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.

(New York Daily News)   Giving five-year-old "My First Rifle" yields predictable results   (nydailynews.com) divider line 613
    More: Sad, Kentucky, Lexington Herald-Leader, .22 Long Rifle  
•       •       •

12263 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 May 2013 at 11:44 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-05-01 10:55:33 AM  
You should see the bill from the taxidermist.
 
2013-05-01 10:59:04 AM  
The county coroner has ruled the death 'just one of those crazy accidents.'

No. Some adult gave a loaded gun to a 5-yr old. This isn't a crazy accident. This is parental negligence.

Also WHO GIVES A F*CKING FIREARM TO A 5 YEAR OLD?

Congratulations, dumbass. Now you've ruined at least four lives.
 
2013-05-01 11:06:08 AM  
That toddler was coming right at him.
 
2013-05-01 11:08:53 AM  
this wouldn't have happened if the two-year-old had been carrying.
 
2013-05-01 11:11:31 AM  
The only solution to a bad five year old with a gun is a good five year old with a gun.
 
2013-05-01 11:13:02 AM  
Wait wait wait, I have another.  When will Obama call this a terrorist act?
 
2013-05-01 11:15:58 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: You should see the bill from the taxidermist.


"He gonna have a heart attack when he sees what I brung him!"
 
2013-05-01 11:17:20 AM  

bdub77: The county coroner has ruled the death 'just one of those crazy accidents.'

No. Some adult gave a loaded gun to a 5-yr old. This isn't a crazy accident. This is parental negligence.

Also WHO GIVES A F*CKING FIREARM TO A 5 YEAR OLD?

Congratulations, dumbass. Now you've ruined at least four lives.


Or brings a loaded gun into the house.  Or leaves a gun leaning in a corner somewhere.
 
2013-05-01 11:18:20 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: jehovahs witness protection: You should see the bill from the taxidermist.

"He gonna have a heart attack when he sees what I brung him!"


How farked would that be if the parents did have the toddler stuffed and kept it in the house?  Like make the older kid apologize to his stuffed dead sister every day.
 
2013-05-01 11:18:58 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: bdub77: The county coroner has ruled the death 'just one of those crazy accidents.'

No. Some adult gave a loaded gun to a 5-yr old. This isn't a crazy accident. This is parental negligence.

Also WHO GIVES A F*CKING FIREARM TO A 5 YEAR OLD?

Congratulations, dumbass. Now you've ruined at least four lives.

Or brings a loaded gun into the house.  Or leaves a gun leaning in a corner somewhere.


just one of those 'crazy accidents' i guess. OOPSIE.
 
2013-05-01 11:25:17 AM  
'just one of those crazy accidents.'
 
2013-05-01 11:29:33 AM  
When we ban guns for 5-year-olds, only criminal 5-year-olds will have guns!
 
2013-05-01 11:33:12 AM  

bdub77: Marcus Aurelius: bdub77: The county coroner has ruled the death 'just one of those crazy accidents.'

No. Some adult gave a loaded gun to a 5-yr old. This isn't a crazy accident. This is parental negligence.

Also WHO GIVES A F*CKING FIREARM TO A 5 YEAR OLD?

Congratulations, dumbass. Now you've ruined at least four lives.

Or brings a loaded gun into the house.  Or leaves a gun leaning in a corner somewhere.

just one of those 'crazy accidents' i guess. OOPSIE.


Actually, yes, it is.

Do you know how many kids age 11 and under die in gun accidents every year?

Less than 50.  In fact, in 2010, the number was 41.  The chance is literally greater than a million to one (the rate is .08 per 100,000).

So yeah, it *IS* one of those crazy accidents.

/Of course, shouldn't have been any ammo in the room
//Should have been very supervised at that age.
///littlebopper got his first .22 at age 8.
 
2013-05-01 11:34:03 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: bdub77: The county coroner has ruled the death 'just one of those crazy accidents.'

No. Some adult gave a loaded gun to a 5-yr old. This isn't a crazy accident. This is parental negligence.

Also WHO GIVES A F*CKING FIREARM TO A 5 YEAR OLD?

Congratulations, dumbass. Now you've ruined at least four lives.

Or brings a loaded gun into the house.  Or leaves a gun leaning in a corner somewhere.


or neglect to teach a gun owner that you never ever, ever point a gun at another human even if you think it is unloaded (unless your intent is to actually shoot that person)
 
2013-05-01 11:40:50 AM  
Ma, come quick I accidentally instilled safety into the mind!
 
2013-05-01 11:42:28 AM  

dittybopper: bdub77: Marcus Aurelius: bdub77: The county coroner has ruled the death 'just one of those crazy accidents.'

No. Some adult gave a loaded gun to a 5-yr old. This isn't a crazy accident. This is parental negligence.

Also WHO GIVES A F*CKING FIREARM TO A 5 YEAR OLD?

Congratulations, dumbass. Now you've ruined at least four lives.

Or brings a loaded gun into the house.  Or leaves a gun leaning in a corner somewhere.

just one of those 'crazy accidents' i guess. OOPSIE.

Actually, yes, it is.

Do you know how many kids age 11 and under die in gun accidents every year?

Less than 50.  In fact, in 2010, the number was 41.  The chance is literally greater than a million to one (the rate is .08 per 100,000).

So yeah, it *IS* one of those crazy accidents.

/Of course, shouldn't have been any ammo in the room
//Should have been very supervised at that age.
///littlebopper got his first .22 at age 8.


No, an accident is 'Tommy fell out of the tree'. OK you're a parent, you told Tommy to play outside, you didn't mind that Tommy wants to climb the tree, you might have even been watching him, so maybe you blame yourself for his fall. Maybe he dies, you're definitely broken up about it, you definitely blame yourself. Still, accidents happen and you can't always be a split second from your child.

Maybe a gun accident is Tommy was for whatever reason out hunting, supervised by an adult, and accidentally shoots someone or is accidentally shot. I dunno maybe someone was mistaken for a deer. Still terrible.

A gun accident is not 'I left a working firearm in the presence of a five year old which could at any time be used to actually load a bullet into the chamber and be fired, and one of the main rules of firearms is always assume the weapon is loaded. It's obviously tragic, but more importantly, entirely preventable with proper firearm safety. This was gross negligence, not an accident. And as I said before, a five year old IMO should NEVER have access to a firearm because they are five f*cking years old. It was his firearm. It was given to him. That isn't an accident either.
 
2013-05-01 11:43:54 AM  
This was a triumph.

I'm making a note here, huge success.

It's hard to understate my satisfaction.

For the good of all of us...

(EXCEPT FOR THOSE THAT ARE DEAD)

kbronsito: or neglect to teach a gun owner that you never ever, ever point a gun at another human even if you think it is unloaded (unless your intent is to actually shoot that person)


No offense, but perhaps five years old is a little too young to try to teach a child to do anything with a firearm but stay away from them and call an adult if they see one.

If he's too young to understand the gravitas of a concept such as death, then he's too young to play with a bang stick.
 
2013-05-01 11:44:42 AM  
So the solution to the gun problem is better mental health services in the US but giving a gun to a kinder-gardener is A-OK?
 
2013-05-01 11:45:42 AM  
Literally a child too young to control it's bladder has a firearm and that's perfectly fine.
 
hej
2013-05-01 11:46:21 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: You should see the bill from the taxidermist.


Thanks.  Now we're both going to hell.
 
2013-05-01 11:48:07 AM  

James!: How farked would that be if the parents did have the toddler stuffed and kept it in the house? Like make the older kid apologize to his stuffed dead sister every day.


Can you even do that?  I mean, get a person stuffed or have their head mounted?
 
2013-05-01 11:48:39 AM  
Complete failure of the parental system..

/where did the little fark get their hands on 22 ammo?
 
2013-05-01 11:48:48 AM  

James!: So the solution to the gun problem is better mental health services in the US but giving a gun to a kinder-gardener is A-OK?


No, even the NRA would not say that this was A-OK. It's a farking tragedy of stupid proportions. I just hope they sterilize the parents and place the kid with someone who has more farking sense.
 
2013-05-01 11:48:48 AM  
BB guns for kids under 10. That's the golden rule of guns.

A .22? What the hell were these parents thinking?

A Daisy or even an airsoft would have been just as good for a 5 year old.
 
2013-05-01 11:49:01 AM  
Future responsible gun owner.
 
2013-05-01 11:49:04 AM  
This is just a necessary sacrifice of responsible gun ownership. To NOT allow the five year old to have a gun would have been a GRAVE violation of the 2nd amendment.
 
2013-05-01 11:49:23 AM  
Yet another gun-accident article on Fark.... *yawn*
 
2013-05-01 11:49:44 AM  
It is absolutely disgusting the way gun makers manufacture weapons of destruction to children,  Absolutely shameful.
 
2013-05-01 11:50:22 AM  
Once I doused my house in gasoline and gave a 5 year old a pack of matches to play with. Long story short, just one of those crazy accidents.
 
2013-05-01 11:50:26 AM  
I really hate moron parents.
 
2013-05-01 11:50:34 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: James!: How farked would that be if the parents did have the toddler stuffed and kept it in the house? Like make the older kid apologize to his stuffed dead sister every day.

Can you even do that?  I mean, get a person stuffed or have their head mounted?


I think it's legal.  You can burn it, you can bury it, you can shoot it up into space.  May as well be able to stuff it.
 
2013-05-01 11:50:39 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: A .22? What the hell were these parents thinking?


I dunno. You should ask  dirtybopper. He's actually defending this act.
 
2013-05-01 11:50:49 AM  

James!: So the solution to the gun problem is better mental health services in the US but giving a gun to a kinder-gardener is A-OK?


I blame video games.  If not for violent, hyper-realistic video games like Big Bird Teaches Typing, this kid never would have committed this atrocious but totally unforeseeable act.
 
2013-05-01 11:50:50 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: James!: How farked would that be if the parents did have the toddler stuffed and kept it in the house? Like make the older kid apologize to his stuffed dead sister every day.

Can you even do that?  I mean, get a person stuffed or have their head mounted?


Can't think of any reason you couldn't. You can get your miscarried child mounted in a "memory box", so I can imagine having a kid taxidermied would be possible.
 
2013-05-01 11:50:53 AM  
Parent(s) should be charged with manslaughter.
 
2013-05-01 11:50:55 AM  

kbronsito: Marcus Aurelius: bdub77: The county coroner has ruled the death 'just one of those crazy accidents.'

No. Some adult gave a loaded gun to a 5-yr old. This isn't a crazy accident. This is parental negligence.

Also WHO GIVES A F*CKING FIREARM TO A 5 YEAR OLD?

Congratulations, dumbass. Now you've ruined at least four lives.

Or brings a loaded gun into the house.  Or leaves a gun leaning in a corner somewhere.

or neglect to teach a gun owner that you never ever, ever point a gun at another human even if you think it is unloaded (unless your intent is to actually shoot that person)


I'm not certain that can be taught to every five year old.  What you do instead is keep your firearms in a gun safe, and keep the combination a closely guarded secret.
 
2013-05-01 11:51:01 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: No, even the NRA would not say that this was A-OK. It's a farking tragedy of stupid proportions. I just hope they sterilize the parents and place the kid with someone who has more farking sense.


Really?  They've consistently opposed all forms of storage laws, they've come out against criminal charges for firearms "accidents" of this nature in the past.
 
2013-05-01 11:51:02 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: You should see the bill from the taxidermist.


You're attempts to divert and evade from this tragedy is noted.  Sad and idiotic as they are.
 
2013-05-01 11:51:07 AM  
These parents get to keep both their firearms and children.  That's part of a healthy society, right?
 
2013-05-01 11:51:13 AM  
The 5 year-old had a clean record.  Background checks wouldn't have prevented this.
 
2013-05-01 11:51:29 AM  

hardinparamedic: AverageAmericanGuy: A .22? What the hell were these parents thinking?

I dunno. You should ask  dirtybopper. He's actually defending this act.


Da fuq, dittybopper?
 
2013-05-01 11:51:36 AM  
Wow. I was about that age the first time I was taken shooting, but I didn't own my own until I was 12. Farking stupid people making Darwin proud.
 
2013-05-01 11:51:58 AM  
No offense, but perhaps five years old is a little too young to try to teach a child to do anything with a firearm but stay away from them and call an adult if they see one.

Five is a very typical age to start showing a kid how to shoot.  I probably started around that age.  I could see buying them their own small-sized gun too, if you had the money.

What I think is crazy is leaving the gun around for them to play with.  Loaded or unloaded, doesn't matter, a kid that age should never touch a gun without a parent standing right there (with their hand on the gun too, or maybe inches away from it ready to keep it from pointing at anyone).
 
2013-05-01 11:52:05 AM  
Well, it's not like you could give the kid hand grenades. Their hands are too small.
 
2013-05-01 11:52:05 AM  

FlashHarry: this wouldn't have happened if the two-year-old had been carrying.


There's no defense against a My First Assault Rifle.

Would add to the WTF sentiment here.

My dad was a bit of a gun nut and he wouldn't let me near one until I was 11.

/ got a Benjamin pellet gun for X-mas...
 
2013-05-01 11:52:10 AM  
my five year old will learn to shoot eventually.

he's still mastering tooth brushing, how to tie his own shoes, wiping his ass after a dump, choosing appropriate clothes to go outside.

I put gun safety a little bit later, myself.
 
2013-05-01 11:52:28 AM  
As someone who has experienced this kind of thing (one cousin killed his brother in a hunting accident) I will say I don't find anything humorous in this story, nor any of the comments.

I grew up in a family where both sides were committed hunters.  And in this culture it was very common to see children hunting.  We did it, my brother and I hunted from an early age.

I gave it up decades ago, and I would never even think of giving my daughter a loaded weapon.  Before she died I asked my mom how they did it, and she said it was just a different time.

And all these Ted Nuget-type hunting shows say "take a kid hunting".  It's one of their major themes.
 
2013-05-01 11:52:30 AM  
came for photo of dittybopper as an infant holding a rifle

shoot my frown up side down
 
2013-05-01 11:52:56 AM  
We just need armed guards in every home to prevent this sort of thing. Why isn't Obama working with the Republicans on this common sense measure?
 
2013-05-01 11:53:00 AM  

Felgraf: This is just a necessary sacrifice of responsible gun ownership. To NOT allow the five year old to have a gun would have been a GRAVE violation of the 2nd amendment.


I'm offended his communist pinko parents gave him such a european sissy gun like a 22

Real American shoot the AR15 and its 30 round clips of .223
 
2013-05-01 11:53:12 AM  
Imagine the havoc he could gave wrought if he had been given a Kinder Surprise.
 
2013-05-01 11:53:23 AM  

PreMortem: 'just one of those crazy accidents.'


Honestly, it was wacky.
 
2013-05-01 11:53:29 AM  
Maybe it was self defense
 
2013-05-01 11:53:48 AM  
Definitive proof that a gun is just another tool, like a can-opener, and needs no extra care nor concern.

/amidoinitrite?
 
2013-05-01 11:53:59 AM  
Who was the philosopher that said "There are no accidents"

Spot on here
 
2013-05-01 11:54:00 AM  

bdub77: The county coroner has ruled the death 'just one of those crazy accidents.'

No. Some adult gave a loaded gun to a 5-yr old. This isn't a crazy accident. This is parental negligence.

Also WHO GIVES A F*CKING FIREARM TO A 5 YEAR OLD?

Congratulations, dumbass. Now you've ruined at least four lives.


No, the problem is not that a 5 year old was holding a loaded gun.  The problem was that an adult should have been there, also holding the gun, to make sure safety is a priority.  I've seen a kid about 18 months shoot a rifle... because his father was holding it at the same time.  I think teaching kids all about firearms at a young age is good because it takes the "mystery" out of guns.  Like abstinence-only education, kids are going to get curious and experiment.  The thing is, you need to never leave a child alone with a gun, and always keep the gun inaccessible from them, until they are old enough to be responsible.
 
2013-05-01 11:54:06 AM  
Call me nutty, and lock and load your derp, gunheads, but I have to ask, are you okay with giving a farking weapon to a 5-year old?  Is there not even a minimum age for guns, or has the NRA fought this too?
 
2013-05-01 11:54:41 AM  
I don't know rules.  Did the 5 year old need a permit to own the gun and did he have one?
 
2013-05-01 11:54:56 AM  
Parental negligence.

Did not secure the weapon, did not clear the weapon, did not supervise the use, and clearly did not train the five year old on how he should handle a weapon (as if it is loaded).  I feel terrible for that five year old.  The parents should not have been allowed to breed.
 
2013-05-01 11:54:58 AM  
And all Ralphie got was a Daisy Red Rider BB gun .
 
2013-05-01 11:54:59 AM  
Kentucky's "Stand your Playground" law at work.
 
2013-05-01 11:55:11 AM  

dittybopper: bdub77: Marcus Aurelius: bdub77: The county coroner has ruled the death 'just one of those crazy accidents.'

No. Some adult gave a loaded gun to a 5-yr old. This isn't a crazy accident. This is parental negligence.

Also WHO GIVES A F*CKING FIREARM TO A 5 YEAR OLD?

Congratulations, dumbass. Now you've ruined at least four lives.

Or brings a loaded gun into the house.  Or leaves a gun leaning in a corner somewhere.

just one of those 'crazy accidents' i guess. OOPSIE.

Actually, yes, it is.

Do you know how many kids age 11 and under die in gun accidents every year?

Less than 50.  In fact, in 2010, the number was 41.  The chance is literally greater than a million to one (the rate is .08 per 100,000).

So yeah, it *IS* one of those crazy accidents.

/Of course, shouldn't have been any ammo in the room
//Should have been very supervised at that age.
///littlebopper got his first .22 at age 8.


No, see, an 'accident' implies that there is no real fault here.

Unless you feel the parents aren't at fault, and shouldn't be prosecuted in any fashion? OH WELL, THESE THINGS JUST HAPPEN I SUPPOSE, *SHRUG* should be the appropriate response?

Let alone the idea of marketing a gun like "My First Rifle", as if it were a goddamn *TOY*...
 
2013-05-01 11:55:13 AM  
My First Car yields predictable results

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10583657/ns/dateline_nbc/t/car-crash-trail -b roken-lives/

Shall we examine Statistics which is deadlier, or just flame gun owners, because that's what the new meme is?
 
2013-05-01 11:55:24 AM  

the_immoral_minority: Who was the philosopher that said "There are no accidents"

Spot on here


Bob Ross.
 
2013-05-01 11:55:25 AM  
Meh I was learning to shoot a rifle at that age. Was a tad funny because the rifle my mom was teaching me with was such that I had to brace it on the fence to shoot... I couldn't hold it by myself. I was pretty good at it other than that.
 
2013-05-01 11:55:48 AM  
Cumberland County Coroner Gary White said the family had not realized a shell was left inside the gun, which was kept in a corner of the house.

Responsible gun owners, indeed.
 
2013-05-01 11:55:51 AM  
i108.photobucket.com
 Unavailable for comment
 
2013-05-01 11:56:17 AM  

dittybopper: bdub77: Marcus Aurelius: bdub77: The county coroner has ruled the death 'just one of those crazy accidents.'

No. Some adult gave a loaded gun to a 5-yr old. This isn't a crazy accident. This is parental negligence.

Also WHO GIVES A F*CKING FIREARM TO A 5 YEAR OLD?

Congratulations, dumbass. Now you've ruined at least four lives.

Or brings a loaded gun into the house.  Or leaves a gun leaning in a corner somewhere.

just one of those 'crazy accidents' i guess. OOPSIE.

Actually, yes, it is.

Do you know how many kids age 11 and under die in gun accidents every year?

Less than 50.  In fact, in 2010, the number was 41.  The chance is literally greater than a million to one (the rate is .08 per 100,000).

So yeah, it *IS* one of those crazy accidents.

/Of course, shouldn't have been any ammo in the room
//Should have been very supervised at that age.
///littlebopper got his first .22 at age 8.


Rarity does not make something an accident.  Marathon bombings are also pretty uncommon.  Would you consider that an accident?
 
2013-05-01 11:56:18 AM  

darth_badger: And all Ralphie got was a Daisy Red Rider BB gun .


"You'll shoot your sister's brain and eye out, kid!"
 
2013-05-01 11:56:21 AM  
I think I meant to say: "In before the boring and overplayed anti-NRA cliches..." oh well. Too late.
 
2013-05-01 11:56:29 AM  
When I'm dealing with a kid who makes the task of opening a tube of GoGurt look like the end of a porno movie, giving him a deadly firearm wouldn't be my first thought.
 
2013-05-01 11:56:29 AM  
Brilliant work stopping that tyranny before she could mature into something more dangerous to our American way of life.  This boy should get a parade and a seat on the NRA Board of Directors.

The important thing is that this five year old's Second Amendment rights (bestowed in love from Jesus himself) weren't infringed upon by some lackwitted, goosestepping Obamanaut
 
2013-05-01 11:56:31 AM  
If you give a .22 to a 5 year old then you have mental problems. I don't know how else to say it.

No one's going to jail for this, are they? They kept a loaded .22 leaning in the corner of the living room and they're going to be allowed to just keep on screwing up this 5 year olds life for the next 13 years.
 
2013-05-01 11:56:34 AM  

Itstoearly: No, the problem is not that a 5 year old was holding a loaded gun.


No, the problem is that a 5 year old, who thinks DEATH IS REVERSIBLE, was given a loaded weapon and taught to play with it, and then given access to ammunition while being allowed to treat an unloaded weapon as a toy.

Itstoearly: The problem was that an adult should have been there, also holding the gun, to make sure safety is a priority.  I've seen a kid about 18 months shoot a rifle... because his father was holding it at the same time.


Hey, I too can present totally different situations than what happened here and argue from them.

Itstoearly: Like abstinence-only education, kids are going to get curious and experiment.  The thing is, you need to never leave a child alone with a gun, and always keep the gun inaccessible from them, until they are old enough to be responsible.


The only thing you should be teaching a kid to do with a gun that is not in the hands of a responsible adult at the age of five years old is to tell an adult and stay the fark away from them.
 
2013-05-01 11:57:02 AM  

radarlove: When we ban guns for 5-year-olds, only criminal 5-year-olds will have guns!


Just ban 5-year olds!
 
2013-05-01 11:57:11 AM  
Responsible gun owners are responsible.
 
2013-05-01 11:57:18 AM  
Did anyone read the thing?  The kid was 4 when they gave him the gun!!!!  FTFA "The Lexington Herald-Leader reports the weapon - a Crickett branded by makers Keystone Sporting Arms as "My First Rifle" - was given to the boy last year."

WTF!  Charge those parents with criminally negligent manslaughter.
 
2013-05-01 11:57:19 AM  

dittybopper: Actually, yes, it is.

Do you know how many kids age 11 and under die in gun accidents every year?

Less than 50.  In fact, in 2010, the number was 41.  The chance is literally greater than a million to one (the rate is .08 per 100,000).

So yeah, it *IS* one of those crazy accidents.


Being uncommon makes it an accident?

Only three people have been killed by bombs during the entire history of the Boston Marathon, so I guess that was "one of those crazy accidents."
 
2013-05-01 11:57:21 AM  
Itstoearly:
I think teaching kids all about firearms at a young age is good because it takes the "mystery" out of guns.  Like abstinence-only education, kids are

Oh man, I remember when I was a dumb 14 year old, me and the girl next door sneaked into her parent's shed and totally shot each other with her dad's hunting rifle. Man, to be young again!
 
2013-05-01 11:57:25 AM  

Clemkadidlefark: My First Car yields predictable results

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10583657/ns/dateline_nbc/t/car-crash-trail -b roken-lives/

Shall we examine Statistics which is deadlier, or just flame gun owners, because that's what the new meme is?


Was the driver 5 years old?
 
2013-05-01 11:57:25 AM  

Clemkadidlefark: My First Car yields predictable results

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10583657/ns/dateline_nbc/t/car-crash-trail -b roken-lives/

Shall we examine Statistics which is deadlier, or just flame gun owners, because that's what the new meme is?


Generally cars are not marketed to five year olds, and I can think of no states where it is legal to attempt to teach your five year old to drive.

Again, please take a look at the rifle in the story. It's selling a farking *gun* as, well, a toy.

You don't see anything wrong with this?

Anything at all?
 
2013-05-01 11:57:43 AM  
My 12 year old daughter has this exact same type of rifle, it has an internal lock that keeps the bolt from closing, and it stays locked and in my closet when we are not going out shooting. We also didn't give it to her until she was 11 and demonstrated she knew proper gun safety and she had a certain level of maturity to know the rifle is not a toy.
 
2013-05-01 11:57:51 AM  
Oh yay.  This thread again (again, and again, and again...).
 
2013-05-01 11:58:04 AM  

Clemkadidlefark: My First Car yields predictable results

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10583657/ns/dateline_nbc/t/car-crash-trail -b roken-lives/

Shall we examine Statistics which is deadlier, or just flame gun owners, because that's what the new meme is?


Funny how no one is saying ban guns, only attacking the irresponsibility and negligence of a parent.

But hey, that's just because we watched Sesame Street as a kid and learned how to tell "One of these things is not like the other", and not Bernie's Right Wing Christian Hate Fest on TBN.
 
2013-05-01 11:58:06 AM  
FTFA: Promotional material on KSA's website says the gun aims to "instill safety in the minds of youth shooters."

Cumberland County Coroner Gary White said the family had not realized a shell was left inside the gun, which was kept in a corner of the house.


Of course what it doesn't state is it instills safety in the minds of youth shooters via negative reinforcement by learning the hard way what not to do. Parents too.
 
2013-05-01 11:58:24 AM  
The important thing to remember is that further infringement of our second amendment rights would not have prevented this from happening.
 
2013-05-01 11:58:24 AM  
dittybopper:
/Of course, shouldn't have been any ammo in the room
//Should have been very supervised at that age.


That sounds like socialism to me.  Why do you hate the 2nd Amendment?
 
2013-05-01 11:58:41 AM  

hardinparamedic: This was a triumph.

I'm making a note here, huge success.

It's hard to understate my satisfaction.

For the good of all of us...

(EXCEPT FOR THOSE THAT ARE DEAD)

kbronsito: or neglect to teach a gun owner that you never ever, ever point a gun at another human even if you think it is unloaded (unless your intent is to actually shoot that person)

No offense, but perhaps five years old is a little too young to try to teach a child to do anything with a firearm but stay away from them and call an adult if they see one.

If he's too young to understand the gravitas of a concept such as death, then he's too young to play with a bang stick.


Bull.  5 years is old enough to teach how to properly handle a gun.  Not that I would ever trust one alone with one without adult supervision, but a five year old certainly has the mental capacity to learn "Don't point at people or animals, don't hold the trigger unless you are aiming at the paper target, assume there is always a bullet in the gun"
 
2013-05-01 11:58:48 AM  
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU STEAL MY JELLO.
 
2013-05-01 11:59:08 AM  

Itstoearly: No, the problem is not that a 5 year old was holding a loaded gun.  The problem was that an adult should have been there, also holding the gun, to make sure safety is a priority.  I've seen a kid about 18 months shoot a rifle... because his father was holding it at the same time.  I think teaching kids all about firearms at a young age is good because it takes the "mystery" out of guns.  Like abstinence-only education, kids are going to get curious and experiment.  The thing is, you need to never leave a child alone with a gun, and always keep the gun inaccessible from them, until they are old enough to be responsible.


Not a fan of guns myself, but I concur.
 
2013-05-01 11:59:29 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: kbronsito: Marcus Aurelius: bdub77: The county coroner has ruled the death 'just one of those crazy accidents.'

No. Some adult gave a loaded gun to a 5-yr old. This isn't a crazy accident. This is parental negligence.

Also WHO GIVES A F*CKING FIREARM TO A 5 YEAR OLD?

Congratulations, dumbass. Now you've ruined at least four lives.

Or brings a loaded gun into the house.  Or leaves a gun leaning in a corner somewhere.

or neglect to teach a gun owner that you never ever, ever point a gun at another human even if you think it is unloaded (unless your intent is to actually shoot that person)

I'm not certain that can be taught to every five year old.  What you do instead is keep your firearms in a gun safe, and keep the combination a closely guarded secret.


you should still do the gun safe thing too... but teaching him not to point the gun at humans is a nice built in redundancy in the system. And the kid was supposed to learn that rule eventually anyways. My uncle gave some sort of bb gun to his grandson (age 6) and told him the no pointing rule. A couple of days later, the kid pointed it at him anyways but then pointed it away quicly in a typical attempt to test his boundaries. He lost the gun for some time and got a time out also.
 
2013-05-01 11:59:43 AM  

Yogimus: Complete failure of the parental system..

/where did the little fark get their hands on 22 ammo?


There was a live round left in the chamber ftfa.
 
2013-05-01 11:59:45 AM  
i39.tinypic.com
 
2013-05-01 12:00:13 PM  
What a crazy accident!  Just crazy I tells ya!
 
2013-05-01 12:00:43 PM  

doyner: The 5 year-old had a clean record.  Background checks wouldn't have prevented this.


They may, however, have prevented his dumbass parents from purchasing it.

/speculating obviously
//but so is assuming this trigger-happy 5-year-old had a clean record
 
2013-05-01 12:01:31 PM  

Shrugging Atlas: What a crazy accident!  Just crazy I tells ya!


Couldn't have been prevented, no sir!  It was like God wanted that kid to murder that baby.
 
2013-05-01 12:01:34 PM  

James!: So the solution to the gun problem is better mental health services in the US but giving a gun to a kinder-gardener is A-OK?


If we had better mental health services, the parents would likely have been flagged.
 
2013-05-01 12:01:37 PM  
They'll try the kid as an an adult and toss him into the general population at Rikers island.
 
2013-05-01 12:01:37 PM  

Itstoearly: Bull.  5 years is old enough to teach how to properly handle a gun.


A child at five years of age does not understand the gravity or concept of Death. Unless you are teaching your child that it is okay to use that rifle when Dad, Mom, or Grandparents are with you and with their permission, and to not touch the thing otherwise, you are failing as a parent. In TFA, the gun being used was marketed  as a farking toy.Not as a weapon that could maim or kill another person.

Itstoearly: Not that I would ever trust one alone with one without adult supervision, but a five year old certainly has the mental capacity to learn "Don't point at people or animals, don't hold the trigger unless you are aiming at the paper target, assume there is always a bullet in the gun"


And guess what happened here.
 
2013-05-01 12:01:39 PM  

Itstoearly


No, the problem is not that a 5 year old was holding a loaded gun.


THAT IS PRECISELY THE PROBLEM.

Unload the firearm: no accident. Lock up the firearm: no accident.


The problem was that an adult should have been there, also holding the gun, to make sure safety is a priority. I've seen a kid about 18 months shoot a rifle... because his father was holding it at the same time.


There is no set of circumstances under which it would be okay for a child to handle a loaded firearm in a dwelling.
 
2013-05-01 12:01:53 PM  

ristst: And all these Ted Nuget-type hunting shows say "take a kid hunting".  It's one of their major themes.


If you look at the statistics gun makers have to push this, since many fewer kids are hunting than they used to.  If you don't get people started on guns early they tend not to buy them later.  It's also the reason they are so protective of the various "military weapons" like the AR15- most of their profit is there since the hunting market is declining.  (Plus most hunters I know don't own arsenals- they typically have 2-3 rifles in different calibers, not the loaded gun safes you see posted here from time to time)
 
2013-05-01 12:02:01 PM  
Shut up and buy more guns ya pussys.
 
2013-05-01 12:02:23 PM  

dittybopper: bdub77: Marcus Aurelius: bdub77: The county coroner has ruled the death 'just one of those crazy accidents.'

No. Some adult gave a loaded gun to a 5-yr old. This isn't a crazy accident. This is parental negligence.

