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

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

I agree but look at the post above yours, where a posted lists deaths in car accidents. Dumb, I know but ...

As we became educated in the fact that cars can and do cause injury and death, we didn't run away. Instead, we passed laws and changed the design of cars, cutting car-related deaths and injuries.

DUH.

Why are some people too stupid, ignorant, apathetic or just plain cantankerous to realize the same thing should and can be done with guns.

Its a moot point because as many as **95% of all Americans are in favor of working to mitigate gun related deaths and injuries. The nutters can whine all they want but it WILL happen.

**Heard this figure on the news this morning.

Not all deaths/injuries will be averted just as not all car deaths/injuries have been. Why should that equate to not trying?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Another really stupid "argument" from the nutters is that all mass shootings take place in "gun free zones". I bought a new car yesterday, had to wait in line at Motor Vehicle. Big sign on the door,

The nutters will be disappointed to know that no mass shooting took place.

 

[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.

I agree but look at the post above yours, where a posted lists deaths in car accidents. Dumb, I know but ...

As we became educated in the fact that cars can and do cause injury and death, we didn't run away. Instead, we passed laws and changed the design of cars, cutting car-related deaths and injuries.

DUH.

Why are some people too stupid, ignorant, apathetic or just plain cantankerous to realize the same thing should and can be done with guns.

Its a moot point because as many as **95% of all Americans are in favor of working to mitigate gun related deaths and injuries. The nutters can whine all they want but it WILL happen.

**Heard this figure on the news this morning.

Not all deaths/injuries will be averted just as not all car deaths/injuries have been. Why should that equate to not trying?

How are you going to change the design of a gun so it can't harm people?

Your analogy, just like all car/gun analogies doesn't work.

The act of owning a car has never been restricted for safety purposes. I can go out and buy any car I can afford any time I want. I do not even need a driver's license to buy a car. I do not have to register a car.

If we were to use your analogy then we would mandate that everyone who lives in a household with a gun wear bullet proof clothing at all times.

The kid's parents are the guilty people here not all gun owners.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Since you've been awfully busy demonstrating how petulant of an ass you are, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you suimply missed my answer to your question.

Your question:
Are you in favor of charging any person, who has his/her gun used in the commission of crime, with a felony...?

My response:
The closest felony-level event you may have here is accessory before the fact; as you cannot show that the person in question had any willful participation in the event in question you cannot show said accessory.

As your idea that failure to properly store a gun which is then stolen and used in a crime should be charged as a felony stands completely outside established law and thus absurd on its face, I disagree with your idea in full.

You may now continue to refuse to engage in meaningful conversation.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

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.

Since you've been awfully busy demonstrating how petulant of an ass you are, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you suimply missed my answer to your question.

Your question:
Are you in favor of charging any person, who has his/her gun used in the commission of crime, with a felony...?

My response:
The closest felony-level event you may have here is accessory before the fact; as you cannot show that the person in question had any willful participation in the event in question you cannot show said accessory.

As your idea that failure to properly store a gun which is then stolen and used in a crime should be charged as a felony stands completely outside established law and thus absurd on its face, I disagree with your idea in full.

You may now continue to refuse to engage in meaningful conversation.

There's really nothing to engage.

I want to make gun owners responsible for their weapons. You aobviously do not.

What exactly is there to discuss?

 

[martybegan]

Another really stupid "argument" from the nutters is that all mass shootings take place in "gun free zones". I bought a new car yesterday, had to wait in line at Motor Vehicle. Big sign on the door,

The nutters will be disappointed to know that no mass shooting took place.

Were there armed guards at the DMV?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Since you've been awfully busy demonstrating how petulant of an ass you are, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you suimply missed my answer to your question.

Your question:
Are you in favor of charging any person, who has his/her gun used in the commission of crime, with a felony...?

My response:
The closest felony-level event you may have here is accessory before the fact; as you cannot show that the person in question had any willful participation in the event in question you cannot show said accessory.

As your idea that failure to properly store a gun which is then stolen and used in a crime should be charged as a felony stands completely outside established law and thus absurd on its face, I disagree with your idea in full.

You may now continue to refuse to engage in meaningful conversation.

There's really nothing to engage.
I want to make gun owners responsible for their weapons. You aobviously do not.

False dichotomy - that to disagree with your idea means that I do not want to make gun owners responsible for their weapons.

When you come up with an idea to make gun owners responsible for their weapons that does not stand completely outside established law and is therefore not absurd on its face, let us know -- else, all you do present here is nonsense.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

Since you've been awfully busy demonstrating how petulant of an ass you are, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you suimply missed my answer to your question.

