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  
•       •       •

12303 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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-01 05:27:46 PM  

pedrop357: The issue of safety and security is the subject of intense debate, primarily by advocacy groups and not so much firearm makers.


No, it really isn't.  The statistics behind gun ownership are settled science, and the fact that you dismiss them as "the subject of intense debates" is merely evidence of the industry-driven obfuscation that takes places.  Also, you're trying to draw a distinction that doesn't exist between the advocacy groups and the manufacturers.  The NRA is, after all, a trade organization.

The government was forbidden to spend money on certain research because of serious abuses in the form of absolutely piss poor "studies" that were basically propaganda from the CDC and other agencies.

Except the fact that they have gone after the CDC--a non-partisan public health agency--proves that their target is not incorrect information, but rather politically inconvenient information.  Why else ban even the collection of data?  Why else push the insane ban on ATF use of electronic records?
 
2013-05-01 05:30:32 PM  
so, how about now?

img202.imageshack.us
 
2013-05-01 05:32:20 PM  

udhq: Except the fact that they have gone after the CDC--a non-partisan public health agency--proves that their target is not incorrect information, but rather politically inconvenient information. Why else ban even the collection of data? Why else push the insane ban on ATF use of electronic records?


The CDC was the primary group doing this pseudo-science, there was nothing non-partisan about them.

The ATF can internally use electronic records all it wants.  It cannot push electronic records on dealers due to concerns that the ATF will unlawfullly create registries by harvesting the data.  The ATF has the serious limits on it due to serious abuses perpetrated from the inception of the GCA of 1968.  When the ATFs stops abusing its powers, Congress will probably rubber stamp its requests.
 
2013-05-01 05:35:13 PM  

udhq: No, it really isn't. The statistics behind gun ownership are settled science, and the fact that you dismiss them as "the subject of intense debates" is merely evidence of the industry-driven obfuscation that takes places. Also, you're trying to draw a distinction that doesn't exist between the advocacy groups and the manufacturers. The NRA is, after all, a trade organization.


yawn.  yawn. yawn again.

There is STILL debate about the effectiveness of firearms in personal defense, prevention of crime, etc.

The NRA has components of a trade organization.  However their 4 million+ non industry members places them in advocacy group territory.  The only way your little narratives work is if you can portray the NRA (what about SAF, GOA, etc.?) as an industry group that doesn't have a large membership base of individuals without direct industry ties.
 
2013-05-01 05:53:04 PM  

pedrop357: PunGent: pedrop357: peter21:But this is a thread about a 5-year old who shot a 2-year old. With a rifle. Produced by a company that markets their product to children. Surprise, you'll find most people here talking about things related to this incident.

We also have lots of people ignoring the fact that the children can't buy guns.

We also have others blaming the NRA, calling for guns to be banned for people under 21, trolling with BS about the other child needing to be armed.

The parents bought it and damn well knew to secure it better then they did.

Except the NRA itself has undermined your point, by lobbying to prevent pediatricians from even DISCUSSING the dangers of guns around toddlers.

Back in the fail boat.

The NRA didn't want pediatricians questioning this sort of thing due to, again, abuse of that kind information-BS referrals to CPS, etc.

Pediatricians are not the only source of firearm safety information for firearms.  Every new gun comes with a manual that repeated warnings about safety.


My new gun didn't.

You EVER going to stop spouting bullshiat?
 
2013-05-01 05:53:23 PM  
Let's make "the right to keep and bear arms OR children but NOT BOTH."
 
2013-05-01 05:55:21 PM  

pedrop357: There is STILL debate about the effectiveness of firearms in personal defense, prevention of crime, etc.


There is still debate on whether the FBI was behind the shooting of children in Newtown, CT also.

Their really isn't much debate on whether bringing a gun into your home makes you more or less likely to be killed with a gun.   You're 10 times more likely that the gun you buy and bring into your home to "protect your family" is going to be used to kill yourself, your family member, or an invited guest or child in your home.

That's not an effective way to minimize harm to your family.
 
2013-05-01 06:01:34 PM  
Very sad, and clearly things should have been done differently. But parents and their children do not need the government to make laws to protect them from themselves.