Also WHO GIVES A F*CKING FIREARM TO A 5 YEAR OLD?

Congratulations, dumbass. Now you've ruined at least four lives.

Or brings a loaded gun into the house.  Or leaves a gun leaning in a corner somewhere.

just one of those 'crazy accidents' i guess. OOPSIE.

Actually, yes, it is.

Do you know how many kids age 11 and under die in gun accidents every year?

Less than 50.  In fact, in 2010, the number was 41.  The chance is literally greater than a million to one (the rate is .08 per 100,000).

So yeah, it *IS* one of those crazy accidents.

/Of course, shouldn't have been any ammo in the room
//Should have been very supervised at that age.
///littlebopper got his first .22 at age 8.


Only 41 kids dead?  Oh, then no problem.  Lets keep kids and guns together.

Or maybe....ZERO kids dead might be a better idea??

Like it would RUIN someone's life if they didn't touch a gun til they are 21?  Seriously??
 
2013-05-01 12:02:41 PM  
csb time:
When my brother was around 13 and I was 10, we were home alone and he got the bright idea to take my Dad's double barrell shotgun and wait until I can around the corner and jerk it closed to scare me - long story short both barrell's blew a hole in the wall right above my head.  I almost became a statistic that day.

/couldn't hear out of my right ear for a while
//required a change of underwear
 
2013-05-01 12:02:41 PM  
Darwin awards.
 
2013-05-01 12:03:10 PM  
More guns for morons! Let Darwin sort this out.
 
2013-05-01 12:03:12 PM  

pseudoscience: doyner: The 5 year-old had a clean record.  Background checks wouldn't have prevented this.

They may, however, have prevented his dumbass parents from purchasing it.

/speculating obviously
//but so is assuming this trigger-happy 5-year-old had a clean record


Your sarcasm detector needs to be calibrated.
 
2013-05-01 12:03:24 PM  
Maybe it's because I live in "Commie" California, but aren't you required to keep guns secured in a house with kids? I know I do, but maybe that's just the COMMON farkING SENSE in me!

Stupid parents a re stupid. I got a BB gun when i was about 10 and didn't get anything more powerful until I was 16, and that was a .22. Then a 12 gauge for hunting at 17. Had to take the Hunter Safety course and did get training from my parents on how to be careful. Guns were never left loaded and were kept away from little kids, even WAY back in those days
 
2013-05-01 12:03:40 PM  
I don't know about that brand, but I've seen similar guns. They only hold a single shell, and they come with a trigger lock that requires a key to remove. They're not intended to be left in the hands of a child. They're meant to be locked away in a cabinet, with the trigger lock attached, and the single shell removed.

The parent did none of those things and should be charged with whatever form of criminal homicide is applicable.
 
2013-05-01 12:03:57 PM  
Terrible parenting fail.

I can't help but think these people should lose their kids or their weapons. Their choice.
 
2013-05-01 12:04:09 PM  

Glockenspiel Hero: If you don't get people started on guns early they tend not to buy them later.  It's also the reason they are so protective of the various "military weapons" like the AR15- most of their profit is there since the hunting market is declining.  (Plus most hunters I know don't own arsenals- they typically have 2-3 rifles in different calibers, not the loaded gun safes you see posted here from time to time)


If you're in North America, and (with the exception of bear) you can't kill it with a 30-06, you probably shouldn't be hunting.

Damn newfangled kiddies and their 7mm Remingtons.
 
2013-05-01 12:04:14 PM  
Don't blame the gun; blame the parents and the one who pulled the trigger.
 
2013-05-01 12:04:17 PM  

hardinparamedic: A child at five years of age does not understand the gravity or concept of Death.


THIS. If you tell a child at that age that someone is dead, they will assume it's akin to sleep, and that they will wake up, or that they've left temporarily and will be back. That concept doesn't start to sink in until about a year later, development-wise.
 
2013-05-01 12:05:27 PM  
Bullshiat; I understood death at 5; its all on the shoulders of parenting.
 
2013-05-01 12:05:39 PM  

ristst: As someone who has experienced this kind of thing (one cousin killed his brother in a hunting accident) I will say I don't find anything humorous in this story, nor any of the comments.

I grew up in a family where both sides were committed hunters.  And in this culture it was very common to see children hunting.  We did it, my brother and I hunted from an early age.

I gave it up decades ago, and I would never even think of giving my daughter a loaded weapon.  Before she died I asked my mom how they did it, and she said it was just a different time.

And all these Ted Nuget-type hunting shows say "take a kid hunting".  It's one of their major themes.


Wait, don't you know that there are "phantom statistics" of thwarted home break-ins, that have never been tabulated because "people don't report attempted crimes to the police", that categorically PROVE that you are safer if you keep loaded guns in your home? Don't you care about your family's SAFETY, you heartless, gutless, liberal coward??
 
2013-05-01 12:05:47 PM  
Promotional material on KSA's website says the gun aims to "instill safety in the minds of youth shooters."

Cumberland County Coroner Gary White said the family had not realized a shell was left inside the gun, which was kept in a corner of the house.


Conclusion: "If your grandparents had bought one for me when I was your age, your sister would still be alive."
 
2013-05-01 12:06:08 PM  
The tree of Freedom is watered with the blood of innocents.
 
2013-05-01 12:06:31 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: BB guns for kids under 10. That's the golden rule of guns.

A .22? What the hell were these parents thinking?

A Daisy or even an airsoft would have been just as good for a 5 year old.


Tell that to my cousin who has spent his whole life wearing a glass eye because of a kid with a bb gun.
 
2013-05-01 12:06:48 PM  

graeth: Bullshiat; I understood death at 5; its all on the shoulders of parenting.


Well, I'm glad your anecdotal claim as an adult invalidates decades of psychiatric and developmental psychology research on the subject.

Good thing we had you come into this thread to clear that up.
 
2013-05-01 12:06:53 PM  

doyner: pseudoscience: doyner: The 5 year-old had a clean record.  Background checks wouldn't have prevented this.

They may, however, have prevented his dumbass parents from purchasing it.

/speculating obviously
//but so is assuming this trigger-happy 5-year-old had a clean record

Your sarcasm detector needs to be calibrated.


Time for another cup of coffee.
 
2013-05-01 12:07:02 PM  

nmiguy: Darwin awards.


Except it was a 2 year old that died.  Darwin Award would have been appropriate if the kid shot his idiot guardian that left the gun loaded.
 
2013-05-01 12:07:23 PM  

graeth: Bullshiat; I understood death at 5; its all on the shoulders of parenting.


No, it's on the shoulders of normal variation; countless research projects including interviews with thousands have children have demonstrated it time and time again. You apparently bucked the curve.
 
2013-05-01 12:07:29 PM  
Thank goodness guns are a guaranteed right to every idiot who wants one. This is just the price we pay I guess.
 
2013-05-01 12:07:35 PM  

dittybopper: ///littlebopper got his first .22 at age 8.


Did you let him play with it alone?

chickenhead.com
 
2013-05-01 12:07:39 PM  
I don't really believe the details of the incident -

1) A family obviously familiar with guns "accidentally" leaves it loaded?
2) The single shot fired while the boy was "playing with" the rifle just happened to hit and kill his sister?

I have the nasty suspicion that the kid aimed it at his sister and pulled the trigger - just like the cool guys do on TV.
 
2013-05-01 12:07:51 PM  
Again, please take a look at the rifle in the story. It's selling a farking *gun* as, well, a toy.

You don't see anything wrong with this?

Anything at all?


I just checked the Crickett site.
This page is kind of disturbing really  http://www.crickett.com/crickett_kidscorner.php
 
2013-05-01 12:07:58 PM  

Englebert Slaptyback: Itstoearly

No, the problem is not that a 5 year old was holding a loaded gun.


THAT IS PRECISELY THE PROBLEM.

Unload the firearm: no accident. Lock up the firearm: no accident.


The problem was that an adult should have been there, also holding the gun, to make sure safety is a priority. I've seen a kid about 18 months shoot a rifle... because his father was holding it at the same time.


There is no set of circumstances under which it would be okay for a child to handle a loaded firearm in a dwelling.


I don't think you understood my post, because we're pretty much in agreement.
 
2013-05-01 12:08:36 PM  

ScaryBottles: The important thing to remember is that further infringement of our second amendment rights would not have prevented this from happening.



Are you currently prohibited from owning a firearm?
 
2013-05-01 12:09:04 PM  

Githerax: The tree of Freedom is watered with the blood of innocents.


Well, then, we ought to be just about up to our ass in freedom trees right about now.
What's that you say? We're not?
Oh well.
 
2013-05-01 12:09:07 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: You should see the bill from the taxidermist.


OMG is that Caroline?
Nope, Chuck Testa!
 
2013-05-01 12:09:15 PM  

crzybtch: dittybopper: bdub77: Marcus Aurelius: bdub77: The county coroner has ruled the death 'just one of those crazy accidents.'

No. Some adult gave a loaded gun to a 5-yr old. This isn't a crazy accident. This is parental negligence.

Also WHO GIVES A F*CKING FIREARM TO A 5 YEAR OLD?

Congratulations, dumbass. Now you've ruined at least four lives.

Or brings a loaded gun into the house.  Or leaves a gun leaning in a corner somewhere.

just one of those 'crazy accidents' i guess. OOPSIE.

Actually, yes, it is.

Do you know how many kids age 11 and under die in gun accidents every year?

Less than 50.  In fact, in 2010, the number was 41.  The chance is literally greater than a million to one (the rate is .08 per 100,000).

So yeah, it *IS* one of those crazy accidents.

/Of course, shouldn't have been any ammo in the room
//Should have been very supervised at that age.
///littlebopper got his first .22 at age 8.

Only 41 kids dead?  Oh, then no problem.  Lets keep kids and guns together.

Or maybe....ZERO kids dead might be a better idea??

Like it would RUIN someone's life if they didn't touch a gun til they are 21?  Seriously??


Yeah, because making alcohol illegal for people under 21 stops them from drinking and driving.. and dying over a thousand times each year.  Oh wait, it doesn't.
 
2013-05-01 12:09:18 PM  
Hey, already got that "My First Manslaughter" out of the way too.  Making progress kid.
 
2013-05-01 12:09:33 PM  

buckler: hardinparamedic: A child at five years of age does not understand the gravity or concept of Death.

THIS. If you tell a child at that age that someone is dead, they will assume it's akin to sleep, and that they will wake up, or that they've left temporarily and will be back. That concept doesn't start to sink in until about a year later, development-wise.


Well that and 5 year olds are still in the "I'm going to do this even though I've been told not to, to assert my independence" phase.

Plus, what the flying fark is the big rush? Why does junior have to be allowed to shoot a gun at 5? Wait 3 or 4 goddamn years at least for farks sake! Wait until they at least have somewhat fully developed logic and reasoning?
 
2013-05-01 12:09:36 PM  
Who the hell gives a .22 rifle to a 5 year old?
 
2013-05-01 12:09:41 PM  
Gotta admit, though... it IS a pretty good litmus test of someone's parenting skills.
 
2013-05-01 12:09:59 PM  

hardinparamedic: graeth: Bullshiat; I understood death at 5; its all on the shoulders of parenting.

Well, I'm glad your anecdotal claim as an adult invalidates decades of psychiatric and developmental psychology research on the subject.

Good thing we had you come into this thread to clear that up.


Well, it's a good bet the kid understands death NOW, isn't it?
 
2013-05-01 12:09:59 PM  

Itstoearly: No, the problem is not that a 5 year old was holding a loaded gun.  The problem was that an adult should have been there, also holding the gun, to make sure safety is a priority.  I've seen a kid about 18 months shoot a rifle... because his father was holding it at the same time.  I think teaching kids all about firearms at a young age is good because it takes the "mystery" out of guns.  Like abstinence-only education, kids are going to get curious and experiment.  The thing is, you need to never leave a child alone with a gun, and always keep the gun inaccessible from them, until they are old enough to be responsible.


So you think that it's ok that an 18month old baby is allowed to be part of a gun firing?  If they are scared to hell by the loud sound and maybe rupture an ear drum do you really want them to think it's a toy?  That parent should have been told to leave the range if he was at one.  There are acceptable age ranges for some activities anyone under 6 should never have a loaded weapon.
 
2013-05-01 12:10:15 PM  

Pista: Again, please take a look at the rifle in the story. It's selling a farking *gun* as, well, a toy.

You don't see anything wrong with this?

Anything at all?

I just checked the Crickett site.
This page is kind of disturbing really  http://www.crickett.com/crickett_kidscorner.php


And the image names are the full names of the kids.  Spectacufail.
 
2013-05-01 12:10:41 PM  

Itstoearly: I don't think you understood my post, because we're pretty much in agreement.


I think you ignored the fact that, in reality, the parents were letting the child play with the damn thing as if it were a toy when they weren't shooting. It just happened to be that this time they left a round in the chamber.

Boom. Headshot.

tf2wiki.net
 
2013-05-01 12:10:57 PM  

Citrate1007: Parent(s) should be charged with manslaughter.


This, or at least gross negligence.

PS - yes, you can embalm people (I don't think you stuff them), Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il are both embalmed.
 
2013-05-01 12:11:13 PM  
Giving a five-year-old a gun isn't in itself a problem.  I used to plink cans and such with a .22 all the time with my father when I was a wee child.  Skeet with a small-gauge shotgun, too.  When not actually doing something with the firearms in question they were locked away in a safe that only my parents had the combo to, and I was further instructed not to fark with 'em without my mother or father even if one happened to not be in the safe.

Giving a five-year-old a gun, then leaving him alone with it loaded and no adult supervision, though, that's... essentially manslaughter.  I really think the parents in this case should be facing jail time, this is pretty much the definition of deadly criminal negligence.

//Pretty sure that intentionally giving a minor unsupervised access to a firearm is a felony almost everywhere even if no one's hurt, is KY an exception?  Being "at home" isn't usually sufficient, you have to actually be supervising.  Even storing the gun "in a corner" instead of secured in a domicile with children is a class-b at minimum most places.  I'm.. really not sure how they're getting away with this, or why social services is letting them keep the kid.
 
2013-05-01 12:11:13 PM  
I'm not saying ban guns.  And accidents will happen, and bad guys will kill people.  But is it a mental health issue if you leave your 5 year old alone with your 2 year old while he has a loaded gun?  Or are you bored?  Fatally stupid?  5 year olds can shoot, sure, not a big problem with that.  But to leave him alone with a gun?  I just...I mean...

Basically, I want responsible people to have guns.  Be they good or bad in spirit, at least I know they meant it if they kill me.
 
2013-05-01 12:11:30 PM  
Maybe the safety failed, children's weapons are often not manufactured to the same rigorous quality standards as the real thing...hell, two of the Hello Kitty hand grenades I bought last week went off in the car on the way home...
 
2013-05-01 12:12:19 PM  

Yogimus: Gotta admit, though... it IS a pretty good litmus test of someone's parenting skills.


You can only buy a gun for your kid if you're a good parent, but only a bad parent would want to buy a gun for their kid.

A real "Catch .22".
 
2013-05-01 12:12:37 PM  
Keeping a loaded gun in a corner? Sounds like a Real American to me. Why do people hate True Patriots?
 
2013-05-01 12:12:43 PM  

graeth: Don't blame the gun; blame the parents and the one who pulled the trigger.


Thankfully, 5-year olds typically have the cognitive ability to discern the future consequences of present actions, so we can prosecute him in court.
 
2013-05-01 12:12:44 PM  

Loaf's Tray: Maybe the safety failed, children's weapons are often not manufactured to the same rigorous quality standards as the real thing...hell, two of the Hello Kitty hand grenades I bought last week went off in the car on the way home...


So that's why you're not allowed within 100 foot of schools anymore, and had to go door to door to inform people you were living there?
 
2013-05-01 12:12:52 PM  

James!: Wait wait wait, I have another.  When will Obama call this a terrorist act?


This is Obama's Benghazi.
 
2013-05-01 12:12:59 PM  
They shouldn't be giving 2 year olds skittles...
 
2013-05-01 12:13:01 PM  

Loaf's Tray: Maybe the safety failed, children's weapons are often not manufactured to the same rigorous quality standards as the real thing...hell, two of the Hello Kitty hand grenades I bought last week went off in the car on the way home...


and the ammo jumped into the chamber.
 
2013-05-01 12:13:41 PM  

bdub77: The county coroner has ruled the death 'just one of those crazy accidents.'

No. Some adult gave a loaded gun to a 5-yr old. This isn't a crazy accident. This is parental negligence.

Also WHO GIVES A F*CKING FIREARM TO A 5 YEAR OLD?

Congratulations, dumbass. Now you've ruined at least four lives.


I gave my kids weapons at that age. The differences:

It was only ever out of the case at the range (or for cleaning, but that I did alone for several years)

I held all the ammo, and only loaded it shortly before firing (and I mean RIGHT before firing)

The child was taught it was a WEAPON THAT KILLS and to NEVER point it at anything other than the target AT THE RANGE.

The weapon was kept locked in a locked case (in a locked safe) with the bolt removed. The bolt was locked (along with my other rifle bolts) in a separate lockbox. Finally the ammo was in a different locked room, each caliber in their own lock boxes.

We didn't take chances. My elders didn't take chances with us either. From pellet rifles to bows to firearms, it was relentlessly drilled into us that they kill whatever they are aimed at so don't point it at anyone EVER.
 
2013-05-01 12:13:59 PM  
I've learned two things form conservatives on Fark today:

15-year-olds are too young to be trusted with birth control.

And

5-year-olds are adult enough to be trusted with guns.
 
2013-05-01 12:14:27 PM  
I blame the movie "Natural Born Killers," and violent video games for this.
 
2013-05-01 12:14:52 PM  

hardinparamedic: Loaf's Tray: Maybe the safety failed, children's weapons are often not manufactured to the same rigorous quality standards as the real thing...hell, two of the Hello Kitty hand grenades I bought last week went off in the car on the way home...

So that's why you're not allowed within 100 foot of schools anymore, and had to go door to door to inform people you were living there?


Surprisingly that had nothing to do with it...
 
2013-05-01 12:14:59 PM  

dittybopper: bdub77: Marcus Aurelius: bdub77: The county coroner has ruled the death 'just one of those crazy accidents.'

No. Some adult gave a loaded gun to a 5-yr old. This isn't a crazy accident. This is parental negligence.

Also WHO GIVES A F*CKING FIREARM TO A 5 YEAR OLD?

Congratulations, dumbass. Now you've ruined at least four lives.

Or brings a loaded gun into the house.  Or leaves a gun leaning in a corner somewhere.

just one of those 'crazy accidents' i guess. OOPSIE.

Actually, yes, it is.

Do you know how many kids age 11 and under die in gun accidents every year?

Less than 50.  In fact, in 2010, the number was 41.  The chance is literally greater than a million to one (the rate is .08 per 100,000).

So yeah, it *IS* one of those crazy accidents.

/Of course, shouldn't have been any ammo in the room
//Should have been very supervised at that age.
///littlebopper got his first .22 at age 8.


41 dead kids is no big deal. Really come on guys, accidents happen.

You have some seriously farked up logic dude.
 
2013-05-01 12:14:59 PM  

A_Listless_Wanderer: 15-year-olds are too young to be trusted with birth contro

l

If you read that thread, you should have also learned that women are all filthy whores who seek to victimize men.
 
2013-05-01 12:15:05 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Yeah, because making alcohol illegal for people under 21 stops them from drinking and driving.. and dying over a thousand times each year.  Oh wait, it doesn't.


Yeah, I think we've had enough discussions about gun lawsas such. Maybe we need to have a discussion about our attitudes about guns. About how much we like them, and how much misplaced faith we place in them. Of course, that would be hard, and ranting against gun laws is easy, and we are an intellectually lazy people - so that probably won't happen.
 
2013-05-01 12:15:24 PM  

Itstoearly: hardinparamedic: This was a triumph.

I'm making a note here, huge success.

It's hard to understate my satisfaction.

For the good of all of us...

(EXCEPT FOR THOSE THAT ARE DEAD)

kbronsito: or neglect to teach a gun owner that you never ever, ever point a gun at another human even if you think it is unloaded (unless your intent is to actually shoot that person)

No offense, but perhaps five years old is a little too young to try to teach a child to do anything with a firearm but stay away from them and call an adult if they see one.

If he's too young to understand the gravitas of a concept such as death, then he's too young to play with a bang stick.

Bull.  5 years is old enough to teach how to properly handle a gun.  Not that I would ever trust one alone with one without adult supervision, but a five year old certainly has the mental capacity to learn "Don't point at people or animals, don't hold the trigger unless you are aiming at the paper target, assume there is always a bullet in the gun"


You are crazy!  Having worked with 5 year olds, I can tell you that they regularly do things they are told not to do.  And they have no real concept of death or permanent injury.  Anyone who thinks a five year old is old enough to have a gun is seriously delusional!
 
2013-05-01 12:15:31 PM  
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-05-01 12:15:31 PM  

hardinparamedic: AverageAmericanGuy: A .22? What the hell were these parents thinking?

I dunno. You should ask  dirtybopper. He's actually defending this act.


A LOT of kids in/around that age used to be given their own firearm.  Many still are today.

It's not act of giving a kid their first firearm, it's the fact they very obviously didn't educate their kid properly, nor did they adequately gauge that kid's ability to responsibly handle one.

We don't know exactly how this firearm was stored either.

Is anyone going to criticize parents for allowing their kids to ride in cars, given that motor vehicles crashes are the leading cause for people 4 to 26?
 
2013-05-01 12:15:44 PM  

tricycleracer: You can only buy a gun for your kid if you're a good parent, but only a bad parent would want to buy a gun for their kid.

A real "Catch .22".


Well, no. I can comprehend teaching a child about guns. Even at 5. As others in this thread who are *sane* have said, you make sure it is always in the gun safe when you are not physically there.

However, if I were to buy my hypothetical future five-year-old a weapon to learn how to use guns and how to treat them properly (.. something i do not intend to do, but I am engaging in hypotheticals here...)

I do not think I would purchase them a "My First Rifle" that is DESIGNED to look like a toy and have nice, pretty colors.

Since that ENTIRELY UNDERMINES THE LESSON that GUNS ARE NOT F*CKING TOYS.

/Not shouting at you, just gobsmacked by the stupidity of such a product.
 
2013-05-01 12:15:55 PM  

FlashHarry: this wouldn't have happened if the two-year-old had been carrying.


And why wasn't the Mom packing an equalizer? She should have protected her little daughter from violent attacks from her siblings. Give Mom a hog leg now!
 
2013-05-01 12:16:22 PM  
Get rid of the 2nd Amendment, it's a relic. A gun is not a human right to life, it's a privilege. I'm not saying that they should take away your guns, but they should be treated as a privilege not a right.

You have more of a "right" to a gun than you do to a driver's license.
 
2013-05-01 12:16:33 PM  

sammyk: 41 dead kids is no big deal. Really come on guys, accidents happen.

You have some seriously farked up logic dude.


You have to understand the mentality.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-05-01 12:16:45 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Yeah, because making alcohol illegal for people under 21 stops them from drinking and driving.. and dying over a thousand times each year.  Oh wait, it doesn't.


And the number would be what without those laws? Higher, maybe? Your position that we should do nothing because current laws are not 100% effective is, well, stupid.
 
2013-05-01 12:16:45 PM  

Felgraf: et alone the idea of marketing a gun like "My First Rifle", as if it were a goddamn *TOY*...


Who cares how they market it?  Gun stores don't sell rifles to 5 year olds. They sell them to adults, for whom all responsibility lies.
 
2013-05-01 12:16:51 PM  

GiantRex: [encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 223x226]


Oh god. Wrong thread. REALLY wrong thread...
 
2013-05-01 12:17:20 PM  

Englebert Slaptyback: There is no set of circumstances under which it would be okay for a child to handle a loaded firearm in a dwelling.


What if the dwelling is being broken into?
 
2013-05-01 12:17:37 PM  

Itstoearly


I don't think you understood my post, because we're pretty much in agreement.


I think we sort of agree. Where we diverge is that I do not agree that having the adult also holding on to the loaded firearm in this situation would have made it okay.

It might have prevented the other child from dying if the adult had controlled the muzzle direction, but it still could have resulted in a negligent discharge indoors.
 
2013-05-01 12:17:57 PM  

inglixthemad: bdub77: The county coroner has ruled the death 'just one of those crazy accidents.'

No. Some adult gave a loaded gun to a 5-yr old. This isn't a crazy accident. This is parental negligence.

Also WHO GIVES A F*CKING FIREARM TO A 5 YEAR OLD?

Congratulations, dumbass. Now you've ruined at least four lives.

I gave my kids weapons at that age. The differences:

It was only ever out of the case at the range (or for cleaning, but that I did alone for several years)

I held all the ammo, and only loaded it shortly before firing (and I mean RIGHT before firing)

The child was taught it was a WEAPON THAT KILLS and to NEVER point it at anything other than the target AT THE RANGE.

The weapon was kept locked in a locked case (in a locked safe) with the bolt removed. The bolt was locked (along with my other rifle bolts) in a separate lockbox. Finally the ammo was in a different locked room, each caliber in their own lock boxes.

We didn't take chances. My elders didn't take chances with us either. From pellet rifles to bows to firearms, it was relentlessly drilled into us that they kill whatever they are aimed at so don't point it at anyone EVER.


I also suspect the gun you used/trained your kid on wasn't painted bright and pretty colors, and you taught your children that guns are not toys.
 
2013-05-01 12:17:58 PM  
I'm not sure how we evolved from making sure toy guns in no way look like real guns, but it's OK to make real guns look like toys.
 
2013-05-01 12:18:03 PM  

dittybopper: bdub77: Marcus Aurelius: bdub77: The county coroner has ruled the death 'just one of those crazy accidents.'

No. Some adult gave a loaded gun to a 5-yr old. This isn't a crazy accident. This is parental negligence.

Also WHO GIVES A F*CKING FIREARM TO A 5 YEAR OLD?

Congratulations, dumbass. Now you've ruined at least four lives.

Or brings a loaded gun into the house.  Or leaves a gun leaning in a corner somewhere.

just one of those 'crazy accidents' i guess. OOPSIE.

Actually, yes, it is.

Do you know how many kids age 11 and under die in gun accidents every year?

Less than 50.  In fact, in 2010, the number was 41.  The chance is literally greater than a million to one (the rate is .08 per 100,000).

So yeah, it *IS* one of those crazy accidents.

/Of course, shouldn't have been any ammo in the room
//Should have been very supervised at that age.
///littlebopper got his first .22 at age 8.


god damn, dude. have you no heart? have you no soul?

you cant even sack up for this one and say, "this was wrong and bad", but you have to pretend it's a-ok, just a thing that happens, oh welp?

take a step back, go look your kids in the eyes, do what ever you have to do, but Christ, try and have human feeling once in a while, huh? a five year old just killed his baby sibling on accident, for no earthly reason.
 
2013-05-01 12:18:15 PM  

Itstoearly: hardinparamedic: This was a triumph.

I'm making a note here, huge success.

It's hard to understate my satisfaction.

For the good of all of us...

(EXCEPT FOR THOSE THAT ARE DEAD)

kbronsito: or neglect to teach a gun owner that you never ever, ever point a gun at another human even if you think it is unloaded (unless your intent is to actually shoot that person)

No offense, but perhaps five years old is a little too young to try to teach a child to do anything with a firearm but stay away from them and call an adult if they see one.

If he's too young to understand the gravitas of a concept such as death, then he's too young to play with a bang stick.

Bull.  5 years is old enough to teach how to properly handle a gun.  Not that I would ever trust one alone with one without adult supervision, but a five year old certainly has the mental capacity to learn "Don't point at people or animals, don't hold the trigger unless you are aiming at the paper target, assume there is always a bullet in the gun"


No Bull. Have a look here at the emotional development of a five year old. They have not yet learned the concept of death. They cannot yet view the world from another's point of view. They do not understand ethical or moral values.
 
2013-05-01 12:18:23 PM  
as a lexingtonian and this was just covered on the noon news, getting a kick ... etcetera etcetera.
 
2013-05-01 12:18:33 PM  

crzybtch: Only 41 kids dead? Oh, then no problem. Lets keep kids and guns together.

Or maybe....ZERO kids dead might be a better idea??

Like it would RUIN someone's life if they didn't touch a gun til they are 21? Seriously??


ZERO is a good number.  Like it would seriously RUIN someone's life if they didn't ride in or drive a car until they are 21?  Seriously??
 
2013-05-01 12:18:50 PM  

GiantRex: GiantRex: [encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 223x226]

Oh god. Wrong thread. REALLY wrong thread...


Are you looking for the "My First Troll Thread?"
 
2013-05-01 12:18:55 PM  
Terribly sad.
I'm sick of debating the merits of guns (and lack thereof).

Just sad.
 
2013-05-01 12:19:05 PM  

pippi longstocking: Get rid of the 2nd Amendment, it's a relic. A gun is not a human right to life, it's a privilege. I'm not saying that they should take away your guns, but they should be treated as a privilege not a right.

You have more of a "right" to a gun than you do to a driver's license.


As we become a more crowded, urbanized, civilized society that will happen - but not in our lifetimes, not in America.
 
2013-05-01 12:19:22 PM  
i.imgur.com

I've been assured that nothing can be done and this is just the price we pay for freedom.
 
2013-05-01 12:19:40 PM  
This was one of the photos on the now-removed Crickett Firearms Facebook page (Cached copy at  http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-nZxrouLuZQJ:www . facebook.com/pages/Crickett-Firearms-My-First-Rifle/312272590517%3Fsk% 3Dphotos+&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

Somehow, I think childproofing the gun is probably the better way to go.

www.drydocksports.com
 
2013-05-01 12:19:43 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: You can get your miscarried child mounted in a "memory box"


I'll have you know it's called a dead babyquarium.
 
2013-05-01 12:20:39 PM  
I received my first rifle, a .22, for my 6th birthday. Many of my friends got the same thing.  The chief difference is that my parents and grandparents weren't idiots about it.  As were the parents of my friends.
 
2013-05-01 12:20:49 PM  
Darwin shoots... and scores. The crowd goes wild!!!
 
2013-05-01 12:21:28 PM  

pedrop357: Is anyone going to criticize parents for allowing their kids to ride in cars, given that motor vehicles crashes are the leading cause for people 4 to 26?


Riding in cars (passive occupant) is the same as someone actively using a weapon?  I don't understand your logic.
 
2013-05-01 12:21:48 PM  

pippi longstocking: Get rid of the 2nd Amendment, it's a relic. A gun is not a human right to life, it's a privilege. I'm not saying that they should take away your guns, but they should be treated as a privilege not a right.

You have more of a "right" to a gun than you do to a driver's license.


2/10
 
2013-05-01 12:22:18 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: crzybtch: dittybopper: bdub77: Marcus Aurelius: bdub77: The county coroner has ruled the death 'just one of those crazy accidents.'

No. Some adult gave a loaded gun to a 5-yr old. This isn't a crazy accident. This is parental negligence.

Also WHO GIVES A F*CKING FIREARM TO A 5 YEAR OLD?

Congratulations, dumbass. Now you've ruined at least four lives.

Or brings a loaded gun into the house.  Or leaves a gun leaning in a corner somewhere.

just one of those 'crazy accidents' i guess. OOPSIE.

Actually, yes, it is.

Do you know how many kids age 11 and under die in gun accidents every year?

Less than 50.  In fact, in 2010, the number was 41.  The chance is literally greater than a million to one (the rate is .08 per 100,000).

So yeah, it *IS* one of those crazy accidents.

/Of course, shouldn't have been any ammo in the room
//Should have been very supervised at that age.
///littlebopper got his first .22 at age 8.

