BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

Jim

wrote:
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:33:11 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...
You're going to use darwin to explain the death of a 3 year old?

Should the parents of a 3 year old who is not in a car seat be thrown in
jail if the child is killed in an accident?

Again, just like the gun, they would charge the parent in Florida for
a child not in a car seat. I suppose that is OK too.
In the infamous "moral equivalency" business, what is the difference?

We have decided there are no accidents, only criminal offenses, if a
kid is killed.
I suppose you know, the National Electrical Code now requires all
receptacles are child proof (shuttered).

What a load of BS.
You're qualifying as a gun-nut real fast.
You and the others talking about rocks, knives and cars are just full of
****. Probably just don't like jps.
Got nothing to do "moral equivalency."
Got nothing to do with rocks, cars, knives or electricity.
They ain't designed to kill.
Guns are designed to kill.
The purpose of a gun is to kill.
And for daddy, it worked as designed on his 3 year-old.
There was no ****ing "accident."
The gun worked perfectly and did its job.

Daddy did no different than if he ushered a lion or grizzly bear into
his 3 year-old's bedroom and shut the door.
I don't care one way or another about guns.
Outlaw them or make everybody carry. Probably won't make difference.
But it really takes a gun nut to defend this prick daddy.
I don't say throw him in jail, because he killed his own blood.
If it was neighbors kid he should get 20 years in the clink.
But he should never be allowed to possess a firearm again.
You're either for "personal responsibility" or you ain't.

Jim - Lame arguments are still better than name-calling I say.