Police ruled this an accident. Nothing to see here, gawkers. Send the family flowers or move on.
 
2013-05-01 06:03:21 PM  

Molavian: 77 children will choke to death while eating this year.

Clearly we should ban food.


i13.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-01 06:06:17 PM  

PunGent: My new gun didn't.

You EVER going to stop spouting bullshiat?


Your new gun didn't come with any kind of manual?
 
2013-05-01 06:06:59 PM  

MythDragon: wndertwin: This was one of the photos on the now-removed Crickett Firearms Facebook page (Cached copy at  http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-nZxrouLuZQJ:www . facebook.com/pages/Crickett-Firearms-My-First-Rifle/312272590517%3Fsk% 3Dphotos+&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

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

[www.drydocksports.com image 570x456]

Can't you do both??

-Myth Junior, this is a gun. It kills people. If you touch it, I will break your Goddamn fingers.
*puts trigger lock on gun*
*puts gun in safe*



Well, I'm sure when you're out of the house, there's no way Junior would be curious enough to find out why Daddy won't let him play with it.
 
2013-05-01 06:08:06 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: jaytkay: BraveNewCheneyWorld: if you think murder laws are preventing murders, you're an idiot.

If murder were legal, you believe that killings would not increase from failed marriages, failed business deals and bar fights .

I'm not the idiot.

Are you telling me that the only thing stopping you from murdering someone right now is the law?



Consider the goalposts...moved.
 
2013-05-01 06:08:29 PM  

simkatu: Their really isn't much debate on whether bringing a gun into your home makes you more or less likely to be killed with a gun. You're 10 times more likely that the gun you buy and bring into your home to "protect your family" is going to be used to kill yourself, your family member, or an invited guest or child in your home.

That's not an effective way to minimize harm to your family.


How do you measure likelyhood?  Without controlling for, including, and/or excluding certain variables, you can skew the likelyhood of any all over the place.
 
2013-05-01 06:12:23 PM  
There's accident in terms of culpability.  And there's accident in terms of intention.  And then there's apparently a world full of people that will fill up a thread with posts because they don't understand that they are talking about two different things.  Nice jorb.
 
2013-05-01 06:14:27 PM  

pedrop357: udhq: Except the fact that they have gone after the CDC--a non-partisan public health agency--proves that their target is not incorrect information, but rather politically inconvenient information. Why else ban even the collection of data? Why else push the insane ban on ATF use of electronic records?

The CDC was the primary group doing this pseudo-science, there was nothing non-partisan about them.

The ATF can internally use electronic records all it wants.  It cannot push electronic records on dealers due to concerns that the ATF will unlawfullly create registries by harvesting the data.  The ATF has the serious limits on it due to serious abuses perpetrated from the inception of the GCA of 1968.  When the ATFs stops abusing its powers, Congress will probably rubber stamp its requests.


Now you're just pulling claims out of your a$$ that are objectively wrong.  The ATF is not allowed to use computers at all in the process of tracing a firearm used in a crime.  That has to be done by hand with paper records, an absurd and insane restriction that kills people, brought to you by the good folks at the NRA.

You're also lying about the CDC.  It NEVER produced a gun study that was retracted or failed peer-review.  If you're talking about Kellermann, his work has held up to peer review for almost 30 years.  In fact, in that time, the only claim the NRA has been able to muster against him was that he was understating defensive use of firearms.  Funny, since it turned out that they were OVERSTATING that same statistic by orders of magnitude.
 
2013-05-01 06:24:18 PM  

udhq: Now you're just pulling claims out of your a$$ that are objectively wrong.  The ATF is not allowed to use computers at all in the process of tracing a firearm used in a crime.  That has to be done by hand with paper records, an absurd and insane restriction that kills people, brought to you by the good folks at the NRA.

You're also lying about the CDC.  It NEVER produced a gun study that was retracted or failed peer-review.  If you're talking about Kellermann, his work has held up to peer review for almost 30 years.  In fact, in that time, the only claim the NRA has been able to muster against him was that he was understating defensive use of firearms.  Funny, since it turned out that they were OVERSTATING that same statistic by orders of magnitude.