Only 41 kids dead?  Oh, then no problem.  Lets keep kids and guns together.

Or maybe....ZERO kids dead might be a better idea??

Like it would RUIN someone's life if they didn't touch a gun til they are 21?  Seriously??

Yeah, because making alcohol illegal for people under 21 stops them from drinking and driving.. and dying over a thousand times each year.  Oh wait, it doesn't.


Well then lets give every 5 year old a bottle of Jack and a rifle, that ought to solve the problem!
 
2013-05-01 12:22:37 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: [i.imgur.com image 530x453]

I've been assured that nothing can be done and this is just the price we pay for freedom.


Don't tell him about the hundreds of kids who die in car crashes.
 
2013-05-01 12:23:16 PM  

darth_badger: And all Ralphie got was a Daisy Red Rider BB gun .


Ralphie wasn't 5.
 
2013-05-01 12:23:39 PM  

crzybtch: Having worked with 5 year olds, I can tell you that they regularly do things they are told not to do.


Sure, when you're not paying attention to them.  When you're actively watching them, which you should be doing if you're taking them shooting, they'll generally do whatever an adult tells them to do, since the attention itself is a reward for obedience.
 
2013-05-01 12:23:51 PM  

pedrop357: pippi longstocking: Get rid of the 2nd Amendment, it's a relic. A gun is not a human right to life, it's a privilege. I'm not saying that they should take away your guns, but they should be treated as a privilege not a right.

You have more of a "right" to a gun than you do to a driver's license.

2/10


Actually, he/she's correct. You have a constitutional right to gun ownership (with certain restrictions). You do not have a constitutional right to a driver's license, only to the freedom of travel. Driving is a privilege that the state deemed legally restrictable based on the potential harm a 2 ton missile could do traveling at 55 miles an hour.
 
2013-05-01 12:23:52 PM  

noitsnot: I don't really believe the details of the incident -

1) A family obviously familiar with guns "accidentally" leaves it loaded?
2) The single shot fired while the boy was "playing with" the rifle just happened to hit and kill his sister?

I have the nasty suspicion that the kid aimed it at his sister and pulled the trigger - just like the cool guys do on TV.


Eh.  Never put down to malice what can also be explained by stupidity.

There's a LOT of gun "enthusiasts" / nuts who don't know dick about basic gun safety.  All they know is they like the loud noises and booms and etc.
 
2013-05-01 12:24:07 PM  

tricycleracer: Yogimus: Gotta admit, though... it IS a pretty good litmus test of someone's parenting skills.

You can only buy a gun for your kid if you're a good parent, but only a bad parent would want to buy a gun for their kid.

A real "Catch .22".


See, here is the trouble: Folks actually assume that the act of purchasing equates to parenting.
 
2013-05-01 12:24:30 PM  

pedrop357: Felgraf: et alone the idea of marketing a gun like "My First Rifle", as if it were a goddamn *TOY*...

Who cares how they market it?  Gun stores don't sell rifles to 5 year olds. They sell them to adults, for whom all responsibility lies.


NAh, the adults don't have responsibility. After all, Dittybopper has assured us that this is just 'an accident'.

And if they're not charging the adults in this scenario with a crime, well, I guess no one's being held responsible, are they?
 
2013-05-01 12:25:02 PM  
'The county coroner local hick has ruled the death 'just one of those crazy accidents.'

hicks + no education + guns = funeral party

losers
 
2013-05-01 12:25:13 PM  

pedrop357: Don't tell him about the hundreds of kids who die in car crashes.


Tell me how a gun with a trigger lock on it, put safely away behind a keyed door, is the same as a parent driving recklessly into a wall  or some drunk idiot t-boning the family sedan?

Kinesthetics of Trauma, how do they work?
 
2013-05-01 12:25:16 PM  

hardinparamedic: A child at five years of age does not understand the gravity or concept of Death.


This is so sadly true. A friend of mine has a little girl who decided that her kitten should go swimming. The kitten drowned and she didn't understand why kitty wouldn't wake up. :(
 
2013-05-01 12:25:36 PM  

pedrop357: Dusk-You-n-Me: [i.imgur.com image 530x453]

I've been assured that nothing can be done and this is just the price we pay for freedom.

Don't tell him about the hundreds of kids who die in car crashes.


How many of them were 5yr old and driving?
 
2013-05-01 12:25:52 PM  

TNel: pedrop357: Is anyone going to criticize parents for allowing their kids to ride in cars, given that motor vehicles crashes are the leading cause for people 4 to 26?

Riding in cars (passive occupant) is the same as someone actively using a weapon?  I don't understand your logic.


I think I may have found your problem.  You're assuming things that clearly don't exist.  Logic doesn't often enter gun debates.  In fact, it seems to actively avoid them altogether.
 
2013-05-01 12:26:24 PM  
Well, it's either this or a freak gardening accident, better leave it unsolved.
 
2013-05-01 12:26:44 PM  

Jim_Callahan: crzybtch: Having worked with 5 year olds, I can tell you that they regularly do things they are told not to do.

Sure, when you're not paying attention to them.  When you're actively watching them, which you should be doing if you're taking them shooting, they'll generally do whatever an adult tells them to do, since the attention itself is a reward for obedience.


don't try and be sensible in a gun nut threadjack.
 
2013-05-01 12:27:42 PM  
I was given my first .22 at 7 by my uncle.  Yeah, I didn't have access to it unattended till I was older.  Parents should be charged.  There is no excuse for negligence of this level.
 
2013-05-01 12:27:43 PM  
The Lexington Herald-Leader reports the weapon - a Crickett branded by makers Keystone Sporting Arms as "My First Rifle" - was given to the boy last year.

 Crickett rifles from the "My First Rifle" collection for kids on the website of Keystone Sporting ArmsPromotional material on KSA's website says the gun aims to "instill safety in the minds of youth shooters."

..................so much for that promo material. Kids will ALWAYS be kids that why they are call KIDS!!!  You CANNOT 'GUNPROOF' kids anymore than you can 'CHILDPROOF' a chainsaw.


Farking gun ads and farking dumass redneck parents.
 
2013-05-01 12:27:44 PM  

pedrop357: Dusk-You-n-Me: [i.imgur.com image 530x453]

I've been assured that nothing can be done and this is just the price we pay for freedom.

Don't tell him about the hundreds of kids who die in car crashes.



If only there was some sort of government regulation to make cars as safe as possible and limit the number of needless deaths!
 
2013-05-01 12:28:03 PM  

Lord_Baull: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Yeah, because making alcohol illegal for people under 21 stops them from drinking and driving.. and dying over a thousand times each year.  Oh wait, it doesn't.

And the number would be what without those laws? Higher, maybe? Your position that we should do nothing because current laws are not 100% effective is, well, stupid.


Do you have proof that the laws do anything?  Do teenagers care that alcohol is illegal?  Do they care that drinking and driving is illegal?  You're trying to legislate against stupidity, which is well, stupid.

Rules written on paper aren't what stop people from doing things that are harmful.  People stop doing things that are harmful when they have a deep realization of the reality, and consequences of harmful actions.
 
2013-05-01 12:28:10 PM  
hey, coonts from the previous thread:

farking owned.  now stfu.
 
2013-05-01 12:28:10 PM  

TNel: pedrop357: Is anyone going to criticize parents for allowing their kids to ride in cars, given that motor vehicles crashes are the leading cause for people 4 to 26?

Riding in cars (passive occupant) is the same as someone actively using a weapon?  I don't understand your logic.


I thought saving lives was the goal here.  Less than 50 kids die due to firearm accidents each year, while hundreds die in car crashes.

A child passenger is as passive as the victim was in this case.  A young driver is as active as the shooter was in this case.

People fail to realize that the reason people can exhaustively tabulate the children who die from firearm accidents is because the number is so small.

They wouldn't be able to keep up with all the kids who die in car crashes as passengers, drivers, and non occupants.
Their list would be much bigger if they did the same thing for all the kids killed at the hands of their parents and other caregivers, ditto for accidental drownings in pools and even things like buckets.

If saving children's lives is the goal and the standard is zero as set by some people here, let's go after the really big fish and try to save hundreds of lives.

The fact that people obsess over <50 and ignore hundreds demonstrates that they care more about the death in its ability to further a political agenda.
 
2013-05-01 12:29:08 PM  
here's my thoughts
#1 if you feel the need to arm your 5 year old, make it a bb/pellet gun
#2 this wasn't a "freak" accident, this was poor parenting, not only did they give a 5 y/o a .22 but they left it loaded, sitting in a corner of the house.
#3 getting past #2, it was left unsupervised, without a trigger lock or locked in a cabinet.

It's sad the little girl died, but I find it hard to have sympathy given the circumstances
 
2013-05-01 12:29:35 PM  

mytdawg: Hey, already got that "My First Manslaughter" out of the way too.  Making progress kid.


How many achievment points is that??
 
2013-05-01 12:29:50 PM  

dittybopper: Less than 50.  In fact, in 2010, the number was 41.  The chance is literally greater than a million to one (the rate is .08 per 100,000).


So that's an acceptable able number of child deaths?  I wonder how much it has to be too much? Then I remember  Buckyballs have killed exactly 0 kids, but we can't have those anymore.
 
2013-05-01 12:29:59 PM  

dittybopper: bdub77: Marcus Aurelius: bdub77: The county coroner has ruled the death 'just one of those crazy accidents.'

No. Some adult gave a loaded gun to a 5-yr old. This isn't a crazy accident. This is parental negligence.

Also WHO GIVES A F*CKING FIREARM TO A 5 YEAR OLD?

Congratulations, dumbass. Now you've ruined at least four lives.

Or brings a loaded gun into the house.  Or leaves a gun leaning in a corner somewhere.

just one of those 'crazy accidents' i guess. OOPSIE.

Actually, yes, it is.

Do you know how many kids age 11 and under die in gun accidents every year?

Less than 50.  In fact, in 2010, the number was 41.  The chance is literally greater than a million to one (the rate is .08 per 100,000).

So yeah, it *IS* one of those crazy accidents.

/Of course, shouldn't have been any ammo in the room
//Should have been very supervised at that age.
///littlebopper got his first .22 at age 8.


That's nice.  How many 5 year olds do you think are given their own weapon and ammo without direct, constant supervision?  41 deaths seems low compared to the entire population of children.  41 deaths may seem much, much higher when you consider how many children have parents stupid enough to give them access to a gun unsupervised.
 
2013-05-01 12:30:02 PM  
crzybtch:

Well then lets give every 5 year old a bottle of Jack and a rifle, that ought to solve the problem!

This is pretty much why your side fails in these debates.  You only see your solution, and the exact opposite of your solution.  You can't ever seem to grasp that there's other options.
 
2013-05-01 12:30:07 PM  
There is no such thing as an accident with a gun. Every act carried out with a firearm is done with foresight and full intent. Calling any act involving a gun an "accident" is merely an attempt by the guilty party to dodge responsibility.

The parents are guilty of first-degree murder. Anyone who disagrees isn't responsible enough to own a gun.
 
2013-05-01 12:30:25 PM  

hardinparamedic: A_Listless_Wanderer: 15-year-olds are too young to be trusted with birth control

If you read that thread, you should have also learned that women are all filthy whores who seek to victimize men.


Oh, I knew that already!
 
2013-05-01 12:30:37 PM  
I think that as a parent if you are going to have a gun or guns in your house, the kids should be taught how to respect them and realize they are not a toy.  With that said,  the parents "didn't realize a shell was left in the rifle"  I'm sorry but part of responsible gun ownership is ensuring the weapon is safe and secured.  Crazy circumstances or not this is parental negligence.
 
2013-05-01 12:30:46 PM  

pedrop357: Dusk-You-n-Me: [i.imgur.com image 530x453]

I've been assured that nothing can be done and this is just the price we pay for freedom.

Don't tell him about the hundreds of kids who die in car crashes.


When guns are subject to even a fraction of the regulation that cars are, then you MIGHT have an argument here.....
 
2013-05-01 12:30:46 PM  

pedrop357: TNel: pedrop357: Is anyone going to criticize parents for allowing their kids to ride in cars, given that motor vehicles crashes are the leading cause for people 4 to 26?

Riding in cars (passive occupant) is the same as someone actively using a weapon?  I don't understand your logic.

I thought saving lives was the goal here.  Less than 50 kids die due to firearm accidents each year, while hundreds die in car crashes.

A child passenger is as passive as the victim was in this case.  A young driver is as active as the shooter was in this case.

People fail to realize that the reason people can exhaustively tabulate the children who die from firearm accidents is because the number is so small.

They wouldn't be able to keep up with all the kids who die in car crashes as passengers, drivers, and non occupants.
Their list would be much bigger if they did the same thing for all the kids killed at the hands of their parents and other caregivers, ditto for accidental drownings in pools and even things like buckets.

If saving children's lives is the goal and the standard is zero as set by some people here, let's go after the really big fish and try to save hundreds of lives.

The fact that people obsess over <50 and ignore hundreds demonstrates that they care more about the death in its ability to further a political agenda.


It's the old "Look at all the crickett rifles that DIDN'T kill anyone" argument.
 
2013-05-01 12:30:58 PM  

Jairzinho: pedrop357: Dusk-You-n-Me: [i.imgur.com image 530x453]

I've been assured that nothing can be done and this is just the price we pay for freedom.

Don't tell him about the hundreds of kids who die in car crashes.

How many of them were 5yr old and driving?


Probably not many.  Again, I thought the goal was saving lives and railing against dangerous behavior that kills children.

Since cars, pools, parents, etc. kill far more children than guns, why the obsession with guns?  It's almost like the death is used not to just call for safer behavior, but to pursue a tired agenda.
 
2013-05-01 12:31:02 PM  

Haliburton Cummings: hicks + no education + guns =


hicks
+ no education
+ guns
=
www4.bluevalleyk12.org
 
2013-05-01 12:31:09 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Do you have proof that the laws do anything?  Do teenagers care that alcohol is illegal?  Do they care that drinking and driving is illegal?  You're trying to legislate against stupidity, which is well, stupid.

Rules written on paper aren't what stop people from doing things that are harmful.  People stop doing things that are harmful when they have a deep realization of the reality, and consequences of harmful actions.


Ah, the old "Laws don't do anything but punish people" spiel. It's been about 20 minutes since this one was used on FARK, I was starting to worry people had grown old and tired of being so intellectually dishonest.

pedrop357: I thought saving lives was the goal here.  Less than 50 kids die due to firearm accidents each year, while hundreds die in car crashes.


And how many of those deaths were preventable in the car crash, due to circumstances outside of the control of the driver?

Let's look at that, and then look at how many preventable deaths there were from firearms among children. (I'm going to say equal to the amount that die each year)
 
2013-05-01 12:31:16 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: My First Car yields predictable results

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10583657/ns/dateline_nbc/t/car-crash-trail -b roken-lives/

Shall we examine Statistics which is deadlier, or just flame gun owners, because that's what the new meme is?



1. Cars/Guns comparison is stupid. Cars have a primary use of transportation. Guns have a primary use of firing bullets.

2. No one gives a car to a 5 year old or tries to teach a five year old to drive.

3. We do require licensing to drive a car.
 
2013-05-01 12:31:57 PM  

the_immoral_minority: Who was the philosopher that said "There are no accidents"

Spot on here


That was the turtle in "Kung Fu Panda."

Still spot on.
 
2013-05-01 12:32:14 PM  

hardinparamedic: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Do you have proof that the laws do anything?  Do teenagers care that alcohol is illegal?  Do they care that drinking and driving is illegal?  You're trying to legislate against stupidity, which is well, stupid.

Rules written on paper aren't what stop people from doing things that are harmful.  People stop doing things that are harmful when they have a deep realization of the reality, and consequences of harmful actions.

Ah, the old "Laws don't do anything but punish people" spiel. It's been about 20 minutes since this one was used on FARK, I was starting to worry people had grown old and tired of being so intellectually dishonest.

pedrop357: I thought saving lives was the goal here.  Less than 50 kids die due to firearm accidents each year, while hundreds die in car crashes.

And how many of those deaths were preventable in the car crash, due to circumstances outside of the control of the driver?

Let's look at that, and then look at how many preventable deaths there were from firearms among children. (I'm going to say equal to the amount that die each year)


I'll be waiting patiently for your proof that laws stop people from doing stupid things.
 
2013-05-01 12:33:44 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Do you have proof that the laws do anything?


We really need to eliminate homicide laws. We're punishing the responsible killers while criminals will kill regardless of the law.
 
2013-05-01 12:34:14 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: James!: So the solution to the gun problem is better mental health services in the US but giving a gun to a kinder-gardener is A-OK?

No, even the NRA would not say that this was A-OK.


Wait a day or so.  The 2nd amendment applies to all citizens equally, and this kid was a citizen from the moment of conception.  As long as it wasn't legitimate rape.
 
2013-05-01 12:34:24 PM  

tricycleracer: Yogimus: Gotta admit, though... it IS a pretty good litmus test of someone's parenting skills.

You can only buy a gun for your kid if you're a good parent, but only a bad parent would want to buy a gun for their kid.

A real "Catch .22".



my sides have left the building
 
2013-05-01 12:34:25 PM  

pedrop357: Since cars, pools, parents, etc. kill far more children than guns, why the obsession with guns?


Q: Which of the following were invented to inflict harm and death?

a- cars
b- pools
c- guns
 
2013-05-01 12:34:32 PM  

Lord_Baull: pedrop357: Dusk-You-n-Me: [i.imgur.com image 530x453]

I've been assured that nothing can be done and this is just the price we pay for freedom.

Don't tell him about the hundreds of kids who die in car crashes.


If only there was some sort of government regulation to make cars as safe as possible and limit the number of needless deaths!


Yes, and it's doing a wonderful job.  Hundreds dead, thousands injured.
Repeat with things like pools, bathtubs and buckets and their role in small children drowning

Guns which number in the hundreds of millions are responsible for about 40-50 deaths each year,  and that is where everyone really wants to focus?  Perhaps a little perspective is called for.  Parents should be definitely more responsible, but given that we tolerate far more deaths due to accident in other areas, I can't help but wonder why the high priority given to gun accidents.
 
2013-05-01 12:34:55 PM  
I love the comments.

"If that 2 year old were armed she'd be alive today.
sincerely, The NRA"
 
2013-05-01 12:36:12 PM  
Guns still don't kill people though, right?
 
2013-05-01 12:36:15 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: I'll be waiting patiently for your proof that laws stop people from doing stupid things.


I'm not getting into this circular argument with you, because I get tired of chasing your goalposts down. If you want proof that laws stop people from doing "stupid things", you can resort to what ever social philosopher that is your soup de jour.

I'm just going to mock you for touting out such intellectual laziness and dishonesty.

In other words, welcome to FARK.
 
2013-05-01 12:36:29 PM  
white people, amirite?

smdh
 
2013-05-01 12:36:32 PM  

noitsnot: Itstoearly: hardinparamedic: This was a triumph.

I'm making a note here, huge success.

It's hard to understate my satisfaction.

For the good of all of us...

(EXCEPT FOR THOSE THAT ARE DEAD)

kbronsito: or neglect to teach a gun owner that you never ever, ever point a gun at another human even if you think it is unloaded (unless your intent is to actually shoot that person)

No offense, but perhaps five years old is a little too young to try to teach a child to do anything with a firearm but stay away from them and call an adult if they see one.

If he's too young to understand the gravitas of a concept such as death, then he's too young to play with a bang stick.

Bull.  5 years is old enough to teach how to properly handle a gun.  Not that I would ever trust one alone with one without adult supervision, but a five year old certainly has the mental capacity to learn "Don't point at people or animals, don't hold the trigger unless you are aiming at the paper target, assume there is always a bullet in the gun"

No Bull. Have a look here at the emotional development of a five year old. They have not yet learned the concept of death. They cannot yet view the world from another's point of view. They do not understand ethical or moral values.


Yes. But is a 5-year old able to understand that you'll take the gun away forever and whoop his ass if he touches it w/o an adult present.

Of course... if the kid knows that you'll take his gun away to whoop his ass... he may shoot you to protect his gun ownership right and to keep you from whooping him. I guess it is a bit of a conundrum.
 
2013-05-01 12:36:57 PM  

dittybopper: Do you know how many kids age 11 and under die in gun accidents every year?

Less than 50.  In fact, in 2010, the number was 41.


Lawn darts killed a total of 3 people before they were banned.

/Given enough lawn darts, I'm pretty sure I can hold back a SWAT assault.
 
2013-05-01 12:37:17 PM  
I learned to shoot at 7 with a .22 but in a controlled environment in scouting. My folks let me have a bb gun and let me shoot unsupervised at targets in the backyard when I was probably 8.

I would never consider giving a .22 to a 5 year old. If I had a child in the house, a gun would always be in a locked safe it sure as shiat wouldn't be sitting in the corner whether or not I thought it was loaded because a gun is ALWAYS considered loaded.

A family is ruined because the parents couldn't observe a simple farking safety rule. Imagine how the 5 yo is going to have to live the rest of his life knowing he killed his sister.
 
2013-05-01 12:37:25 PM  
From the Crickett Testimonials page


http://www.crickett.com/crickett_testimonials.php?osCsid=fg527ig2rj8 qa gprf906lgcpl2">http://www.crickett.com/crickett_testimonials.php?osCs id=fg527ig2rj8qa gprf906lgcpl2

"My wife told me to do something with my daughter after gymnastics today, she recommended going for hot chocolate or a donut. I thought, that's not special, plus once you've consumed the item where does that leave you. Instead we bought a pink Crickett from my six year old daughter and wanted to say thanks for making quality affordable firearms for new shooters. The 'girls' option is especially appreciated because as scary as it sounds the color really helped get her excitet about it. Bethany says thanks too! She'll be quite fashionalble at the Sportsman Club tomorrow." Chris "I wanted to tell you about my daughter's first gun. For Christmas 05' My oldest kid,6,wanted Santa to bring her, her first real gun. When her teacher at school told the class to write a letter to Santa about what they really wanted for Christmans, she wrote "I want a rel gun my size". The teacher said she couldn't write that at school and had to write something else. When she told me and her mom about that I decided taht if i had to sell one of my guns to get her one I would..Luckally I didn't have to sell any of mine to get Chris her gun. She is so responsible, and had proved it with a bb gun, that my wife and I went shopping a few days before Christmas...Our local gun store had just the perfect model in stock. Pink laminiated stock and stainless barrel. To see her face on Christmas morning after opening te wrapping paper was priceless. Out of the box she was a crack shot at 10-15 yeards, and just yesterday she bagged her first ground squirl at about 15 yards..thank you for such a great product that has brought so much fun and joy to my kid...and our family."Michael "I just wanted to send in a photo of my daughter's new Crickett rifle. I ordered it from Gander Mountain.It is a bull barrel thumbhole pink laminated stock model. I added a bipod and a 3.5x10x50 scope. It turned out to be a great little target gun for her. I enjoy shooting it too."

Larry -- From GA
 
2013-05-01 12:37:28 PM  

pedrop357: Lord_Baull: pedrop357: Dusk-You-n-Me: [i.imgur.com image 530x453]

I've been assured that nothing can be done and this is just the price we pay for freedom.

Don't tell him about the hundreds of kids who die in car crashes.


If only there was some sort of government regulation to make cars as safe as possible and limit the number of needless deaths!

Yes, and it's doing a wonderful job.  Hundreds dead, thousands injured.
Repeat with things like pools, bathtubs and buckets and their role in small children drowning

Guns which number in the hundreds of millions are responsible for about 40-50 deaths each year,  and that is where everyone really wants to focus?  Perhaps a little perspective is called for.  Parents should be definitely more responsible, but given that we tolerate far more deaths due to accident in other areas, I can't help but wonder why the high priority given to gun accidents.


Ladies and gentlemen, the stereotypical libertarian.
 
2013-05-01 12:37:48 PM  

pedrop357: crzybtch: Only 41 kids dead? Oh, then no problem. Lets keep kids and guns together.

Or maybe....ZERO kids dead might be a better idea??

Like it would RUIN someone's life if they didn't touch a gun til they are 21? Seriously??

ZERO is a good number.  Like it would seriously RUIN someone's life if they didn't ride in or drive a car until they are 21?  Seriously??


A person can live their whole life without ever touching a gun without any problem.  Completely realistic.
A person could live their whole life without ever driving a car.  Unrealistic in today's world, but possible.

However, if you throw out a vote for a law that gun and cars are banned for all until age 21, you get my vote.  Call me an idiot, but I want less dead children.

That being said, for you to compare teenagers getting killed in car wrecks versus a FIVE year old killing his little sister with a gun, I think you really need to think a little harder about the difference between the two.  Seriously!
 
2013-05-01 12:37:57 PM  
but they're sooooo cute with their little guns...
won' t someone think of the children('s second amendment rights)

www.addictinginfo.org

btw... don't do a google image search of 'kids with guns'
 
2013-05-01 12:37:58 PM  

dittybopper: bdub77: Marcus Aurelius: bdub77: The county coroner has ruled the death 'just one of those crazy accidents.'

No. Some adult gave a loaded gun to a 5-yr old. This isn't a crazy accident. This is parental negligence.

Also WHO GIVES A F*CKING FIREARM TO A 5 YEAR OLD?

Congratulations, dumbass. Now you've ruined at least four lives.

Or brings a loaded gun into the house.  Or leaves a gun leaning in a corner somewhere.

just one of those 'crazy accidents' i guess. OOPSIE.

Actually, yes, it is.

Do you know how many kids age 11 and under die in gun accidents every year?

Less than 50.  In fact, in 2010, the number was 41.  The chance is literally greater than a million to one (the rate is .08 per 100,000).

So yeah, it *IS* one of those crazy accidents.

/Of course, shouldn't have been any ammo in the room
//Should have been very supervised at that age.
///littlebopper got his first .22 at age 8.


Well that excuses the fact that following firearm safety rules could have prevented this. "Doesn't happen often so that makes it an accident." Whatever helps you sleep at night.
 
2013-05-01 12:38:07 PM  
A 5-year-old certainly has the capacity to learn firearm safety and understand certain consequences. The emotional and intellectual discipline to be relied on to apply that learning is something else entirely, as is the physical development to avoid waving it around or accidentally pulling the trigger if they're rough-housing or get distracted.

I'm about as freedom loving as they get, but these parents should be charged. It's Guns 101 that there could always be a loaded round you didn't know about. The simple fact that they've admitted they didn't care enough or know enough to check for a round and yet left it out for a child to access anyway should really be treated as a reckless disregard for human life. Just because it was a crazy accident doesn't mean the crazy that led to the death of a child shouldn't be regarded as a crime.
 
2013-05-01 12:38:14 PM  
Why wouldn't you just get the kid a BB gun? What could you possibly be doing at 5 years old that you couldn't do with a BB gun? It's like giving a 5yr old a Kawasaki instead of a tricycle. They're called "baby steps" for a reason.
 
2013-05-01 12:38:55 PM  

kbronsito: Marcus Aurelius: bdub77: The county coroner has ruled the death 'just one of those crazy accidents.'

No. Some adult gave a loaded gun to a 5-yr old. This isn't a crazy accident. This is parental negligence.

Also WHO GIVES A F*CKING FIREARM TO A 5 YEAR OLD?

Congratulations, dumbass. Now you've ruined at least four lives.

Or brings a loaded gun into the house.  Or leaves a gun leaning in a corner somewhere.

or neglect to teach a gun owner that you never ever, ever point a gun at another human even if you think it is unloaded (unless your intent is to actually shoot that person)


Five, dude. Five years old. You can't teach a 5-year-old not to crap his pants with 100 percent success. You buy a rifle for a 5-year-old, you should get a stern talking-to from DFCS. Eight is another thing entirely, but no kid should have unsupervised access to firearms and ammo.
 
2013-05-01 12:39:06 PM  

dittybopper: bdub77: Marcus Aurelius: bdub77: The county coroner has ruled the death 'just one of those crazy accidents.'

No. Some adult gave a loaded gun to a 5-yr old. This isn't a crazy accident. This is parental negligence.

Also WHO GIVES A F*CKING FIREARM TO A 5 YEAR OLD?

Congratulations, dumbass. Now you've ruined at least four lives.

Or brings a loaded gun into the house.  Or leaves a gun leaning in a corner somewhere.

just one of those 'crazy accidents' i guess. OOPSIE.

Actually, yes, it is.

Do you know how many kids age 11 and under die in gun accidents every year?

Less than 50.  In fact, in 2010, the number was 41.  The chance is literally greater than a million to one (the rate is .08 per 100,000).

So yeah, it *IS* one of those crazy accidents.

/Of course, shouldn't have been any ammo in the room
//Should have been very supervised at that age.
///littlebopper got his first .22 at age 8.


Just because other parents are smart enough to keep loaded guns locked up and away from their children doesn't suddenly make this not a case of negligence.  These kids parents were negligent, plain and simple.

/the little ones probably would have found some other way to die if it weren't for the gun
 
2013-05-01 12:39:13 PM  

pedrop357: Is anyone going to criticize parents for allowing their kids to ride in cars, given that motor vehicles crashes are the leading cause for people 4 to 26?


No, but I would certainly criticize parents for allowing their kids to  drive cars, and I would most assuredly criticize a company that produces, markets and sells a fully functional car designed especially for 5-year-olds.
You really can't be so daft that you don't recognize the difference, right?
 
2013-05-01 12:39:36 PM  

Jairzinho: pedrop357: Since cars, pools, parents, etc. kill far more children than guns, why the obsession with guns?

Q: Which of the following were invented to inflict harm and death?

a- cars
b- pools
c- guns


I suppose you want the answer c, so I'll give you that.

What's great about the order you placed those in, is that it's the same rank those things have in accidental deaths and injuries of small children.

The one thing "invented to inflict harm and death " is responsible for much less of it than things not invented for that purpose.

I guess when it comes to focusing on the things that kill and injure small children, their welfare takes a backseat (no pun intended) to more agenda pushing.
 
2013-05-01 12:40:33 PM  

pedrop357: Dusk-You-n-Me: [i.imgur.com image 530x453]

I've been assured that nothing can be done and this is just the price we pay for freedom.

Don't tell him about the hundreds of kids who die in car crashes.


You know, I grew up around guns. Hunted most of my life and I do in fact support the 2nd amendment. The rest of us reasonable and rational gun owners really wish guys like you would STFU. You are not helping. Your argument is the worst kind of nonsense and everyone see's through your lame attempt to change the subject.
 
2013-05-01 12:41:12 PM  

Sofa King Smart: but they're sooooo cute with their little guns...
won' t someone think of the children('s second amendment rights)

[www.addictinginfo.org image 650x422]

btw... don't do a google image search of 'kids with guns'


...now imagine they're black.
 
2013-05-01 12:41:43 PM  
There weren't guns in the house when I was growing up,my mom can't stand them because she watched her dad shoot himself in the chest twice with a .38. I went to a summer camp thing sponsored by the Kentucky Forestry division and before we ever got to even touch the guns we were taught a ton about gun safety and they never allowed us to be unsupervised with them.
/Boring story sis.
 
2013-05-01 12:41:45 PM  

pippi longstocking: Get rid of the 2nd Amendment, it's a relic. A gun is not a human right to life, it's a privilege. I'm not saying that they should take away your guns, but they should be treated as a privilege not a right.

You have more of a "right" to a gun than you do to a driver's license.


Well, that, and most people who keep guns for "protection" keep it for "protecting" themselves from fellow civilians, not against the government.
 
2013-05-01 12:42:31 PM  
Giving a 4 year old child a gun is a God given right!

Shooting toddlers is just some crazy accident...much in the same way as a shart!  There's no need to charge the parents, hell I'm sure they'll look back on this in the coming years and just laugh and laugh about how they armed their 4 year old and then a year later, whoo boy did we have fun!
 
