BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

jps

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:15:53 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:01:36 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 8/14/12 11:59 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 00:19:35 -0700, jps wrote:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 20:50:02 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 12:55:31 -0700, jps wrote:

Had a gun, Earl. Decided I didn't want it around in the same house as
my children.

I hope you also filled in your pool. (the leading cause of child death
in the US)

Greg, a pool in the Pacific NW doesn't make much sense. My kids play
soccer, I have the medical bills to prove it.

I hope you don't take them there in your car. Child death in motor
vehicle accidents are 30-50 times as likely as a firearm accident.
(according to CDC)

Oh, please...you are making no sense at all anymore on this issue.

JP is the one who said her got rid of his gun because it was a
perceived hazard to his kids. I am simply pointing out where the real
accident hazards are. (and the leading cause of deaths are accidents)
From 1-4 the biggest hazard is drowning. From 5-24 it is motor vehicle
accidents in every 5 year cohort by a long shot. 25-34 it is
"poisoning" which I assume is CDC speak for drug overdose.

Yikes. We use a car every single day. In fact, several times a day.
We don't use it to blast holes in things, we use it to get from one
location to another.

A gun would be locked away someplace safe and rarely, if ever brought
out. The hazard is in someone getting a hold of the combination or
the safe itself. You might have noticed that kids can be clever,
ingenious and incredibly stupid. Thieves don't care if a gun is
dangerous, they're going to steal it if available.

How you can equate the two is beyond foolish - a tool of the simple
minded who do not understand corollation doesn't equal causation.

I don't think that's you but you're willing to use this lazy
simplemindedness in lieu of an actual argument.