Don't let the fact that the CDC is prohibited by federal law from funding any investigation into gun violence or accidental gun death that could possibly be used to influence anti-gun legislation stop  pedrop357 from claiming otherwise, either. (so, basically, ANY research)

At this point, I'm really surprised anyone is responding to him since he has been trolling this thread for the past five hours.

Or at least, I hope it's trolling. I used to think no one was that zealous about stupidity.
 
2013-05-01 06:29:54 PM  

pedrop357: Fair enough if our only concern is preventing the really smaller number of deaths by children who hurt/kill other children in preventable circumstances.
If saving children from preventable harms is the point, then we should talk about care given the much higher number of deaths.


Funny thing is, the auto industry has some of the strictest safety measures of any industry, while the NRA thinks that requiring a secure gun locker is an attack on the Second Amendment.

It's also really hard to make a foolproof system against human stupidity.
 
2013-05-01 06:34:42 PM  

udhq: Now you're just pulling claims out of your a$$ that are objectively wrong. The ATF is not allowed to use computers at all in the process of tracing a firearm used in a crime. That has to be done by hand with paper records, an absurd and insane restriction that kills people, brought to you by the good folks at the NRA.


You're full of shiat when you say they can't use computers in the process.  if you read the article you linked to, they're entering shiat into computers all over the place.

They can't force licensees to submit records via computer, so all records of firearms manufactured are faxed or mailed in.

They can't force dealers to maintain the information required on a 4473 to be maintained in electronic format, nor can they require those records to be centralized.

udhq: You're also lying about the CDC. It NEVER produced a gun study that was retracted or failed peer-review. If you're talking about Kellermann, his work has held up to peer review for almost 30 years. In fact, in that time, the only claim the NRA has been able to muster against him was that he was understating defensive use of firearms. Funny, since it turned out that they were OVERSTATING that same statistic by orders of magnitude.


Yes, they never wrote it.  They just funded it.
They're also not prohibited from researching gun issues, as the prohibition only applies to advocating gun control - "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control "
This is a far cry from the bullshiat claims made by some that the government can't study gun issues.
 
2013-05-01 06:36:26 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: pedrop357: Fair enough if our only concern is preventing the really smaller number of deaths by children who hurt/kill other children in preventable circumstances.
If saving children from preventable harms is the point, then we should talk about care given the much higher number of deaths.

Funny thing is, the auto industry has some of the strictest safety measures of any industry, while the NRA thinks that requiring a secure gun locker is an attack on the Second Amendment.

It's also really hard to make a foolproof system against human stupidity.


Requiring a person to secure their gun in a safe or making a safe purchase/ownership mandatory is indeed a violation of the second amendment.

Funny that guns number in the hundreds of millions yet have fewer accidental deaths than those super strict regulated cars.
 
2013-05-01 06:38:35 PM  

hardinparamedic: Don't let the fact that the CDC is prohibited by federal law from funding any investigation into gun violence or accidental gun death that could possibly be used to influence anti-gun legislation stop pedrop357 from claiming otherwise, either. (so, basically, ANY research)


Speaking of trolling.

Anyhoo.  Please show where the CDC is prohibited from funding any investigation into gun violence or accidental death.  Their prohibition is that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control "

They can do all the neutral, non-partisan research they want.  They just can't fund gun control propaganda.  How terribly sad.
 
2013-05-01 06:38:55 PM  

pedrop357: They're also not prohibited from researching gun issues, as the prohibition only applies to advocating gun control - "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control "
This is a far cry from the bullshiat claims made by some that the government can't study gun issues.


Except for the fact that means that ANY study which the CDC funds and conducts that comes up with data that could be used to support any type of measure of gun control is illegal and must be purged/ended. And the fact that law was put into place by lobbying of Gun Companies in the 90s.

Reality seems to have a bias towards that.

So, pretty much the same policy that the United States uses to look at drug use and abuse.
 
2013-05-01 06:39:41 PM  
So how much is the NRA paying you to spout this bullshiat all afternoon? Seriously, half of these 500 comments are you. If you won't even accept that pink, colorful guns marked to children are a terrible idea, then there is really no hope for you.
 
