Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   Today's gun sadness features a 3 year-old boy killed playing with a small pink handgun he mistook for a toy   (rawstory.com) divider line 687
    More: Sad, South Carolina, handguns  
•       •       •

14321 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Feb 2013 at 3:41 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



687 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-05 04:07:51 PM  

HotWingConspiracy:  

This assumes the only consideration is body count. It's not.


If the very low incidence of self inflicted fatalities due to kids playing with guns is remotely a reason to ban or further control their use then there is a whole catalog of objects and activities that should be headed for the chopping block first.
 
2013-02-05 04:07:59 PM  

Glancing Blow: Get a manly weapon.

[img826.imageshack.us image 640x480]


That pussy doesn't even have a bayonet/spork lug on the barrel.

And where is the cup-holder?!
 
2013-02-05 04:08:19 PM  
This thread needs to get serious.

www.gizmodiva.com
 
2013-02-05 04:08:28 PM  

ferretman: FlashHarry: vpb: the Supremes have decided that requiring trigger locks or gun safes violates the constitution.

wait, what now?

how the fark do locks and safes violate the constitution?

Locks and gun safes prevent you from being able to get quick access if needed, that's why they are not required.


shall not be infringed.... what does it mean?
 
2013-02-05 04:08:28 PM  

ferretman: FlashHarry: vpb: the Supremes have decided that requiring trigger locks or gun safes violates the constitution.

wait, what now?

how the fark do locks and safes violate the constitution?

Locks and gun safes prevent you from being able to get quick access if needed, that's why they are not required.


Yet allows children to blow their own brains out!!
 
2013-02-05 04:08:37 PM  

WTF Indeed: GAT_00: Oh yes, I forgot. The right to firearms trumps everything else, including the right to live.

It's almost like if that gun had been properly locked up the kid would not have died. So a person caused that death, not the gun.


And the reason it looked like a toy is...

I guess that's what Responsible Gun Owners do, buy guns that look like toys.

bradkanus: Nevermind - my bad you wrote "live" note "vote." Regard, but disregard here.


Funny, because I assumed you read it correctly and were just making up a tangent to try and drag the conversation off topic.
 
2013-02-05 04:09:08 PM  
This is why I've taught my son to abide by the four rules of gun safety even when handling toys. Safe gun handling has to be deeply ingrained to be effective.

Most of the safety conscious gun owners I know won't even put their finger on the trigger of a spray bottle or electric drill until they're ready to use it. They usually aren't even aware of it until it's pointed out.
 
2013-02-05 04:09:24 PM  

TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?


I just want to point out why this type of argument is a bad argument.

While it's true that more people are killed by things other than guns, the fact remains that the primary purpose of a car is to safely transport people from one place to another. The primary purpose of a toaster is to safely toast bread. The primary purpose of electricity in the home is to provide power to operate appliances which have passed safety inspections and certifications to minimize the risk of injury or death.

The purpose of a gun (especially a handgun) is to do harm.

So aside from anything else that people want to argue about regarding gun control laws and assault weapons, please just stop bringing up the arguement that people get injured and killed through the misuse of items that are part of everyday life.

But to get back to your point, yes, I agree that this is totally the result of negligence on the part of the parents.

The idea of having kids and owning guns, but taking no precautions to keep the guns out of the kids hands when they are not supervised, is absolutely mind-bogglingly stupid.
 
2013-02-05 04:10:09 PM  
What if we put a little sticker on all guns: "This thing is dangerous."
Do you think that would fix it all?
 
2013-02-05 04:11:06 PM  

Zasteva: How many of those were EASILY preventable by having the gun where the child couldn't get to it (on owner's person, or in a gun safe)?


Probably a small fraction of those.

Why?

Because some significant number of those accidents have to be from the adult farking up.  So, maybe half.

In a nation with as many guns and gun owners as we have,  that's a remarkably small number.
 
