People are getting shot by toddlers on a weekly basis this year

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
I don't even understand how this happens... are people getting dumber or are we just hearing about things more because of the internet?

We have had guns in this country for hundreds of years. It's not a new invention and it wasn't recently introduced to the public. I genuinely think people are getting dumber.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Clearly it's a mental health issue.
Click to expand...

Clearly. LOL.

In these particular instances, these are negligent gun owners being irresponsible with their weapons. But same goes with leaving knives on the ground where toddlers can get them.

You can't fix stupid. Unfortunately, stupid is not on the background check :p
 
a.baa-cool-crazy-baby.jpg
 
blue32 said:
Clearly. LOL.

In these particular instances, these are negligent gun owners being irresponsible with their weapons. But same goes with leaving knives on the ground where toddlers can get them.

You can't fix stupid. Unfortunately, stupid is not on the background check :p
Click to expand...

Apparently the toddlers ARE fixing stupid.
 
People on average are much less informed about the proper use and responsibilities of owning guns than in the past.

This lack of knowledge goes way past owning guns. In our younger generations, I have seen a serious decline in their knowledge of outdoor activates on many levels, not just with guns. Such as not knowing how to safely use and put out a campfire, choosing proper footwear for the conditions, basic navigation in remote areas (even when they have a GPS they still go the wrong way), and not knowing how to correctly dispose of human waste in the woods is also very annoying.

Instead of teaching people the proper use of guns, many people are saying the answer is to remove guns for everyone. Instead of teaching people the proper skills to safely enjoy the outdoors and to conserve the environment for future generations; many people are saying the answer is to stop the use of our public lands.

Until teaching people how to safely use guns or how to be safe in the outdoors becomes a priority again, the average person’s skills will continue to decline. The lack of proper training will result in more people being injured or killed by needless accidents.
 
oldfisherman said:
People on average are much less informed about the proper use and responsibilities of owning guns than in the past.

This lack of knowledge goes way past owning guns. In our younger generations, I have seen a serious decline in their knowledge of outdoor activates on many levels, not just with guns. Such as not knowing how to safely use and put out a campfire, choosing proper footwear for the conditions, basic navigation in remote areas (even when they have a GPS they still go the wrong way), and not knowing how to correctly dispose of human waste in the woods is also very annoying.

Instead of teaching people the proper use of guns, many people are saying the answer is to remove guns for everyone. Instead of teaching people the proper skills to safely enjoy the outdoors and to conserve the environment for future generations; many people are saying the answer is to stop the use of our public lands.

Until teaching people how to safely use guns or how to be safe in the outdoors becomes a priority again, the average person’s skills will continue to decline. The lack of proper training will result in more people being injured or killed by needless accidents.
Click to expand...

Guns used to be a tool for sustaining life. You learned how to use a gun because your life depended on it.

Now it's just another hobby or toy, like a tablet or a smart phone, and people treat them with disrespect much like a tablet or a smart phone.
 
oldfisherman said:
People on average are much less informed about the proper use and responsibilities of owning guns than in the past.

This lack of knowledge goes way past owning guns. In our younger generations, I have seen a serious decline in their knowledge of outdoor activates on many levels, not just with guns. Such as not knowing how to safely use and put out a campfire, choosing proper footwear for the conditions, basic navigation in remote areas (even when they have a GPS they still go the wrong way), and not knowing how to correctly dispose of human waste in the woods is also very annoying.

Instead of teaching people the proper use of guns, many people are saying the answer is to remove guns for everyone. Instead of teaching people the proper skills to safely enjoy the outdoors and to conserve the environment for future generations; many people are saying the answer is to stop the use of our public lands.

Until teaching people how to safely use guns or how to be safe in the outdoors becomes a priority again, the average person’s skills will continue to decline. The lack of proper training will result in more people being injured or killed by needless accidents.
Click to expand...

I agree that we should teach toddlers the proper use of fire but I'm not in favor of teaching them how to use GPS. The last thing we need is toddlers on tricycles doing drive-by shootings.
 