2013-05-01 12:42:36 PM  

crzybtch: However, if you throw out a vote for a law that gun and cars are banned for all until age 21, you get my vote. Call me an idiot, but I want less dead children.

That being said, for you to compare teenagers getting killed in car wrecks versus a FIVE year old killing his little sister with a gun, I think you really need to think a little harder about the difference between the two. Seriously!


Vehicles are the cause of death for 4-26 year olds.  Lots of small children in there.  Far more 4-11 year olds killed in car crashes than killed in gun accidents.

Car crashes are the 2nd and/or 3rd leading cause of death for 0-4 year olds.  Gun accidents are literally one in a million events.

If you actually cared about saving lives, you'd be more interested in the things that 'killed' hundreds of young children and not the thing that 'kills' under 50.
 
2013-05-01 12:43:12 PM  

Tman144: Why wouldn't you just get the kid a BB gun? What could you possibly be doing at 5 years old that you couldn't do with a BB gun? It's like giving a 5yr old a Kawasaki instead of a tricycle. They're called "baby steps" for a reason.


static.giantbomb.com

Agrees.

There'll be plenty of time when he's older, and finds Power Armor.
 
2013-05-01 12:43:16 PM  
If only the parents had also given the 2 year old a rifle this whole incident could have been avoided.
 
2013-05-01 12:43:45 PM  

noitsnot: I don't really believe the details of the incident -

1) A family obviously familiar with guns "accidentally" leaves it loaded?
2) The single shot fired while the boy was "playing with" the rifle just happened to hit and kill his sister?

I have the nasty suspicion that the kid aimed it at his sister and pulled the trigger - just like the cool guys do on TV.


It's not good enough to just rule this as a "crazy accident" the parents should be prosecuted for neglect, child endangerment, etc. I think 5 is a little young to start shooting, but if the parent's decided to do that, it most defiantly should have only been under direct supervision and other wise the gun should have been locked up somewhere, not "sitting in the corner"

Sounds to me like the dumbassed parents just let the kid play with the thing unloaded all the time.
 
2013-05-01 12:43:48 PM  

A Terrible Human: she watched her dad shoot himself in the chest twice with a .38.


Brutal.

media.tumblr.com
 
2013-05-01 12:43:52 PM  
I am at a serious loss as to why some people in this thread are defending giving a gun to a 5 year old.
 
2013-05-01 12:44:16 PM  

Jim_Callahan: crzybtch: Having worked with 5 year olds, I can tell you that they regularly do things they are told not to do.

Sure, when you're not paying attention to them.  When you're actively watching them, which you should be doing if you're taking them shooting, they'll generally do whatever an adult tells them to do, since the attention itself is a reward for obedience.


And I suppose the average 5 year old would never make a mistake either?

I suppose the kid would be just as happy going skating, riding bikes, playing soccer, flying a kite, building a model, playing baseball, using a skateboard, hiking, etc, etc, etc. but his life would be so barren and meaningless if he never shot a gun.  Right?
 
2013-05-01 12:44:26 PM  

FlashHarry: this wouldn't have happened if the two-year-old had been carrying.


Damnit, I should at least scan the first 10 posts before I post...
 
2013-05-01 12:45:58 PM  

pedrop357: Lord_Baull: pedrop357: Dusk-You-n-Me: [i.imgur.com image 530x453]

I've been assured that nothing can be done and this is just the price we pay for freedom.

Don't tell him about the hundreds of kids who die in car crashes.


If only there was some sort of government regulation to make cars as safe as possible and limit the number of needless deaths!

Yes, and it's doing a wonderful job.  Hundreds dead, thousands injured.
Repeat with things like pools, bathtubs and buckets and their role in small children drowning

Guns which number in the hundreds of millions are responsible for about 40-50 deaths each year,  and that is where everyone really wants to focus?  Perhaps a little perspective is called for.  Parents should be definitely more responsible, but given that we tolerate far more deaths due to accident in other areas, I can't help but wonder why the high priority given to gun accidents.


I GOT THE SOLUTION!  Everyone isn't allowed to leave their house or their bed.  I mean people die from skin cancer so you can't go outside you could die from the sun.  People slip and fall in the shower and die so we better ban showers, some people fall asleep taking a bath so we better ban baths so you can only use wet wipes to clean up.

GUN ACCIDENTS ARE FULLY PREVENTABLE!  I have yet to see a gun "accident" that could not have been prevented if common steps would have been taken.  BTW there are more than 40-50 deaths per year by guns.
 
2013-05-01 12:46:57 PM  

Cupajo: No, but I would certainly criticize parents for allowing their kids to drive cars, and I would most assuredly criticize a company that produces, markets and sells a fully functional car designed especially for 5-year-olds.
You really can't be so daft that you don't recognize the difference, right?


I do see the difference.  But, when kids are left in a car and cause it to move, or snag the keys and cause some kind of injury or death, the parents are blamed and it pretty much ends their.  No one starts blaming the "car lobby" or engaging in various diatribes against car ownership or the fact that ANYONE can buy a car.
It doesn't happen when parents give their teenager a car either.

When guns are involved, you can expect all kinds of half baked attacks on the NRA, gun owners, idiotic strawmen about how if the 2 year old was armed, etc.  It's plainly obvious that it's about guns and a political agenda and not about saving lives or protecting children.
 
2013-05-01 12:46:57 PM  

markb289: 1. Cars/Guns comparison is stupid. Cars have a primary use of transportation. Guns have a primary use of firing bullets.

2. No one gives a car to a 5 year old or tries to teach a five year old to drive.

3. We do require licensing to drive a car.


You're required to go through courses and have a license in Canada in order to purchase a firearm.
 
2013-05-01 12:47:19 PM  

PoweredByIrony: Slaves2Darkness: James!: So the solution to the gun problem is better mental health services in the US but giving a gun to a kinder-gardener is A-OK?

No, even the NRA would not say that this was A-OK.

Wait a day or so.  The 2nd amendment applies to all citizens equally, and this kid was a citizen from the moment of conceptionbirth.  As long as it wasn't legitimate rape.


/let's not be ignorant here
 
2013-05-01 12:48:12 PM  

pedrop357: Jairzinho: pedrop357: Since cars, pools, parents, etc. kill far more children than guns, why the obsession with guns?

Q: Which of the following were invented to inflict harm and death?

a- cars
b- pools
c- guns

I suppose you want the answer c, so I'll give you that.

What's great about the order you placed those in, is that it's the same rank those things have in accidental deaths and injuries of small children.

The one thing "invented to inflict harm and death " is responsible for much less of it than things not invented for that purpose.

I guess when it comes to focusing on the things that kill and injure small children, their welfare takes a backseat (no pun intended) to more agenda pushing.


That's because most people aren't stupid enough to let 5 yr olds play with guns, whereas with cars and pools, 5 yr olds interact with them more often.
 
2013-05-01 12:48:14 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: A Terrible Human: she watched her dad shoot himself in the chest twice with a .38.

Brutal.

[media.tumblr.com image 280x210]


He lived and ended up breaking his back by trying to kill himself by jumping off a cliff. He was very mentally ill and spent a lot of time at various mental hospitals.
 
2013-05-01 12:48:15 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Lord_Baull: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Yeah, because making alcohol illegal for people under 21 stops them from drinking and driving.. and dying over a thousand times each year.  Oh wait, it doesn't.

And the number would be what without those laws? Higher, maybe? Your position that we should do nothing because current laws are not 100% effective is, well, stupid.

Do you have proof that the laws do anything?  Do teenagers care that alcohol is illegal?  Do they care that drinking and driving is illegal?  You're trying to legislate against stupidity, which is well, stupid.

Rules written on paper aren't what stop people from doing things that are harmful.  People stop doing things that are harmful when they have a deep realization of the reality, and consequences of harmful actions.



Riiighhhht. If there were no 21 alcohol laws, 19 year olds would still not drink because they have a deep realization of the reality and consequences of harmful actions.
 
2013-05-01 12:48:58 PM  
oh look dittybopper is whiteknighting guns again. totally never would've expected him in this thread.
 
2013-05-01 12:50:08 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: hardinparamedic: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Do you have proof that the laws do anything?  Do teenagers care that alcohol is illegal?  Do they care that drinking and driving is illegal?  You're trying to legislate against stupidity, which is well, stupid.

Rules written on paper aren't what stop people from doing things that are harmful.  People stop doing things that are harmful when they have a deep realization of the reality, and consequences of harmful actions.

Ah, the old "Laws don't do anything but punish people" spiel. It's been about 20 minutes since this one was used on FARK, I was starting to worry people had grown old and tired of being so intellectually dishonest.

I'll be waiting patiently for your proof that laws stop people from doing stupid things.


Well, you've convinced me. Repeal all laws!
 
2013-05-01 12:50:39 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: crzybtch:

Well then lets give every 5 year old a bottle of Jack and a rifle, that ought to solve the problem!

This is pretty much why your side fails in these debates.  You only see your solution, and the exact opposite of your solution.  You can't ever seem to grasp that there's other options.


Well you are the one that decided to equate a 5 year old with a gun to sales of alcohol, so I call that a fail.  When "my side" understands that kids should not have guns so that there are less dead childen, all your options come up short because they still include that handful of dead children that you don't seem to be very worried about.
 
2013-05-01 12:51:12 PM  

pedrop357: Vehicles are the cause of death for 4-26 year olds.  Lots of small children in there.  Far more 4-11 year olds killed in car crashes than killed in gun accidents.

Car crashes are the 2nd and/or 3rd leading cause of death for 0-4 year olds.  Gun accidents are literally one in a million events.

If you actually cared about saving lives, you'd be more interested in the things that 'killed' hundreds of young children and not the thing that 'kills' under 50.


OK look it's not all about saving lives numbskull, cars are needed for your daily life are guns needed daily?  Can you go about your life for 1 week without a car/mode of transportation?  Can you go a week without a gun?

I am trying hard to figure out what you are trying to defend?  Are you defending the parents?  Are you defending that children under 5 should be allowed to have a gun?
 
2013-05-01 12:52:01 PM  

pedrop357: Cupajo: No, but I would certainly criticize parents for allowing their kids to drive cars, and I would most assuredly criticize a company that produces, markets and sells a fully functional car designed especially for 5-year-olds.
You really can't be so daft that you don't recognize the difference, right?

I do see the difference.  But, when kids are left in a car and cause it to move, or snag the keys and cause some kind of injury or death, the parents are blamed and it pretty much ends their.  No one starts blaming the "car lobby" or engaging in various diatribes against car ownership or the fact that ANYONE can buy a car.
It doesn't happen when parents give their teenager a car either.

When guns are involved, you can expect all kinds of half baked attacks on the NRA, gun owners, idiotic strawmen about how if the 2 year old was armed, etc.  It's plainly obvious that it's about guns and a political agenda and not about saving lives or protecting children.


Let me know when Ford starting making and marketing fully functional cars for 5yr olds. Then I'll blame the "car lobby"
 
2013-05-01 12:52:06 PM  
It's nice to know that if I gave a five year old a stick of dynamite and a lit match, it will be ruled a "crazy accident" when he blows himself up.

Really.  That's SUCH a load off my chest.
 
2013-05-01 12:52:16 PM  

pedrop357: Lord_Baull: If only there was some sort of government regulation to make cars as safe as possible and limit the number of needless deaths!

Yes, and it's doing a wonderful job.  Hundreds dead, thousands injured.



Look up the terms "windshield horse collar effect," then get back to me.
 
2013-05-01 12:52:26 PM  
pedrop357:

You're wasting your breath on these Farkers. What you should do instead is go and meet some of the Sandy Hook parents and tell them how relieved and grateful they should be that their kids weren't killed in car accidents. They beat the odds, yay!
 
2013-05-01 12:52:28 PM  

jaytkay: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Do you have proof that the laws do anything?

We really need to eliminate homicide laws. We're punishing the responsible killers while criminals will kill regardless of the law.


We still need to punish murderers, so in that regard, the law serves a purpose, but if you think murder laws are preventing murders, you're an idiot.
 
2013-05-01 12:53:23 PM  

pedrop357: crzybtch: However, if you throw out a vote for a law that gun and cars are banned for all until age 21, you get my vote. Call me an idiot, but I want less dead children.

That being said, for you to compare teenagers getting killed in car wrecks versus a FIVE year old killing his little sister with a gun, I think you really need to think a little harder about the difference between the two. Seriously!

Vehicles are the cause of death for 4-26 year olds.  Lots of small children in there.  Far more 4-11 year olds killed in car crashes than killed in gun accidents.

Car crashes are the 2nd and/or 3rd leading cause of death for 0-4 year olds.  Gun accidents are literally one in a million events.

If you actually cared about saving lives, you'd be more interested in the things that 'killed' hundreds of young children and not the thing that 'kills' under 50.


It's almost like cars serve another purpose than killing things.
 
2013-05-01 12:53:55 PM  

crzybtch: Well you are the one that decided to equate a 5 year old with a gun to sales of alcohol, so I call that a fail.


I call your reading comprehension a fail.
 
2013-05-01 12:54:36 PM  
Guess they shouldve skipped giving him my first ammo
 
2013-05-01 12:54:50 PM  

sammyk: pedrop357: Dusk-You-n-Me: [i.imgur.com image 530x453]

I've been assured that nothing can be done and this is just the price we pay for freedom.

Don't tell him about the hundreds of kids who die in car crashes.

You know, I grew up around guns. Hunted most of my life and I do in fact support the 2nd amendment. The rest of us reasonable and rational gun owners really wish guys like you would STFU. You are not helping. Your argument is the worst kind of nonsense and everyone see's through your lame attempt to change the subject.


Weird, because I wish the douchebags who insist that "the laws don't stop all crime anyway herp derp" would stop spreading their bullshiat everywhere.  Huh.
 
2013-05-01 12:54:51 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: jaytkay: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Do you have proof that the laws do anything?

We really need to eliminate homicide laws. We're punishing the responsible killers while criminals will kill regardless of the law.

We still need to punish murderers, so in that regard, the law serves a purpose, but if you think murder laws are preventing murders, you're an idiot.


The issue is that a law banning murder does not an innocent person from defending themselves, where a law banning the tools used in murder do.
 
2013-05-01 12:55:12 PM  

pedrop357: I do see the difference.  But, when kids are left in a car and cause it to move, or snag the keys and cause some kind of injury or death, the parents are blamed and it pretty much ends their.  No one starts blaming the "car lobby" or engaging in various diatribes against car ownership or the fact that ANYONE can buy a car.
It doesn't happen when parents give their teenager a car either.

When guns are involved, you can expect all kinds of half baked attacks on the NRA, gun owners, idiotic strawmen about how if the 2 year old was armed, etc.  It's plainly obvious that it's about guns and a political agenda and not about saving lives or protecting children.


Has anyone in this thread talked about banning guns?  I read the entire thing and I don't remember one post.  We all said children that young should never have a gun.  When a child puts a car into drive parents are charged with negligence, these parents so far are getting off with nothing when they should be charged.

Not anyone can buy a car btw you have to have a valid license, yet to buy a gun you need no such license.
 
2013-05-01 12:55:14 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: jaytkay: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Do you have proof that the laws do anything?

We really need to eliminate homicide laws. We're punishing the responsible killers while criminals will kill regardless of the law.

We still need to punish murderers, so in that regard, the law serves a purpose, but if you think murder laws are preventing murders, you're an idiot.


It's really more about prosecuting murderers than preventing them.
 
2013-05-01 12:55:41 PM  
What I wanna know is, did the parents take the rifle away from the 5 year old now or at least lock it up somewhere besides resting in the corner of the room? Were lessons learned here?

Given the facts, my guess would be double no.
 
2013-05-01 12:56:01 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: jaytkay: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Do you have proof that the laws do anything?

We really need to eliminate homicide laws. We're punishing the responsible killers while criminals will kill regardless of the law.

We still need to punish murderers, so in that regard, the law serves a purpose, but if you think murder laws are preventing murders, you're an idiot.


Not sure if serious?
 
2013-05-01 12:56:42 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: jaytkay: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Do you have proof that the laws do anything?

We really need to eliminate homicide laws. We're punishing the responsible killers while criminals will kill regardless of the law.

We still need to punish murderers, so in that regard, the law serves a purpose, but if you think murder laws are preventing murders, you're an idiot.


You don't think there would be more people being killed by other people if it were legal to do so? Are you out of your mind? What about robbery? If there were not laws against stealing, you don't think there would be more stealing going on?
 
2013-05-01 12:56:44 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: We still need to punish murderers, so in that regard, the law serves a purpose, but if you think murder laws are preventing murders, you're an idiot.



You honestly believe that the threat of incarceration doesn't keep people from breaking the law? Do you honestly think there aren't people out there who would love to put a cap in someone's ass, but don't because of the legal ramifications?
 
2013-05-01 12:56:59 PM  

Loaf's Tray: Maybe the safety failed, children's weapons are often not manufactured to the same rigorous quality standards as the real thing...hell, two of the Hello Kitty hand grenades I bought last week went off in the car on the way home...


This gave me enjoyment.

Thank you.

I'll have a seat over here.
 
2013-05-01 12:57:08 PM  

pedrop357: crzybtch: However, if you throw out a vote for a law that gun and cars are banned for all until age 21, you get my vote. Call me an idiot, but I want less dead children.

That being said, for you to compare teenagers getting killed in car wrecks versus a FIVE year old killing his little sister with a gun, I think you really need to think a little harder about the difference between the two. Seriously!

Vehicles are the cause of death for 4-26 year olds.  Lots of small children in there.  Far more 4-11 year olds killed in car crashes than killed in gun accidents.

Car crashes are the 2nd and/or 3rd leading cause of death for 0-4 year olds.  Gun accidents are literally one in a million events.

If you actually cared about saving lives, you'd be more interested in the things that 'killed' hundreds of young children and not the thing that 'kills' under 50.


Are you REALLY that stupid?
 
2013-05-01 12:58:22 PM  

pedrop357: crzybtch: However, if you throw out a vote for a law that gun and cars are banned for all until age 21, you get my vote. Call me an idiot, but I want less dead children.

That being said, for you to compare teenagers getting killed in car wrecks versus a FIVE year old killing his little sister with a gun, I think you really need to think a little harder about the difference between the two. Seriously!

Vehicles are the cause of death for 4-26 year olds.  Lots of small children in there.  Far more 4-11 year olds killed in car crashes than killed in gun accidents.

Car crashes are the 2nd and/or 3rd leading cause of death for 0-4 year olds.  Gun accidents are literally one in a million events.

If you actually cared about saving lives, you'd be more interested in the things that 'killed' hundreds of young children and not the thing that 'kills' under 50.


Kids often have a necessity to go places in cars. No child has a necessity to possess a rifle.
 
2013-05-01 01:00:06 PM  

mizchief: BraveNewCheneyWorld: jaytkay: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Do you have proof that the laws do anything?

We really need to eliminate homicide laws. We're punishing the responsible killers while criminals will kill regardless of the law.

We still need to punish murderers, so in that regard, the law serves a purpose, but if you think murder laws are preventing murders, you're an idiot.

The issue is that a law banning murder does not an innocent person from defending themselves, where a law banning the tools used in murder do.


What proposed law was banning 'the tools used in murder' that an innocent person can use to defend themselves?
 
2013-05-01 01:00:09 PM  

TNel: I GOT THE SOLUTION! Everyone isn't allowed to leave their house or their bed. I mean people die from skin cancer so you can't go outside you could die from the sun. People slip and fall in the shower and die so we better ban showers, some people fall asleep taking a bath so we better ban baths so you can only use wet wipes to clean up.


Now you're thinking like the anti-gun crowd.

GUN ACCIDENTS ARE FULLY PREVENTABLE! I have yet to see a gun "accident" that could not have been prevented if common steps would have been taken. BTW there are more than 40-50 deaths per year by guns.

The 40-50 comes from the number of children under 11 or so that die from accidents with firearms.

The type of accident usually comes from a small number of irresponsible parents who misjudge or don't judge the propensity for harm by not engaging in certain precautionary steps and those kinds of parents will always exist.  They won't be swayed by PSAs and advice.  In short, we're stuck with them.

Decently responsible parents don't need all of that because they already know not to do those things.

The same tired solutions that are always tossed always involve more restrictions on all firearm owners/purchasers, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority don't need them and that tiny minority causing a problem will disregard them anyway.

THIS is why I bring up cars and things like that.  I want to see if the people in here advocate for broad regulations and engage in the idiotic strawmen and employ the same anti-gun nonsense will do it for other bigger killers of kids, especially when a significant number of the kids killed in crashes, pool accidents, etc. are ALSO the result of idiot parents.

How many unbuckled, un-car seated kids are killed each year?  All of those are preventable, yet the only way to deal with them would be largely invasive and infringing upon the vast majority that don't need to be told again to buckle up or use car seats.

Do the same thing with pools, buckets, bath tubs.  Pools are required to have gates and alarms in many areas and buckets have warnings about children can drown in small amounts of water, yet we still get more of these preventable deaths each year then gun accidents.  Same with bathtubs.

Exactly how does anyone here propose to deal with these 40-50 accidental deaths each year?  Then, tell me how you can do it without yet another rule/regulation that will only add yet another burden to the types of people who don't need while also not really doing about the careless idiots.  Then, are you willing to engage in the same kind of effort for all those preventable deaths from car crashes and drownings like I described above?
 
2013-05-01 01:01:08 PM  

AnonymooseFarker: I think that as a parent if you are going to have a gun or guns in your house, the kids should be taught how to respect them and realize they are not a toy.

See....this is the EXACT type of mentality which probably led to this tragedy in the first place!! Kids's parents probably thought that too.5yr olds do NOT have the mental acuity to truly understand that thought process!!! you simply CANNOT teach a 5 yr old to respect anything 100% of the time! I don't care how well you think you're raise your kids,
 
2013-05-01 01:01:46 PM  

Der Poopflinger: markb289: 1. Cars/Guns comparison is stupid. Cars have a primary use of transportation. Guns have a primary use of firing bullets.

2. No one gives a car to a 5 year old or tries to teach a five year old to drive.

3. We do require licensing to drive a car.

You're required to go through courses and have a license in Canada in order to purchase a firearm.


No 5 Year Old should have a rifle or any firearm. There's a reason 5 Year Olds are not held legally responsible for their actions. It is because they do not have the maturity to weigh the consequences of decisions and the relationship of cause and effect.
 
2013-05-01 01:01:48 PM  

Tman144: pedrop357: Cupajo: No, but I would certainly criticize parents for allowing their kids to drive cars, and I would most assuredly criticize a company that produces, markets and sells a fully functional car designed especially for 5-year-olds.
You really can't be so daft that you don't recognize the difference, right?

I do see the difference.  But, when kids are left in a car and cause it to move, or snag the keys and cause some kind of injury or death, the parents are blamed and it pretty much ends their.  No one starts blaming the "car lobby" or engaging in various diatribes against car ownership or the fact that ANYONE can buy a car.
It doesn't happen when parents give their teenager a car either.

When guns are involved, you can expect all kinds of half baked attacks on the NRA, gun owners, idiotic strawmen about how if the 2 year old was armed, etc.  It's plainly obvious that it's about guns and a political agenda and not about saving lives or protecting children.

Let me know when Ford starting making and marketing fully functional cars for 5yr olds. Then I'll blame the "car lobby"


One small gun maker marketing guns to PARENTS for their children is not the totality of the gun industry, and not like Ford doing it.
 
2013-05-01 01:01:49 PM  
This is exactly why I don't own a gun. We inherited a few from mr. teeny's grandfather, but since they didn't come with a safe I would not allow them to be stored here. We just recently caught the 8- and 11-year-old screwing around with matches, despite the many times we've explained the dangers. They're boys; they do forehead-slappingly idiotic things. The 5-year-old still runs into the street w/o looking. No way in hell am I going to throw a firearm into that mix.

That aside:

THIS MEANS SOMETHING!1
 
2013-05-01 01:02:10 PM  

Pista: Again, please take a look at the rifle in the story. It's selling a farking *gun* as, well, a toy.

You don't see anything wrong with this?

Anything at all?

I just checked the Crickett site.
This page is kind of disturbing really  http://www.crickett.com/crickett_kidscorner.php


Those pictures...just, no.  Fourth row down in the middle - rifle tucked under her arm?  And what is that, a can of Pabst?  Further down - infants with guns.

There's a difference between freedom and irresponsible idiocy.  THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS.
 
2013-05-01 01:02:33 PM  

mizchief: BraveNewCheneyWorld: jaytkay: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Do you have proof that the laws do anything?

We really need to eliminate homicide laws. We're punishing the responsible killers while criminals will kill regardless of the law.

We still need to punish murderers, so in that regard, the law serves a purpose, but if you think murder laws are preventing murders, you're an idiot.

The issue is that a law banning murder does not an innocent person from defending themselves, where a law banning the tools used in murder do.



Are you saying the only possible way to defend yourself is with guns?
 
2013-05-01 01:02:47 PM  

pedrop357: crzybtch: However, if you throw out a vote for a law that gun and cars are banned for all until age 21, you get my vote. Call me an idiot, but I want less dead children.

That being said, for you to compare teenagers getting killed in car wrecks versus a FIVE year old killing his little sister with a gun, I think you really need to think a little harder about the difference between the two. Seriously!

Vehicles are the cause of death for 4-26 year olds.  Lots of small children in there.  Far more 4-11 year olds killed in car crashes than killed in gun accidents.

Car crashes are the 2nd and/or 3rd leading cause of death for 0-4 year olds.  Gun accidents are literally one in a million events.

If you actually cared about saving lives, you'd be more interested in the things that 'killed' hundreds of young children and not the thing that 'kills' under 50.


Sorry, but I care about ANYTHING that kills children. One is way more preventable than the other and you know it.  To equate them is such a stretch, it only convinces me that people who think it is okay to give a gun to a 5 year old are beyond reasoning with.  Is it not possible for you to imagine what this 5 year old will go through for the rest of his life?  "Well kid, it was a one in a million kind of thing, sorry, bout that!"  And you don't have a problem with dead kids enough to make a change even if it is only a once in million PREVENTABLE thing?
 
2013-05-01 01:05:26 PM  

pedrop357: How many unbuckled, un-car seated kids are killed each year?  All of those are preventable, yet the only way to deal with them would be largely invasive and infringing upon the vast majority that don't need to be told again to buckle up or use car seats.


You do realize that there ARE laws about buckling up and having children in car seats, etc. I got pulled over for speeding in NY several years ago on a trip to NH and the cop was about to ticket me for my daughter not being in a car seat (she was about 6), but she was in a booster seat and just had a blanket over her lap so the cop didn't see it.
 
2013-05-01 01:05:58 PM  

pedrop357: One small gun maker marketing guns to PARENTS for their children is not the totality of the gun industry, and not like Ford doing it.


I don't consider a gun maker "small" when I can walk into any Walmart which has a sporting goods section and buy one.
 
2013-05-01 01:06:16 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: if you think murder laws are preventing murders, you're an idiot.


If murder were legal, you believe that killings would not increase from failed marriages, failed business deals and bar fights .

I'm not the idiot.
 
2013-05-01 01:06:54 PM  
First rifle at 5.
First BB gun at 8.
First full auto 9.
Never a single 'accident'.
Never a problem.

/gutting and skinning a 2 or 3 year old is too much work.
//not enough meat.
///ticket to hell please
 
2013-05-01 01:07:21 PM  

pedrop357: crzybtch: However, if you throw out a vote for a law that gun and cars are banned for all until age 21, you get my vote. Call me an idiot, but I want less dead children.

That being said, for you to compare teenagers getting killed in car wrecks versus a FIVE year old killing his little sister with a gun, I think you really need to think a little harder about the difference between the two. Seriously!

Vehicles are the cause of death for 4-26 year olds.  Lots of small children in there.  Far more 4-11 year olds killed in car crashes than killed in gun accidents.

Car crashes are the 2nd and/or 3rd leading cause of death for 0-4 year olds.  Gun accidents are literally one in a million events.

If you actually cared about saving lives, you'd be more interested in the things that 'killed' hundreds of young children and not the thing that 'kills' under 50.


OMFG!!! seriously? another but car/toaster/baseball bats kill more kids retortt!

www.troll.me
 
2013-05-01 01:07:25 PM  

inglixthemad: bdub77: The county coroner has ruled the death 'just one of those crazy accidents.'

No. Some adult gave a loaded gun to a 5-yr old. This isn't a crazy accident. This is parental negligence.

Also WHO GIVES A F*CKING FIREARM TO A 5 YEAR OLD?

Congratulations, dumbass. Now you've ruined at least four lives.

I gave my kids weapons at that age. The differences:

It was only ever out of the case at the range (or for cleaning, but that I did alone for several years)

I held all the ammo, and only loaded it shortly before firing (and I mean RIGHT before firing)

The child was taught it was a WEAPON THAT KILLS and to NEVER point it at anything other than the target AT THE RANGE.

The weapon was kept locked in a locked case (in a locked safe) with the bolt removed. The bolt was locked (along with my other rifle bolts) in a separate lockbox. Finally the ammo was in a different locked room, each caliber in their own lock boxes.

We didn't take chances. My elders didn't take chances with us either. From pellet rifles to bows to firearms, it was relentlessly drilled into us that they kill whatever they are aimed at so don't point it at anyone EVER.


OK, so you seem like a truly reasonable gun owner and, as the article clearly proves, there are some truly dumb gun owners out there.  Would you be OK with making common sense safety measures like the ones you just mentioned a legal requirement for parents who buy their kids guns?
 
2013-05-01 01:07:32 PM  

jaytkay: BraveNewCheneyWorld: if you think murder laws are preventing murders, you're an idiot.

If murder were legal, you believe that killings would not increase from failed marriages, failed business deals and bar fights .

I'm not the idiot.


He's still mad Benghazi isn't a scandal. You have to be easy on him. The precious little flower.
 
2013-05-01 01:07:36 PM  

mizchief: BraveNewCheneyWorld: jaytkay: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Do you have proof that the laws do anything?

We really need to eliminate homicide laws. We're punishing the responsible killers while criminals will kill regardless of the law.

We still need to punish murderers, so in that regard, the law serves a purpose, but if you think murder laws are preventing murders, you're an idiot.

The issue is that a law banning murder does not an innocent person from defending themselves, where a law banning the tools used in murder do.


Beyond that, gun laws are of questionable usefulness in preventing gun crime because you're dealing with a subset of the population that has already chosen to commit a crime and risk the associated penalties, including a criminal record following them around. Whatever they feel like they have to lose is already small enough to justify whatever they're about to do, and a sentencing enhancement is not the biggest number in this equation.

The existence of the criminal penalty itself, though, looms larger. The idea that murders are not deterred by the criminalization of murder, that there are not large numbers of people who would commit violence against their fellow man if they knew they were going to get away with it, seems like an incredibly optimistic read on human nature, and one that runs contrary to everything we believe about people and have built our entire civilization on.
 
2013-05-01 01:07:45 PM  
If you can't afford a safe, you can't afford as gun.
 
2013-05-01 01:07:52 PM  

markb289: Kids often have a necessity to go places in cars. No child has a necessity to possess a rifle.


So, we get parents to not let their kids have their own rifles in their room and we might cut down some of the accidental deaths among children.  We might save 10-12 lives, as most kids don't have loaded rifles in their room or in the corner, but find guns in other places that belong to other people.

Now, if we could get away from this idea that kids NEED to go places in cars, we might save hundreds, maybe thousands.