2013-02-05 04:11:17 PM  

bradkanus: So I need to pay the price every time somebody does something stupid or allows something terrible to happen?  Or is this just pertaining to guns?

Maybe we should take the internet away from everyone since a small minority of people use it to exploit children.  If ONE CHILD IS SAVED!


Sadly, we *all* pay the price when something like this happens and you respond.

Believe me - if there comes a point when we are allowed to "take the Internet away" from people, you're already on the short-list. You've already shown you can't handle the responsibility.

\one of the walking wounded
 
2013-02-05 04:11:47 PM  

stonicus: What if we put a little sticker on all guns: "This thing is dangerous."
Do you think that would fix it all?


Well, it would violate the constitutional rights of of Responsible Gun Owners, so I don't see why you're even bringing it up.
 
2013-02-05 04:11:58 PM  

feckingmorons: The fact that is was pink and a child might be more likely to mistake it for a toy, as it apparently was in this case, is all the more reason to secure your guns when not in your immediate control.


When I was growing up I was taught that guns were not toys, so therefore we would not be allowed to play with toy guns.  Sure, whenever I could get a stick that would suffice but as an adult it's more poignant; it's not a toy....it's a tool, and it should be treated with the same sort of care and respect as any tool that can and will cause an incredible amount of harm if you're not careful with it.

So, now that were seeing actual guns looking like a toy, well, I have to wonder exactly what the fark are people thinking?  If we put Drano in containers that looked like Go-Gurt the general public would go batshiat crazy.  If rat poison came in Pez Dispenser format it would be billed as irresponsible.

Yet.....gunmakers can manufacture a weapon that would stylistically look at home next to Hello Kitty or Barbie?

What the fark is wrong with these people?  I'm talking about BOTH the gun makers AND the idiots that would willingly plunk down money for a gun in bubble-gum color?  Is there absolutely NO concept of the ramification or potential for a situation with confusion as to it's actual nature, especially when the odds are so astoundingly high with a firearm?
 
2013-02-05 04:12:49 PM  
Whatever, my house has no guns so it can't happen to me,  I can laugh and laugh loud at this stuff.  It isn't going to happen in my home.
 
2013-02-05 04:13:07 PM  
Guns aren't fashion accessories so don't treat them as such.
 
2013-02-05 04:13:40 PM  

bradkanus: So I need to pay the price every time somebody does something stupid or allows something terrible to happen?


I wouldn't worry too much about it. If you had to pay a price for stupidity you'd have a life sentence in debtor's prison ten times over by now.
 
2013-02-05 04:13:57 PM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: unyon: TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?

No, but if more than 500 kids a year were killed every year from toasters, you can be damned sure that there would be an outcry.

More the 500 kids a year are killed in car accidents. I'm not hearing an outcry.

Gun owners: Secure your damn weapons.


Now I see why your reply to me was so stupid.

As to this Weeners, citation please. Not that I don't believe you, I just want to know if you're making things up to present a false equivilence (a gun nut favorite). Secondly, assuming your numbers are correct, which is why we don't have any regulations on cars amirite? I might have to get the well polished response to this false equivilency from a few days ago, since you guys seem to break it out like its all fresh and new every thread.
 
2013-02-05 04:13:59 PM  
Well if the kid didn't have that gun he could have been taken hostage by a bad guy with a gun, and then he would be dead by now.
 
2013-02-05 04:14:39 PM  

Joe Blowme: ferretman: FlashHarry: vpb: the Supremes have decided that requiring trigger locks or gun safes violates the constitution.

wait, what now?

how the fark do locks and safes violate the constitution?

Locks and gun safes prevent you from being able to get quick access if needed, that's why they are not required.

shall not be infringed.... what does it mean?


It means whatever the courts say it means at any given point in time - and nothing else.
 
2013-02-05 04:15:07 PM  

lostcat: The purpose of a gun (especially a handgun) is to do harm.


That isn't necessarily wrong.  Unless, of course, you think that violence is always wrong.  In that case, you are a naive Pollyanna.