Your question:
Are you in favor of charging any person, who has his/her gun used in the commission of crime, with a felony...?

My response:
The closest felony-level event you may have here is accessory before the fact; as you cannot show that the person in question had any willful participation in the event in question you cannot show said accessory.

As your idea that failure to properly store a gun which is then stolen and used in a crime should be charged as a felony stands completely outside established law and thus absurd on its face, I disagree with your idea in full.

You may now continue to refuse to engage in meaningful conversation.

There's really nothing to engage.
I want to make gun owners responsible for their weapons. You aobviously do not.

False dichotomy - that to disagree with your idea means that I do not want to make gun owners responsible for their weapons.

When you come up with an idea to make gun owners responsible for their weapons that does not stand completely outside established law and is therefore not absurd on its face, let us know -- else, all you do present here is nonsense.

Obviously not outside proposed law...

New Gun Bill Would Require Owners To Report Lost, Stolen Guns - Philadelphia News, Weather and Sports from WTXF FOX 29

 

[M14 Shooter]

There's really nothing to engage.
I want to make gun owners responsible for their weapons. You aobviously do not.

False dichotomy - that to disagree with your idea means that I do not want to make gun owners responsible for their weapons.

When you come up with an idea to make gun owners responsible for their weapons that does not stand completely outside established law and is therefore not absurd on its face, let us know -- else, all you do present here is nonsense.

Obviously not outside proposed law...

-Nothing- is outside "proposed" law.

Thank you for more nonsense.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

False dichotomy - that to disagree with your idea means that I do not want to make gun owners responsible for their weapons.

When you come up with an idea to make gun owners responsible for their weapons that does not stand completely outside established law and is therefore not absurd on its face, let us know -- else, all you do present here is nonsense.

Obviously not outside proposed law...

-Nothing- is outside "proposed" law.

Thank you for more nonsense.

Do you support this proposed law, Mr Patriot, or is it too onerous a task for gun owners to report a lost or stolen weapon?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Obviously not outside proposed law...

-Nothing- is outside "proposed" law.

Thank you for more nonsense.

Do you support this proposed law...

Good to see you've given up on the abject silliness you presented here -- even if you won't admit it.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

-Nothing- is outside "proposed" law.

Thank you for more nonsense.

Do you support this proposed law...

Good to see...

I'll take this law.

Now do you support it or not, Mr Patriot. (By the way, where are you stationed?)

Pretty simple question. I'm sure a person of your unlimited intelligence can formulate an answer.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do you support this proposed law...

Good to see...

I'll take this law.

Of course you will -- without meaninful thought or consideration, just as you did your other silly idea.

That you will take this law, given your performance on this topic, is meaningless to me, other than to further support my supposition that you jump onto that you consider "good ideas" withougt well, any meaninful thought or consideration.

Tell me:
Under what other conditions/circumstances are we required to report stolen personal items, and when are we charged with a felony when we fail to do so?

 

[ArmyCowboy]

Good to see...

I'll take this law.

Of course you will --

Answer my question first.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'll take this law.

Of course you will --

Answer my question first.

Fail. Thanks foir playing!

 

[The Infidel]

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.

Where and when did you tell the rest of the story... The gun was illegal. The dad was a drug dealer who fell asleep with his weapon sitting where the child could play with it.

This guy CAN NOT BE & WILL NOT BE compared to a LAW ABIDING citizen who is already following the existing restrictions.

No new law would have stopped this tragedy... NONE!
This asshole of a "dad" caused his sons death -- NOT THE DAMN GUN!!

 

[ArmyCowboy]

Of course you will --

Answer my question first.

Fail. !

How totally expected.

Now run along little boy and keep pretending you're a "patriot."

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Another really stupid "argument" from the nutters is that all mass shootings take place in "gun free zones". I bought a new car yesterday, had to wait in line at Motor Vehicle. Big sign on the door,

The nutters will be disappointed to know that no mass shooting took place.

Were there armed guards at the DMV?

No.

Armed fucking guards??? What are you? NUTS?? This isn't Iran, you know.

There's a basic truth in all this. Get ready to write this down:

We need guns because we have guns.

Now, don't get your panties in a twist. I'm not suggesting anything be done about that fact. I'm simply stating that its a fact.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Answer my question first.

Fail. !

How totally expected.

Says he who wiped the snot off his nose long enough to respond with "Nuh-UH!! I asked you FIRST!"

Your failure to dicsuss the issues like an adult is noted; I thank you for making it very clear I need not waste any more time on you.

 

[ArmyCowboy]