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 613
    More: Sad, Kentucky, Lexington Herald-Leader, .22 Long Rifle  
•       •       •

12267 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
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?
 
Displayed 50 of 613 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 »
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