Natebishop3 said:
Guns used to be a tool for sustaining life. You learned how to use a gun because your life depended on it.

Now it's just another hobby or toy, like a tablet or a smart phone, and people treat them with disrespect much like a tablet or a smart phone.
Click to expand...

Would you please give me one non military conflict example of when a person’s life depended on using a gun or they would die, instead of using other weapons such as a bow and arrow, or spear as was done in the past before guns.

Every example I can think of involved using a gun to protect ones own life from bad people, not for harvesting food. There are many ways to survive and harvest food in the wilderness without guns. But there is not a better tool you can use than a gun to protect your family.
 
oldfisherman said:
Would you please give me one non military conflict example of when a person’s life depended on using a gun or they would die, instead of using other weapons such as a bow and arrow, or spear as was done in the past before guns.

Every example I can think of involved using a gun to protect ones own life from bad people, not for harvesting food. There are many ways to survive and harvest food in the wilderness without guns. But there is not a better tool you can use than a gun to protect your family.
Click to expand...

Hunting. We've seen a steady decline over the last sixty years, but it wasn't that long ago that people depended on hunting/fishing to provide food for their families.
 
Natebishop3 said:
Hunting. We've seen a steady decline over the last sixty years, but it wasn't that long ago that people depended on hunting/fishing to provide food for their families.
Click to expand...

Wrong, people hunted for thousands of years with spears, and than with bows and arrows. For over 40 years I hunted very successfully with only a bow and arrow. I did carry a gun for protection from predators, both two and four legged kind.

A gun gives a person an advantage while hunting, but is not, nor has it ever been necessary for a person to survive. There are many ways to harvest animals for food without a gun.

A gun can save your life from predators. A gun is the best tool to protect your family, if you choose to.
 
oldfisherman said:
Wrong, people hunted for thousands of years with spears, and than with bows and arrows. For over 40 years I hunted very successfully with only a bow and arrow. I did carry a gun for protection from predators, both two and four legged kind.

A gun gives a person an advantage while hunting, but is not, nor has it ever been necessary for a person to survive. There are many ways to harvest animals for food without a gun.

A gun can save your life from predators. A gun is the best tool to protect your family, if you choose to.
Click to expand...

A gun has been the primary tool for hunting in this country since the colonies. Sure, you CAN hunt with a bow and arrow, but why would you? It's significantly easier to hunt with a rifle. What's the effective range of a bow? I can easily shoot a deer out to 150-200 yards. The musket was a staple in the home for hundreds of years in America.
 
Sigh, you think guns are now a toy like a smart phone or tablet.

I hope for your family’s safety, you do not own any guns. Your comments and lack of knowledge on guns and hunting topics scare me.
 
oldfisherman said:
Sigh, you think guns are now a toy like a smart phone or tablet.

I hope for your family’s safety, you do not own any guns. Your comments and lack of knowledge on guns and hunting topics scare me.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that I treat them that way. I said that a lot of people seem to treat them that way. WTF are you talking about?

I'm not even sure why you're getting so nasty about this. Are you really trying to say that bow hunting is more popular now and in the past than rifle hunting in America?
 
Natebishop3 said:
I'm not even sure why you're getting so nasty about this. Are you really trying to say that bow hunting is more popular now and in the past than rifle hunting in America?
Click to expand...

I am getting nasty because you are repeating faulty myths and miss-information known to have been created and spread by the anti-gun and anti-hunting special interest groups. If you own guns or hunt, you need to wake up and learn the truth, not dodge questions with blue herring topics, which is another anti-gun tactic you are using.

A gun is not necessary to harvest an animal, nor was it ever necessary to survive in the past, hunters know that. Different people enjoy different levels of challenge. Even though I do not hunt with a gun, I support others that choose to hunt with a gun.

To you hunting means shooting and killing an animal.

To me hunting means much more.

Hunting to me is immersing myself into nature for as long as possible. I prefer to enjoy the soothing sound of a gurgling creek instead of listening to the screech of police sirens. Listening to bird calls, not my neighbors loud music.