I teach my son that violence is very rarely the answer, but that sometimes, again very rarely, it's the only appropriate answer.   Then I give the spiel about not initiating it.
 
2013-02-05 04:15:20 PM  

stonicus: What if we put a little sticker on all guns: "This thing is dangerous."
Do you think that would fix it all?


We could require that there be some sort of easily recognizable symbol or color to let people know it's dangerous.
Hunters wear bright orange to be easly seen. How about we make gun manufacturers paint the last half-inch of a gun's barrel bright orange to act as an easily seen warning?
It would also let the police regognize that someone is pointing a gun at them, so they can more easily shoot the aggressor.
 
2013-02-05 04:15:24 PM  

Joe Blowme: shall not be infringed.... what does it mean?


"You'll take my hobby from my cold, dead hands!"

www.davidhedison.net
 
2013-02-05 04:15:44 PM  
You should be required to buy a gun safe or lock box or lockable gun cabinet with the purchase of your first gun. The cheap ones are only around $150. Won't keep burglars out, but it will keep kids out.
 
2013-02-05 04:15:50 PM  
"Deputy Coroner Jeff Fowler ruled the shooting an accidental homicide."

We need to hold folks who allow children access to unlocked/loaded guns responsible, the same way we treat drunk drivers. I didn't mean to just doesn't cut it anymore.  HOW was this pretty pink gun accessible to a 3 and 7 year old?

THIS was not an "accident!"

/Yes, I realize locking you gun in a safe unloaded renders it pretty much useless in a home invasion scenario, but when you have a 3 and a 7 year old in the house maybe that is not a house that need to be protected by a homeowner with a gun and might better be served with an escape plan,  Yeah, the bad guy would still be alive, but then, so would your kids.
 
2013-02-05 04:16:14 PM  

vpb: "This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."
  -Heller V Dist of Columbia


actually, i went back and read heller after i posted that. i'm astounded that they asserted that "self-defense" is the "core lawful purpose" of the 2nd amendment, when its introductory clause specifically talks about "the people" as a collective whole defending "the state" as part of a "well-regulated militia."
 
2013-02-05 04:16:28 PM  

CruiserTwelve: [i162.photobucket.com image 593x382]


At first glance, that really does look like a toy.

Back when I was a kid we had toy guns that looked real.  Then there was a big fuss about making sure that toy guns had red tips on the end so a kid wouldn't be shot by a cop who mistook it for a real gun.

When a real gun that looks like a toy actually kills someone....oh, that's what this article is about.

Some states ban "novelty lighters" because they look like toys.  Will there be a push to ban "novelty guns"?
 
2013-02-05 04:16:56 PM  

Joe Blowme: ferretman: FlashHarry: vpb: the Supremes have decided that requiring trigger locks or gun safes violates the constitution.

wait, what now?

how the fark do locks and safes violate the constitution?

Locks and gun safes prevent you from being able to get quick access if needed, that's why they are not required.

shall not be infringed.... what does it mean?


Where does requiring a lock or safe "infringe" on your right to keep and bear arms?

I say charge the parents with negligent homicide, just like Adam Lanza's mother (had he not killed her with the very weapons she bought "for protection).
 
2013-02-05 04:16:59 PM  

GAT_00: And the reason it looked like a toy is...

I guess that's what Responsible Gun Owners do, buy guns that look like toys.


It looked like a pink gun, not a toy.  Pink handguns are sold all the time to women and even many in the LGBT community whom are members of "Pink Pistols".  The owner of this weapon was not responsible, but you can't see that because you think gun looking like a toy is to blame for this death when it is really the owner of gun.
 
2013-02-05 04:17:09 PM  

stonicus: What if we put a little sticker on all guns: "This thing is dangerous."
Do you think that would fix it all?


Sounds like the first step toward tyranny, black helicopters and Hitler.
 
2013-02-05 04:17:46 PM  
Dixon Cider:

"It's not the gun, it's the negligent parents."

