got rid of himself and did no Sparky is not a Nazi nor associated with them.
Click to expand...
Of course, and I didn't want to imply that.

But what's common between probably all variants of social darwinism is the idea that mankind benefits from the removal of 'inferior' humans (or societies) through some kind of natural selection. Which is how this case was depicted several times. And that's a very ugly way to react to the death of a human being, even if it came about through his own stupid decisions, and even if it's meant as some kind of morbid joke.
 
Synco said:
Of course, and I didn't want to imply that.

But what's common between probably all variants of social darwinism is the idea that mankind benefits from the removal of 'inferior' humans (or societies) through some kind of natural selection. Which is how this case was depicted several times. And that's a very ugly way to react to the death of a human being, even if it came about through his own stupid decisions, and even if it's meant as some kind of morbid joke.
Click to expand...
The guy was an idiot who misused a fire arm to get himself killed. Nope don't feel sorry for him at all. The same as I look down on that idiot father who shot his 9 year old.

You do stupid things like this , don't expect a lot of sympathy from me.

And yes you brought up theNazi's exactly because you wanted to try and link anyone not sharing your view to them. It's dishonest of you to try and pretend otherwise just because you got called out on it.
 
Synco said:
Of course, and I didn't want to imply that.

But what's common between probably all variants of social darwinism is the idea that mankind benefits from the removal of 'inferior' humans (or societies) through some kind of natural selection. Which is how this case was depicted several times. And that's a very ugly way to react to the death of a human being, even if it came about through his own stupid decisions, and even if it's meant as some kind of morbid joke.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between going on to remove those you judge to be inferior and to not feel sorry for those dumb enough to remove themselves.
 
JustAFan said:
The guy was an idiot who misused a fire arm to get himself killed. Nope don't feel sorry for him at all. The same as I look down on that idiot father who shot his 9 year old.

You do stupid things like this , don't expect a lot of sympathy from me.
Click to expand...
No one has demanded sympathy from you or anyone else. Not feeling sorry is one thing, and nobody can say anything against that. But actively ridiculing the deceased person and implying that mankind is better off without him is another. Putting it in a context of natural selection is yet another.
JustAFan said:
And yes you brought up theNazi's exactly because you wanted to try and link anyone not sharing your view to them. It's dishonest of you to try and pretend otherwise just because you got called out on it.
Click to expand...
There's a difference between making a connection between two things and equating them. If you read these two sentences carefully, I did the first thing, but not the second. And that was on purpose.

There are two statements in the post:

1. Social darwinism is an inherently reactionary idea and it's no coincidence that understanding the world this way became a cornerstone of fascist ideology. A cornerstone, not the whole thing, for which there are many more factors.

2. Because of this historical connection I expected this idea to have become pretty much disavowed, and was surprised that it might actually deemed to be a credible explanation of things beyond misanthropic jokes.
Ødegaard said:
There is a difference between going on to remove those you judge to be inferior and to not feel sorry for those dumb enough to remove themselves.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's an important difference, but the connection is seeing them as inferior, as is the case as soon as Darwin is brought up here. I have certainly not written that I think the user is advocating to kill somebody, but I have criticized the idea that getting rid of supposedly inferior individuals is a good thing for human progress as inherently inhumane.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.