Maybe we don't have to keep kids out of cars, we just have to find some way to get that small segment of parents who don't use seat belts or car seats or drive dangerously with the their kids in the car to start acting more responsibly.  The hard part is reaching them and changing their behavior without unduly and excessively burdening all the parents who already to know to do all that and don't need to be told.  We'll also have to accept that we won't save all kids from accidents and are only really trying to cut down on the preventable deaths while also not unfairly burdening the rest of parents who already do the right thing.
 
2013-05-01 01:08:23 PM  

pedrop357: THIS is why I bring up cars and things like that.  I want to see if the people in here advocate for broad regulations and engage in the idiotic strawmen and employ the same anti-gun nonsense will do it for other bigger killers of kids, especially when a significant number of the kids killed in crashes, pool accidents, etc. are ALSO the result of idiot parents.



None of your posts do this, thankfully.
 
2013-05-01 01:09:17 PM  

dittybopper: bdub77: Marcus Aurelius: bdub77: The county coroner has ruled the death 'just one of those crazy accidents.'

No. Some adult gave a loaded gun to a 5-yr old. This isn't a crazy accident. This is parental negligence.

Also WHO GIVES A F*CKING FIREARM TO A 5 YEAR OLD?

Congratulations, dumbass. Now you've ruined at least four lives.

Or brings a loaded gun into the house.  Or leaves a gun leaning in a corner somewhere.

just one of those 'crazy accidents' i guess. OOPSIE.

Actually, yes, it is.

Do you know how many kids age 11 and under die in gun accidents every year?

Less than 50.  In fact, in 2010, the number was 41.  The chance is literally greater than a million to one (the rate is .08 per 100,000).

So yeah, it *IS* one of those crazy accidents.

/Of course, shouldn't have been any ammo in the room
//Should have been very supervised at that age.
///littlebopper got his first .22 at age 8.


Uh, no. Look, shiat might have worked for you, but VERY few young children have the maturity/responsible parentage to own a firearm. This isn't an accident. Someone gave the kid a gun and let him just go play with it.

It takes some astounding mental gymnastics to call this an "accident" and not "criminal negligence on the part of the parents."
 
2013-05-01 01:09:48 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: sammyk: pedrop357: Dusk-You-n-Me: [i.imgur.com image 530x453]

I've been assured that nothing can be done and this is just the price we pay for freedom.

Don't tell him about the hundreds of kids who die in car crashes.

You know, I grew up around guns. Hunted most of my life and I do in fact support the 2nd amendment. The rest of us reasonable and rational gun owners really wish guys like you would STFU. You are not helping. Your argument is the worst kind of nonsense and everyone see's through your lame attempt to change the subject.

Weird, because I wish the douchebags who insist that "the laws don't stop all crime anyway herp derp" would stop spreading their bullshiat everywhere.  Huh.


Oh I agree with you %100 on that.
 
2013-05-01 01:10:12 PM  

pedrop357: markb289: Kids often have a necessity to go places in cars. No child has a necessity to possess a rifle.

So, we get parents to not let their kids have their own rifles in their room and we might cut down some of the accidental deaths among children.  We might save 10-12 lives, as most kids don't have loaded rifles in their room or in the corner, but find guns in other places that belong to other people.

Now, if we could get away from this idea that kids NEED to go places in cars, we might save hundreds, maybe thousands.

Maybe we don't have to keep kids out of cars, we just have to find some way to get that small segment of parents who don't use seat belts or car seats or drive dangerously with the their kids in the car to start acting more responsibly.  The hard part is reaching them and changing their behavior without unduly and excessively burdening all the parents who already to know to do all that and don't need to be told.  We'll also have to accept that we won't save all kids from accidents and are only really trying to cut down on the preventable deaths while also not unfairly burdening the rest of parents who already do the right thing.


It's like a textbook exercise in apologetics.
 
2013-05-01 01:10:20 PM  

markb289: No 5 Year Old should have a rifle or any firearm. There's a reason 5 Year Olds are not held legally responsible for their actions. It is because they do not have the maturity to weigh the consequences of decisions and the relationship of cause and effect


I said something similar in an earlier post, I was just pointing out in Canada you're required to go through a course to get a license to purchase firearms, plus I believe you after to be at least 18.  much like driving a vehicle.
 
2013-05-01 01:10:48 PM  
This kind of rifle is very hard to accidently fire. The bolt not only has to be closed, but it also has to be manually cocked. I am thinking the parents must have left the rifle completely at the ready.
 
2013-05-01 01:11:20 PM  

mbillips: Five, dude. Five years old. You can't teach a 5-year-old not to crap his pants with 100 percent success. You buy a rifle for a 5-year-old, you should get a stern talking-to from DFCS. Eight is another thing entirely, but no kid should have unsupervised access to firearms and ammo.


Well certainly not the ammo. It's a choking hazard.
 
2013-05-01 01:12:34 PM  
before anyone goes sideways, you don't have to be 18 (16) to drive but I do believe now you don't get your full fledged drivers license until then.
 
2013-05-01 01:12:56 PM  

Haliburton Cummings: 'The county coroner local hick has ruled the death 'just one of those crazy accidents.'

hicks + no education + guns = funeral party

losers


I'm guessing the county coroner in that neck of the woods is also the local veterinarian as well as working for the highway department that cleans up roadkill.
 
2013-05-01 01:13:09 PM  

LavenderWolf: dittybopper: bdub77: Marcus Aurelius: bdub77: The county coroner has ruled the death 'just one of those crazy accidents.'

No. Some adult gave a loaded gun to a 5-yr old. This isn't a crazy accident. This is parental negligence.

Also WHO GIVES A F*CKING FIREARM TO A 5 YEAR OLD?

Congratulations, dumbass. Now you've ruined at least four lives.

Or brings a loaded gun into the house.  Or leaves a gun leaning in a corner somewhere.

just one of those 'crazy accidents' i guess. OOPSIE.

Actually, yes, it is.

Do you know how many kids age 11 and under die in gun accidents every year?

Less than 50.  In fact, in 2010, the number was 41.  The chance is literally greater than a million to one (the rate is .08 per 100,000).

So yeah, it *IS* one of those crazy accidents.

/Of course, shouldn't have been any ammo in the room
//Should have been very supervised at that age.
///littlebopper got his first .22 at age 8.

Uh, no. Look, shiat might have worked for you, but VERY few young children have the maturity/responsible parentage to own a firearm. This isn't an accident. Someone gave the kid a gun and let him just go play with it.

It takes some astounding mental gymnastics to call this an "accident" and not "criminal negligence on the part of the parents."


We can stop piling on him now - he's not sticking his head back up anytime soon (in this thread...)
 
2013-05-01 01:13:57 PM  

Der Poopflinger: before anyone goes sideways, you don't have to be 18 (16) to drive but I do believe now you don't get your full fledged drivers license until then.


That depends completely on your specific locality.
 
2013-05-01 01:14:11 PM  

pedrop357: Tman144: pedrop357: Cupajo: No, but I would certainly criticize parents for allowing their kids to drive cars, and I would most assuredly criticize a company that produces, markets and sells a fully functional car designed especially for 5-year-olds.
You really can't be so daft that you don't recognize the difference, right?

I do see the difference.  But, when kids are left in a car and cause it to move, or snag the keys and cause some kind of injury or death, the parents are blamed and it pretty much ends their.  No one starts blaming the "car lobby" or engaging in various diatribes against car ownership or the fact that ANYONE can buy a car.
It doesn't happen when parents give their teenager a car either.

When guns are involved, you can expect all kinds of half baked attacks on the NRA, gun owners, idiotic strawmen about how if the 2 year old was armed, etc.  It's plainly obvious that it's about guns and a political agenda and not about saving lives or protecting children.

Let me know when Ford starting making and marketing fully functional cars for 5yr olds. Then I'll blame the "car lobby"

One small gun maker marketing guns to PARENTS for their children is not the totality of the gun industry, and not like Ford doing it.


Fine, then find me ONE car company who makes fully functioning cars for 5yr olds. Also, all things designed for children are marketed to those kids parents. Kids don't have any money, their parents do.
 
2013-05-01 01:14:30 PM  

theknuckler_33: You do realize that there ARE laws about buckling up and having children in car seats, etc. I got pulled over for speeding in NY several years ago on a trip to NH and the cop was about to ticket me for my daughter not being in a car seat (she was about 6), but she was in a booster seat and just had a blanket over her lap so the cop didn't see it.


There are laws about buckling up and child seats, just like there are laws about storing firearms,  In the absence of laws about storing firearms, there are laws about recklessness and/or neglect.

The point being that these kinds of laws are hard to ratchet up to the point of dealing with these parents who actually cause the problems without needlessly restricting the parents who don't and comprise the vast majority of parents.

We seem to accept quite a few children dying in car crashes despite quite a few being preventable because we realize that the methods needed to go after those remaining preventable deaths would have to be incredibly draconian.

Many here don't apply that kind of thinking to guns.  They don't realize that the kind of parent who does what these parents did is extremely rare.  They also seem to take the position that anything goes to stop these preventable (but still 1 in a million)  deaths.
The contrast between this position and the position (or lack thereof) when it comes to similarly preventable deaths that are also more common cannot be overlooked.
 
2013-05-01 01:15:01 PM  
Lord_Baull: Look up the terms "windshield horse collar effect", then get back to me.

I just tried and failed.
What is it?
 
2013-05-01 01:15:10 PM  

pedrop357: Maybe we don't have to keep kids out of cars, we just have to find some way to get that small segment of parents who don't use seat belts or car seats or drive dangerously with the their kids in the car to start acting more responsibly.  The hard part is reaching them and changing their behavior without unduly and excessively burdening all the parents who already to know to do all that and don't need to be told.  We'll also have to accept that we won't save all kids from accidents and are only really trying to cut down on the preventable deaths while also not unfairly burdening the rest of parents who already do the right thing.



Getting law-abiding parents to buckle up their children is such an unfair burden.
 
2013-05-01 01:15:20 PM  
It's time to repeal the second amendment.
 
2013-05-01 01:15:21 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Lord_Baull: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Yeah, because making alcohol illegal for people under 21 stops them from drinking and driving.. and dying over a thousand times each year.  Oh wait, it doesn't.

And the number would be what without those laws? Higher, maybe? Your position that we should do nothing because current laws are not 100% effective is, well, stupid.

Do you have proof that the laws do anything?  Do teenagers care that alcohol is illegal?  Do they care that drinking and driving is illegal?


img.photobucket.com

You guys are actually trying engage this loose stool on his "points"?
 
2013-05-01 01:15:27 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: crzybtch: Well you are the one that decided to equate a 5 year old with a gun to sales of alcohol, so I call that a fail.

I call your reading comprehension a fail.


Ooooooooooooooo  good one, I think you are right, I am going to go out and buy a gun for a five year old and make sure it is loaded too.   Makes so much more sense than a new bike, or legos, or a kite, or puzzles, any number of toys that he can't kill his sister with.
 
2013-05-01 01:15:46 PM  

pedrop357: Exactly how does anyone here propose to deal with these 40-50 accidental deaths each year? Then, tell me how you can do it without yet another rule/regulation that will only add yet another burden to the types of people who don't need while also not really doing about the careless idiots. Then, are you willing to engage in the same kind of effort for all those preventable deaths from car crashes and drownings like I described above?


There are more laws and restrictions on everything you post than we do with guns.  The fact that all the other items you talk about are normally needed for everyday life whereas a gun is not.  Then there's the fact that NOBODY is saying there should be more regulation.  Quote a post please.  Should there be a law, hell yeah there should be one saying a 5 year old should never be left unsupervised with a gun; but god forbid anyone try because that would infringe on the only part of the constitution you care about.

So the only thing we can hope is you idiots can get it the message out to all the other idiots that it's not a good idea to leave guns laying around in a household of children.  Maybe have the NRA fight that battle instead of some imaginary "Obama's coming for our guns".
 
2013-05-01 01:16:05 PM  

Sofa King Smart: but they're sooooo cute with their little guns...
won' t someone think of the children('s second amendment rights)

[www.addictinginfo.org image 650x422]

btw... don't do a google image search of 'kids with guns'


www.addictinginfo.org

Most unbelievable image ever. If the girl on the right lets fly, she could take out both the others with the same bullet. And her finger is right at the trigger too.
 
2013-05-01 01:16:44 PM  

theknuckler_33: pedrop357: How many unbuckled, un-car seated kids are killed each year?  All of those are preventable, yet the only way to deal with them would be largely invasive and infringing upon the vast majority that don't need to be told again to buckle up or use car seats.

You do realize that there ARE laws about buckling up and having children in car seats, etc. I got pulled over for speeding in NY several years ago on a trip to NH and the cop was about to ticket me for my daughter not being in a car seat (she was about 6), but she was in a booster seat and just had a blanket over her lap so the cop didn't see it.


I think it's hilarious when gun nutters (that is, single-issue idiots who can't see the forest what with all the damn trees in the way) compare gun laws to car laws, as though guns are anywhere near as regulated in the US.
 
2013-05-01 01:16:51 PM  

hardinparamedic: pedrop357: markb289: Kids often have a necessity to go places in cars. No child has a necessity to possess a rifle.

So, we get parents to not let their kids have their own rifles in their room and we might cut down some of the accidental deaths among children.  We might save 10-12 lives, as most kids don't have loaded rifles in their room or in the corner, but find guns in other places that belong to other people.

Now, if we could get away from this idea that kids NEED to go places in cars, we might save hundreds, maybe thousands.

Maybe we don't have to keep kids out of cars, we just have to find some way to get that small segment of parents who don't use seat belts or car seats or drive dangerously with the their kids in the car to start acting more responsibly.  The hard part is reaching them and changing their behavior without unduly and excessively burdening all the parents who already to know to do all that and don't need to be told.  We'll also have to accept that we won't save all kids from accidents and are only really trying to cut down on the preventable deaths while also not unfairly burdening the rest of parents who already do the right thing.

It's like a textbook exercise in apologetics.


The intellectual dishonesty of not acknowledging the miriad laws on the books for car/driver/passenger/road safety that are designed to do exactly what he is saying is stunning.
 
2013-05-01 01:16:52 PM  

pedrop357: crzybtch: However, if you throw out a vote for a law that gun and cars are banned for all until age 21, you get my vote. Call me an idiot, but I want less dead children.

That being said, for you to compare teenagers getting killed in car wrecks versus a FIVE year old killing his little sister with a gun, I think you really need to think a little harder about the difference between the two. Seriously!

Vehicles are the cause of death for 4-26 year olds.  Lots of small children in there.  Far more 4-11 year olds killed in car crashes than killed in gun accidents.

Car crashes are the 2nd and/or 3rd leading cause of death for 0-4 year olds.  Gun accidents are literally one in a million events.

If you actually cared about saving lives, you'd be more interested in the things that 'killed' hundreds of young children and not the thing that 'kills' under 50.


Can't we care about both?
 
2013-05-01 01:17:27 PM  

BadReligion: This kind of rifle is very hard to accidently fire. The bolt not only has to be closed, but it also has to be manually cocked. I am thinking the parents must have left the rifle completely at the ready.


This is the only explanation and why these parents should be arrested.

When I was a kid my Ruger 10-22 was kept is a locked guncase and the ammo stored in a separate locked case in another room.
 
2013-05-01 01:17:42 PM  
He should have shot his idiot parents instead
 
2013-05-01 01:19:03 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Lord_Baull: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Yeah, because making alcohol illegal for people under 21 stops them from drinking and driving.. and dying over a thousand times each year.  Oh wait, it doesn't.

And the number would be what without those laws? Higher, maybe? Your position that we should do nothing because current laws are not 100% effective is, well, stupid.

Do you have proof that the laws do anything?  Do teenagers care that alcohol is illegal?  Do they care that drinking and driving is illegal?

[img.photobucket.com image 200x219]

You guys are actually trying engage this loose stool on his "points"?


He's right, though. Laws do nothing. There's no difference between the USA and Somalia. Teenagers don't care that drinking is illegal - that's why they never try to hide that activity.
 
2013-05-01 01:19:51 PM  
No one needs to go to jail over this. The fact that your actions led to your child's death is enough. You will think about that every day. They should never own a gun again though. They lost that right with the you're too stupid sub clause in the 2nd.

/was target shooting as a kid. Guns were locked up otherwise though
 
2013-05-01 01:19:55 PM  

tuna fingers: Lord_Baull: Look up the terms "windshield horse collar effect", then get back to me.

I just tried and failed.
What is it?


It's what would happen to people that rammed their head through the windshield during a head-on collision.
The head would go through, then the inertia would bring the body back into the car, effectively decapitating the victim. This was due to the type of glass used in windshields. Laws were put in place to make car manufactures use the type of glass that shatters into tiny pieces.
 
2013-05-01 01:20:49 PM  

theknuckler_33: The intellectual dishonesty of not acknowledging the miriad laws on the books for car/driver/passenger/road safety that are designed to do exactly what he is saying is stunning.


24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-05-01 01:21:23 PM  

Lord_Baull: pedrop357: Maybe we don't have to keep kids out of cars, we just have to find some way to get that small segment of parents who don't use seat belts or car seats or drive dangerously with the their kids in the car to start acting more responsibly.  The hard part is reaching them and changing their behavior without unduly and excessively burdening all the parents who already to know to do all that and don't need to be told.  We'll also have to accept that we won't save all kids from accidents and are only really trying to cut down on the preventable deaths while also not unfairly burdening the rest of parents who already do the right thing.


Getting law-abiding parents to buckle up their children is such an unfair burden.


It's not a burden and I never said was, you farking moron.

The point is that some parents STILL choose not to buckle or car seat their children despite the warnings, advocacy, etc. about it.

Those deaths are all preventable, yet we end up accepting that the laws, rules, regulations, etc. can only go so far to try and prevent them because the end result is that law abiding, responsible parents who already buckle, use car seats, etc. will bear unfair and needless burdens in this effort to eliminate the remaining deaths.

That kind of understanding seems to be lost when it comes to preventable deaths from firearms.  They are exceptionally rare, yet the solutions tossed out are basically "by any means" necessary.  Why not apply that same level of enforcement or advocacy to the more numerous preventable deaths in other areas as well?
 
2013-05-01 01:22:00 PM  
dittybopper:
Do you know how many kids age 11 and under die in gun accidents every year?

Less than 50.  In fact, in 2010, the number was 41.  The chance is literally greater than a million to one (the rate is .08 per 100,000).


What's the number from last year? Is it higher?

/got my first rifle at 5. Was instructed how to use it and only in presence of adults.
 
2013-05-01 01:22:08 PM  

hardinparamedic: t's like a textbook exercise in apologetics.


It's almost like you don't have a response.
 
2013-05-01 01:22:26 PM  
The statement that produces the most rage - "Well we didn't realize it was loaded."

Rules for parenting include turning the handles of hot pots & pans so kids can't reach them, making sure you didn't leave your steak knife on the edge of the counter, and CHECKING YOUR TODDLER'S RIFLE FOR AMMUNITION before leaving them unsupervised "for just a few minutes".
 
2013-05-01 01:22:50 PM  
Wow. Disgusting and sad. WTF is wrong with gun nuts?
 
2013-05-01 01:23:16 PM  
If gun death stories keep showing up in the news, the next election cycle will be interesting indeed. Gun deaths like this have have always happened because... well because people are Morans and guns kill. The fact that news media reports on them more now reflects the interest of the readers and that interest means that guns will be a part of the conversation for the next election cycle. If  these lines stabilize and don't return to last year's level, we'll move on legislation after the next election cycle.
 
2013-05-01 01:23:28 PM  

justanotherfarkinfarker: No one needs to go to jail over this. The fact that your actions led to your child's death is enough. You will think about that every day. They should never own a gun again though. They lost that right with the you're too stupid sub clause in the 2nd.

/was target shooting as a kid. Guns were locked up otherwise though


Sure they should. What they did was criminally negligent, and lead to the death of their child, and will tramatize the other child. I can promise you, this gun as left not only unlocked(this type of gun has a built in lock that makes it so the bolt can't close), but also left it loaded and most likely even cocked. They deserve punishment above "my kid just died and I can't take it".
 
2013-05-01 01:23:47 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: My First Car yields predictable results

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10583657/ns/dateline_nbc/t/car-crash-trail -b roken-lives/

Shall we examine Statistics which is deadlier, or just flame gun owners, because that's what the new meme is?


1.3 deaths per 100 MILLION mile driven in 2010. Sure, lets talk about it.
 
2013-05-01 01:23:59 PM  

pedrop357: It's almost like you don't have a response.


I got tired of typing out posts to you and being ignored, so I figured I'd do the next best thing and mock you for your incredible intellectual dishonesty and mental gymnastics.

bunkstrutts.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-05-01 01:24:14 PM  

Stoj: The statement that produces the most rage - "Well we didn't realize it was loaded."

Rules for parenting include turning the handles of hot pots & pans so kids can't reach them, making sure you didn't leave your steak knife on the edge of the counter, and CHECKING YOUR TODDLER'S RIFLE FOR AMMUNITION before leaving them unsupervised "for just a few minutes".


Their lack of actual knowledge that it was loaded seems like the only thing that should let them off easy with negligent homicide.
 
2013-05-01 01:24:19 PM  

pedrop357: hardinparamedic: t's like a textbook exercise in apologetics.

It's almost like you don't have a response.



Your lucky anyone is responding to you.
 
2013-05-01 01:24:28 PM  

jaytkay: BraveNewCheneyWorld: if you think murder laws are preventing murders, you're an idiot.

If murder were legal, you believe that killings would not increase from failed marriages, failed business deals and bar fights .

I'm not the idiot.


I'mma have to agree with jaytkay on this one.
 
2013-05-01 01:25:15 PM  

TNel: Should there be a law, hell yeah there should be one saying a 5 year old should never be left unsupervised with a gun; but god forbid anyone try because that would infringe on the only part of the constitution you care about.


Nearly every state has such a law.  Even without an explicit law, it would seem that neglect and/or reckless endangerment laws would cover it.

I'm also going after the trolling morons with their comments like "if only the 2 year old was carrying" or "blah blah, signed the NRA"

Unlike all the other preventable deaths that I've talked about, it's not just the parents that are responsible for blatantly tossing caution and good sense to the wind, it's the NRA and gunmakers, etc.
 
2013-05-01 01:25:21 PM  
It's a real working rifle! You know, for kids!
 
2013-05-01 01:25:51 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Wow. Disgusting and sad. WTF is wrong with gun nuts?


This has nothing to do with "gun nuts". I would be described as a gun nut to you, and I would never give a 5 year old a rifle, and I would never have guns lying around so my kid could get to them. This is criminally negligent parents.
 
2013-05-01 01:26:44 PM  

justanotherfarkinfarker: No one needs to go to jail over this. The fact that your actions led to your child's death is enough. You will think about that every day. They should never own a gun again though. They lost that right with the you're too stupid sub clause in the 2nd.


Bollocks. That their actions led to their child's death is the nature of the crime. They should be jailed because the fear of a lifetime of guilt and remorse was obviously not an adequate deterrent.
 
2013-05-01 01:27:03 PM  
I once saw a fetus shoot a rifle, so I don't understand what the big deal is here.
 
2013-05-01 01:28:20 PM  

pedrop357: Nearly every state has such a law.  Even without an explicit law, it would seem that neglect and/or reckless endangerment laws would cover it.

I'm also going after the trolling morons with their comments like "if only the 2 year old was carrying" or "blah blah, signed the NRA"

Unlike all the other preventable deaths that I've talked about, it's not just the parents that are responsible for blatantly tossing caution and good sense to the wind, it's the NRA and gunmakers, etc.


i409.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-01 01:29:32 PM  

theknuckler_33: The intellectual dishonesty of not acknowledging the miriad laws on the books for car/driver/passenger/road safety that are designed to do exactly what he is saying is stunning.


Yet with all those laws we still have more deaths, many preventable, than with guns.  We also take different approaches to preventable deaths with cars, pools, bathtubs, etc. than we do with guns.
When some parent doesn't buckle their kid up, fails to use a car seat, or disable their pool alarm and their kid drowns, where are all the people to chime in about how families don't need pools to live or blaming the maker of the car, car seat, or the pool installer?

Where are the strawman/trolling about how this is what the NRA supports or how we should ban all children under 21 from being near pools?

Nearly every state has a law about securing guns from children.  Those that don't have more cover-all laws like neglect, endangerment, etc. that should suffice.
 
2013-05-01 01:29:37 PM  

mjohnson71: BadReligion: This kind of rifle is very hard to accidently fire. The bolt not only has to be closed, but it also has to be manually cocked. I am thinking the parents must have left the rifle completely at the ready.

This is the only explanation and why these parents should be arrested.

When I was a kid my Ruger 10-22 was kept is a locked guncase and the ammo stored in a separate locked case in another room.


THIS.  If you have kids and you have guns ... get a damn gunsafe (and lock the farker).  They shouldn't be able to "play" with their guns unless you are somewhere shooting with them, or teaching them to clean it.  God forbid you should actually do some parenting.  It's not like leaving them alone with an erector set so you can watch TV ... it's a damn gun.  When they're teenagers and they've proven they can be responsible enough to go out alone with them - fine.  Even then, no minor should be able to just go grab one any time they want without asking.  But a 5 year old has no business touching a firearm without an adult supervising everything and actively making it a learning experience.

Unfortunately we have people in this country that are too stupid to operate a DVR, much less how to safely handle and own weapons.  And THOSE are the kinds of people buying their kids guns WAY too early.

/They're also the type that only own pistols and AR15's, and like guns because they're "cool" instead of "useful"
 
2013-05-01 01:29:54 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Wow. Disgusting and sad. WTF is wrong with gun nuts?


They are emotionally stunted, self-centered cocknozzles?
 
2013-05-01 01:30:12 PM  

BadReligion: Sure they should. What they did was criminally negligent, and lead to the death of their child, and will tramatize the other child.


I doubt that is true in Kentucky. But I'm too lazy to google the storage laws. if it is illegal to store unlocked/loaded, it's up to the DA, and they will not bother to charge. No need to spend $30+K a year on jail for someone who is not a danger other than the fact they are dumb. If that was illegal we'd need to lock up most of the US
 
2013-05-01 01:30:16 PM  

Lord_Baull: Your lucky anyone is responding to you.


Says the poster responding to me with garbage.
 
2013-05-01 01:31:12 PM  

hardinparamedic: pedrop357: Nearly every state has such a law.  Even without an explicit law, it would seem that neglect and/or reckless endangerment laws would cover it.

I'm also going after the trolling morons with their comments like "if only the 2 year old was carrying" or "blah blah, signed the NRA"

Unlike all the other preventable deaths that I've talked about, it's not just the parents that are responsible for blatantly tossing caution and good sense to the wind, it's the NRA and gunmakers, etc.

[i409.photobucket.com image 610x343]


Cute, not quite accurate here.
 
2013-05-01 01:32:47 PM  
pedrop357: THIS is why I bring up cars and things like that.  I want to see if the people in here advocate for broad regulations and engage in the idiotic strawmen and employ the same anti-gun nonsense will do it for other bigger killers of kids, especially when a significant number of the kids killed in crashes, pool accidents, etc. are ALSO the result of idiot parents.

Cars are subject to registry, and that information is made available to almost anyone in federal, state or local government that wants it for any reason.

If you're willing at accept those conditions for gun ownership, then you MIGHT have an argument.
 
2013-05-01 01:32:56 PM  

pedrop357: Those deaths are all preventable, yet we end up accepting that the laws, rules, regulations, etc. can only go so far to try and prevent them because the end result is that law abiding, responsible parents who already buckle, use car seats, etc. will bear unfair and needless burdens in this effort to eliminate the remaining deaths.


So you yourself are saying there should be laws and regulations on guns then to help reduce the amount of deaths and accidents just like cars.

pedrop357: Unlike all the other preventable deaths that I've talked about, it's not just the parents that are responsible for blatantly tossing caution and good sense to the wind, it's the NRA and gunmakers, etc.


Exactly but it will never happen the NRA does not care about the end users they only care about making more money and the only way to do that is to use scare tactics.  They will never talk down to their base in fear of their bottom line.
 
2013-05-01 01:32:59 PM  

noitsnot: Sofa King Smart: but they're sooooo cute with their little guns...
won' t someone think of the children('s second amendment rights)

[www.addictinginfo.org image 650x422]

btw... don't do a google image search of 'kids with guns'

[www.addictinginfo.org image 650x422]

Most unbelievable image ever. If the girl on the right lets fly, she could take out both the others with the same bullet. And her finger is right at the trigger too.


But wait! There's more. Apparently the same kids with a weapons upgrade.

comm439sp10.csulb.wikispaces.net
 
2013-05-01 01:33:20 PM  

justanotherfarkinfarker: we'd need to lock up most of the US


Well for things other than stupid drug things like we already do.
 
2013-05-01 01:33:32 PM  

freewill: Their lack of actual knowledge that it was loaded seems like the only thing that should let them off easy with negligent homicide.


Knowing if that rifle was loaded or unloaded was probably one of the top three most important things they should know around the house.  The loss of their daughter isn't "punishment enough".

I have a three year old and a 20 month old.  I am also acutely aware of anything dangerous within the walls of my house.  Even though the cleaning supplies are inaccessible to them, I still make sure the caps are on extra tight.  Why?  Because why the f*ck not.  It's not hard to be a little careful, and the downside of not being careful can be a tragedy.
 
2013-05-01 01:33:44 PM  

bdub77: The county coroner has ruled the death 'just one of those crazy accidents.'

No. Some adult gave a loaded gun to a 5-yr old. This isn't a crazy accident. This is parental negligence.

Also WHO GIVES A F*CKING FIREARM TO A 5 YEAR OLD?

Congratulations, dumbass. Now you've ruined at least four lives.


yuuup.  its fine for him to use it at a firing range supervised, but letting him just "play" with it is a very very stupid and ublievably irresponsible idea.  Rifle should have been locked up.
 
2013-05-01 01:33:54 PM  

Der Poopflinger: I said something similar in an earlier post, I was just pointing out in Canada you're required to go through a course to get a license to purchase firearms, plus I believe you after to be at least 18. much like driving a vehicle.


Did the course. 8 hours for unrestricted, 8 for restricted. Four tests, two practical and two written. ACTS and PROVE. Anyone who couldn't grasp and repeat these basic, unimpeachable safety rules failed. Just like a driver's course.

No understanding of safety? No license.
 
2013-05-01 01:34:14 PM  

justanotherfarkinfarker: BadReligion: Sure they should. What they did was criminally negligent, and lead to the death of their child, and will tramatize the other child.

I doubt that is true in Kentucky. But I'm too lazy to google the storage laws. if it is illegal to store unlocked/loaded, it's up to the DA, and they will not bother to charge. No need to spend $30+K a year on jail for someone who is not a danger other than the fact they are dumb. If that was illegal we'd need to lock up most of the US


http://www.lrc.ky.gov/krs/527-00/110.pdf
covers handguns and people under 18, so this case is not directly covered under state law.

I would think some type of neglect and/or endangerment charge would still apply here.
 
2013-05-01 01:34:14 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: noitsnot: Sofa King Smart: but they're sooooo cute with their little guns...
won' t someone think of the children('s second amendment rights)

[www.addictinginfo.org image 650x422]

btw... don't do a google image search of 'kids with guns'

[www.addictinginfo.org image 650x422]

Most unbelievable image ever. If the girl on the right lets fly, she could take out both the others with the same bullet. And her finger is right at the trigger too.

But wait! There's more. Apparently the same kids with a weapons upgrade.

[comm439sp10.csulb.wikispaces.net image 461x298]


Aww, Daddy's little sluggers are going to have a whole lifetime of Daddy compensating for not being able to have any boys.
 
2013-05-01 01:34:32 PM  

pedrop357: Cute, not quite accurate here.