Take equation, remove gun. Child lives.

Remove negligent parent, child lives.


Removing the parents would still remove the weapon... yes?Not necessarily. I think the point was that if you  replaced idiot parents with parents who have the full use of common sense, the gun could still be in the house and the child not dead.
 
2013-02-05 04:18:09 PM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: More the 500 kids a year are killed in car accidents. I'm not hearing an outcry.

Gun owners: Secure your damn weapons.


Why does this keep getting parroted?  Every year there is pressure from government and consumer groups to ratchet up the safety of cars in every conceivable situation, resulting in vast layers of regulation and specifications for any new car sold in this country.  Cars are the most regulated consumer product other than probably prescription drugs.

And you know what?  The motor vehicle fatality rate has dropped from a high around 5.4/100MVMT to 1.1/100MVMT since safety equipment became a focus of manufacturers.  Vehicle fatalities will be eclipsed by firearms deaths this year or next because of it.

Furthermore, just about every child interacts with a vehicle every day, just like every person in this country.  The same cannot be remotely said about firearms.
 
2013-02-05 04:20:06 PM  

bradkanus: GAT_00: WTF Indeed: GAT_00: God Bless an America where this not only happens but is defended by gun owners.

For someone who spends all day talking about politics and public policy, you have zero idea about how either of them work.

Oh yes, I forgot. The right to firearms trumps everything else, including the right to live.

Right to vote?  Or the right to participate in an election?  I'd like to see where you have the "right to vote."  I mean if you have a right to vote, you'd get a vote for the president, right?  Nope.

"The "right to vote" is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution except in the above referenced amendments, and only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. In other words, the "right to vote" is perhaps better understood, in layman's terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage. States may deny the "right to vote" for other reasons."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States">htt p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States


The state can also deny a person the right to bear arms. Felons are not allowed to vote or own guns in my state. Heck if you parse the 2nd Amendment the way it is to imply it guarentees the induvidual's right to own guns, then the 2nd Amendment also gives the government the constitutional right to regulate those arms. They can't infringe on the right of ownership but they can regulate the terms of said ownership.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If those two statements were mutually exclusive, the word "and" would have ben used.
 
2013-02-05 04:20:09 PM  

Surpheon: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: More the 500 kids a year are killed in car accidents. I'm not hearing an outcry.

What? Are you deaf? I couldn't even take my kid home from the hospital without having the child seat inspected. If a celebrity is caught driving with their kid in their lap it's headline news. There are safety fairs with police and firemen to talk about children and vehicle safety. MADD built the foundation of their righteous anger machine on the documented death of children.

Your statement is so stupid I'm starting to suspect this reply is going to earn a 'That's the Joke' prize...



So why do we not see stories on Fark every time a kid gets killed in a car accident?

Sure there are laws and organizations that are devoted to safer driving. Just as there are even stiffer laws, and organizations for safer firearms.

But the media outcry is focused on guns. Hysteria sells, and you're buying.
 
2013-02-05 04:21:42 PM  
"In 2011, Arizona state Sen. Lori Klein (R) was criticized after she pointed her loaded raspberry-pink handgun at a reporter. "Oh, it's so cute," Klein told the reporter as she aimed the gun's laser pointer at the reporter's chest, adding that the firearm's lack of a trigger safety should not be a reason to worry."

Wholly shiat, what a freaking idiot.
 
2013-02-05 04:21:48 PM  

FlashHarry: vpb: "This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."
  -Heller V Dist of Columbia

actually, i went back and read heller after i posted that. i'm astounded that they asserted that "self-defense" is the "core lawful purpose" of the 2nd amendment, when its introductory clause specifically talks about "the people" as a collective whole defending "the state" as part of a "well-regulated militia."


same basic reasoning behind Roe v Wade. the implicit right to privacy is found in the explicit right to be free in our persons. the implicit right to self defense is found in the explicit right to keep and bear(among others).  But you just try and tell Scalia that....
 
