Texas 4-year-old dead after shooting himself with father’s gun

[bigrebnc1775]

30-30

Have a boatload of shotgun ammo at hme but never bought any rifle ammo. Cant belive it has gone from like $15 a box two years ago to like $30 a box.

You tried walmart? They have plenty of that around here.

Nothing here in New York man.......when it comes into the stores, it is gone by 10:30am. My brother can get ammo for his 10-22 Ruger since December around here. ALL of the web ammo outlets say OUT OF STOCK

If you live near a state line you might consider going out of state.

 

[nitroz]

Praise jesus!

Guns all the way!

Bama aint takin my guns!!!


Liberals suck

dems are destroying america


if you dont believe in god, you are unamerican

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

30-30

Have a boatload of shotgun ammo at hme but never bought any rifle ammo. Cant belive it has gone from like $15 a box two years ago to like $30 a box.

You tried walmart? They have plenty of that around here.

Nothing here in New York man.......when it comes into the stores, it is gone by 10:30am. My brother can get ammo for his 10-22 Ruger since December around here. ALL of the web ammo outlets say OUT OF STOCK

We got plenty ammo here in Texas. Assault rifles too.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

That was used in the comission of a crime - by whom?

What exactly is your point here?

We're discussing -your- position.
Do you have an answer to the question or not?

The "by whom" should be obvious.

If it isn't then engaging in debate is pointless and if you're just trying to sharpshoot every word, debate is likewise pointless.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

That was used in the comission of a crime - by whom?

What exactly is your point here?

Do you have one or are you trying to nitpik this to death?

I think that's the point here. Some people do not know how to engage in honest, straight forward debate.

Yeah, that's becoming painfully obvious.

Evidently, he believes he's being clever.

 

[Papawx3]

Going back to the original OP, it's true that this is a very sad situation. Parents should always keep their guns out of the reach of small children. If it's an inconvenience, so what? That's better than having your kid shoot himself, such as in this case.
But that is no reason to jump on the bandwagon of gun control. I think this type of situation is where democrats differ from republicans, independents, etc. in the way they handle things. Every reasonable sane person would, when the time is right, teach their children the basics of gun responsibility. Teach them how to handle it, clean and load/unload, sight-in on their target and pull the trigger. Most of all, teach them when the time is right to shoot and most of all, when and where to NOT shoot a firearm.
But the dems don't believe in educating our youth in the use of firearms. Well, actually, they don't believe in education period, but that's for another conversation.
The democrats believe in "restriction of actions by force". For example: Years ago, my now-late mother in law (an avowed democrat) was frustrated with my granddaughter leaving the light switch on at the top or bottom of the stairs when she went up to or came down from her bedroom. It never occurred to her to sit down and talk to the child and teach her why she should turn the light back off. Her solution? She wanted me to remove the light switches! That's how all democrats think.
So when a situation like the one in this OP occurs, they don't think of properly educating parents in the proper use and storage of firearms. They want to take them away from us all.
That's the way democrats think.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What exactly is your point here?

We're discussing -your- position.
Do you have an answer to the question or not?

The "by whom" should be obvious.
If it isn't then engaging in debate is pointless and if you're just trying to sharpshoot every word, debate is likewise pointless.

Yawn. You have a significant burden here, and if you arent willing to take on that burden you should not have brought it up.

You want to charge someone who had his gun stolen and then used in a crime with a felony. Said someome is at least 2 dgrees removed from the crime in question, and had no willfull participation in that crime, and so there is every reason to ask you to explain very part of your argument.

The closest felony-level event you may have here is accessory before the fact, and as you cannot show that the person in question had any willful participation in the event in question you cannot show this.

And so, your idea that failure to properly store a gun that is stolen and then used in a crime should be charged as a felony stands completely outside established law and is absurd on its face.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

We're discussing -your- position.
Do you have an answer to the question or not?

The "by whom" should be obvious.
If it isn't then engaging in debate is pointless and if you're just trying to sharpshoot every word, debate is likewise pointless.

Yawn. You have a significant burden here, and if you arent willing to take on that burden you should not have brought it up.

You want to charge someone who had his gun stolen and then used in a crime with a felony. Said someome is at least 2 dgrees removed from the crime in question, and had no willfull participation in that crime, and so there is every reason to ask you to explain very part of your argument.

The closest felony-level event you may have here is accessory before the fact, and as you cannot show that the person in question had any willful participation in the event in question you cannot show this.

And so, your idea that failure to properly store a gun that is stolen and then used in a crime should be charged as a felony stands completely outside established law and is absurd on its face.

The original question was would you be in favor of this, not if this is already on the books. I would be in favor of establishing criminal negligence charges against the discussed individuals. That was it, a simple question.

Now that you've pathetically tried to use this to establish how clever you think you are, have a lovely day.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The "by whom" should be obvious.
If it isn't then engaging in debate is pointless and if you're just trying to sharpshoot every word, debate is likewise pointless.

Yawn. You have a significant burden here, and if you arent willing to take on that burden you should not have brought it up.

You want to charge someone who had his gun stolen and then used in a crime with a felony. Said someome is at least 2 dgrees removed from the crime in question, and had no willfull participation in that crime, and so there is every reason to ask you to explain very part of your argument.

The closest felony-level event you may have here is accessory before the fact, and as you cannot show that the person in question had any willful participation in the event in question you cannot show this.

And so, your idea that failure to properly store a gun that is stolen and then used in a crime should be charged as a felony stands completely outside established law and is absurd on its face.

The original question was would you be in favor of this...