Actually, it is. You've been called out by numerous posts, many of which you've conveniently ignored, for your intellectually dishonest dribble, and now you're claiming you aren't REALLY as stupid as  you've made yourself sound, you're just doing it to counter-troll and be "ironic".

Ipso Facto, Winning by Losing.

ct.fra.bz
 
2013-05-01 01:35:25 PM  
daydreamertoo.files.wordpress.com

Merry Xmas! Say hello to my little elf!
 
2013-05-01 01:35:38 PM  

pedrop357: Lord_Baull: Your lucky anyone is responding to you.

Says the poster responding to me with garbage.



Pot. Kettle. Like, such as.
 
2013-05-01 01:37:25 PM  

pedrop357: Even without an explicit law, it would seem that neglect and/or reckless endangerment laws would cover it.


Your a horrible internet lawyer. The court system isn't going to bother. You don't charge every parent of a kid who accidentally drowns. This really isn't much different. Preventable, horrible accidents happen. And drowning happens many times more a year.
 
2013-05-01 01:37:36 PM  

pedrop357: Lord_Baull: pedrop357: Maybe we don't have to keep kids out of cars, we just have to find some way to get that small segment of parents who don't use seat belts or car seats or drive dangerously with the their kids in the car to start acting more responsibly.  The hard part is reaching them and changing their behavior without unduly and excessively burdening all the parents who already to know to do all that and don't need to be told.  We'll also have to accept that we won't save all kids from accidents and are only really trying to cut down on the preventable deaths while also not unfairly burdening the rest of parents who already do the right thing.


Getting law-abiding parents to buckle up their children is such an unfair burden.

It's not a burden and I never said was, you farking moron.

The point is that some parents STILL choose not to buckle or car seat their children despite the warnings, advocacy, etc. about it.

Those deaths are all preventable, yet we end up accepting that the laws, rules, regulations, etc. can only go so far to try and prevent them because the end result is that law abiding, responsible parents who already buckle, use car seats, etc. will bear unfair and needless burdens in this effort to eliminate the remaining deaths.

That kind of understanding seems to be lost when it comes to preventable deaths from firearms.  They are exceptionally rare, yet the solutions tossed out are basically "by any means" necessary.  Why not apply that same level of enforcement or advocacy to the more numerous preventable deaths in other areas as well?


It's simple, because some people don't want to accept the fact that responsible gun ownership is actually safer than responsible driving.

Fact is that an unloaded/checked gun with all gun locks and properly working safeties in place in the hands of a 5 year old is safer than that same kid sitting in the backseat of a car buckled in a child seat.  Unless 5 year old child miraculously beats himself to death with the gun, driving with your kid anywhere, any distance is always more dangerous.

If someone really wanted to prevent all accidental child deaths then it would be illegal to drive anywhere with your child.  Sorry but there is no reason why you can't get a baby sitter/responsible guardian for any occasion.  Convenience and cost shouldn't be a problem since you're trying to prevent any situation where the kid might be killed.
 
2013-05-01 01:37:48 PM  

hardinparamedic: pedrop357: Cute, not quite accurate here.

Actually, it is. You've been called out by numerous posts, many of which you've conveniently ignored, for your intellectually dishonest dribble, and now you're claiming you aren't REALLY as stupid as  you've made yourself sound, you're just doing it to counter-troll and be "ironic".

Ipso Facto, Winning by Losing.

[ct.fra.bz image 600x616]


Now you've done it. You're totally sued.
 
2013-05-01 01:38:21 PM  

TNel: pedrop357: Those deaths are all preventable, yet we end up accepting that the laws, rules, regulations, etc. can only go so far to try and prevent them because the end result is that law abiding, responsible parents who already buckle, use car seats, etc. will bear unfair and needless burdens in this effort to eliminate the remaining deaths.

So you yourself are saying there should be laws and regulations on guns then to help reduce the amount of deaths and accidents just like cars.


Gun accident deaths are pretty rare with the current regulatory system and there are already laws and regulations that try to reduce the amount of deaths and accidents.

Gun ownership is a protected right.  Given that there will always be a small segment of people who act foolishly, recklessly, etc. and there are limits as to how far the law can go to try to stop them we have to accept some amount of preventable deaths, the same way we openly do with cars, pools, bathtubs, etc.
 
2013-05-01 01:38:28 PM  
Not an accident.

More importantly, nobody thinks a 5 year old should have unsupervised access (or maybe any access at all) to a gun. Nobody thinks anybody should ever point a gun at someone they don't intend to kill.

My question is, should people who break laws like "Don't let children access guns" be banned from owning guns? For life? That should be the debate.

I don't care about banning guns and since at some time we basically banned studies on gun safety we really don't know the best way to prevent gun deaths I don't know what we should do. I don't think it is unreasonable to consider some of the things other countries do like before someone can buy a gun they have to show that they have a safe place to keep it.
 
2013-05-01 01:38:40 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: [daydreamertoo.files.wordpress.com image 443x330]

Merry Xmas! Say hello to my little elf!


The older girl has some crazy eyes!
 
2013-05-01 01:38:48 PM  
nice your typo on my part. fail.
 
2013-05-01 01:39:14 PM  

udhq: pedrop357: THIS is why I bring up cars and things like that.  I want to see if the people in here advocate for broad regulations and engage in the idiotic strawmen and employ the same anti-gun nonsense will do it for other bigger killers of kids, especially when a significant number of the kids killed in crashes, pool accidents, etc. are ALSO the result of idiot parents.

Cars are subject to registry, and that information is made available to almost anyone in federal, state or local government that wants it for any reason.

If you're willing at accept those conditions for gun ownership, then you MIGHT have an argument.


What good does an open registry do to stop preventable deaths from things like unsecured children, unbuckled children, idiotic parent drivers?
 
2013-05-01 01:40:22 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: noitsnot: Sofa King Smart: but they're sooooo cute with their little guns...
won' t someone think of the children('s second amendment rights)

[www.addictinginfo.org image 650x422]

btw... don't do a google image search of 'kids with guns'

[www.addictinginfo.org image 650x422]

Most unbelievable image ever. If the girl on the right lets fly, she could take out both the others with the same bullet. And her finger is right at the trigger too.

But wait! There's more. Apparently the same kids with a weapons upgrade.

[comm439sp10.csulb.wikispaces.net image 461x298]


Money spent on guns: $30000+

Money saved for daughters college educations: $0

Money spent monthly on horrible apartment in Oklahoma: $700

Money spent monthly on Skoal and Keystone: $700
 
2013-05-01 01:40:47 PM  
Okay, so that's one offspring of a crazy gun nut dead before she could breed another generation of crazy gun nuts, so we need to have the five-year-old taken out by mom or dad or a neighborhood toddler, and then both parents. Let them all shoot and kill each other and maybe then we'll finally be rid of this scourge.
 
2013-05-01 01:40:59 PM  
I'll just leave this here. Sometimes idjit dads get what's coming to them.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,496267,00.html
 
2013-05-01 01:41:00 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: bdub77: The county coroner has ruled the death 'just one of those crazy accidents.'

No. Some adult gave a loaded gun to a 5-yr old. This isn't a crazy accident. This is parental negligence.

Also WHO GIVES A F*CKING FIREARM TO A 5 YEAR OLD?

Congratulations, dumbass. Now you've ruined at least four lives.

Or brings a loaded gun into the house.  Or leaves a gun leaning in a corner somewhere.


I have kids. I have loaded guns in my house. All of them secured in quick-access safes which use either biometrics or a combination code that I and my wife and my live-in parents know. The kids do not. The kids are never allowed to handle firearms unless they go to the range, are sat down at the bench, and a firearm is placed on the bench before them with an adult right there.

I also do not give a firearm to anyone under the age of 10. I refuse to teach them, I refuse to help select guns for them, etc. Kids under 10 years of age don't understand the gravity of the item before them.

This is the shiat that i'm most sick about. Crazy guy doing crazy shiat is bad but not something I can change. But when I read about gun owners being so irresponsible as to give a gun to someone who can't even begin to contemplate the nuances of safety or the repercussions of their behavior? No.

This is why I'm all for stiff penalties for this. Safe storage laws. Safety training. Background checks. My 2nd Amendment Rights aren't more important than the lives of a child, and I'll jump through a few hoops to stop this shiat from happening.
 
2013-05-01 01:41:15 PM  

andrewskdr: Fact is that an unloaded/checked gun with all gun locks and properly working safeties in place in the hands of a 5 year old is safer than that same kid sitting in the backseat of a car buckled in a child seat.  Unless 5 year old child miraculously beats himself to death with the gun, driving with your kid anywhere, any distance is always more dangerous.


Except for the fact that teaching a child that a .22 Long Rifle weapon in colorful, kid friendly colors and then letting them play with it as a toy, while forgetting to follow rule #1 of gun safety and treat all guns as if there was a round in the chamber (there was) isn't what any rational person would call "responsible gun ownership"

Thanks to this, a 2 year old ate a bullet.

But you keep on white knighting this mentality.
 
2013-05-01 01:41:15 PM  

justanotherfarkinfarker: pedrop357: Even without an explicit law, it would seem that neglect and/or reckless endangerment laws would cover it.

Your a horrible internet lawyer. The court system isn't going to bother. You don't charge every parent of a kid who accidentally drowns. This really isn't much different. Preventable, horrible accidents happen. And drowning happens many times more a year.


If they die in a pool that wasn't up to code, someone gets arrested.

Good thing we're not allowed to adopt any laws regarding gun safety though.
 
2013-05-01 01:42:37 PM  

silvervial: Okay, so that's one offspring of a crazy gun nut dead before she could breed another generation of crazy gun nuts, so we need to have the five-year-old taken out by mom or dad or a neighborhood toddler, and then both parents. Let them all shoot and kill each other and maybe then we'll finally be rid of this scourge.


For someone who doesn't like guns, you sure do like death and violence bestowed upon people you don't agree with.
 
2013-05-01 01:45:15 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Good thing we're not allowed to adopt any laws regarding gun safety though.

 
What are you talking about?  There are numerous state laws that deal with dangerous handling of guns-brandishing, etc., handling by intoxicated persons, providing to children, etc.
 
2013-05-01 01:47:21 PM  

hardinparamedic: andrewskdr: Fact is that an unloaded/checked gun with all gun locks and properly working safeties in place in the hands of a 5 year old is safer than that same kid sitting in the backseat of a car buckled in a child seat.  Unless 5 year old child miraculously beats himself to death with the gun, driving with your kid anywhere, any distance is always more dangerous.

Except for the fact that teaching a child that a .22 Long Rifle weapon in colorful, kid friendly colors and then letting them play with it as a toy, while forgetting to follow rule #1 of gun safety and treat all guns as if there was a round in the chamber (there was) isn't what any rational person would call "responsible gun ownership"

Thanks to this, a 2 year old ate a bullet.

But you keep on white knighting this mentality.


I'm not white knighting anything.  The point is, stupid irresponsible people will always exist and will always cause accidents no matter how many laws are in place.
 
2013-05-01 01:48:24 PM  

andrewskdr: The point is, stupid irresponsible people will always exist and will always cause accidents no matter how many laws are in place.


Good thing we can label these things as accidents where no one is responsible, then, so we can avoid having to deal with the unpleasantries.

Dead kids caused by parental incompetence is just a small price we have to pay for that.
 
2013-05-01 01:48:26 PM  

andrewskdr: hardinparamedic: andrewskdr: Fact is that an unloaded/checked gun with all gun locks and properly working safeties in place in the hands of a 5 year old is safer than that same kid sitting in the backseat of a car buckled in a child seat.  Unless 5 year old child miraculously beats himself to death with the gun, driving with your kid anywhere, any distance is always more dangerous.

Except for the fact that teaching a child that a .22 Long Rifle weapon in colorful, kid friendly colors and then letting them play with it as a toy, while forgetting to follow rule #1 of gun safety and treat all guns as if there was a round in the chamber (there was) isn't what any rational person would call "responsible gun ownership"

Thanks to this, a 2 year old ate a bullet.

But you keep on white knighting this mentality.

I'm not white knighting anything.  The point is, stupid irresponsible people will always exist and will always cause accidents no matter how many laws are in place.



Not if we outlawed stupid people! That will do it!
 
2013-05-01 01:48:30 PM  
I plan on digging a 20 foot pit in the kitchen (2 feet wide) and then I'm gonna run to the store for a bit while my toddlers supervise themselves.

I HOPE NO CRAZY ACCIDENTS HAPPEN AND IF THEY DO I'M CERTAINLY EXPECTING TO AVOID PROSECUTION.

/less than 5 children per year are killed by kitchen pits
 
2013-05-01 01:49:28 PM  

BadReligion: Not if we outlawed stupid people! That will do it!


Labeling a clear case of negligent homicide as an accident seems to have worked in this case.
 
2013-05-01 01:49:28 PM  

Bravo Two: This is why I'm all for stiff penalties for this. Safe storage laws. Safety training. Background checks. My 2nd Amendment Rights aren't more important than the lives of a child, and I'll jump through a few hoops to stop this shiat from happening.


Thing is, these types of parents ignore those laws in the states that have them.  The only people really burdened are the people who don't need them.

You jumping through more hoops doesn't stop it from happening.  Them jumping through these hoops won't stop it if they just disregard the laws/advice and act like idiots anyway.

Our current system of laws has produced an environment where accidental deaths are extremely rare despite the ubiquitous nature of firearms in many households.  The remainder are going to be very difficult to mitigate without serious and draconian steps that STILL may not eliminate of the remaining deaths.

The question is how far are we willing to go to eliminate some or all of less than 50 accidental child deaths in a year?
 
2013-05-01 01:49:49 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: I'll just leave this here. Sometimes idjit dads get what's coming to them.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,496267,00.html


The Associated Press is not identifying the boy because of his age

The boy previously pleaded not guilty in the Nov. 5 deaths of his father, 29-year-old Vincent Romero,


PARKERRRRRRRRRRRR!
 
2013-05-01 01:50:27 PM  

Chief_ Danz153A: Parental negligence.

Did not secure the weapon, did not clear the weapon, did not supervise the use, and clearly did not train the five year old on how he should handle a weapon (as if it is loaded).  I feel terrible for that five year old.  The parents should not have been allowed to breed.


This is abundance. I own one of those little things, and every piece of literature included with it hammers to the parent that it is not a toy. I'm an NRA member and have been a shooter since I was nine. It is criminal negligence they even left it in the corner, irregardless of whether it was loaded or not. I know some die-hard redneck folk who would never do anything as stupid as that.
 
2013-05-01 01:50:29 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: [daydreamertoo.files.wordpress.com image 443x330]


South Africans?
 
2013-05-01 01:50:46 PM  

Lutrasimilis: Did the course. 8 hours for unrestricted, 8 for restricted. Four tests, two practical and two written. ACTS and PROVE. Anyone who couldn't grasp and repeat these basic, unimpeachable safety rules failed. Just like a driver's course.

No understanding of safety? No license.


Same here, it wasn't a bad way to spend a saturday and sunday. Plus don't forget the instant fails, such as point the gun at yourself, your instructor, or anyone else in the room. If I don't recall you could also instantly fail if you pointed a jammed gun anywhere but down range until the jam was cleared/the gun was made safe
 
2013-05-01 01:51:08 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: If they die in a pool that wasn't up to code, someone gets arrested.

Good thing we're not allowed to adopt any laws regarding gun safety though.


Not always, as I said "every". But sure that can happen, just as it does with firearms . Did I say otherwise? There are a ton of laws about gun safety, storage, use, possession, you could fill the room you are sitting in with all the US laws on guns. These people are just morans. You can't ban stupid. You can try to put up enough warning and laws. But a idiot will always slide though.
 
2013-05-01 01:51:29 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: justanotherfarkinfarker: pedrop357: Even without an explicit law, it would seem that neglect and/or reckless endangerment laws would cover it.

Your a horrible internet lawyer. The court system isn't going to bother. You don't charge every parent of a kid who accidentally drowns. This really isn't much different. Preventable, horrible accidents happen. And drowning happens many times more a year.

If they die in a pool that wasn't up to code, someone gets arrested.

Good thing we're not allowed to adopt any laws regarding gun safety though.


In addition, I think there's a rather significant line to be drawn between "oops, I forgot to lock the pool gate" (an error that is several steps removed from a fatal tragedy and that can be made in good faith in relation to something that was already purchased with the intention of remediating a hazard) and "oops, there was a round loaded in the gun I left with my child" (an error that is a single trigger pull removed from a fatal tragedy and requires the utter rejection of basic, universally recognized safety rules). In addition, the dangerous object was given to the child as a gift.

This is less like your kid slipping out the patio door and falling into the pool and more like you standing your kid on the edge of the pool, throwing a toy into the pool, and walking away.

What will happen next is just a "crazy accident", and we can't hold the parents responsible for it, amirite?
 
2013-05-01 01:51:33 PM  

pedrop357: TNel: pedrop357: Those deaths are all preventable, yet we end up accepting that the laws, rules, regulations, etc. can only go so far to try and prevent them because the end result is that law abiding, responsible parents who already buckle, use car seats, etc. will bear unfair and needless burdens in this effort to eliminate the remaining deaths.

So you yourself are saying there should be laws and regulations on guns then to help reduce the amount of deaths and accidents just like cars.

Gun accident deaths are pretty rare with the current regulatory system and there are already laws and regulations that try to reduce the amount of deaths and accidents.

Gun ownership is a protected right.  Given that there will always be a small segment of people who act foolishly, recklessly, etc. and there are limits as to how far the law can go to try to stop them we have to accept some amount of preventable deaths, the same way we openly do with cars, pools, bathtubs, etc.


I'm not even sure what you're arguing about anymore. Most people in this thread just want these idiot parents to go to jail for leaving a loaded gun with a 5yr old, not to ban all guns everywhere.

Let's say, in response to this tragedy, a law was proposed to ban the manufacture and sale of guns that look like toys. Would you have a problem with that?
 
2013-05-01 01:51:44 PM  

Bravo Two: Marcus Aurelius: bdub77: The county coroner has ruled the death 'just one of those crazy accidents.'

No. Some adult gave a loaded gun to a 5-yr old. This isn't a crazy accident. This is parental negligence.

Also WHO GIVES A F*CKING FIREARM TO A 5 YEAR OLD?

Congratulations, dumbass. Now you've ruined at least four lives.

Or brings a loaded gun into the house.  Or leaves a gun leaning in a corner somewhere.

I have kids. I have loaded guns in my house. All of them secured in quick-access safes which use either biometrics or a combination code that I and my wife and my live-in parents know. The kids do not. The kids are never allowed to handle firearms unless they go to the range, are sat down at the bench, and a firearm is placed on the bench before them with an adult right there.

I also do not give a firearm to anyone under the age of 10. I refuse to teach them, I refuse to help select guns for them, etc. Kids under 10 years of age don't understand the gravity of the item before them.

This is the shiat that i'm most sick about. Crazy guy doing crazy shiat is bad but not something I can change. But when I read about gun owners being so irresponsible as to give a gun to someone who can't even begin to contemplate the nuances of safety or the repercussions of their behavior? No.

This is why I'm all for stiff penalties for this. Safe storage laws. Safety training. Background checks. My 2nd Amendment Rights aren't more important than the lives of a child, and I'll jump through a few hoops to stop this shiat from happening.


Thumbs up. Guy who actually has kids and has his life set up in a responsible manner.

All you nineteen year old knuckleheads posting - take notice.
 
2013-05-01 01:52:16 PM  

pedrop357: Bravo Two: This is why I'm all for stiff penalties for this. Safe storage laws. Safety training. Background checks. My 2nd Amendment Rights aren't more important than the lives of a child, and I'll jump through a few hoops to stop this shiat from happening.

Thing is, these types of parents ignore those laws in the states that have them.  The only people really burdened are the people who don't need them.

You jumping through more hoops doesn't stop it from happening.  Them jumping through these hoops won't stop it if they just disregard the laws/advice and act like idiots anyway.

Our current system of laws has produced an environment where accidental deaths are extremely rare despite the ubiquitous nature of firearms in many households.  The remainder are going to be very difficult to mitigate without serious and draconian steps that STILL may not eliminate of the remaining deaths.

The question is how far are we willing to go to eliminate some or all of less than 50 accidental child deaths in a year?


I know, but this hurts, probably moreso than Sandy Hook. I can't blame a kid doing a bad thing on knowing better -- he didn't. And we teach our kids that this shiat's okay.
 
2013-05-01 01:52:58 PM  

dittybopper: bdub77: Marcus Aurelius: bdub77: The county coroner has ruled the death 'just one of those crazy accidents.'

No. Some adult gave a loaded gun to a 5-yr old. This isn't a crazy accident. This is parental negligence.

Also WHO GIVES A F*CKING FIREARM TO A 5 YEAR OLD?

Congratulations, dumbass. Now you've ruined at least four lives.

Or brings a loaded gun into the house.  Or leaves a gun leaning in a corner somewhere.

just one of those 'crazy accidents' i guess. OOPSIE.

Actually, yes, it is.

Do you know how many kids age 11 and under die in gun accidents every year?

Less than 50.  In fact, in 2010, the number was 41.  The chance is literally greater than a million to one (the rate is .08 per 100,000).

So yeah, it *IS* one of those crazy accidents.

/Of course, shouldn't have been any ammo in the room
//Should have been very supervised at that age.
///littlebopper got his first .22 at age 8.


You have to be one of the biggest pieces of shiat on this site.  The NRA must be paying you to be such a terrible human being.  If they are not paying you then I pray for your family.
 
2013-05-01 01:54:20 PM  

pedrop357: udhq: pedrop357: THIS is why I bring up cars and things like that.  I want to see if the people in here advocate for broad regulations and engage in the idiotic strawmen and employ the same anti-gun nonsense will do it for other bigger killers of kids, especially when a significant number of the kids killed in crashes, pool accidents, etc. are ALSO the result of idiot parents.

Cars are subject to registry, and that information is made available to almost anyone in federal, state or local government that wants it for any reason.

If you're willing at accept those conditions for gun ownership, then you MIGHT have an argument.

What good does an open registry do to stop preventable deaths from things like unsecured children, unbuckled children, idiotic parent drivers?


Are you on glue?

The entire licensing and registration structure allows for standards to be applied enhancing vehicular safety. The fact that you don't get to install substandard windshield glass in cars for resale, for example, has saved many lives. How is this managed? Licensing and registration. I mean, pick a safety feature, and the registration structure is there to ensure it isn't defeated before sale/resale, and if it is, track down and punish those responsible. And there are laws on the books regarding seatbelts, etc. If you don't wear it, and especially if you don't buckle your children, you will be fined for not wearing it, you could even be prosecuted for endangering the welfare of a child.

You're being deliberately obtuse by demanding the conversation follow the false dichotomy you've created between responsible gun owners and completely irresponsible parents/drivers. Those irresponsible drivers run risk of being fined and prosecuted every time they do that. This is how laws are supposed to work. And it can be easily said that the seat belt laws work - the number of people who don't wear seatbelts has declined decade on decade.

You want to talk about easily preventable deaths? Look at the gun suicides statistic.
 
2013-05-01 01:55:33 PM  
You are born free.
The second amendment places no age restriction on gun ownership.
I have no problem with this.

Cmon, like that kid was going to be an upstanding citizen anyways?

Look at it this way, one less future doner to the NRA.
 
2013-05-01 01:55:35 PM  

freewill: This is less like your kid slipping out the patio door and falling into the pool and more like you standing your kid on the edge of the pool, throwing a toy into the pool, and walking away.


Another would be parents who disable pool alarms or child proof locks because it's too inconvenient.  That, or parents who don't buckle/car seat their kids because "it's just a short trip".

I don't think the parents meant any harm and will give them the benefit of the doubt that they thought nothing bad would happen, BUT they willingly disregarded piles of safety advice about guns in the process, the same way the parent who disables a pool alarm or tosses the kid in the front seat does.

How do we deal with that?
 
2013-05-01 01:55:45 PM  

pedrop357: What good does an open registry do to stop preventable deaths from things like unsecured children, unbuckled children, idiotic parent drivers?


It allows authorities to track multiple infractions and issue citations/suspensions as appropriate.

When I was a kid, my dad once got a ticket because I was not buckled up in the back.  You best believe I knew I was going to get the business if that ever happened again.
 
2013-05-01 01:56:12 PM  

Bravo Two: Marcus Aurelius: bdub77: The county coroner has ruled the death 'just one of those crazy accidents.'

No. Some adult gave a loaded gun to a 5-yr old. This isn't a crazy accident. This is parental negligence.

Also WHO GIVES A F*CKING FIREARM TO A 5 YEAR OLD?

Congratulations, dumbass. Now you've ruined at least four lives.

Or brings a loaded gun into the house.  Or leaves a gun leaning in a corner somewhere.

I have kids. I have loaded guns in my house. All of them secured in quick-access safes which use either biometrics or a combination code that I and my wife and my live-in parents know. The kids do not. The kids are never allowed to handle firearms unless they go to the range, are sat down at the bench, and a firearm is placed on the bench before them with an adult right there.

I also do not give a firearm to anyone under the age of 10. I refuse to teach them, I refuse to help select guns for them, etc. Kids under 10 years of age don't understand the gravity of the item before them.

This is the shiat that i'm most sick about. Crazy guy doing crazy shiat is bad but not something I can change. But when I read about gun owners being so irresponsible as to give a gun to someone who can't even begin to contemplate the nuances of safety or the repercussions of their behavior? No.

This is why I'm all for stiff penalties for this. Safe storage laws. Safety training. Background checks. My 2nd Amendment Rights aren't more important than the lives of a child, and I'll jump through a few hoops to stop this shiat from happening.


I like you.

I give you three internet thumbs up. I had to steal one of these thumbs from a hobo, so be grateful.
 
2013-05-01 01:56:45 PM  

James!: Marcus Aurelius: jehovahs witness protection: You should see the bill from the taxidermist.

"He gonna have a heart attack when he sees what I brung him!"

How farked would that be if the parents did have the toddler stuffed and kept it in the house?  Like make the older kid apologize to his stuffed dead sister every day.



Actually, in an extreme sort of way, this makes sense. Make people see the consequences of gun ownership; make it a reminder of the responsibility our 2nd amendment rights carry.
 
2013-05-01 01:58:02 PM  

Tman144: I'm not even sure what you're arguing about anymore. Most people in this thread just want these idiot parents to go to jail for leaving a loaded gun with a 5yr old, not to ban all guns everywhere.

Let's say, in response to this tragedy, a law was proposed to ban the manufacture and sale of guns that look like toys. Would you have a problem with that?


Not saying anyone was interested in banning guns everywhere, am interested in why people are willing to tolerate a certain amount of completely preventable deaths from cars, pools, etc. but not guns.

I would be opposed to a law that banned "guns that look like toys " because such a law would be severely abused in some areas and would have next to no effect on accidental firearm deaths.
 
2013-05-01 01:58:51 PM  
First thought when I saw this article?

Good. Give small children weapons, see what happens. This happens. And I'm okay with that.

/Mostly because the people who are dumb enough to do this will get weeded out, THANKS DARWIN
 
2013-05-01 01:59:42 PM  
The Lexington Herald-Leader reports the weapon - a Crickett branded by makers Keystone Sporting Arms as "My First Rifle" - was given to the boy last year.

assets.nydailynews.com

I wonder if that's a publicly traded company? Ah, it doesn't matter... the story's already five hours old. Too late to buy stock at the cheap, pre-tragedy price. The market will already have priced in the huge bump in expected sales now that one of their kiddie guns has succeeded in killing a kid.

You  know they've already gotten a year's worth of orders today. You  know it.
 
2013-05-01 01:59:59 PM  

Rwa2play: jehovahs witness protection: You should see the bill from the taxidermist.

You're attempts to divert and evade from this tragedy is noted.  Sad and idiotic as they are.


Do you even lift?
 
2013-05-01 02:02:53 PM  

pedrop357: Tman144: I'm not even sure what you're arguing about anymore. Most people in this thread just want these idiot parents to go to jail for leaving a loaded gun with a 5yr old, not to ban all guns everywhere.

Let's say, in response to this tragedy, a law was proposed to ban the manufacture and sale of guns that look like toys. Would you have a problem with that?

Not saying anyone was interested in banning guns everywhere, am interested in why people are willing to tolerate a certain amount of completely preventable deaths from cars, pools, etc. but not guns.

I would be opposed to a law that banned "guns that look like toys " because such a law would be severely abused in some areas and would have next to no effect on accidental firearm deaths.


As has been explained to you six ways from Sunday, because we already do what is necessary and not too onerous to ensure the safety of most products/services. Not that this is total and unimpeachable - new laws are enacted all the time, and occasionally removed as unnecessary. Why is it that guns should be exempt from this? Even just trying to close loopholes in existing gun laws results in a horrendous wailing from the nutters.
 
2013-05-01 02:03:14 PM  
That kid gun safety-trained the shiat out of his little sister.
 
2013-05-01 02:04:20 PM  
dittybopper:

Do you know how many kids age 11 and under die in gun accidents every year?

Less than 50.  In fact, in 2010, the number was 41.  The chance is literally greater than a million to one (the rate is .08 per 100,000).

So yeah, it *IS* one of those crazy accidents.


For those of you keeping score at home, that's 48 more people than died at the hands of terrorists in the United States in 2010.
 
2013-05-01 02:04:26 PM  
In other news, popcorn supplies severely depleted.
 
2013-05-01 02:05:23 PM  

caramba421: dittybopper:

Do you know how many kids age 11 and under die in gun accidents every year?

Less than 50.  In fact, in 2010, the number was 41.  The chance is literally greater than a million to one (the rate is .08 per 100,000).

So yeah, it *IS* one of those crazy accidents.

For those of you keeping score at home, that's 48 more people than died at the hands of terrorists in the United States in 2010.


-7 people died of terrorism in the US?

Did someone reverse-bomb a morgue?
 
2013-05-01 02:06:25 PM  

dittybopper: bdub77: Marcus Aurelius: bdub77: The county coroner has ruled the death 'just one of those crazy accidents.'

No. Some adult gave a loaded gun to a 5-yr old. This isn't a crazy accident. This is parental negligence.

Also WHO GIVES A F*CKING FIREARM TO A 5 YEAR OLD?

Congratulations, dumbass. Now you've ruined at least four lives.

Or brings a loaded gun into the house.  Or leaves a gun leaning in a corner somewhere.

just one of those 'crazy accidents' i guess. OOPSIE.

Actually, yes, it is.

Do you know how many kids age 11 and under die in gun accidents every year?

Less than 50.  In fact, in 2010, the number was 41.  The chance is literally greater than a million to one (the rate is .08 per 100,000).

So yeah, it *IS* one of those crazy accidents.

/Of course, shouldn't have been any ammo in the room
//Should have been very supervised at that age.
///littlebopper got his first .22 at age 8.


apologists gonna apologize
 
2013-05-01 02:07:48 PM  

bdub77: The county coroner has ruled the death 'just one of those crazy accidents.'

No. Some adult gave a loaded gun to a 5-yr old. This isn't a crazy accident. This is parental negligence.

Also WHO GIVES A F*CKING FIREARM TO A 5 YEAR OLD?

Congratulations, dumbass. Now you've ruined at least four lives.


A reasonable, intelligent gun owner, of course!

\pretty much every gun nut I've met thinks that owning a gun shows responsibility
 
2013-05-01 02:07:55 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: noitsnot: Sofa King Smart: but they're sooooo cute with their little guns...
won' t someone think of the children('s second amendment rights)

[www.addictinginfo.org image 650x422]

btw... don't do a google image search of 'kids with guns'

[www.addictinginfo.org image 650x422]

Most unbelievable image ever. If the girl on the right lets fly, she could take out both the others with the same bullet. And her finger is right at the trigger too.

