BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

jps

On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 12:17:05 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 22:46:33 -0700, jps wrote:

On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 21:37:04 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 14:06:12 -0700, jps wrote:

Maybe they'll make it part of XGames or the Olympics!

A northern Indiana man has pleaded guilty to criminal charges after
killing his fiancee’s 3-year-old son while they were playing a “gun
game” in their Michigan City home.

Authorities said Zachariah Grisham, 24, frequently played a game in
which he would point a real gun at the boy while child would point an
imaginary gun back.

Grisham shot the boy in the head in September 2013. He told police he
forgot his gun was loaded and pulled the trigger.

Grisham pleaded guilty Thursday to a felony charge of child neglect.
He was originally charged with both child neglect and reckless
homicide.

Authorities said the shooting wasn’t intentional.

“It did not meet the qualifications of murder. It’s a very unfortunate
incident,” LaPorte County Deputy Prosecutor Dave Ambers told The Times
of Northwest Indiana.

Grisham faces up to 12 years in prison.

A guy ****ed up and he is going to jail, what's your point?

If everyone who killed his kid doing something stupid in a car went to
jail we would run out of places to build prisons pretty quickly.

Let's assume that whatever was happened in your hypothetical car trip
was in service of getting people from one place to another, when
something ****ed up. Or, are you saying that parents regularly take
their kids out in the car expressly to play games of chicken?

Please explain what purpose there is in playing games with guns?

If people didn't "play games" with cars everyone would be driving a
Corolla (or some other "sensible" car).
If we put the same kind of restrictions on cars you want on guns they
would have 5 point seat belts for all occupants, there would be speed
governors, biometric sensors to be sure only authorized drivers were
driving, high performance cars would be banned and we would all have
to wear helmets.

It would certainly save lives (more than gun restrictions) and you
could still get back and forth to work "unhindered".

That's baloney. There's no test for owning a firearm, you don't have
to know the laws, you just go in and fill out the paperwork and if
you're not a felon, you get a gun.

Not one state allows you to operated a car without proper training.

Your analogy doesn't hold water. In other words that dog won't hunt.