2013-02-05 04:22:38 PM  
FTA: "Pink handguns and Hello Kitty assault rifles have been part of an effort to get firearms in the hands of women and younger groups in recent years."

Well...it worked.
 
2013-02-05 04:23:13 PM  

dittybopper: lostcat: The purpose of a gun (especially a handgun) is to do harm.

That isn't necessarily wrong.  Unless, of course, you think that violence is always wrong.  In that case, you are a naive Pollyanna.

I teach my son that violence is very rarely the answer, but that sometimes, again very rarely, it's the only appropriate answer.   Then I give the spiel about not initiating it.


Didn't assign a moral value to causing harm. Just said that causing harm is the primary purpose of a handgun.
 
2013-02-05 04:23:33 PM  

WTF Indeed: It looked like a pink gun, not a toy.


You should tell the kid that.  He's going to be so embarrassed.
 
2013-02-05 04:24:10 PM  
Abe Vigoda's Ghost: More the 500 kids a year are killed in car accidents. I'm not hearing an outcry.

Surpheon: What? Are you deaf? I couldn't even take my kid home from the hospital without having the child seat inspected. If a celebrity is caught driving with their kid in their lap it's headline news. There are safety fairs with police and firemen to talk about children and vehicle safety. MADD built the foundation of their righteous anger machine on the documented death of children.

Your statement is so stupid I'm starting to suspect this reply is going to earn a 'That's the Joke' prize...


But he's right. The automotive yearly slaughter, about 30,000 people a year, is a fact.

But here's the problem with guns. The NRA looks at the Chris Kyle incident, or Newtown and shrugs and says, "This is unavoidable." And that answer is not acceptable to many of us. That's the wrong answer, one we refuse to accept.

There were about 8500 firearm murders in 2011.

So - both issues are worth addressing seriously. Car safety is being addressed, albeit in a haphazard fashion. But there have been tremendous advances in the past 40 years. Gun safety is not being addressed at all.

There are 8760 hours in a year (365 days x 24 hours / day). One person dies every 17 minutes in a car wreck.1 One person dies about every 60 minutes from a firearms-related incident.2 Both issues are worth addressing. Both issues are important.

==================
1 Car deaths per hour: 30196 deaths per year / 8760 hours per year = 3.44 deaths per hour.
2 Firearms deaths per hour: 8583 deaths per year / 8760 hours per year = .98 deaths per hour.
 
2013-02-05 04:24:13 PM  

FlashHarry: vpb: "This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."
  -Heller V Dist of Columbia

actually, i went back and read heller after i posted that. i'm astounded that they asserted that "self-defense" is the "core lawful purpose" of the 2nd amendment, when its introductory clause specifically talks about "the people" as a collective whole defending "the state" as part of a "well-regulated militia."


And now you've come to realize why legal scolars mock the activist SCOTUS and historically Heller will be considered one of the biggest travesties of logic ever uttered.

I'm not sure what the record is, but it's going to be pushing it for "quickest ruling ever overturned" when Scalia, Alito, or Thomas croak.
 
2013-02-05 04:24:39 PM  

Pride of Cucamonga: Dixon Cider:

"It's not the gun, it's the negligent parents."

Take equation, remove gun. Child lives.

Remove negligent parent, child lives.

Removing the parents would still remove the weapon... yes?Not necessarily. I think the point was that if you  replaced idiot parents with parents who have the full use of common sense, the gun could still be in the house and the child not dead.


Remove the weapon and get the same result?
Kids need parents... parents do not need guns.

But agreed.. a little common sense and this is a non-story!
 
2013-02-05 04:24:50 PM  

justtray: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: unyon: TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?

No, but if more than 500 kids a year were killed every year from toasters, you can be damned sure that there would be an outcry.

More the 500 kids a year are killed in car accidents. I'm not hearing an outcry.

Gun owners: Secure your damn weapons.

Now I see why your reply to me was so stupid.