But wait! There's more. Apparently the same kids with a weapons upgrade.


Once upon a time there were three little girls who went to the police academy and they were each assigned very hazardous duties. But I took them all away from that and now they work for me. My name is Charlie.
 
2013-05-01 02:08:05 PM  

LavenderWolf: As has been explained to you six ways from Sunday, because we already do what is necessary and not too onerous to ensure the safety of most products/services. Not that this is total and unimpeachable - new laws are enacted all the time, and occasionally removed as unnecessary. Why is it that guns should be exempt from this? Even just trying to close loopholes in existing gun laws results in a horrendous wailing from the nutters.


Yes, we do what is necessary and not too onerous.  Implicit in that is that we accept a certain amount of 'failures' ie., preventable deaths.  It would be nice if people applied the same standard to firearms.

Guns ARE heavily regulated-their manufacture, distribution, transfer, possession, etc. are all regulated more than many many things in this country.  Guns have fewer accidental (preventable) deaths than cars, pools, etc. yet we have to hear the guns aren't regulated and people act as though even one death is too many and imply that we need to eliminate all of the accidental deaths when the same standard would be unacceptable and unachievable with any other form of preventable death.
 
2013-05-01 02:09:42 PM  

inglixthemad: bdub77: The county coroner has ruled the death 'just one of those crazy accidents.'

No. Some adult gave a loaded gun to a 5-yr old. This isn't a crazy accident. This is parental negligence.

Also WHO GIVES A F*CKING FIREARM TO A 5 YEAR OLD?

Congratulations, dumbass. Now you've ruined at least four lives.

I gave my kids weapons at that age. The differences:

It was only ever out of the case at the range (or for cleaning, but that I did alone for several years)

I held all the ammo, and only loaded it shortly before firing (and I mean RIGHT before firing)

The child was taught it was a WEAPON THAT KILLS and to NEVER point it at anything other than the target AT THE RANGE.

The weapon was kept locked in a locked case (in a locked safe) with the bolt removed. The bolt was locked (along with my other rifle bolts) in a separate lockbox. Finally the ammo was in a different locked room, each caliber in their own lock boxes.

We didn't take chances. My elders didn't take chances with us either. From pellet rifles to bows to firearms, it was relentlessly drilled into us that they kill whatever they are aimed at so don't point it at anyone EVER.


You know, you raise a point here, and I'm using your post to articulate it, but don't take it personally.

We hear relentlessly about guns being important tools for protecting yourself and your family against, say, intruders. Someone breaks into your house and you nobly blow their farking head off because you are an armed citizen aware of and exercising your second amendment rights.

So, tell me. How the fark do you "protect your family" if you have the guns locked up, the ammo somewhere else, the bolts locked up in a separate place?

Do you ask the intruders nicely: "Please wait for me to assemble my tool of home protection and then stand still so I can kill you"

If a loaded gun isn't immediately accessible and immediately fireable in the event of an intruder - then what is the farking point???

If you just like to have guns to shoot them at a range and so you think having the rest of society suffer the consequences of millions of guns in the hands of whomever is a-okay - go get a different farking hobby!
 
2013-05-01 02:10:56 PM  
Cumberland County Coroner Gary White said the family had not realized a shell was left inside the gun, which was kept in a corner of the house.

All guns are always loaded.

Revealing the shooting would be ruled accidental, White added: "It's just one of those crazy accidents."

No, it is neglect.

/gun nut.
 
2013-05-01 02:11:57 PM  
This isn't a gun issue.

This is a parenting issue.

The end.
 
2013-05-01 02:12:31 PM  

Rurouni: This isn't a gun issue.

This is a parenting issue.

The end.


This.
 
2013-05-01 02:12:34 PM  

pedrop357: LavenderWolf: As has been explained to you six ways from Sunday, because we already do what is necessary and not too onerous to ensure the safety of most products/services. Not that this is total and unimpeachable - new laws are enacted all the time, and occasionally removed as unnecessary. Why is it that guns should be exempt from this? Even just trying to close loopholes in existing gun laws results in a horrendous wailing from the nutters.

Yes, we do what is necessary and not too onerous.  Implicit in that is that we accept a certain amount of 'failures' ie., preventable deaths.  It would be nice if people applied the same standard to firearms.

Guns ARE heavily regulated-their manufacture, distribution, transfer, possession, etc. are all regulated more than many many things in this country.  Guns have fewer accidental (preventable) deaths than cars, pools, etc. yet we have to hear the guns aren't regulated and people act as though even one death is too many and imply that we need to eliminate all of the accidental deaths when the same standard would be unacceptable and unachievable with any other form of preventable death.


You have more accidental gun deaths than any other civilized nation. Your gun laws are looser than any other civilized nation. Your suicide-by-gun rate is worse than any other civilized nation. Homicide-by-gun as well.

Your arguments are simply wrong, as shown by actual reality.
 
2013-05-01 02:12:55 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: James!: How farked would that be if the parents did have the toddler stuffed and kept it in the house? Like make the older kid apologize to his stuffed dead sister every day.

Can you even do that?  I mean, get a person stuffed or have their head mounted?


Well, you can try: see: Jeremy Bentham
 
2013-05-01 02:15:14 PM  

noitsnot: Sofa King Smart: but they're sooooo cute with their little guns...
won' t someone think of the children('s second amendment rights)

[www.addictinginfo.org image 650x422]

btw... don't do a google image search of 'kids with guns'



Most unbelievable image ever. If the girl on the right lets fly, she could take out both the others with the same bullet. And her finger is right at the trigger too.


I was thinking the same thing. That picture should earn the parents a visit from dfs.
 
2013-05-01 02:15:35 PM  

Pista: This page is kind of disturbing really


I like the picture with this little girl the best.
www.crickett.com
"Hold my beer and watch this."
 
2013-05-01 02:17:10 PM  

Rurouni: This isn't a gun issue.

This is a parenting issue.

The end.


Why not both?
 
2013-05-01 02:18:29 PM  

Rurouni: This isn't a gun issue.

This is a parenting issue.

The end.


Yes, if this kid hadn't had access to a gun, he would have just killed his sister some other way.  *snert*
 
2013-05-01 02:18:36 PM  

Vodka Zombie: I blame the movie "Natural Born Killers," and violent video games and boxingfor this.



FTFY.
 
2013-05-01 02:18:49 PM  
IT REALLY PISSES ME OFF THAT THERE ARE MORE PRECAUTIONS TOWARDS A CHILD BUYING A PACK OF CIGARETTES THAN A GUN!  The more I think about it the more I'm pissed off at this stupid retarded redneck shiatty country!
 
2013-05-01 02:20:07 PM  

Bravo Two: Marcus Aurelius: bdub77: The county coroner has ruled the death 'just one of those crazy accidents.'

No. Some adult gave a loaded gun to a 5-yr old. This isn't a crazy accident. This is parental negligence.

Also WHO GIVES A F*CKING FIREARM TO A 5 YEAR OLD?

Congratulations, dumbass. Now you've ruined at least four lives.

Or brings a loaded gun into the house.  Or leaves a gun leaning in a corner somewhere.

I have kids. I have loaded guns in my house. All of them secured in quick-access safes which use either biometrics or a combination code that I and my wife and my live-in parents know. The kids do not. The kids are never allowed to handle firearms unless they go to the range, are sat down at the bench, and a firearm is placed on the bench before them with an adult right there.


So, do you live in Detroit, or do you just shiat yourself everytime you see a blah person?
 
2013-05-01 02:20:53 PM  

LavenderWolf: You have more accidental gun deaths than any other civilized nation. Your gun laws are looser than any other civilized nation. Your suicide-by-gun rate is worse than any other civilized nation. Homicide-by-gun as well.

Your arguments are simply wrong, as shown by actual reality.

 Our gun laws are indeed looser than most countries.  Our constitution specifically requires it by forbidding the government from infringing on those rights.
Our suicide rate as a whole is actually lower or on par with quite a few countries.  See South Korea, Japan, Australia

Our non-firearm violence rate is also higher than every 1st world nation.  We're a violent country with issues that transcend guns.

Your arguments are the same anti-gun crap that gets tossed around.  Why the singular focus on firearm suicide when countries with strict gun laws have higher or similar overall suicide rates?  is it really better for a country to have more people kill themselves as long as they don't use guns?

Why ignore the high non-firearm homicide and overall violent crime rate?
 
2013-05-01 02:21:56 PM  

udhq: Rurouni: This isn't a gun issue.

This is a parenting issue.

The end.

Yes, if this kid hadn't had access to a gun, he would have just killed his sister some other way.  *snert*


1.5/10
 
2013-05-01 02:23:51 PM  
More kids will die from birthday cake....

just sayin.

// Both from immediately choking and from obesity as an adult.
 
2013-05-01 02:24:54 PM  

pedrop357: Rurouni: This isn't a gun issue.

This is a parenting issue.

The end.

This.


It's a dead girl issue. It goes beyond the immediate family. The parents are idiots and criminals; society needs to protect little girls from parents like these. That girl deserved more than a headstone that reads "Another hero died for Liberty". She deserved a society that cared enough to put reasonable restrictions on exposing young children to guns BEFORE they are killed.

It is a parent's job to raise their children. But guess what? Many parents don't raise them safely. Like these parents, some don't raise their children at all.

If our culture can wean itself from owning people based on the color of their skin, from treating women as property, from sending children to be worked to death in unsafe employment, then our society can wean itself from the "you can't take mah guns away from me" paranoid opposition to reasonable controls on guns and their ownership. We owe that much to the murdered kids of Newton, this poor girl and all the innocent people killed by guns. And we owe them a swift prosecution of those responsible for their murders and their deaths.
 
2013-05-01 02:25:15 PM  
If they'd just enforce the laws we already have and prosecute that 5 year old as an adult, this never would've happened!
 
2013-05-01 02:26:49 PM  
At least make gun ownership like driver's licenses: ownership at sixteen after a shooting course.
 
2013-05-01 02:26:53 PM  
Daughter of a former cop here, and by that I mean that my dad was the cop who taught other cops about firearms safety and how to shoot. Grandpa was a marine. My brother and I held a rifle for the first time before either of us could remember it.

But here's the thing... Gun safety was HUGE with my dad and grandpa. The fear of guns and what they were capable of was HEAVILY instilled upon us, and if we saw a gun we did not touch it. We called an adult. If we handled a gun, there was someone standing right next to us helping us to aim it properly and to make sure we didn't point it at anything other than a target. My dad to this day will say that you should ALWAYS assume a gun is loaded, even if you are a trained professional. And if there are kids in the house, you want them locked in a gun safe.

Too many people will buy a gun with no clue as to how to use it properly-- much less taking the time to sign up for gun safety classes. It does you no good if you don't know how to use it, folks. Recoil is the least of your worries.
 
2013-05-01 02:27:05 PM  

LavenderWolf: caramba421: dittybopper:

Do you know how many kids age 11 and under die in gun accidents every year?

Less than 50.  In fact, in 2010, the number was 41.  The chance is literally greater than a million to one (the rate is .08 per 100,000).

So yeah, it *IS* one of those crazy accidents.

For those of you keeping score at home, that's 48 more people than died at the hands of terrorists in the United States in 2010.

-7 people died of terrorism in the US?

Did someone reverse-bomb a morgue?


Yes.
 
2013-05-01 02:27:07 PM  

spiderpaz: mjohnson71: BadReligion: This kind of rifle is very hard to accidently fire. The bolt not only has to be closed, but it also has to be manually cocked. I am thinking the parents must have left the rifle completely at the ready.

This is the only explanation and why these parents should be arrested.

When I was a kid my Ruger 10-22 was kept is a locked guncase and the ammo stored in a separate locked case in another room.

THIS.  If you have kids and you have guns ... get a damn gunsafe (and lock the farker).  They shouldn't be able to "play" with their guns unless you are somewhere shooting with them, or teaching them to clean it.  God forbid you should actually do some parenting.  It's not like leaving them alone with an erector set so you can watch TV ... it's a damn gun.  When they're teenagers and they've proven they can be responsible enough to go out alone with them - fine.  Even then, no minor should be able to just go grab one any time they want without asking.  But a 5 year old has no business touching a firearm without an adult supervising everything and actively making it a learning experience.

Unfortunately we have people in this country that are too stupid to operate a DVR, much less how to safely handle and own weapons.  And THOSE are the kinds of people buying their kids guns WAY too early.

/They're also the type that only own pistols and AR15's, and like guns because they're "cool" instead of "useful"


A gun safe will not only keep your kids out of your guns, if it is big and heavy enough it will keep burglars from stealing your guns as well.
 
2013-05-01 02:27:58 PM  
The Crickett gun in question actually has a built in lock and should have been used AND shouldn't have been left so that a child could reach it. If the parents had simply used the lock that is already built in to the gun, the 2 year old would still be alive.
 
2013-05-01 02:28:02 PM  

udhq: pedrop357: Dusk-You-n-Me: [i.imgur.com image 530x453]

I've been assured that nothing can be done and this is just the price we pay for freedom.

Don't tell him about the hundreds of kids who die in car crashes.

When guns are subject to even a fraction of the regulation that cars are, then you MIGHT have an argument here.....


No, there is no point here and no equivalence.

A car's sole purpose is transportation. A car is built and regulated to maximize safety, but some deaths will still occur and have to be acceptable (while still attempting in many different ways from laws to safety devices to minimize them) because the purpose of transportation is so important.

A gun's purpose is to kill. There is no other purpose, and it is built with the sole intent to be as deadly as possible. It is also minimally regulated. Millions of deaths occur and that is not acceptable because there IS NO OVERRIDING PURPOSE.
 
2013-05-01 02:28:31 PM  

pedrop357: Jairzinho: pedrop357: Since cars, pools, parents, etc. kill far more children than guns, why the obsession with guns?

Q: Which of the following were invented to inflict harm and death?

a- cars
b- pools
c- guns

I suppose you want the answer c, so I'll give you that.

What's great about the order you placed those in, is that it's the same rank those things have in accidental deaths and injuries of small children.

The one thing "invented to inflict harm and death " is responsible for much less of it than things not invented for that purpose.

I guess when it comes to focusing on the things that kill and injure small children, their welfare takes a backseat (no pun intended) to more agenda pushing.


Much like the agenda you're pushing... in pretty much every single one of your posts.

We get it. But this is a thread about a 5-year old who shot a 2-year old. With a rifle. Produced by a company that markets their product to children. Surprise, you'll find most people here talking about things related to this incident.
 
2013-05-01 02:29:15 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: noitsnot: Sofa King Smart: but they're sooooo cute with their little guns...
won' t someone think of the children('s second amendment rights)

[www.addictinginfo.org image 650x422]

btw... don't do a google image search of 'kids with guns'

[www.addictinginfo.org image 650x422]

Most unbelievable image ever. If the girl on the right lets fly, she could take out both the others with the same bullet. And her finger is right at the trigger too.

But wait! There's more. Apparently the same kids with a weapons upgrade.


I've seen a few shops in my time
 
2013-05-01 02:31:38 PM  

Igor Jakovsky: TheShavingofOccam123: noitsnot: Sofa King Smart: but they're sooooo cute with their little guns...
won' t someone think of the children('s second amendment rights)

[www.addictinginfo.org image 650x422]

btw... don't do a google image search of 'kids with guns'

[www.addictinginfo.org image 650x422]

Most unbelievable image ever. If the girl on the right lets fly, she could take out both the others with the same bullet. And her finger is right at the trigger too.

But wait! There's more. Apparently the same kids with a weapons upgrade.

I've seen a few shops in my time


Let's not cloud the issue with facts. It does look a little shopped. The scope on the AR-15 looks a little out of perspective.
 
2013-05-01 02:31:43 PM  
5 years-old with guns. Bought specifically for them by their parents.

 Yet another way in which the "inner US" resembles Afghanistan.
 
2013-05-01 02:32:29 PM  

Igor Jakovsky: spiderpaz: mjohnson71: BadReligion: This kind of rifle is very hard to accidently fire. The bolt not only has to be closed, but it also has to be manually cocked. I am thinking the parents must have left the rifle completely at the ready.

This is the only explanation and why these parents should be arrested.

When I was a kid my Ruger 10-22 was kept is a locked guncase and the ammo stored in a separate locked case in another room.

THIS.  If you have kids and you have guns ... get a damn gunsafe (and lock the farker).  They shouldn't be able to "play" with their guns unless you are somewhere shooting with them, or teaching them to clean it.  God forbid you should actually do some parenting.  It's not like leaving them alone with an erector set so you can watch TV ... it's a damn gun.  When they're teenagers and they've proven they can be responsible enough to go out alone with them - fine.  Even then, no minor should be able to just go grab one any time they want without asking.  But a 5 year old has no business touching a firearm without an adult supervising everything and actively making it a learning experience.

Unfortunately we have people in this country that are too stupid to operate a DVR, much less how to safely handle and own weapons.  And THOSE are the kinds of people buying their kids guns WAY too early.

/They're also the type that only own pistols and AR15's, and like guns because they're "cool" instead of "useful"

A gun safe will not only keep your kids out of your guns, if it is big and heavy enough it will keep burglars from stealing your guns as well.


but on TV I see all the cops sleeping with pistols under their pillows!  clearly that's what I should be doing...
 
2013-05-01 02:36:23 PM  

pedrop357: Jairzinho: pedrop357: Since cars, pools, parents, etc. kill far more children than guns, why the obsession with guns?

Q: Which of the following were invented to inflict harm and death?

a- cars
b- pools
c- guns

I suppose you want the answer c, so I'll give you that.

What's great about the order you placed those in, is that it's the same rank those things have in accidental deaths and injuries of small children.

The one thing "invented to inflict harm and death " is responsible for much less of it than things not invented for that purpose.

I guess when it comes to focusing on the things that kill and injure small children, their welfare takes a backseat (no pun intended) to more agenda pushing.


And cars and pools have pretty extensive safety laws governing them. Fences, covers, drainage, pump covers, seat belts, car seats, speed limits, crash tolerances. etc. etc.

But not giving a gun to a 5 yo? OMG MY 2A RITESWHARGARRRBRBRBRBLLLLLL!!111!!!!!1!
 
2013-05-01 02:36:53 PM  
silvervial: A car's sole purpose is transportation. A car is built and regulated to maximize safety, but some deaths will still occur and have to be acceptable (while still attempting in many different ways from laws to safety devices to minimize them) because the purpose of transportation is so important.It is also minimally regulatedMillions of deaths occur and that is not acceptable because there IS NO OVERRIDING PURPOSE.

So as long as you agree with importance of something, preventable deaths are OK?
Minimally regulated and millions of deaths?  Are you sure you're talking about guns in the US?

Just because you don't see a purpose or need to ever kill someone, doesn't mean there isn't one and doesn't mean possessing designed for that is wrong.  Unless you think all wars have been wrong and don't believe in killing in self-defense.
 
2013-05-01 02:40:02 PM  
peter21:But this is a thread about a 5-year old who shot a 2-year old. With a rifle. Produced by a company that markets their product to children. Surprise, you'll find most people here talking about things related to this incident.

We also have lots of people ignoring the fact that the children can't buy guns.

We also have others blaming the NRA, calling for guns to be banned for people under 21, trolling with BS about the other child needing to be armed.

The parents bought it and damn well knew to secure it better then they did.

When parents fail to secure other things that should be secured or blatantly disregard/bypass safety things and their kid gets hurt, we blame the parent for not doing what they should have done and it basically ends there.
 
2013-05-01 02:40:55 PM  
I don't have time to read all 450+ posts, but has anyone made a joke about how the NRA wants to arm all 2 year olds now?

No? Can't believe I'm the first to that one.
 
2013-05-01 02:42:25 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: And cars and pools have pretty extensive safety laws governing them. Fences, covers, drainage, pump covers, seat belts, car seats, speed limits, crash tolerances. etc. etc.

But not giving a gun to a 5 yo? OMG MY 2A RITESWHARGARRRBRBRBRBLLLLLL!!111!!!!!1!


All of those things have more accidental deaths than guns.

Giving a gun to a 5 year old the way they did was farking stupid and they should have known better.  The parents and their multiple stupid, careless acts should be what everyone is pissed about the same way they would if a parent deliberately chose not to buckle their kid up or disable their pool alarm or prop the gate/door open.
 
2013-05-01 02:44:08 PM  
Tragedy has always stalked the Starks.

/valar morghulis
 
2013-05-01 02:45:50 PM  

pedrop357: So as long as you agree with importance of something, preventable deaths are OK?


Of course not.  But we prosecuted the automotive equivalent of the NRA in the 1970s, and held them criminally liable for the preventable deaths caused by their concerted efforts to stymie common sense regulations and safety reforms.

Are you saying that you'd be willing to hold the NRA and gun manufacturers similarly liable?  Because if you're not, your entire argument kind of falls apart.
 
2013-05-01 02:53:33 PM  

udhq: pedrop357: So as long as you agree with importance of something, preventable deaths are OK?

Of course not.  But we prosecuted the automotive equivalent of the NRA in the 1970s, and held them criminally liable for the preventable deaths caused by their concerted efforts to stymie common sense regulations and safety reforms.

Are you saying that you'd be willing to hold the NRA and gun manufacturers similarly liable?  Because if you're not, your entire argument kind of falls apart.


This is a surprisingly disjointed and idiotic post.

One cannot be prosecuted for trying to stymie "common sense" regulations or safety reforms as the 1st amendment protects the  rights of people and groups to advocate against such changes

"We" did not prosecute GENERAL MOTORS (which is not the NRA equivalent of that time) for the shortcomings of the Corvair.  Can you please show a reference to anyone being criminally prosecuted for what happened?  There were federal laws enacted in the wake, but that's a far, far cry from criminal prosecution.

Also, gun makers who make guns that are unreliable, fire out of battery, explode, etc. can be sued.

In such circumstance, the NRA could not be held accountable for a company that made guns that were dangerous because the NRA is not a gun maker, but is an advocacy organization.

You really should sober up before you post.
 
2013-05-01 02:59:32 PM  

pedrop357: Giving a gun to a 5 year old the way they did was farking stupid and they should have known better



This!

I am all for teaching kids to shoot, but they must never have access to the firearm without direct, immediate, and hands on parental supervision.
 
2013-05-01 03:00:04 PM  

pedrop357: peter21:But this is a thread about a 5-year old who shot a 2-year old. With a rifle. Produced by a company that markets their product to children. Surprise, you'll find most people here talking about things related to this incident.

We also have lots of people ignoring the fact that the children can't buy guns.

We also have others blaming the NRA, calling for guns to be banned for people under 21, trolling with BS about the other child needing to be armed.

The parents bought it and damn well knew to secure it better then they did.

When parents fail to secure other things that should be secured or blatantly disregard/bypass safety things and their kid gets hurt, we blame the parent for not doing what they should have done and it basically ends there.


This is Fark. You get some honest debate. You get a lot of snark. And a lot of trolling. Personally, I find most of it entertaining, which is why I'm here.

I'd say most people here are blaming the parents. I also blame the NRA and gun lobbyists for ginning up the whole debate to make people afeared that their gun rights are about to be taken away. Especially when, as has been posted, there are a lot less restrictions to owning a gun then, say, driving a car.

I'm not a gun owner, but I don't wish to have guns taken away from responsible owners. We can talk about what kids of guns an American citizen should own and how they should go about obtaining one, but I'm willing to compromise.

I get that you're tired of this 'single issue' being brought up every time there's a shooting, but hey, that's the state of America right now. The NRA has been influencing and continues to influence this debate and a lot of people, myself included, are tired of it. So yeah, we're going to prat on about it until we get some changes. Just like the NRA prats on about '2nd Amendment Rights' and is able to influence Congress into voting against something 90% of the country is in favor of.

All that lobbying money... they could have put some of that towards fixing a road that leads to a gun range or something.
 
2013-05-01 03:02:18 PM  

James!: Literally a child too young to control it's bladder has a firearm and that's perfectly fine.


well how else will they learn to aim?
 
2013-05-01 03:04:42 PM  

mjohnson71: Rurouni: This isn't a gun issue.

This is a parenting issue.

The end.

Why not both?


Because this method obscures real problems by using an all too common scapegoats for human failure.

They've been making rifles for children from well before the 1700's. There was nothing wrong with the firearm and it was sold for legitimate purposes.
Someone screwed up at teaching gun safety the same way others screw up at road safety or by following some anti-vaxxers insane rants.  Parents screw up by leaving half filled buckets of water around their property.

These aren't problems that can be solved by industry or legislation.
You'd reduce the chances for tragedy alot more by taking an educational approach, advising people how to be more responsible with their kids.
 
2013-05-01 03:04:47 PM  

pedrop357: Serious Post on Serious Thread: And cars and pools have pretty extensive safety laws governing them. Fences, covers, drainage, pump covers, seat belts, car seats, speed limits, crash tolerances. etc. etc.

But not giving a gun to a 5 yo? OMG MY 2A RITESWHARGARRRBRBRBRBLLLLLL!!111!!!!!1!

All of those things have more accidental deaths than guns.

Giving a gun to a 5 year old the way they did was farking stupid and they should have known better.  The parents and their multiple stupid, careless acts should be what everyone is pissed about the same way they would if a parent deliberately chose not to buckle their kid up or disable their pool alarm or prop the gate/door open.


Are you...a little special? I'll type slowly so you can understand. Yes. We all get cars & pools result in accidental deaths. We get it. Really, really we do. So put that aside. It isn't an argument, it's a fact.

Here are some arguments. Take notes. You may learn something.

1. Dangerous things ought to be regulated to make them less dangerous. Pools and cars are pretty well regulated, and apparently most sane, rational people don't have a problem with that. But proposing similar regulations on guns yields weapons grade whargarbl from gun nuts along the lines of: "But other things kill kids more, so NO GUN REGULATION!" This is not an argument, it is farktarded.

2. Things that are NOT designed to kill and mame people still do and are thus regulated. So things that ARE designed to kill and mame logically should be regulated even more closely even if the death toll is lower than pools and cars. "But other things kill kids more, so NO GUN REGULATION!"  Is not an argument, it is farktarded.

Care to try again?
 
2013-05-01 03:20:41 PM  

pedrop357: One cannot be prosecuted for trying to stymie "common sense" regulations or safety reforms as the 1st amendment protects the rights of people and groups to advocate against such changes


Oh, I get it.  You're just spouting off, and you don't really know what you're talking about.  Hint: read the tobacco settlement sometime.  They weren't sued because their products were deadly when used as directed, rather they were sued because of their massive lobbying and PR campaigns to obfuscate objective truths.  Just like the gun industry has done.

The 1st amendment protects your freedom of speech, it does not protect you from the CONSEQUENCES of your speech.

pedrop357: "We" did not prosecute GENERAL MOTORS (which is not the NRA equivalent of that time) for the shortcomings of the Corvair. Can you please show a reference to anyone being criminally prosecuted for what happened? There were federal laws enacted in the wake, but that's a far, far cry from criminal prosecution.


Ok, you're accidentally right on this one.  They weren't "prosecuted" per se, the feds just allowed over 100 civil suits against GM to go forward, including one brought by Nader himself that targeted misleading claims by GM's advocacy arm.  Are you ok allowing gun manufacturers to be sued by people who are harmed by their guns being used as directed?  Because once again, if you're not, your entire argument kind of falls apart.

pedrop357: You really should sober up before you post.


Ahhh, completely unearned arrogance, the tone of someone who knows he's been beaten.
 
2013-05-01 03:27:51 PM  

way south: mjohnson71: Rurouni: This isn't a gun issue.

This is a parenting issue.

The end.

Why not both?

Because this method obscures real problems by using an all too common scapegoats for human failure.

They've been making rifles for children from well before the 1700's. There was nothing wrong with the firearm and it was sold for legitimate purposes.
Someone screwed up at teaching gun safety the same way others screw up at road safety or by following some anti-vaxxers insane rants.  Parents screw up by leaving half filled buckets of water around their property.

These aren't problems that can be solved by industry or legislation.
You'd reduce the chances for tragedy alot more by taking an educational approach, advising people how to be more responsible with their kids.


What was it - this child's firearm of the 1600's? Please tell us about it. I think you made that up.
 
2013-05-01 03:30:12 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: pedrop357: Rurouni: This isn't a gun issue.

This is a parenting issue.

The end.

This.

It's a dead girl issue. It goes beyond the immediate family. The parents are idiots and criminals; society needs to protect little girls from parents like these. That girl deserved more than a headstone that reads "Another hero died for Liberty". She deserved a society that cared enough to put reasonable restrictions on exposing young children to guns BEFORE they are killed.

It is a parent's job to raise their children. But guess what? Many parents don't raise them safely. Like these parents, some don't raise their children at all.

If our culture can wean itself from owning people based on the color of their skin, from treating women as property, from sending children to be worked to death in unsafe employment, then our society can wean itself from the "you can't take mah guns away from me" paranoid opposition to reasonable controls on guns and their ownership. We owe that much to the murdered kids of Newton, this poor girl and all the innocent people killed by guns. And we owe them a swift prosecution of those responsible for their murders and their deaths.


THIS...SOOOOOOOOO THIS!
 
2013-05-01 03:32:48 PM  
We don't owe them anything; I went through the school system and emerged just fine.
Its just another arm of natural selection.
 
2013-05-01 03:36:49 PM  
So, are you guys done? Is it gun porn time?

img585.imageshack.us
 
2013-05-01 03:37:58 PM  
So much vitriol.  Can we focus on the positive?  This kid already has a Man Card Gold, and it cannot be revoked!
 
2013-05-01 03:39:09 PM  
Personally, I don't think the problem is with the guns or the horrible parents.  I think our biggest problem is with the dead kids.  I mean, once we get past our selfish outrage over one or two fatalities a week and start seeing these kids as reminders of the importance of our Constitutional freedoms, I'm positive we'll learn to view these dead little bastards as the heroes they deserve to be.

It's one thing for a soldier to die while fighting to keep America and her freedoms safe.  It's a much greater sacrifice for a child to give his or her life to show us just what it is that soldier is fighting and dying for in the first place.

We can't become complacent.  We can't afford it.  So, I propose that the next time a child catches a slug through their as-yet unformed brains, we stand tall and say "Thank you!  Thank you for showing us how valuable our freedoms truly are!  Without your simple death, how else would Americans be able to fully appreciate all that we have?"
 
2013-05-01 03:41:42 PM  

udhq: Rurouni: This isn't a gun issue.

This is a parenting issue.

The end.

Yes, if this kid hadn't had access to a gun, he would have just killed his sister some other way.  *snert*



Baseball bats, knives, hammers, any one of these things could have off'd the sister.
 
2013-05-01 03:44:36 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: You should see the bill from the taxidermist.


If they called Chuck Testa you would never know. It would look so life like.

Window seat, right? I'll go have me seat now.
 
2013-05-01 03:48:42 PM  

udhq: rather they were sued because of their massive lobbying and PR campaigns to obfuscate objective truths. Just like the gun industry has done.


Which objective truths does the gun industry obfuscate?
 
2013-05-01 03:50:53 PM  

Lord_Baull: udhq: Rurouni: This isn't a gun issue.

This is a parenting issue.

The end.

Yes, if this kid hadn't had access to a gun, he would have just killed his sister some other way.  *snert*


Baseball bats, knives, hammers, any one of these things could have off'd the sister.


Why stop there?  Pipe-bombs, AIDS-infested Hedgehogs and out of control Shop-Vacs are just some of the many other obvious things to use.

I mean, sure.  At five, the kid probably wasn't really considering murder as a solution to his problems, so who knows if he really wanted to kill his sister?
 Personally, I think the kid's just a patsy in all of this.  Daddy didn't want a daughter, and, you know, two years is a long time to really get tired of a girl.  Having a gun and a kid who just doesn't know any better is an opportunity many families just don't get in this day and age.
 
