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

12313 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 May 2013 at 11:44 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


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

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 608 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Newest | 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