As to this Weeners, citation please. Not that I don't believe you, I just want to know if you're making things up to present a false equivilence (a gun nut favorite). Secondly, assuming your numbers are correct, which is why we don't have any regulations on cars amirite? I might have to get the well polished response to this false equivilency from a few days ago, since you guys seem to break it out like its all fresh and new every thread.


Anyway, that number is meaningless by itself. For it to be meaningful, we would have to know how many children dwell in homes with guns versus how many dwell in homes with cars (or swimming pools or whatever), as well as how much time they spend in the presence of those things.
As of 2011, only 37% of U.S. households had guns in them (as opposed to 51% in 1970) - and we don't know how many of this dwindling number also have children in them. We do know that the probability of death by misadventure is statistically higher when a gun is in the home.
None of this suggests that there is anything to be gained by outlawing guns, or forbidding them to the sane and competent. But I do think it might be prudent to apply some of the same measures we take to keep madmen, drunks, and incompetents out from behind the wheel of a car to gun ownership. Just sayin', is all.
I support the 2nd amendment - but I don't buy the slippery slope arguments against licensing and registration.
 
2013-02-05 04:24:59 PM  
how many cars killed kids today?


/wonders when we're going to ban peanuts.
 
gja
2013-02-05 04:25:36 PM  

Snowflake Tubbybottom: I think that we, unlike this kid, really dodged a bullet here. I mean that kid was the next Hitler, or maybe just republican.

/I'd like the kosher meal stewardess.


Betcha it really blew his mind

/stewardess! Oi! drinks a and chips for me n my mate 'ere.
 
2013-02-05 04:25:59 PM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: justtray: TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?

"It's not the gun, it's the negligent parents."

Take equation, remove gun. Child lives.

Remove negligent parent, child lives.


Are you endorsing gov't inspection of gun owners' homes? Because there was no cause for negligence until the kid was already dead.
 
2013-02-05 04:26:08 PM  
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-02-05 04:26:32 PM  

lostcat: TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?

I just want to point out why this type of argument is a bad argument.

While it's true that more people are killed by things other than guns, the fact remains that the primary purpose of a car is to safely transport people from one place to another. The primary purpose of a toaster is to safely toast bread. The primary purpose of electricity in the home is to provide power to operate appliances which have passed safety inspections and certifications to minimize the risk of injury or death.

The purpose of a gun (especially a handgun) is to do harm.

So aside from anything else that people want to argue about regarding gun control laws and assault weapons, please just stop bringing up the arguement that people get injured and killed through the misuse of items that are part of everyday life.

But to get back to your point, yes, I agree that this is totally the result of negligence on the part of the parents.

The idea of having kids and owning guns, but taking no precautions to keep the guns out of the kids hands when they are not supervised, is absolutely mind-bogglingly stupid.


Actually this is a particularly bad argument. The "guns are designed to kill" argument is totally irrational and has no value. Design has little to do with how we should regard something. The overwhelming majority of gun use is either sitting in safes or putting holes in paper. They are not killing or harming anything. There are plenty of things we use without regard for their design. Viagra was designed to treat heart disease. WD-40 was designed to prevent rusting. The Slinky was designed for use on naval ships.

So the design, or intent if you're into anthropomorphism, of an object has little bearing on how we actually use it and it is senseless to treat it based on that rather than the real world way they are used.
 
2013-02-05 04:26:44 PM  
Weapons that look like toys must carry an enhanced penalty for misuse.
 
2013-02-05 04:26:50 PM  

justtray: I'm not sure what the record is, but it's going to be pushing it for "quickest ruling ever overturned" when Scalia, Alito, or Thomas croak.


let's hope. scalia first, please.
 
2013-02-05 04:26:56 PM  

GAT_00: WTF Indeed: It looked like a pink gun, not a toy.

You should tell the kid that.  He's going to be so embarrassed.


Because we all know toy guns NEVER look like real guns!
I bet he is laughing his ass off at his mistake... or was that brain pan?
 
Displayed 50 of 687 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report