2013-05-01 06:41:16 PM  

pedrop357: Anyhoo.  Please show where the CDC is prohibited from funding any investigation into gun violence or accidental death.  Their prohibition is that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control "

They can do all the neutral, non-partisan research they want.  They just can't fund gun control propaganda.  How terribly sad.


It's ironic how a 2 second google search proves you wrong. Now, the question is will you admit it, or will you double-down and backtrack to tell us what you really mean.

The fact is that if any of those "neutral, non-partisan studies" come up to support any form of gun control, they have to be purged and the funds written off and reported to the Senate Oversight Committees.

That's why they are almost NEVER conducted by Government institutions, or with federal grant money.

Funny how that works, isn't it?
 
2013-05-01 06:41:28 PM  

simkatu: pedrop357: There is STILL debate about the effectiveness of firearms in personal defense, prevention of crime, etc.

There is still debate on whether the FBI was behind the shooting of children in Newtown, CT also.

Their really isn't much debate on whether bringing a gun into your home makes you more or less likely to be killed with a gun.   You're 10 times more likely that the gun you buy and bring into your home to "protect your family" is going to be used to kill yourself, your family member, or an invited guest or child in your home.

That's not an effective way to minimize harm to your family.


Yeah, and owning a car means you're far more likely to die in a car accident.  At the same time, it's also more likely that you get to work on time.  Just because the odds of something negative goes up, doesn't mean the odds of something positive happening can't go up as well.
 
2013-05-01 06:41:33 PM  

Tman144: So how much is the NRA paying you to spout this bullshiat all afternoon? Seriously, half of these 500 comments are you. If you won't even accept that pink, colorful guns marked to children are a terrible idea, then there is really no hope for you.


fark off troll.  I'll talk as long as other people are talking.  How much is the Brady Group paying you to spread this bullshiat?
 
2013-05-01 06:43:38 PM  

noitsnot: 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.


dl.dropboxusercontent.com
Existing examples are rare (this one from the 1760's), but training weapons have been around forever.

/All the boys want to be like daddy, and its not like they had alot of schooling back then to take up their time.
 
2013-05-01 06:43:55 PM  
pedrop357: Blatant Lies.

Oh, and here's another citation proving you wrong.

And another from the American Psychological Association

And another from Science magazine.

At this point, I'm convinced you're either knowingly trolling with false information, or you're a shill reading off a script. Which is it?
 
2013-05-01 06:45:51 PM  

pedrop357: fark off troll.  I'll talk as long as other people are talking.  How much is the Brady Group paying you to spread this bullshiat?


By talking, you mean posting blatant lies and misleading information, right? When you're not being intellectually dishonest and conducting a "just asking questions" mental gymnastic event that would make Glenn Beck himself jealous?
 
2013-05-01 06:47:53 PM  

hardinparamedic: pedrop357: Anyhoo.  Please show where the CDC is prohibited from funding any investigation into gun violence or accidental death.  Their prohibition is that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control "

They can do all the neutral, non-partisan research they want.  They just can't fund gun control propaganda.  How terribly sad.

It's ironic how a 2 second google search proves you wrong. Now, the question is will you admit it, or will you double-down and backtrack to tell us what you really mean.

The fact is that if any of those "neutral, non-partisan studies" come up to support any form of gun control, they have to be purged and the funds written off and reported to the Senate Oversight Committees.

That's why they are almost NEVER conducted by Government institutions, or with federal grant money.

Funny how that works, isn't it?


Your source didn't say that the funds have to be written off and the work purged.  The law doesn't say that either.

The linked article DID, however, mention that even private groups don't care to fund gun violence research.  Why not?  Why can't the gun control groups-Brady, VPC, etc. start funding their own research if it's so important?  Why can't they hit moneybags Bloomberg up for some funding too?
 
2013-05-01 06:50:49 PM  

hardinparamedic: pedrop357: Blatant Lies.

Oh, and here's another citation proving you wrong.

And another from the American Psychological Association

And another from Science magazine.

At this point, I'm convinced you're either knowingly trolling with false information, or you're a shill reading off a script. Which is it?


