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

(New York Daily News)   Giving five-year-old "My First Rifle" yields predictable results   (nydailynews.com) divider line 608
    More: Sad, Kentucky, Lexington Herald-Leader, .22 Long Rifle  
•       •       •

12272 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»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 12:43:48 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 12:55:12 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
 
Displayed 50 of 608 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report