5 y/o shoots himself to death

[Luddly Neddite]

don't lie.

you are NOT concerned.

At all.

You are just using the situation to advance your agenda.

btw, I did not see any leftards about the two sisters killed in a heap of the leaves.

And yes, they were not shot - and that is the reason all of your ilk are unanimously absent there

You leftards, do not give a damn about the dead children.

Only about the firearms.

Not sure what a leftard is, but it's sort of offensive sounding.

Anyways, I assure you that folks who are pro-gun do care about children the same way you do. You are trying to dehumanize the “opposition” in order to advance your views, and I see right through it. We are all the same, with the same wants and needs, just have different ideas on how to achieve those things.

Gun Control folks think that taking all guns away will result in less gun deaths. Because I’m more on the pro-2nd amendment side, I say this method of thinking is flawed due to the fact that criminals will still have access to guns, and the gov’t will still have access to guns. This leaves me – the law abiding citizen – vulnerable because now I’m the only guy without a gun. I believe that this will be MORE of a threat to me and my children than NOT enacting gun control measures.

See how that works? We both want to protect the wellbeing of our families, just have different ideas on how to do it.


And if you think I'm crazy about being worried that "only the Gov't has guns", then perhaps I can walk you through the literally thousands of examples throughout history (starting in present day) of gov'ts doing bad things. Happens to practically EVERY civilization at some point...

I am not dehumanizing the "opposition" - they do it perfectly well by themselves.

And I do not consider a person to be corpuscular - here he/she cares, and here - he/she does not.

I do not believe a person gives a damn about children being shot when the very same person with foaming froth at the mouth is defending infanticide of the totally viable children - because it is a "choice" and the "woman's body".

No, it is not a "choice" and neither is it a "woman's body". It is a murder of a baby IN the woman's body - for woman's convenience.

So if the very same person starts shedding crocodile tears at some random accident which are not more than 600-800 per year ( and not even half is children) for the 300 000 000 nation and does not give a damn about all others and glorifies the murder of all children in utero - I call it BS.

Such a person is not concerned.
Such a person is advancing the agenda.

But you desperately and dishonestly trying to hijack thread after thread is not "advancing an agenda"?

 

[KevinWestern]

P.S. Kevin Western, I am very PRO-gun

Misread your post, lol. That's why mine has since been deleted.

 

[Yurt]

why did you abandon the other thread you created this morning luddly? is it because you found out the death was not caused by a gun? why yes it is. you have an agenda, you don't care about the tragic deaths, you simply care about putting up stories about gun deaths, you never (at least on purprose) put threads that involve non gun fatalities. so you are the one who politicizes and minimizes these deaths.

you are pathetic.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Kevin

Not sure what a leftard is, but it's sort of offensive sounding.

Anyways, I assure you that folks who are pro-gun do care about children the same way you do. You are trying to dehumanize the “opposition” in order to advance your views, and I see right through it. We are all the same, with the same wants and needs, just have different ideas on how to achieve those things.

Gun Control folks think that taking all guns away will result in less gun deaths. Because I’m more on the pro-2nd amendment side, I say this method of thinking is flawed due to the fact that criminals will still have access to guns, and the gov’t will still have access to guns. This leaves me – the law abiding citizen – vulnerable because now I’m the only guy without a gun. I believe that this will be MORE of a threat to me and my children than NOT enacting gun control measures.

See how that works? We both want to protect the wellbeing of our families, just have different ideas on how to do it.


And if you think I'm crazy about being worried that "only the Gov't has guns", then perhaps I can walk you through the literally thousands of examples throughout history (starting in present day) of gov'ts doing bad things. Happens to practically EVERY civilization at some point...

Please don't fall into the trap of calling this about "gun control"

Unless, that is, the "control" is keeping guns behind a locked door and out of the read of little children.

THAT is what I said last night and its what I am saying now.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

why did you abandon the other thread you created this morning luddly? is it because you found out the death was not caused by a gun? why yes it is. you have an agenda, you don't care about the tragic deaths, you simply care about putting up stories about gun deaths, you never (at least on purprose) put threads that involve non gun fatalities. so you are the one who politicizes and minimizes these deaths.

you are pathetic.

Was there something more to say?

What about the thousands of other threads? Why have YOU abandoned them?

Don't be an ass.

you can wiggle and try to make this about something else but --


I said it before and I'll say it again, IF you give a gun to child, you are responsive and should be legally liable for what that child does with that gun.

 

[Yurt]

And, its only a little kid, right? They're a dime a dozen.

Hell, its Texasss. I'm surprised the kids didn't have their own guns. You know, kiddy guns, pink ones for the little redneck gurls and GI Joe guns for the boys.

If only the 6 month old had been able to get to his own gun ...