I read them, still bullshiat. The prohibition on advocating gun control and their interpretation that they can't do any research whatsoever is bullshiat.
 
2013-05-01 06:52:12 PM  

hardinparamedic: pedrop357: fark off troll.  I'll talk as long as other people are talking.  How much is the Brady Group paying you to spread this bullshiat?

By talking, you mean posting blatant lies and misleading information, right? When you're not being intellectually dishonest and conducting a "just asking questions" mental gymnastic event that would make Glenn Beck himself jealous?


3/10
 
2013-05-01 06:52:45 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.


Could it be possibly be because more people whose families swim pools and ride around in cars than people who give 5 year olds a loaded weapon?
 
2013-05-01 06:54:49 PM  

Lollipop165: 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.

Could it be possibly be because more people whose families swim pools and ride around in cars than people who give 5 year olds a loaded weapon?


This particular scenario is pretty rare as far as I know.  The usual accidental death is a kid finding their parent or a friend's parent (or a cop's) gun and getting killed with it.  There's a lot more guns owned by adults then by 5 year olds, so the rarity thing still applies.
 
2013-05-01 06:56:14 PM  

hardinparamedic: pedrop357: Blatant Lies.

Oh, and here's another citation proving you wrong.

And another from the American Psychological Association

And another from Science magazine.

At this point, I'm convinced you're either knowingly trolling with false information, or you're a shill reading off a script. Which is it?


That's quite the selective reading comprehension deficit you have.  He's right, they're able to compile data on gun violence, they just can't use it to advocate a specific position.  Here's proof, you and your links are lying.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html
 
2013-05-01 06:57:11 PM  

pedrop357: Tman144: So how much is the NRA paying you to spout this bullshiat all afternoon? Seriously, half of these 500 comments are you. If you won't even accept that pink, colorful guns marked to children are a terrible idea, then there is really no hope for you.

fark off troll.  I'll talk as long as other people are talking.  How much is the Brady Group paying you to spread this bullshiat?


Except you're not "talking." You've been posting the same thing over and over again for 6 1/2 hours.
 
2013-05-01 06:57:36 PM  
pedrop357:I read them, still bullshiat. The prohibition on advocating gun control and their interpretation that they can't do any research whatsoever is bullshiat.

Well, I'm glad you say so, random internet guy who's opinion carries more weight than  The American Psychological Association on matters pertaining to medical research and the issues behind them when researching a politically charged topic that has traditionally been prohibited by an overreaching and deceptively worded federal law.

Please. Tell me more about your expert opinion on things you're not qualified to talk about.
 
2013-05-01 07:00:02 PM  

Tman144: pedrop357: Tman144: So how much is the NRA paying you to spout this bullshiat all afternoon? Seriously, half of these 500 comments are you. If you won't even accept that pink, colorful guns marked to children are a terrible idea, then there is really no hope for you.

fark off troll.  I'll talk as long as other people are talking.  How much is the Brady Group paying you to spread this bullshiat?

Except you're not "talking." You've been posting the same thing over and over again for 6 1/2 hours.


Why are you still here, to talk to me about why I'm here?  fark off.

If I'm posting the same over and over again, it's in response to the same thing being said over and over again, in which case they're not "talking" either.
 
2013-05-01 07:00:38 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: That's quite the selective reading comprehension deficit you have.  He's right, they're able to compile data on gun violence, they just can't use it to advocate a specific position.  Here's proof, you and your links are lying.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html


That's nice that you were able to dig up an anonymous and selective reporting system that doesn't go into anything more than how someone died, and ties into all-cause mortality statistic reporting.

Now, please cite for me a research study from the CDC or the NIH released to the public, done in the last 17 years, which specifically addresses either the factors behind accidental gun death and potential solutions to, or the factors behind violent gun death and potential solutions to.

Given your history of being intellectually dishonest, I won't hold my breath.

And it should be fair to warn you that I'll be at work in 30 minutes, and I can actually pull those full studies through Elsevier and Springerlink, if you want to quote them.
 