2013-05-01 03:56:19 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: 1. Dangerous things ought to be regulated to make them less dangerous. Pools and cars are pretty well regulated, and apparently most sane, rational people don't have a problem with that. But proposing similar regulations on guns yields weapons grade whargarbl from gun nuts along the lines of: "But other things kill kids more, so NO GUN REGULATION!" This is not an argument, it is farktarded.


Guns are already regulated, AND they are protected under the 2nd amendment to the constitution, so you may not be able to do to them what you do to pools, cars, etc.


2. Things that are NOT designed to kill and mame people still do and are thus regulated.

We know that, thanks.

So things that ARE designed to kill and mame logically should be regulated even more closely even if the death toll is lower than pools and cars.

That's just your opinion, not logic.  You're proving my point that some people aren't about saving lives as much as they are about adding more restrictions to guns.

"But other things kill kids more, so NO GUN REGULATION!" Is not an argument, it is farktarded.

No one is calling for "no gun regulations", you're the only one talking about it.

I am suggesting that we take the same approach to accidental gun deaths that we do with the other more numerous accidental deaths, ie., "We've done what we can do.  Within the limit of rights, cost, etc. we can't do much more without serious encroachment.  The concept of diminishing returns applies to these 1 in a million gun deaths the same way it does other deaths."
 
2013-05-01 04:06:15 PM  

pedrop357: udhq: rather they were sued because of their massive lobbying and PR campaigns to obfuscate objective truths. Just like the gun industry has done.

Which objective truths does the gun industry obfuscate?


That statistically, the "security" and "protection" arguments behind gun ownership are objectively false.  Owning a gun may provide you with a *sense* of security, but statistically, it ONLY increases the risk of violent death for you, your family, and your neighbors.

And that's not even counting all of the objective truths about firearms that the government is legally not allowed to study, thanks to NRA lobbying.
 
2013-05-01 04:15:24 PM  

semiotix: The Lexington Herald-Leader reports the weapon - a Crickett branded by makers Keystone Sporting Arms as "My First Rifle" - was given to the boy last year.

[assets.nydailynews.com image 635x635]

I wonder if that's a publicly traded company? Ah, it doesn't matter... the story's already five hours old. Too late to buy stock at the cheap, pre-tragedy price. The market will already have priced in the huge bump in expected sales now that one of their kiddie guns has succeeded in killing a kid.

You  know they've already gotten a year's worth of orders today. You  know it.


Quick, git yur kiddie rifle befur fartbongo tries to take em away from us!!!!
 
2013-05-01 04:18:18 PM  
Okay let's review:

Cigarette  companies are immoral monsters for advertising thier dangerous wares with cartoon characters that might appeal to children, but we are hunky-dory with a rifle maker making a line of brightly colored-lightwieght GUNS, that are called "my first rifle" and  SPECIFICALLY marketed to small children?
 
2013-05-01 04:21:40 PM  

udhq: That statistically, the "security" and "protection" arguments behind gun ownership are objectively false. Owning a gun may provide you with a *sense* of security, but statistically, it ONLY increases the risk of violent death for you, your family, and your neighbors.

And that's not even counting all of the objective truths about firearms that the government is legally not allowed to study, thanks to NRA lobbying.


The issue of safety and security is the subject of intense debate, primarily by advocacy groups and not so much firearm makers.

The government was forbidden to spend money on certain research because of serious abuses in the form of absolutely piss poor "studies" that were basically propaganda from the CDC and other agencies.

That doesn't preclude the private and nonprofit sectors from studying the issue and the results are mixed as best.
 
2013-05-01 04:22:47 PM  

Magorn: Cigarette companies are immoral monsters for advertising thier dangerous wares with cartoon characters that might appeal to children, but we are hunky-dory with a rifle maker making a line of brightly colored-lightwieght GUNS, that are called "my first rifle" and SPECIFICALLY marketed to small children?


The guns are marketed to parents for their children.  There aren't gun stores selling guns to small children on the sly the way tobacco was.
 
2013-05-01 04:24:52 PM  
When I was 5 years old and my cousin and I played Cowboys and Indians (yeah, I know, that's racist) with the boys next door, our guns were imaginary. What has happened to kiddom?

/That's right, get off my lawn
 
2013-05-01 04:28:05 PM  

pedrop357: Magorn: Cigarette companies are immoral monsters for advertising thier dangerous wares with cartoon characters that might appeal to children, but we are hunky-dory with a rifle maker making a line of brightly colored-lightwieght GUNS, that are called "my first rifle" and SPECIFICALLY marketed to small children?

The guns are marketed to parents for their children.  There aren't gun stores selling guns to small children on the sly the way tobacco was.


Wow, you make a great apologist.
 
2013-05-01 04:32:12 PM  

CynicalLA: pedrop357: Magorn: Cigarette companies are immoral monsters for advertising thier dangerous wares with cartoon characters that might appeal to children, but we are hunky-dory with a rifle maker making a line of brightly colored-lightwieght GUNS, that are called "my first rifle" and SPECIFICALLY marketed to small children?

The guns are marketed to parents for their children.  There aren't gun stores selling guns to small children on the sly the way tobacco was.

Wow, you make a great apologist.


If you say so.

There are no TV shows or TV advertising for these like tobacco companies.  Kids may see them at a gun store or in the sporting goods section of a store like Walmart and that's it.

The comparison to cartoon characters and tobacco marketing is crap.
 
2013-05-01 04:34:09 PM  

Magorn: Okay let's review:

Cigarette  companies are immoral monsters for advertising thier dangerous wares with cartoon characters that might appeal to children, but we are hunky-dory with a rifle maker making a line of brightly colored-lightwieght GUNS, that are called "my first rifle" and  SPECIFICALLY marketed to small children?


Using a rifle in a responsible manner will not harm anyone.

Using cigarettes in any manner will.
 
2013-05-01 04:36:18 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: My First Car yields predictable results

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10583657/ns/dateline_nbc/t/car-crash-trail -b roken-lives/

Shall we examine Statistics which is deadlier, or just flame gun owners, because that's what the new meme is?


Let's do that shall we?  There were in 2010 roughly equal numbers of vehicle fatalties and gun deaths in this country and whereas there are about 100 million guns in this country, 1 for every 3 people, there are more cars thatn people in this country, more than 315 million and while almost no fires a gunon a daily basis, most americans DO drive daily or nearly daily.  So yeah guns ARE much deadlier,  which makes sense because they are WEAPONS and therefore designed ot be as deadly as possible, whereas cars are disgned to be as safe as possible.  And then there is the fact that the state require you to be 16 to operate a vehicle, whereas there are people selling guns desinged to be used by kids younger than 12.
 
2013-05-01 04:39:29 PM  
5 is too young for an actual firearm - at least, not without very very heavy supervision.

That was the age when I got my first BB gun.

Age 10, it was a Chipmunk .22 - just shortly before they were bought out.

Goddamn, that little rifle was so much fun.
 
2013-05-01 04:43:43 PM  
77 children will choke to death while eating this year.

Clearly we should ban food.
 
2013-05-01 04:54:27 PM  

pedrop357: udhq: That statistically, the "security" and "protection" arguments behind gun ownership are objectively false. Owning a gun may provide you with a *sense* of security, but statistically, it ONLY increases the risk of violent death for you, your family, and your neighbors.

And that's not even counting all of the objective truths about firearms that the government is legally not allowed to study, thanks to NRA lobbying.

The issue of safety and security is the subject of intense debate, primarily by advocacy groups and not so much firearm makers.

The government was forbidden to spend money on certain research because of serious abuses in the form of absolutely piss poor "studies" that were basically propaganda from the CDC and other agencies.

That doesn't preclude the private and nonprofit sectors from studying the issue and the results are mixed as best.


Wow...you got that exactly backwards.

You and your ilk are the problem with today's NRA...you're just all derp, all the time.

/responsible gun owner
 
2013-05-01 04:55:33 PM  

dittybopper: bdub77: Marcus Aurelius: bdub77: The county coroner has ruled the death 'just one of those crazy accidents.'

No. Some adult gave a loaded gun to a 5-yr old. This isn't a crazy accident. This is parental negligence.

Also WHO GIVES A F*CKING FIREARM TO A 5 YEAR OLD?

Congratulations, dumbass. Now you've ruined at least four lives.

Or brings a loaded gun into the house.  Or leaves a gun leaning in a corner somewhere.

just one of those 'crazy accidents' i guess. OOPSIE.

Actually, yes, it is.

Do you know how many kids age 11 and under die in gun accidents every year?

Less than 50.  In fact, in 2010, the number was 41.  The chance is literally greater than a million to one (the rate is .08 per 100,000).

So yeah, it *IS* one of those crazy accidents.

/Of course, shouldn't have been any ammo in the room
//Should have been very supervised at that age.
///littlebopper got his first .22 at age 8.


An entirely predictable, preventable event is not an accident. Calling this an accident makes me almost as mad as people calling the drowning death of a toddler in the family pool an accident. Sadly the only cure for congenital stupidity is this.

Mommy and/or Daddy fu**ed up, didn't watch their kids and one died. Not an accident - negligence (and not the benign neglect we all grew up with).
 
2013-05-01 04:58:21 PM  

pedrop357: peter21:But this is a thread about a 5-year old who shot a 2-year old. With a rifle. Produced by a company that markets their product to children. Surprise, you'll find most people here talking about things related to this incident.

We also have lots of people ignoring the fact that the children can't buy guns.

We also have others blaming the NRA, calling for guns to be banned for people under 21, trolling with BS about the other child needing to be armed.

The parents bought it and damn well knew to secure it better then they did.


Except the NRA itself has undermined your point, by lobbying to prevent pediatricians from even DISCUSSING the dangers of guns around toddlers.

Back in the fail boat.
 
2013-05-01 05:03:25 PM  

Magorn: Clemkadidlefark: My First Car yields predictable results

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10583657/ns/dateline_nbc/t/car-crash-trail -b roken-lives/

Shall we examine Statistics which is deadlier, or just flame gun owners, because that's what the new meme is?

Let's do that shall we?  There were in 2010 roughly equal numbers of vehicle fatalties and gun deaths in this country and whereas there are about 100 million guns in this country, 1 for every 3 people, there are more cars thatn people in this country, more than 315 million and while almost no fires a gunon a daily basis, most americans DO drive daily or nearly daily.  So yeah guns ARE much deadlier,  which makes sense because they are WEAPONS and therefore designed ot be as deadly as possible, whereas cars are disgned to be as safe as possible.  And then there is the fact that the state require you to be 16 to operate a vehicle, whereas there are people selling guns desinged to be used by kids younger than 12.


Being able to drive a car is a privilege, not a constitutional right.
 
2013-05-01 05:04:19 PM  

wndertwin: This was one of the photos on the now-removed Crickett Firearms Facebook page (Cached copy at  http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-nZxrouLuZQJ:www . facebook.com/pages/Crickett-Firearms-My-First-Rifle/312272590517%3Fsk% 3Dphotos+&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

Somehow, I think childproofing the gun is probably the better way to go.

[www.drydocksports.com image 570x456]


Can't you do both??

-Myth Junior, this is a gun. It kills people. If you touch it, I will break your Goddamn fingers.
*puts trigger lock on gun*
*puts gun in safe*
 
2013-05-01 05:07:18 PM  

PunGent: pedrop357: udhq: That statistically, the "security" and "protection" arguments behind gun ownership are objectively false. Owning a gun may provide you with a *sense* of security, but statistically, it ONLY increases the risk of violent death for you, your family, and your neighbors.

And that's not even counting all of the objective truths about firearms that the government is legally not allowed to study, thanks to NRA lobbying.

The issue of safety and security is the subject of intense debate, primarily by advocacy groups and not so much firearm makers.

The government was forbidden to spend money on certain research because of serious abuses in the form of absolutely piss poor "studies" that were basically propaganda from the CDC and other agencies.

That doesn't preclude the private and nonprofit sectors from studying the issue and the results are mixed as best.

Wow...you got that exactly backwards.

You and your ilk are the problem with today's NRA...you're just all derp, all the time.

/responsible gun owner


Citation neeed.
 
2013-05-01 05:09:42 PM  

PunGent: pedrop357: peter21:But this is a thread about a 5-year old who shot a 2-year old. With a rifle. Produced by a company that markets their product to children. Surprise, you'll find most people here talking about things related to this incident.

We also have lots of people ignoring the fact that the children can't buy guns.

We also have others blaming the NRA, calling for guns to be banned for people under 21, trolling with BS about the other child needing to be armed.

The parents bought it and damn well knew to secure it better then they did.

Except the NRA itself has undermined your point, by lobbying to prevent pediatricians from even DISCUSSING the dangers of guns around toddlers.

Back in the fail boat.


The NRA didn't want pediatricians questioning this sort of thing due to, again, abuse of that kind information-BS referrals to CPS, etc.

Pediatricians are not the only source of firearm safety information for firearms.  Every new gun comes with a manual that repeated warnings about safety.
 
2013-05-01 05:10:54 PM  

ScaryBottles: The important thing to remember is that further infringement of our second amendment rights would not have prevented this from happening.


Can someone explain to me how charging the parents for negligence is infringing? I mean, they were allowed to buy the gun, they were allowed to give it to the kid, and they allowed the kid to use it. Seems like no one infringed on any one's rights - well other than the dead two-year old no longer having the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As far as I can tell, we're all just saying that they exercised their rights, and now they should deal with the consequences of how they choose to exercise them.

Unless of course you meant that infringing on the second by having storage laws and minimum age rules would not have prevented this.

Or were you being sarcastic, and hence have negated my own attempt at being disingenuously sarcastic?
 
2013-05-01 05:12:54 PM  

hardinparamedic: If he's too young to understand the gravitas of a concept such as death, then he's too young to play with a bang stick.


4.bp.blogspot.com

That's "boomstick", buddy!
 
2013-05-01 05:15:54 PM  

jaytkay: BraveNewCheneyWorld: if you think murder laws are preventing murders, you're an idiot.

If murder were legal, you believe that killings would not increase from failed marriages, failed business deals and bar fights .

I'm not the idiot.


Are you telling me that the only thing stopping you from murdering someone right now is the law?
 
2013-05-01 05:17:26 PM  

pedrop357: hardinparamedic: AverageAmericanGuy: A .22? What the hell were these parents thinking?

I dunno. You should ask  dirtybopper. He's actually defending this act.

A LOT of kids in/around that age used to be given their own firearm.  Many still are today.

It's not act of giving a kid their first firearm, it's the fact they very obviously didn't educate their kid properly, nor did they adequately gauge that kid's ability to responsibly handle one.

We don't know exactly how this firearm was stored either.

Is anyone going to criticize parents for allowing their kids to ride in cars, given that motor vehicles crashes are the leading cause for people 4 to 26?


I wouldn't criticize parents for letting kids ride in cars, but I certainly would criticize them for letting their five-year old drive the car, which is a better analogy since the kid wasn't just standing next to the gun but actively shooting it.
 
2013-05-01 05:24:27 PM  

llachlan: ScaryBottles: The important thing to remember is that further infringement of our second amendment rights would not have prevented this from happening.

Can someone explain to me how charging the parents for negligence is infringing? I mean, they were allowed to buy the gun, they were allowed to give it to the kid, and they allowed the kid to use it. Seems like no one infringed on any one's rights - well other than the dead two-year old no longer having the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As far as I can tell, we're all just saying that they exercised their rights, and now they should deal with the consequences of how they choose to exercise them.

Unless of course you meant that infringing on the second by having storage laws and minimum age rules would not have prevented this.

Or were you being sarcastic, and hence have negated my own attempt at being disingenuously sarcastic?


Given the comments about the NRA, derp about american gun laws, etc. the concept of more infringements was implied as the anti-gun derp doesn't usually come without more proposals for 2A infringing crap.

Charging the parents with negligence and giving a reasonable sentence (not more than 6 months) would suffice.  Instead, they don't get charged because that would be mean.  What usually happens is an anti-gun person jumps on the opportunity to push some law that forbids any gun being available to anyone under 18 and has all kinds of penalties to the extent that parents feel afraid to leave even one gun in a place their responsible teenager can get to in case of problems.  Now we end up with pointless overreach and a lot of parents prosecuted when their kid was not in danger and undoubtedly will still not prosecute the parents whose kids get killed.

We see this exact overreach with parents leaving their BABIES in the car and the baby dying or being seriously hurt.  Instead of just prosecuting parents whose kids get hurt, states ban everyone under 7 from being left in a car even with the A/C on unless someone 12 or older is with them.
So the really crappy end result is that instead of just prosecuting anyone who hurts their kid with the expectation that publicizing that will keep kids them from leaving helpless kids in the car, they mainly prosecute people whose kids are in no real danger AND STILL don't prosecute the parents whose kids actually die ("they've suffered enough").
 
2013-05-01 05:26:09 PM  

SundaesChild: pedrop357: hardinparamedic: AverageAmericanGuy: A .22? What the hell were these parents thinking?

I dunno. You should ask  dirtybopper. He's actually defending this act.

A LOT of kids in/around that age used to be given their own firearm.  Many still are today.

It's not act of giving a kid their first firearm, it's the fact they very obviously didn't educate their kid properly, nor did they adequately gauge that kid's ability to responsibly handle one.

We don't know exactly how this firearm was stored either.

Is anyone going to criticize parents for allowing their kids to ride in cars, given that motor vehicles crashes are the leading cause for people 4 to 26?

I wouldn't criticize parents for letting kids ride in cars, but I certainly would criticize them for letting their five-year old drive the car, which is a better analogy since the kid wasn't just standing next to the gun but actively shooting it.


Fair enough if our only concern is preventing the really smaller number of deaths by children who hurt/kill other children in preventable circumstances.
If saving children from preventable harms is the point, then we should talk about care given the much higher number of deaths.
 
2013-05-01 05:27:46 PM  

pedrop357: The issue of safety and security is the subject of intense debate, primarily by advocacy groups and not so much firearm makers.


No, it really isn't.  The statistics behind gun ownership are settled science, and the fact that you dismiss them as "the subject of intense debates" is merely evidence of the industry-driven obfuscation that takes places.  Also, you're trying to draw a distinction that doesn't exist between the advocacy groups and the manufacturers.  The NRA is, after all, a trade organization.

The government was forbidden to spend money on certain research because of serious abuses in the form of absolutely piss poor "studies" that were basically propaganda from the CDC and other agencies.

Except the fact that they have gone after the CDC--a non-partisan public health agency--proves that their target is not incorrect information, but rather politically inconvenient information.  Why else ban even the collection of data?  Why else push the insane ban on ATF use of electronic records?
 
2013-05-01 05:30:32 PM  
so, how about now?

img202.imageshack.us
 
2013-05-01 05:32:20 PM  

udhq: Except the fact that they have gone after the CDC--a non-partisan public health agency--proves that their target is not incorrect information, but rather politically inconvenient information. Why else ban even the collection of data? Why else push the insane ban on ATF use of electronic records?


The CDC was the primary group doing this pseudo-science, there was nothing non-partisan about them.

The ATF can internally use electronic records all it wants.  It cannot push electronic records on dealers due to concerns that the ATF will unlawfullly create registries by harvesting the data.  The ATF has the serious limits on it due to serious abuses perpetrated from the inception of the GCA of 1968.  When the ATFs stops abusing its powers, Congress will probably rubber stamp its requests.
 
2013-05-01 05:35:13 PM  

udhq: No, it really isn't. The statistics behind gun ownership are settled science, and the fact that you dismiss them as "the subject of intense debates" is merely evidence of the industry-driven obfuscation that takes places. Also, you're trying to draw a distinction that doesn't exist between the advocacy groups and the manufacturers. The NRA is, after all, a trade organization.


yawn.  yawn. yawn again.

There is STILL debate about the effectiveness of firearms in personal defense, prevention of crime, etc.

The NRA has components of a trade organization.  However their 4 million+ non industry members places them in advocacy group territory.  The only way your little narratives work is if you can portray the NRA (what about SAF, GOA, etc.?) as an industry group that doesn't have a large membership base of individuals without direct industry ties.
 
2013-05-01 05:53:04 PM  

pedrop357: PunGent: pedrop357: peter21:But this is a thread about a 5-year old who shot a 2-year old. With a rifle. Produced by a company that markets their product to children. Surprise, you'll find most people here talking about things related to this incident.

We also have lots of people ignoring the fact that the children can't buy guns.

We also have others blaming the NRA, calling for guns to be banned for people under 21, trolling with BS about the other child needing to be armed.

The parents bought it and damn well knew to secure it better then they did.

Except the NRA itself has undermined your point, by lobbying to prevent pediatricians from even DISCUSSING the dangers of guns around toddlers.

Back in the fail boat.

The NRA didn't want pediatricians questioning this sort of thing due to, again, abuse of that kind information-BS referrals to CPS, etc.

Pediatricians are not the only source of firearm safety information for firearms.  Every new gun comes with a manual that repeated warnings about safety.


My new gun didn't.

You EVER going to stop spouting bullshiat?
 
2013-05-01 05:53:23 PM  
Let's make "the right to keep and bear arms OR children but NOT BOTH."
 
2013-05-01 05:55:21 PM  

pedrop357: There is STILL debate about the effectiveness of firearms in personal defense, prevention of crime, etc.


There is still debate on whether the FBI was behind the shooting of children in Newtown, CT also.

Their really isn't much debate on whether bringing a gun into your home makes you more or less likely to be killed with a gun.   You're 10 times more likely that the gun you buy and bring into your home to "protect your family" is going to be used to kill yourself, your family member, or an invited guest or child in your home.

That's not an effective way to minimize harm to your family.
 
2013-05-01 06:01:34 PM  
Very sad, and clearly things should have been done differently. But parents and their children do not need the government to make laws to protect them from themselves.

Police ruled this an accident. Nothing to see here, gawkers. Send the family flowers or move on.
 
2013-05-01 06:03:21 PM  

Molavian: 77 children will choke to death while eating this year.

Clearly we should ban food.


i13.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-01 06:06:17 PM  

PunGent: My new gun didn't.

You EVER going to stop spouting bullshiat?


Your new gun didn't come with any kind of manual?
 
2013-05-01 06:06:59 PM  

MythDragon: wndertwin: This was one of the photos on the now-removed Crickett Firearms Facebook page (Cached copy at  http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-nZxrouLuZQJ:www . facebook.com/pages/Crickett-Firearms-My-First-Rifle/312272590517%3Fsk% 3Dphotos+&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

Somehow, I think childproofing the gun is probably the better way to go.

[www.drydocksports.com image 570x456]

Can't you do both??

-Myth Junior, this is a gun. It kills people. If you touch it, I will break your Goddamn fingers.
*puts trigger lock on gun*
*puts gun in safe*



Well, I'm sure when you're out of the house, there's no way Junior would be curious enough to find out why Daddy won't let him play with it.
 
2013-05-01 06:08:06 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: jaytkay: BraveNewCheneyWorld: if you think murder laws are preventing murders, you're an idiot.

If murder were legal, you believe that killings would not increase from failed marriages, failed business deals and bar fights .

I'm not the idiot.

Are you telling me that the only thing stopping you from murdering someone right now is the law?



Consider the goalposts...moved.
 
2013-05-01 06:08:29 PM  

simkatu: Their really isn't much debate on whether bringing a gun into your home makes you more or less likely to be killed with a gun. You're 10 times more likely that the gun you buy and bring into your home to "protect your family" is going to be used to kill yourself, your family member, or an invited guest or child in your home.

That's not an effective way to minimize harm to your family.


How do you measure likelyhood?  Without controlling for, including, and/or excluding certain variables, you can skew the likelyhood of any all over the place.
 
2013-05-01 06:12:23 PM  
There's accident in terms of culpability.  And there's accident in terms of intention.  And then there's apparently a world full of people that will fill up a thread with posts because they don't understand that they are talking about two different things.  Nice jorb.
 
2013-05-01 06:14:27 PM  

pedrop357: udhq: Except the fact that they have gone after the CDC--a non-partisan public health agency--proves that their target is not incorrect information, but rather politically inconvenient information. Why else ban even the collection of data? Why else push the insane ban on ATF use of electronic records?

The CDC was the primary group doing this pseudo-science, there was nothing non-partisan about them.

The ATF can internally use electronic records all it wants.  It cannot push electronic records on dealers due to concerns that the ATF will unlawfullly create registries by harvesting the data.  The ATF has the serious limits on it due to serious abuses perpetrated from the inception of the GCA of 1968.  When the ATFs stops abusing its powers, Congress will probably rubber stamp its requests.


Now you're just pulling claims out of your a$$ that are objectively wrong.  The ATF is not allowed to use computers at all in the process of tracing a firearm used in a crime.  That has to be done by hand with paper records, an absurd and insane restriction that kills people, brought to you by the good folks at the NRA.

You're also lying about the CDC.  It NEVER produced a gun study that was retracted or failed peer-review.  If you're talking about Kellermann, his work has held up to peer review for almost 30 years.  In fact, in that time, the only claim the NRA has been able to muster against him was that he was understating defensive use of firearms.  Funny, since it turned out that they were OVERSTATING that same statistic by orders of magnitude.
 
2013-05-01 06:24:18 PM  

udhq: Now you're just pulling claims out of your a$$ that are objectively wrong.  The ATF is not allowed to use computers at all in the process of tracing a firearm used in a crime.  That has to be done by hand with paper records, an absurd and insane restriction that kills people, brought to you by the good folks at the NRA.

You're also lying about the CDC.  It NEVER produced a gun study that was retracted or failed peer-review.  If you're talking about Kellermann, his work has held up to peer review for almost 30 years.  In fact, in that time, the only claim the NRA has been able to muster against him was that he was understating defensive use of firearms.  Funny, since it turned out that they were OVERSTATING that same statistic by orders of magnitude.



Don't let the fact that the CDC is prohibited by federal law from funding any investigation into gun violence or accidental gun death that could possibly be used to influence anti-gun legislation stop  pedrop357 from claiming otherwise, either. (so, basically, ANY research)

At this point, I'm really surprised anyone is responding to him since he has been trolling this thread for the past five hours.

Or at least, I hope it's trolling. I used to think no one was that zealous about stupidity.
 
2013-05-01 06:25:01 PM  

theknuckler_33: mizchief: BraveNewCheneyWorld: jaytkay: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Do you have proof that the laws do anything?

We really need to eliminate homicide laws. We're punishing the responsible killers while criminals will kill regardless of the law.

We still need to punish murderers, so in that regard, the law serves a purpose, but if you think murder laws are preventing murders, you're an idiot.

The issue is that a law banning murder does not an innocent person from defending themselves, where a law banning the tools used in murder do.

What proposed law was banning 'the tools used in murder' that an innocent person can use to defend themselves?


Fienstine's "assault weapons" ban bill would have outlawed most of the highly popular firearms people use for self-defense.
 
2013-05-01 06:29:54 PM  

pedrop357: Fair enough if our only concern is preventing the really smaller number of deaths by children who hurt/kill other children in preventable circumstances.
If saving children from preventable harms is the point, then we should talk about care given the much higher number of deaths.


Funny thing is, the auto industry has some of the strictest safety measures of any industry, while the NRA thinks that requiring a secure gun locker is an attack on the Second Amendment.

It's also really hard to make a foolproof system against human stupidity.
 
2013-05-01 06:34:42 PM  

udhq: Now you're just pulling claims out of your a$$ that are objectively wrong. The ATF is not allowed to use computers at all in the process of tracing a firearm used in a crime. That has to be done by hand with paper records, an absurd and insane restriction that kills people, brought to you by the good folks at the NRA.


You're full of shiat when you say they can't use computers in the process.  if you read the article you linked to, they're entering shiat into computers all over the place.

They can't force licensees to submit records via computer, so all records of firearms manufactured are faxed or mailed in.

They can't force dealers to maintain the information required on a 4473 to be maintained in electronic format, nor can they require those records to be centralized.

udhq: You're also lying about the CDC. It NEVER produced a gun study that was retracted or failed peer-review. If you're talking about Kellermann, his work has held up to peer review for almost 30 years. In fact, in that time, the only claim the NRA has been able to muster against him was that he was understating defensive use of firearms. Funny, since it turned out that they were OVERSTATING that same statistic by orders of magnitude.


Yes, they never wrote it.  They just funded it.
They're also not prohibited from researching gun issues, as the prohibition only applies to advocating gun control - "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control "
This is a far cry from the bullshiat claims made by some that the government can't study gun issues.
 
2013-05-01 06:36:26 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: pedrop357: Fair enough if our only concern is preventing the really smaller number of deaths by children who hurt/kill other children in preventable circumstances.
If saving children from preventable harms is the point, then we should talk about care given the much higher number of deaths.

Funny thing is, the auto industry has some of the strictest safety measures of any industry, while the NRA thinks that requiring a secure gun locker is an attack on the Second Amendment.

It's also really hard to make a foolproof system against human stupidity.


Requiring a person to secure their gun in a safe or making a safe purchase/ownership mandatory is indeed a violation of the second amendment.

Funny that guns number in the hundreds of millions yet have fewer accidental deaths than those super strict regulated cars.
 
2013-05-01 06:38:35 PM  

hardinparamedic: Don't let the fact that the CDC is prohibited by federal law from funding any investigation into gun violence or accidental gun death that could possibly be used to influence anti-gun legislation stop pedrop357 from claiming otherwise, either. (so, basically, ANY research)


Speaking of trolling.

Anyhoo.  Please show where the CDC is prohibited from funding any investigation into gun violence or accidental death.  Their prohibition is that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control "

They can do all the neutral, non-partisan research they want.  They just can't fund gun control propaganda.  How terribly sad.
 
2013-05-01 06:38:55 PM  

pedrop357: They're also not prohibited from researching gun issues, as the prohibition only applies to advocating gun control - "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control "
This is a far cry from the bullshiat claims made by some that the government can't study gun issues.


Except for the fact that means that ANY study which the CDC funds and conducts that comes up with data that could be used to support any type of measure of gun control is illegal and must be purged/ended. And the fact that law was put into place by lobbying of Gun Companies in the 90s.

Reality seems to have a bias towards that.

So, pretty much the same policy that the United States uses to look at drug use and abuse.
 
2013-05-01 06:39:41 PM  
So how much is the NRA paying you to spout this bullshiat all afternoon? Seriously, half of these 500 comments are you. If you won't even accept that pink, colorful guns marked to children are a terrible idea, then there is really no hope for you.
 
2013-05-01 06:41:16 PM  

pedrop357: Anyhoo.  Please show where the CDC is prohibited from funding any investigation into gun violence or accidental death.  Their prohibition is that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control "

They can do all the neutral, non-partisan research they want.  They just can't fund gun control propaganda.  How terribly sad.


It's ironic how a 2 second google search proves you wrong. Now, the question is will you admit it, or will you double-down and backtrack to tell us what you really mean.

The fact is that if any of those "neutral, non-partisan studies" come up to support any form of gun control, they have to be purged and the funds written off and reported to the Senate Oversight Committees.

That's why they are almost NEVER conducted by Government institutions, or with federal grant money.

Funny how that works, isn't it?
 
2013-05-01 06:41:28 PM  

simkatu: pedrop357: There is STILL debate about the effectiveness of firearms in personal defense, prevention of crime, etc.

There is still debate on whether the FBI was behind the shooting of children in Newtown, CT also.

Their really isn't much debate on whether bringing a gun into your home makes you more or less likely to be killed with a gun.   You're 10 times more likely that the gun you buy and bring into your home to "protect your family" is going to be used to kill yourself, your family member, or an invited guest or child in your home.

That's not an effective way to minimize harm to you