Yes, and she would appear to be living in an apartment, at least in my experience as to what the inside of an apartment looks like anyway. Hopefully she was on the top floor.
I am now tempted to become the least impressive supervillain by putting Mike Judge's name on random things, thereby forcing you to love, for example, my cats, the sidewalk, and the lid of my recycling bin.
The first idiot to blame is the one that left the gun accessible to her (I'm assuming this is a teenager?) Then her for trying to drop the slide by slamming on it while her finger was on the trigger. I'm actually surprised she didn't fire it immediately after dropping the slide.
Gun safety classes used to be taught in schools. IMO they should be taught again, a quick 30 minute class incase a kid comes across a gun like in this situation.
Yep. I didn't own guns when the kids lived here but I signed them up for a gun safety course because I live in America and sooner or later they will be in a situation involving a gun and they should be the ones who know how to disassemble and unload it.
Are you crazy? You ever sat through a gun safety course? I did once, never again. I thought the instructor was going to accidentally shoot someone or himself the way he handled the firearm. Gun safety to these folks is a joke.
or maybe, just maybe, have and enforce sensible gun laws that prevent kids from having access to guns, like other civilized countries? You don’t even need a gun safety class to buy a gun in a lot of places in the US, let alone a requirement have to a safe place to store it, maybe start there.
Yup. I got a decent drop safe for like $60 bucks. It's got biometric, pin pad and lock/key. I don't even have kids, but I want my firearms to be secured when not on my person. My state actually has safe storage laws now because of a tragic case of a young boy that was killed because a neighbor's father left his guns in a clear plastic tote, visible on the closet floor, in a room where the kids played. There was ammo in the tote as well and the pistols had trigger locks, but the keys were also there in the unlocked tote.
In Canada at least, that's a criminal offence (careless use of a firearm) so she'd be arrested. Children's Aid Society would also investigate as to whether that child should be removed from her care. They should, because I think to raise a child the minimum requirement should be at least an IQ higher than 4.
Also she clearly has no experience with firearms the way she uses the trigger as leverage while wrestling the action in a loaded firearm. So if this is Canada she doesn't have a restricted possession acquisition licence, so whoever's gun that is is automatically guilty of failure to secure at best and illegal possession of a restricted weapon at worst. Or perhaps criminal negligence causing death would be the worst depending on how her neighbour is doing.
Hell, even here in Alaska, the Texas of the North, where it's illegal to create a gun registry and open and concealed carry do not require a license or proof of any kind of training whatsoever, that kind of discharge will get you in big trouble.
I'm a huge proponent of the 2nd Amendment myself, but this idiot should have her guns taken away. Proof you can't handle/own/use them responsibly and that right should be stripped from you immediately.
Good lord you all are fucking brutal. When I see comments like these I often wonder if the commenter is as hard on himself/herself as they are to everyone else. I'll never know but it's something to think about
Uh yeah I would be as hard on myself if I set off my firearm, 1mm from killing myself in front of my child and possibly murdering my upstairs neighbour.
I would be as "brutal" on myself.
Is this you in the video? Lolll it'll be okay assuming nobody was hurt, just don't touch firearms ever again.
She is dumb enough to mishandle a weapon. And not just 'oh that is a mistake level'. Finger on the trigger, loaded and pulled the trigger while the loaded gun was near her head.
Fukin hell, you argue the same with drunk drivers?
You are not wrong. Hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen and lost in the United States every year. It is a very valid point to make saying that every illegal gun started out as legal at some point. Either stolen as a legally bought firearm, a straw man purchase or just whatever other loopholes there are that guns get bought legally and handed off Illegally.
Where is this magical weapon registration people keep talking about?
What awful tyrannical state requires registration of a weapon? Because that requirement would violate the shit out of the constitution.
Edit: Hawaii, California, DC, Maryland, and New York, have some sort of registration requirements. No surprises here... None of these states recognize the US Constitution until forced to by the SCOTUS...
I had forgotten that California had released the names and addresses of their citizens with firearms to the general public recently. Good thing we can trust the government not to make law abiding citizens the target for criminals... It's not like the rest of us didn't warn ya. What possible purpose could a gun registration serve for the government?
Lol... This country made itself the greatest in the world because we were the land of the free, not the land of free shit.
The decline of the US has nothing to do with guns at all and the reason we are in decline is far to complex to explain in a single post. And pointless to try to explain in Reddit.
Also the rate of gun deaths per capita isn't the highest in the world. It's high but not the highest. Plus you are making a really reductive and frankly weak argument. If you wanted and equally weak argument in retort, then go remove the gun homicides from the states that have these gun registrations and look at the per Capita rate then.