2013-05-01 07:01:34 PM  

hardinparamedic: pedrop357:I read them, still bullshiat. The prohibition on advocating gun control and their interpretation that they can't do any research whatsoever is bullshiat.

Well, I'm glad you say so, random internet guy who's opinion carries more weight than  The American Psychological Association on matters pertaining to medical research and the issues behind them when researching a politically charged topic that has traditionally been prohibited by an overreaching and deceptively worded federal law.

Please. Tell me more about your expert opinion on things you're not qualified to talk about.


Oooh, the appeal to authority.
I can read the law and regulations as well as anyone and they don't say what the APA claims.  Also, none of the links you've provided supportd your previous claim that anything that might be gun control has to be purged.
 
2013-05-01 07:02:34 PM  
 
2013-05-01 07:03:26 PM  

hardinparamedic: BraveNewCheneyWorld: That's quite the selective reading comprehension deficit you have.  He's right, they're able to compile data on gun violence, they just can't use it to advocate a specific position.  Here's proof, you and your links are lying.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html

That's nice that you were able to dig up an anonymous and selective reporting system that doesn't go into anything more than how someone died, and ties into all-cause mortality statistic reporting.

Now, please cite for me a research study from the CDC or the NIH released to the public, done in the last 17 years, which specifically addresses either the factors behind accidental gun death and potential solutions to, or the factors behind violent gun death and potential solutions to.

Given your history of being intellectually dishonest, I won't hold my breath.

And it should be fair to warn you that I'll be at work in 30 minutes, and I can actually pull those full studies through Elsevier and Springerlink, if you want to quote them.


It's the "solutions to" part that has caused them problems so I wouldn't imagine we'll see a lot of that.  Causes or factual information regarding, not so much.
 
2013-05-01 07:03:59 PM  
A 5-yr old should never have had unsupervised access to a loaded weapon. That's it, that's all there is to it. Plain and simple common sense says that any and all gun-based activities should be with an adult. This kid killed his sister and it is completely mom and dad's fault. They were negligent.
 
2013-05-01 07:04:23 PM  

loaba: A 5-yr old should never have had unsupervised access to a loaded weapon. That's it, that's all there is to it. Plain and simple common sense says that any and all gun-based activities should be with an adult. This kid killed his sister and it is completely mom and dad's fault. They were negligent.


This.
 
2013-05-01 07:05:46 PM  

pedrop357: Tman144: pedrop357: Tman144: So how much is the NRA paying you to spout this bullshiat all afternoon? Seriously, half of these 500 comments are you. If you won't even accept that pink, colorful guns marked to children are a terrible idea, then there is really no hope for you.

fark off troll.  I'll talk as long as other people are talking.  How much is the Brady Group paying you to spread this bullshiat?

Except you're not "talking." You've been posting the same thing over and over again for 6 1/2 hours.

Why are you still here, to talk to me about why I'm here?  fark off.

If I'm posting the same over and over again, it's in response to the same thing being said over and over again, in which case they're not "talking" either.


I came back to see if you would truly be against a law making it illegal to make deadly weapons look like a super-soaker. Apparently the answer is yes.

Well, I guess I'm off to design my new line of rat poisons that look and taste like Werther's Originals. I hope there aren't any crazy accidents!
 
2013-05-01 07:05:59 PM  
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. and once America has an Army, the second amendment shall be abolished.
/Now wipe the derp off of your pants, you bedshiatting gun-tards.
 
2013-05-01 07:06:10 PM  

sheep snorter: Marketing flyer.

[i.imgur.com image 630x328]

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/05/crickett-rifle-marketing-kid s


Not really seeing the problem here.  The baby might be controversial.  The rest is pretty tame marketing stuff.
 
2013-05-01 07:06:33 PM  

pedrop357: Keizer_Ghidorah: pedrop357: Fair enough if our only concern is preventing the really smaller number of deaths by children who hurt/kill other children in preventable circumstances.
If saving children from preventable harms is the point, then we should talk about care given the much higher number of deaths.

Funny thing is, the auto industry has some of the strictest safety measures of any industry, while the NRA thinks that requiring a secure gun locker is an attack on the Second Amendment.

