5 y/o shoots himself to death

[Vox]

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"?

no, you are desperately trying to convince that you care about anything more than your anti-gun agenda

 

[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.

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.

poor luddly, wrong on gun facts again, i was just guessing

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Actually, I really care about a lot of things but, as it happens, this thread is about a 5yo who accidentally shot himself because the idiot gun owner left her gun out for him to find.

If you want to start a thread about cars, by all means, go for it.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

poor luddly, wrong on gun facts again, i was just guessing

Where are the facts that I'm wrong about?
Where are the facts that ^ is right about?

I haven't named any figures. All I have said is that gun owners should be held responsible and legally liable for guns they give to children.

 

[Vox]

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.

it is much less than that.

There are about 600-800 accidental deaths per year because of the discharge of the firearm - if one considers ALL of them to be children ( which is not the case) and about a third of our population are gun-owners, let's sat, a third of those 100 million have children - so for 30 million people 600 deaths per year because of the accidental discharge of the firearm - makes what fraction of a percent?
Exactly. 0.002%

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

it is much less than that.

There are about 600-800 accidental deaths per year because of the discharge of the firearm - if one considers ALL of them to be children ( which is not the case) and about a third of our population are gun-owners, let's sat, a third of those 100 million have children - so for 30 million people 600 deaths per year because of the accidental discharge of the firearm - makes what fraction of a percent?
Exactly. 0.002%

And THAT is how we know vox doesn't give 2 cents for fetuses OR children.

 

[Yurt]

Actually, I really care about a lot of things but, as it happens, this thread is about a 5yo who accidentally shot himself because the idiot gun owner left her gun out for him to find.

If you want to start a thread about cars, by all means, go for it.

hilarious, you refuse to answer a question directly related to an issue YOU POSED in this thread. when should we hold parents responsible. the fact you won't answer the question leads me to believe that, once again, you only care if a gun was used. you could care less if a kid killed himself or someone with a car, you most likely would not hold the parents responsible.

this is a salient point because it shows you are intellectually dishonest.

 

[Vox]

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.

it is much less than that.

There are about 600-800 accidental deaths per year because of the discharge of the firearm - if one considers ALL of them to be children ( which is not the case) and about a third of our population are gun-owners, let's sat, a third of those 100 million have children - so for 30 million people 600 deaths per year because of the accidental discharge of the firearm - makes what fraction of a percent?
Exactly. 0.002%

And THAT is how we know vox doesn't give 2 cents for fetuses OR children.

you care even less than that so your monetary evaluation is futile

 

[Yurt]

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.

poor luddly, wrong on gun facts again, i was just guessing

Where are the facts that I'm wrong about?
Where are the facts that ^ is right about?

I haven't named any figures. All I have said is that gun owners should be held responsible and legally liable for guns they give to children.

liar...you said it was not unusual. then when i countered your claim vox helped me out by stating FACTS that show it is not only unusual, it is HIGHLY unusual. and then you lied by claiming that citing facts means he doesn't care about their deaths.

you made a false claim, don't get all butt hurt because you're proven wrong again.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Poor kid

 

[westwall]

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.

You still haven't addressed your unethical behavior? Why is that? Based on the actions of people in this thread you are the ONLY one that I would feel safe predicting criminal intent.

 

[Politico]

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

Be careful He may report you for threatening him.

And THAT is how we know vox doesn't give 2 cents for fetuses OR children.

If I had a nickel for every time A Lefty made a fetus comment.