Obviously not, for tthe reason stated.

Now that you've pathetically tried to use this to establish how clever you think you are, have a lovely day.

Tuck that tail nice and tight as you run away.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

Yawn. You have a significant burden here, and if you arent willing to take on that burden you should not have brought it up.

You want to charge someone who had his gun stolen and then used in a crime with a felony. Said someome is at least 2 dgrees removed from the crime in question, and had no willfull participation in that crime, and so there is every reason to ask you to explain very part of your argument.

The closest felony-level event you may have here is accessory before the fact, and as you cannot show that the person in question had any willful participation in the event in question you cannot show this.

And so, your idea that failure to properly store a gun that is stolen and then used in a crime should be charged as a felony stands completely outside established law and is absurd on its face.

The original question was would you be in favor of this...

Obviously not, for tthe reason stated.

Now that you've pathetically tried to use this to establish how clever you think you are, have a lovely day.

Tuck that tail nice and tight as you run away.

I'm not going anywhere.

However, you seem to have this strange desire to want to declare vistory versus discussing the topic.

Personally, I find that rather unusual and a waste of my time to indulge whatever fantasies you seem to have about yourself.

 

[Spoonman]

Texas 4-year-old dead after shooting himself with father?s gun | The Raw Story

“This is not a case of a responsible homeowner having a weapon for protection,”

“He kept saying, ‘I messed up. I messed up,’” Harris explained. “He’s in mourning. He’s in pain and feels a lot of self guilt… Despite the choices he made and the lifestyle he was leading, it doesn’t take away the love a father has for a son.”

These horror stories don't seem to result in the nutters looking at their own choices and making responsible choices.

The father should be charged. He knew what he was doing, he knew the possible consequences of his choice and he did it anyway. He should be held responsible.

Really, I think if the gun nuts were always held responsible for their insane choices, we just might be looking at a different situation.

frigging car nuts

Father runs over, kills daughter in driveway | CharlotteObserver.com

Arizona Police Hunt for Muslim Father Who Ran Over 'Westernized' Daughter - ABC News

Dad accidentally runs over 2-year-old daughter in Clarksville - WSMV Channel 4

Father accidentally runs over daughter, 2, in driveway - WKRN, Nashville News, Nashville Weather and Sports

Father accidentally runs over, kills son | son, accidentally, father - Victorville Daily Press

Sand Springs Father Runs Over Son While Off-Roading - NewsOn6.com - Tulsa, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports - KOTV.com |

USWebDaily.com is Back - Following News Happening Now.

Father's Day double tragedy as 2 dads in California run over and kill their children | Mail Online

 

[M14 Shooter]

The original question was would you be in favor of this...

Obviously not, for tthe reason stated.

Now that you've pathetically tried to use this to establish how clever you think you are, have a lovely day.

Tuck that tail nice and tight as you run away.

I'm not going anywhere.

Says he whio has had his question answered and is now apparently unwilling to continue the conversation.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The simple irrefutable fact of this accident is that the kid is dead because of his parent's negligence and not because of gun ownership.

Let's put the considerable blame where it belongs.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

Obviously not, for tthe reason stated.


Tuck that tail nice and tight as you run away.

I'm not going anywhere.

Says he whio has had his question answered and is now apparently unwilling to continue the conversation.

For the sake of intellectual honesty, if you're at all concerned about that, would you reply to my entire post.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm not going anywhere.

Says he whio has had his question answered and is now apparently unwilling to continue the conversation.

For the sake of intellectual honesty, if you're at all concerned about that, would you reply to my entire post.

Says he whio has had his question answered and is now apparently unwilling to continue the conversation.
Keep that tail in tight.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

Says he whio has had his question answered and is now apparently unwilling to continue the conversation.

For the sake of intellectual honesty, if you're at all concerned about that, would you reply to my entire post.

Says he whio has had his question answered and is now apparently unwilling to continue the conversation.
Keep that tail in tight.

And you keep posting the same damned thing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

For the sake of intellectual honesty, if you're at all concerned about that, would you reply to my entire post.

Says he whio has had his question answered and is now apparently unwilling to continue the conversation.
Keep that tail in tight.

And you keep posting the same damned thing.

Because you clearly have decided you no long want to continue the conversation, now that the question has been answered. Scurry along now.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

Says he whio has had his question answered and is now apparently unwilling to continue the conversation.
Keep that tail in tight.

And you keep posting the same damned thing.

Because you clearly have decided you no long want to continue the conversation, now that the question has been answered. Scurry along now.

You're becoming tedious.

Ask me a question and I'll be more than happy to answer it.

Otherwise, please go piss up a rope, Mr 'Patriot'.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And you keep posting the same damned thing.

Because you clearly have decided you no long want to continue the conversation, now that the question has been answered. Scurry along now.

You're becoming tedious.
Ask me a question and I'll be more than happy to answer it.
Otherwise, please go piss up a rope.

I answered your question, and gave reason for that answer..
Since you have as yet to address that answer and the reason given for it, I can only conclude you find my response to be sound, and have accepted it as such.
Thank you.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

Because you clearly have decided you no long want to continue the conversation, now that the question has been answered. Scurry along now.

You're becoming tedious.
Ask me a question and I'll be more than happy to answer it.
Otherwise, please go piss up a rope.

I answered your question, and gave reason for that answer..
Since you have as yet to address that answer and the reason given for it, I can only conclude you find my response to be sound, and have accepted it as such.
Thank you.

Child, please.

You didn't like my answer, couldn't respond and instead have started claiming I'm "running" because you have no reasonable answer.