It's also really hard to make a foolproof system against human stupidity.

Requiring a person to secure their gun in a safe or making a safe purchase/ownership mandatory is indeed a violation of the second amendment.

Funny that guns number in the hundreds of millions yet have fewer accidental deaths than those super strict regulated cars.


Funny thing is that there are far more cars than guns, far more people use cars than use guns, and multiple people in a car vs most gun cases being one on one. Remember, bucko, you need to look at EVERYTHING when comparing things.

Point out how requiring you to take better care of your deadly weapon = "violation of the Second Amendment". You like to crow about how awesome the Second Amendment is, yet you shriek at being forced to be responsible with it. If you don't want to be held responsible for your toys, then you shouldn't have those toys.
 
2013-05-01 07:07:55 PM  

sheep snorter: Marketing flyer.

[i.imgur.com image 630x328]

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/05/crickett-rifle-marketing-kid s


I can totally understand people wanting to raise their children with a respect for guns and gun culture.

But most of those pics actually show me a LACK of respect for guns. And none of those pics I find "cute" at all.
 
2013-05-01 07:09:50 PM  

Tman144: pedrop357: Tman144: pedrop357: Tman144: So how much is the NRA paying you to spout this bullshiat all afternoon? Seriously, half of these 500 comments are you. If you won't even accept that pink, colorful guns marked to children are a terrible idea, then there is really no hope for you.

fark off troll.  I'll talk as long as other people are talking.  How much is the Brady Group paying you to spread this bullshiat?

Except you're not "talking." You've been posting the same thing over and over again for 6 1/2 hours.

Why are you still here, to talk to me about why I'm here?  fark off.

If I'm posting the same over and over again, it's in response to the same thing being said over and over again, in which case they're not "talking" either.

I came back to see if you would truly be against a law making it illegal to make deadly weapons look like a super-soaker. Apparently the answer is yes.

Well, I guess I'm off to design my new line of rat poisons that look and taste like Werther's Originals. I hope there aren't any crazy accidents!


You said make a firearm look like a toy, which is broader then "super soaker"  Define what making a firearm "look a toy" actually means.  Is it just colors, which colors, is it some design attribute.  Is it size?  How would a prohibition on a firearm "looking like a toy" actually work?

I'm also not sure how you would make a deadly weapon look like a super-soaker.

You have fun with your poison disguised as food.  Your premeditation here won't help your sentence though.

There's no evidence that the kid mistook this firearm for a toy, so nice try there.
 
2013-05-01 07:10:57 PM  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You know, you raise a point here, and I'm using your post to articulate it, but don't take it personally.

We hear relentlessly about guns being important tools for protecting yourself and your family against, say, intruders. Someone breaks into your house and you nobly blow their farking head off because you are an armed citizen aware of and exercising your second amendment rights.

So, tell me. How the fark do you "protect your family" if you have the guns locked up, the ammo somewhere else, the bolts locked up in a separate place?

Do you ask the intruders nicely: "Please wait for me to assemble my tool of home protection and then stand still so I can kill you"

If a loaded gun isn't immediately accessible and immediately fireable in the event of an intruder - then what is the farking point???

If you just like to have guns to shoot them at a range and so you think having the rest of society suffer the consequences of millions of guns in the hands of whomever is a-okay - go get a different farking hobby!


I don't need a gun to defend my family. I do own a couple pistols, but they're broken down (non-functional, similar to the rifles) in the house too, and I don't even have children in the house anymore. I have two dogs as an alarm system.

Incidentally, I hunt. I go to the range far more to keep my shooting skills sharp, but that's because I do like to ensure a clean kill. I have the pistols, just in case I eff up and the animal is still alive. I still happen to like the taste of whitetail, moose, bear, et al., grilled nicely just like a good rack of baby back ribs or tenderloin steak.

Now, and I'm sorry if I offend you here and use you as an example. You are who those zealots at the NRA point to with every fundraising drive and opposition to any new law. Most safe firearms owners don't give a flying fig about background checks. The NRA members can get worked up into a froth because the NRA is all too happy to use your poorly thought out statements as "libs wanna takez yer gunz" fodder.
 
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 »
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