Luddy, what point are you trying to prove though? There are good guardians (or babysitters), bad guardians, and there are accidents that are not contingent on the responsibility level of the guardian. I'd say this fits in the "bad guardian" category.

However, it’s not fair to denounce the entire gun owning population over this single incident. That's generalizing and akin to propaganda. Do you consider yourself a propagandist? Rational gun owners know that kids shouldn’t handle/have access to guns under a certain age, and should be supervised by a responsible adult when they do become a bit older. This babysitter was a f*$king idiot.


.

I agree about the babysitter but, from the number of children "accidentally" killed by guns, she's not all that unusual. The evidence shows that this is not, by any means, "a single incident".

In the past, I would have agreed as well that "rational gun owners know that kids shouldn’t handle/have access to guns under a certain age, and should be supervised by a responsible adult when they do become a bit older" but last night, there were posters who said they kept loaded guns available to their young children and would have 'split the ass' of a child who 'did wrong'.

I'm not in favor of huge gun "control" laws but if ever there was an issue that we need to address, its this lackadaisacle attitude about giving guns to children.

Agree with me or not. That is my opinion.

the number of children of gun owners who are killed by gun shot wounds is probably less than 5% and most likely about 1%.

so yes, it is unusual. you're just obsessed with gun threads so you see deaths everywhere while ignoring the mass majority of responsible gun owners. you're a fear monger.

 

[Yurt]

why did you abandon the other thread you created this morning luddly? is it because you found out the death was not caused by a gun? why yes it is. you have an agenda, you don't care about the tragic deaths, you simply care about putting up stories about gun deaths, you never (at least on purprose) put threads that involve non gun fatalities. so you are the one who politicizes and minimizes these deaths.

you are pathetic.

Was there something more to say?

What about the thousands of other threads? Why have YOU abandoned them?

Don't be an ass.

you can wiggle and try to make this about something else but --


I said it before and I'll say it again, IF you give a gun to child, you are responsive and should be legally liable for what that child does with that gun.

thanks for proving my point. you have nothing else to say in that thread because the death doesn't involve a gun. yet, you are still ranting away in this thread. you just proved absolutely that you only care about gun deaths.

good job.

my parents gave me a car when i was 16, should they be legally liable for everything i do with the car?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Luddy, what point are you trying to prove though? There are good guardians (or babysitters), bad guardians, and there are accidents that are not contingent on the responsibility level of the guardian. I'd say this fits in the "bad guardian" category.

However, it’s not fair to denounce the entire gun owning population over this single incident. That's generalizing and akin to propaganda. Do you consider yourself a propagandist? Rational gun owners know that kids shouldn’t handle/have access to guns under a certain age, and should be supervised by a responsible adult when they do become a bit older. This babysitter was a f*$king idiot.


.

I agree about the babysitter but, from the number of children "accidentally" killed by guns, she's not all that unusual. The evidence shows that this is not, by any means, "a single incident".

In the past, I would have agreed as well that "rational gun owners know that kids shouldn’t handle/have access to guns under a certain age, and should be supervised by a responsible adult when they do become a bit older" but last night, there were posters who said they kept loaded guns available to their young children and would have 'split the ass' of a child who 'did wrong'.

I'm not in favor of huge gun "control" laws but if ever there was an issue that we need to address, its this lackadaisacle attitude about giving guns to children.

Agree with me or not. That is my opinion.

the number of children of gun owners who are killed by gun shot wounds is probably less than 5% and most likely about 1%.

so yes, it is unusual. you're just obsessed with gun threads so you see deaths everywhere while ignoring the mass majority of responsible gun owners. you're a fear monger.

You dance around a lot and you ignore what I actually write in favor of your own lies.


IF you give a gun to child, you are responsive and should be legally liable for what that child does with that gun.

Agree with me or not. That is my opinion.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

What's wrong with this thread is -

Shouldn't it be everyone's "agenda" to keep children safe from guns?

as well as

swimming pools
cars
the creepy guy down the street
etc
etc
etc

 

[westwall]

John Read, 5-Year-Old, Fatally Shot Self With Babysitter Melissa Ann Ringhardt's Gun: Police



One of the nutters here said this morning that little kids lacked the physical strength and the coordination to be able to kill themselves with guns. Wouldn't it be nice if it were actually true?

Especially since gun owners are obviously too damn dumb to be responsible for the safety of children.



How much would this handgun weigh?

Obviously not enough to keep this little guy from firing it.

No, I said TWO year olds don't have the ability in MOST INSTANCES. You can't help but lie about everything can you? No wonder you turned your rep function off. Coward.

And, right after you posted that, proof that children as young as 2 have managed to shoot themselves to death.

Its a stupid thing to argue about.