Then to be accepted by nature with a woodpecker landing on my chest, a squirrel crawl up my pant leg and an owl land on my shoulder (yes all three have happened to me).

The actual harvesting of an animal is a sad ending to good times and the hunt. It marks the beginning of a lot of hard work necessary to responsibly take care of the meat to return it home in the best condition possible.

The reward of hunting is meat that is far healthier and tastier to eat than what you can buy at the grocery store, or order from a drive up window at a fast food restaurant.


So yes, your lack of understanding guns and hunting topics scare me.
 
oldfisherman said:
I am getting nasty because you are repeating faulty myths and miss-information known to have been created and spread by the anti-gun and anti-hunting special interest groups. If you own guns or hunt, you need to wake up and learn the truth, not dodge questions with blue herring topics, which is another anti-gun tactic you are using.

A gun is not necessary to harvest an animal, nor was it ever necessary to survive in the past, hunters know that. Different people enjoy different levels of challenge. Even though I do not hunt with a gun, I support others that choose to hunt with a gun.

To you hunting means shooting and killing an animal.

To me hunting means much more.

Hunting to me is immersing myself into nature for as long as possible. I prefer to enjoy the soothing sound of a gurgling creek instead of listening to the screech of police sirens. Listening to bird calls, not my neighbors loud music.

Then to be accepted by nature with a woodpecker landing on my chest, a squirrel crawl up my pant leg and an owl land on my shoulder (yes all three have happened to me).

The actual harvesting of an animal is a sad ending to good times and the hunt. It marks the beginning of a lot of hard work necessary to responsibly take care of the meat to return it home in the best condition possible.

The reward of hunting is meat that is far healthier and tastier to eat than what you can buy at the grocery store, or order from a drive up window at a fast food restaurant.


So yes, your lack of understanding guns and hunting topics scare me.
Click to expand...

You're barking up the wrong tree bucko. I have no idea where you're getting this from. I didn't say anything anti-hunting. Your knee-jerk reaction is childish and it shows a lack of reading comprehension. There has been a steep decline in the number of hunters over the years. That's a fact. The ODFW is raking in far less money to support our natural habitat.

http://www.bendbulletin.com/localst...151/oregon-stats-show-hunting-fishing-decline

Decades ago, many Oregonians chose to hunt and fish. In 1975, 18.9 percent of Oregon’s 1.7 million residents ages 12 to 69 had a hunting license and 34.6 percent of the state’s 1.6 million residents age 14 to 69 had a fishing license. Data from 2013 show the figures down to 8.3 percent of Oregon’s 2.9 million residents age 12 to 69 had a hunting license and 17.4 percent of the state’s 2.8 million residents age 14 to 69 had fishing licenses.
Click to expand...

http://democratherald.com/news/opin...cle_628d055c-d0a3-11e3-aa5c-001a4bcf887a.html

The Department of Fish and Wildlife is scheduled to unveil a new budget proposal today, and the bottom line isn’t pretty: A spokesman for the department said this week that the agency is projecting what could be a $32 million shortfall over the next three years. The agency likely will have to ask for a bigger share of state general fund dollars to help plug the gap. It also likely will be forced to turn to more frequent increases in license and tag fees.
Click to expand...

I just find your assertion that the primary form of hunting in American history is anything other than a rifle to be false and silly. Show me something that says otherwise if you disagree.

Yes, I think some gun owners are irresponsible, as shown by the story posted above. Did I say that all gun owners are irresponsible? No. What exactly is this blue herring topic that you're referring to? You yourself said that people are spending less time in the woods. They're spending less time learning about guns and putting them to use in practical ways. So what does that mean? Gun purchasing is up. Not down. So that means more people are buying, but less people are educated on firearm safety and what it's like to take a life.

I have hunted. I have shot deer. I am an NRA firearms instructor, and I find your claims to be ridiculous and silly.
 
This type of thing happens from time to time: A little kid finds a gun, fires it, and hurts or kills himself or someone else
Click to expand...