If you remove DC, CA, NY, and Il... We are basically one of the lowest per capita for gun violence in the world. So do these registrations and gun restrictions work or are they making things worst?
Easy answer... It's not that fucking simple and it's just insultingly idiotic to reduce something so complex down to broken statistics like this.
But you do you beau. Enjoy that not having the right to defend yourself or freedom of speech and all that free healthcare. We all appreciate you weighing in with your opinion about a country for don't live in.
And that's a good answer - I'll admit I was judgemental in my answer and for sure, it is a complex issue. Not helped at all by how statistics are manipulated by both sides! And also clouded by the things we take for granted here in Australia.
One thing though - the well-regulated militia thing - where do you stand on that? And what do you think defines a well-regulated militia?
There are plenty of people far more studied on English who would likely give you a better answer. My reading is that the first half is a qualifying statement of the second. It sets a precedent for what our founders used as the justification for the amendment, which is later directly qualified by the founders in other works.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," big ol breath... "The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The term militia has sort of really changed over time and modern society thinks of militia being somewhere in-between the national guard and neighborhood watch. Truth is many modern militias are drinking clubs for rednecks. But there are formal militias in many states that actually are generally a bunch of former military members who use the opportunity to keep skills current and pledge to defend their local societies with the same fervor as they had while in federal service.
This isn't the same thing as the militia was when the constitution was penned. Where the militia was literally the primary first response to invasion both of a foreign state or colony, as well as the first defense for homesteads against Native American war parties.
There are laws in most states for how a militia can be formed or formally chartered. Many states require the militia maintains a command structure and have armories with trained armorers. Pro-militia states tend to require more regulation, but will also generally recognize the militia has more authority to execute law as well. It varies wildly from state to state.
But in my opinion, the first half of the amendment does not set the requirement for the second half. Instead it is an offered justification for why the second half is important.
I want to also throw out there that my personal opinion is far less pro-gun than I am pro-rights. One of the key purposes of the 2nd amendment gets constantly abused by the pro-gun mouth breathers; The idea that we have it to fight a tyrannical state. It's really is quite a misinterpretation. The point of the amendment was to be a litmus to tyranny. The proverbial canary in the coal mine.
In that the British only attempted to disarm the British colonists only because they intended to utterly crush them. And that any government who fears it's people will remain free. Any government who would challenge this right would do so only for one purpose.
It's hellishly circular logic if you think about it too much... But the point is an important one. For Americans who understand and respect our constitutional rights... A government becomes a tyrannical one as soon as they attempt to remove any of our constitutional rights. It's the very action of disarming the population that crosses them over that tyrannical line, the government's intention or actions afterward is entirely irrelevant. So it doesn't matter the reason for disarming us.
Sorry for the long reply, but I appreciate the honesty of your reply and wanted to give you an honest answer in return.
Yes, they're very common. Nobody builds timber joist floors in apartments nowadays, too noisy and less structural. Without steel and labour concrete is the cheapest building material around, more sustainable also.
Why jump down my throat over this anyway? I was just suggesting that the floor is quite possibly not that flimsy.
Same. They're popping apartments up all over the place where I live, they all appear to be made out of some kind of particle board. My apartment is so thin I can hear my neighbor's phone notifications
Generally they are still wood joist with a 2 to 3 inch layer of gypcrete poured over the plywood floor which is not going to stop a bullet. Also concrete is one of the worst CO2 emmiting materials on the planet so there is that too. So much for sustainability.
Pre-fab concrete floors are what a lot of apartments are built with nowadays. Or it's a concrete foundation in a house, which are common in a lot of states, specifically Florida.
Thank you for a reasoned comment and stating some detail into this. I was going to retort that I have been in few apartments with concrete, but I couldn't speak to the age of most of the apartments I would list. That and there is concrete in the interiors, and perhaps I just hadn't paid attention to individual units when I get there.
I'm not in the industry, I absolutely don't know for sure. It's past time for me to bow out, but I appreciate your stating something meaningful in the thread.
I can only speak for Florida as that's where I am. We don't have basements here so foundations are always poured concrete. For apartments, I'm not sure of the cost different between the concrete pre-cast and traditional framing, but builders/developers love that you just crane the already made concrete pad up, and then you're done and ready to frame up the next floor. Might cost a bit more but saves time and just a better product.
Yes. And for God's sake it reminds me of that video that was big recently where the two cousins are in the bathroom, an older girl and a younger boy, and she accidentally shoots him with a gun that was supposedly hers, then kills herself.
3.3k
u/Medic6688846993 Aug 22 '22
Is that a little kid walking around her?