Fact is, children die every day from gun shot wounds.
Fact is, some shoot themselves.

You know what you can do with your childish little rep.

Its YOU who is the coward for not facing those facts, full on.

Wrong asshole. I HAVE a small child, unlike you. I keep my weapons locked up and I work with her school to try and make them safer from dickheads like you. You haven't had to be responsible your whole life so you haven't a clue as to what that means.

Just a typical leech on society....

 

[westwall]

why did you abandon the other thread you created this morning luddly? is it because you found out the death was not caused by a gun? why yes it is. you have an agenda, you don't care about the tragic deaths, you simply care about putting up stories about gun deaths, you never (at least on purprose) put threads that involve non gun fatalities. so you are the one who politicizes and minimizes these deaths.

you are pathetic.

Was there something more to say?

What about the thousands of other threads? Why have YOU abandoned them?

Don't be an ass.

you can wiggle and try to make this about something else but --


I said it before and I'll say it again, IF you give a gun to child, you are responsive and should be legally liable for what that child does with that gun.

Responsive? Don't you mean "responsible" Gosh but you're stupid.

 

[westwall]

What's wrong with this thread is -

Shouldn't it be everyone's "agenda" to keep children safe from guns?

as well as

swimming pools
cars
the creepy guy down the street
etc
etc
etc

Yes, it is. And it has been shown repeatedly that firearm ownership REDUCES crime. Want to see lots of dead kids? Go to Chicago where guns are outlawed.

 

[westwall]

why did you abandon the other thread you created this morning luddly? is it because you found out the death was not caused by a gun? why yes it is. you have an agenda, you don't care about the tragic deaths, you simply care about putting up stories about gun deaths, you never (at least on purprose) put threads that involve non gun fatalities. so you are the one who politicizes and minimizes these deaths.

you are pathetic.

Was there something more to say?

What about the thousands of other threads? Why have YOU abandoned them?

Don't be an ass.

you can wiggle and try to make this about something else but --


I said it before and I'll say it again, IF you give a gun to child, you are responsive and should be legally liable for what that child does with that gun.

thanks for proving my point. you have nothing else to say in that thread because the death doesn't involve a gun. yet, you are still ranting away in this thread. you just proved absolutely that you only care about gun deaths.

good job.

my parents gave me a car when i was 16, should they be legally liable for everything i do with the car?

I wish someone would go after neddlies parents and convince them to go back in time and not have him!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

No, I said TWO year olds don't have the ability in MOST INSTANCES. You can't help but lie about everything can you? No wonder you turned your rep function off. Coward.

And, right after you posted that, proof that children as young as 2 have managed to shoot themselves to death.

Its a stupid thing to argue about.

Fact is, children die every day from gun shot wounds.
Fact is, some shoot themselves.

You know what you can do with your childish little rep.

Its YOU who is the coward for not facing those facts, full on.

Wrong asshole. I HAVE a small child, unlike you. I keep my weapons locked up and I work with her school to try and make them safer from dickheads like you. You haven't had to be responsible your whole life so you haven't a clue as to what that means.

Just a typical leech on society....

So, you're saying you agree with me.

Thank you.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

why did you abandon the other thread you created this morning luddly? is it because you found out the death was not caused by a gun? why yes it is. you have an agenda, you don't care about the tragic deaths, you simply care about putting up stories about gun deaths, you never (at least on purprose) put threads that involve non gun fatalities. so you are the one who politicizes and minimizes these deaths.

you are pathetic.

Was there something more to say?

What about the thousands of other threads? Why have YOU abandoned them?

Don't be an ass.

you can wiggle and try to make this about something else but --


I said it before and I'll say it again, IF you give a gun to child, you are responsive and should be legally liable for what that child does with that gun.

Responsive? Don't you mean "responsible" Gosh but you're stupid.

Thank you for correcting my typo.

And, you have my congratulations that you have never made a mistake in your typing.

Good for you.

 

[westwall]

Was there something more to say?

What about the thousands of other threads? Why have YOU abandoned them?

Don't be an ass.

you can wiggle and try to make this about something else but --


I said it before and I'll say it again, IF you give a gun to child, you are responsive and should be legally liable for what that child does with that gun.

Responsive? Don't you mean "responsible" Gosh but you're stupid.

Thank you for correcting my typo.

And, you have my congratulations that you have never made a mistake in your typing.

Good for you.

I would have caught it after posting it twice. That's the difference between us, I actually pay attention to what I'm doing. The fact remains though that you lied about what I said. What does that make you? Other than an unethical asshole I mean?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

This where I disagree -

I said it before and I'll say it again, IF you give a gun to child, you are responsive and should be legally liable for what that child does with that gun.