?????​
 
Natebishop3 said:
I didn't say that I treat them that way. I said that a lot of people seem to treat them that way. WTF are you talking about?

I'm not even sure why you're getting so nasty about this. Are you really trying to say that bow hunting is more popular now and in the past than rifle hunting in America?
Click to expand...

I think the point the old fisherman's point is, we don't need guns for hunting any longer. I can recall day when I did, it was the way I put meat on the table, that and a fishing pole.
I no longer hunt for food, so I don't need the gun for that purpose, but I sure as hell do not want to relinquish my right to have a gun or guns that I feel we need for security.
The security issue is larger these day than it was 60 years ago, but the need for hunting is much less.

PS. I never left a gun for a toddler to find. You learned to never be careless with a gun.
I don't think people learn this these days where they do not live with them in use daily.
When it is just a sporting item (a toy) it doesn't sink in.
 
MarAzul said:
I think the point the old fisherman's point is, we don't need guns for hunting any longer. I can recall day when I did, it was the way I put meat on the table, that and a fishing pole.
I no longer hunt for food, so I don't need the gun for that purpose, but I sure as hell do not want to relinquish my right to have a gun or guns that I feel we need for security.
The security issue is larger these day than it was 60 years ago, but the need for hunting is much less.
Click to expand...

Wait... that was MY point.... we don't need guns for every day survival any longer, so now guns are perceived by many people as a hobby, sport, toy, etc.

He was saying that we never needed guns for hunting, which I found ridiculous. How many bows and arrows did the Lewis and Clark expedition carry on them?
 
One of the main points the anti-gun/hunter groups is using to gain public support to take away our guns is saying the need to own guns is much less than in the past. They claim that in the past people needed guns to survive, which they did not, or none of us would be here today. That is my beef with NB3, he sounds just like an anti-gun activist and using their exact message. They are trying to re-write history.

The reason this point is important to the anti-gun activists is if they can convince enough people that the need for guns to survive no long exists, the need to own guns no longer exists.

Many people already put their blind trust into believing that law enforcement agencies will provide the necessary protection that they believe makes owning guns for home protection unnecessary.

It is a two front assault by the anti-gun activists trying to convince people that guns are no longer necessary.


BTW. The rare times in the past there were an actual need for a gun to survive was the very few times people explored new territories to their own culture, and only during the exploring part of their lives. I will agree the number of calories required to feed the Lewis & Clark expedition was enormous. A lot of their food did come from Indians through trading. However, using guns to harvest meat at long ranges did make their expedition cover more ground quicker. The game animals at that time were not afraid of people at long ranges, until they learned what a gun can do. Even many of the early mountain trappers lived with local tribes and attended rendezvous for food support. Not many people, if any, have survived for a long period by living off of only a gun.
 
Wow, I went back and reread the entire thread and I certainly would NOT call Nate a gun control activist. I don't see where he has advocated for gun control at all. He appears to be making a strong case for gun safety education and better gun owner responsibility as far as the weapons they own goes. Man, some gun owners see bogeymen behind every tree when they feel their right to unfettered and wide open gun ownership is threatened, and even when it isn't. Rationality goes right out the window.....not trying to take sides here, but this thread went off the tracks early on the first page...
 
When the Amazing Race comes on TV I always yell out, "White People!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

maxiep
Lost in the shuffle
Replies
4
Views
239
DaLincolnJones
DaLincolnJones
Denny Crane
Politics More scientists doubt salt is as bad for you as the government says
Replies
2
Views
451
riverman
riverman
Yoda_of_the_MODA
Oregon Signs Up 56k for Health Insurance
Replies
12
Views
934
jlprk
jlprk
truebluefan
Bill Simmons signs on with HBO for weekly talk show
Replies
0
Views
224
truebluefan
truebluefan
truebluefan
Obama Proposed ‘Free’ Preschool To Toddlers So They Can Vote For Him ‘In The Future’
Replies
0
Views
159
truebluefan
truebluefan

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top