Every single death of a child caused by a gun is preventable. You can argue that all you want. You can say gun owners should not be responsible but you are wrong.

Take responsibility for your gun.

The owner of the gun that killed this child is 19. Her life is over. Who taught her how to be responsible for that gun?

From the whining from the rw nutters here, I'd bet it was another one like you. Last night, one of you posted that his children have access to loaded guns and that he would 'split his ass' if he did something that displeases daddy the tyrant.

Bet her father was just another asshole who doesn't give a crap about anyone but himself and just never quite got around to telling this girl that her gun could kill.

Yeah this particular gun owner, but that's not what you said. You said "gun owners".
That's all of us.

Oh.

So some "this particular gun owner" should be held responsible and legally liable for how his gun is used but not all gun owners?

Sorry, but I don't agree.

I own guns. I have always owned guns and will probably always own guns.

And I will always be responsible for how they are used.

You're welcome to disagree but there is nothing that will change my mind on this.

Look goddamnit, you said quote"Especially since gun owners are obviously too damn dumb to be responsible for the safety of children.


This appears to be a broad brush statement about ALL gun owners.

Now are you talking about this guy or all of us ?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Responsive? Don't you mean "responsible" Gosh but you're stupid.

Thank you for correcting my typo.

And, you have my congratulations that you have never made a mistake in your typing.

Good for you.

I would have caught it after posting it twice. That's the difference between us, I actually pay attention to what I'm doing. The fact remains though that you lied about what I said. What does that make you? Other than an unethical asshole I mean?

Typing hurts so I c/p'd that.

But, luckily, you found the typo. I don't how I can ever thank you enough.

Seriously, thank you for agreeing that children should be kept safe and that adults are responsible for their guns.

 

[Yurt]

I agree about the babysitter but, from the number of children "accidentally" killed by guns, she's not all that unusual. The evidence shows that this is not, by any means, "a single incident".

In the past, I would have agreed as well that "rational gun owners know that kids shouldn’t handle/have access to guns under a certain age, and should be supervised by a responsible adult when they do become a bit older" but last night, there were posters who said they kept loaded guns available to their young children and would have 'split the ass' of a child who 'did wrong'.

I'm not in favor of huge gun "control" laws but if ever there was an issue that we need to address, its this lackadaisacle attitude about giving guns to children.

Agree with me or not. That is my opinion.

the number of children of gun owners who are killed by gun shot wounds is probably less than 5% and most likely about 1%.

so yes, it is unusual. you're just obsessed with gun threads so you see deaths everywhere while ignoring the mass majority of responsible gun owners. you're a fear monger.

You dance around a lot and you ignore what I actually write in favor of your own lies.


IF you give a gun to child, you are responsive and should be legally liable for what that child does with that gun.

Agree with me or not. That is my opinion.

cite one single lie i have told. why are you avoiding this question:

my parents gave me a car when i was 16, should they be legally liable for everything i do with the car?

i've danced around nothing. i point out facts about how obsessed you about gun deaths but when you find out they aren't caused by a gun, you no longer care, you leave the thread. but in a gun thread, you stay on and bitch and moan, yet you never create threads about any other deaths and you LIE by claiming you don't have an agenda.

answer my question.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Luddy, what point are you trying to prove though? There are good guardians (or babysitters), bad guardians, and there are accidents that are not contingent on the responsibility level of the guardian. I'd say this fits in the "bad guardian" category.

However, it’s not fair to denounce the entire gun owning population over this single incident. That's generalizing and akin to propaganda. Do you consider yourself a propagandist? Rational gun owners know that kids shouldn’t handle/have access to guns under a certain age, and should be supervised by a responsible adult when they do become a bit older. This babysitter was a f*$king idiot.


.

I agree about the babysitter but, from the number of children "accidentally" killed by guns, she's not all that unusual. The evidence shows that this is not, by any means, "a single incident".

In the past, I would have agreed as well that "rational gun owners know that kids shouldn’t handle/have access to guns under a certain age, and should be supervised by a responsible adult when they do become a bit older" but last night, there were posters who said they kept loaded guns available to their young children and would have 'split the ass' of a child who 'did wrong'.

I'm not in favor of huge gun "control" laws but if ever there was an issue that we need to address, its this lackadaisacle attitude about giving guns to children.

Agree with me or not. That is my opinion.

the number of children of gun owners who are killed by gun shot wounds is probably less than 5% and most likely about 1%.

so yes, it is unusual. you're just obsessed with gun threads so you see deaths everywhere while ignoring the mass majority of responsible gun owners. you're a fear monger.

There are at a minimum 100000 firearms owners, at a minimum. Less then 800 people a year die due to firearms accidents and less then half are children. So 400 into 100000 is no where near 1 percent. Much less 5 percent.