wrote:
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 14:27:43 -0500, Jim wrote:


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.



You still can't ignore the fact that one for one, cars kill more
people than guns.


If we were talking about car safety you'd have a point.
But every time anybody talks about a 3 year-old blowing his brains out
with a gun, everybody starts talking about cars, stones, knives, and the
National Electric Code.
Why is that?

What is your solution?

It was right there and I left it above.
Since the idiot lost his own kid, I wouldn't even take his job, just put
him on a desk and never let him touch another firearm.
Same as drunk drivers can lose their license forever.
If the kid's mother says daddy should be jailed she can tell that to the DA.

Jim - Fair and balanced.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 14:27:43 -0500, Jim wrote:

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.

I already agreed with JPS in my first response. Throw him in jail.
What do you want from me?

You still can't ignore the fact that one for one, cars kill more
people than guns.

We have a lot more guns than cars and the death toll is about 20%
higher with cars. in spite of the fact that cars are about the most
highly regulated things in the country. We license the cars, we
license the users, we regulate the manufacturers, we recall defective
cars, improve the safety of the roads and we patrol the roads with
hundreds of thousands of cops 24/7.

If you take out suicide and criminal on criminal murders guns are not
even in the running. Swimming pools kill a lot more kids under 5 than
guns.
What is your solution?

Sounds like your solution is to stop regulating cars. Cars kill more people
because more people in the US use cars per day/per week/per year than people
use guns.

Why would you take criminal murder of guns off the table when considering
gun deaths?

On 9/18/10 8:54 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:07:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Knives are designed to kill. Swords are designed to kill. Arrows are
designed to kill. It is not the object it is the intent of the user of
the object. The object just makes it easier and faster for the user to
implement his intent.



No they aren't. They're designed to cut. Some swords are ceremonial. Arrows?
Like this: --- Seems harmless enough.


There are ceremonial guns too, what's your point?
A sword is just a weapon for killing people, good for nothing else.
You can't even say people hunt with swords.


You obviously haven't seen that show on Versus..."Swordslashing that
Deer to an Easy, Sportsmanlike Death"

It takes a brave man to hunt defenseless animals... :)

On 9/18/10 9:03 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 16:25:45 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 14:33:56 -0400, wrote:




It is called freedom. Once we decide it is OK to ban something because
it might hurt someone where do you stop.

WTF? that's WHY we ban stuff....speeding...drunk driving...mixing
chemicals in your basement...

did you think about that before you wrote it?

Yes I did and the question still stands

Lots of people get killed in cars and are not speeding or drunk. They
were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Everyone mixes chemicals and I bet you have lethal ones under your
kitchen sink. Should we ban bleach? There are at least a dozen other
things around the house you can mix with bleach and create massive
amounts of chlorine gas. "This bleach is not getting the soap scum out
of the shower, maybe a little ammonia will help" and the paramedics
find the body.

They are on the news this week saying they should not be able to sell
cough medicine because a couple kids drank a quart of it and died.

Where do you stop?


But...that chlorine gas sure removes the soap scum...

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 16:25:45 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 14:33:56 -0400, wrote:




It is called freedom. Once we decide it is OK to ban something because
it might hurt someone where do you stop.

WTF? that's WHY we ban stuff....speeding...drunk driving...mixing
chemicals in your basement...

did you think about that before you wrote it?

Yes I did and the question still stands

Lots of people get killed in cars and are not speeding or drunk. They
were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Everyone mixes chemicals and I bet you have lethal ones under your
kitchen sink. Should we ban bleach? There are at least a dozen other
things around the house you can mix with bleach and create massive
amounts of chlorine gas. "This bleach is not getting the soap scum out
of the shower, maybe a little ammonia will help" and the paramedics
find the body.

They are on the news this week saying they should not be able to sell
cough medicine because a couple kids drank a quart of it and died.

Where do you stop?

So, you don't think we should ban some really nasty pesticides?

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:07:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Knives are designed to kill. Swords are designed to kill. Arrows are
designed to kill. It is not the object it is the intent of the user of
the object. The object just makes it easier and faster for the user to
implement his intent.



No they aren't. They're designed to cut. Some swords are ceremonial.
Arrows?
Like this: --- Seems harmless enough.


There are ceremonial guns too, what's your point?
A sword is just a weapon for killing people, good for nothing else.
You can't even say people hunt with swords.

Not for mass killing. That's the point of restricting guns or bullets.

"Secular Humorist" wrote in message
...
On 9/18/10 8:54 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:07:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Knives are designed to kill. Swords are designed to kill. Arrows are
designed to kill. It is not the object it is the intent of the user of
the object. The object just makes it easier and faster for the user to
implement his intent.



No they aren't. They're designed to cut. Some swords are ceremonial.
Arrows?
Like this: --- Seems harmless enough.


There are ceremonial guns too, what's your point?
A sword is just a weapon for killing people, good for nothing else.
You can't even say people hunt with swords.


You obviously haven't seen that show on Versus..."Swordslashing that Deer
to an Easy, Sportsmanlike Death"

It takes a brave man to hunt defenseless animals... :)

Yeah, I knew a guy who hunted deer with a bow/arrow... a whole different
sport from guys driving around in ATVs.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 15:16:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

You still can't ignore the fact that one for one, cars kill more
people than guns.

We have a lot more guns than cars and the death toll is about 20%
higher with cars. in spite of the fact that cars are about the most
highly regulated things in the country. We license the cars, we
license the users, we regulate the manufacturers, we recall defective
cars, improve the safety of the roads and we patrol the roads with
hundreds of thousands of cops 24/7.

If you take out suicide and criminal on criminal murders guns are not
even in the running. Swimming pools kill a lot more kids under 5 than
guns.
What is your solution?

Sounds like your solution is to stop regulating cars. Cars kill more
people
because more people in the US use cars per day/per week/per year than
people
use guns.

No but where is the outrage when someone runs over a kid with a car?
They certainly are not looking for jail time if the driver is not a 3
time loser drunk.

Not necessarily. It depends on the circumstances, obviously.


Why would you take criminal murder of guns off the table when considering
gun deaths?

Because criminals do not care about gun laws. It has exactly zero
effect on how they do business. If you banned guns, it would only give
them another lucrative business to get into.
Name one thing that has ever been banned and became unavailable.

Actually it does. Mostly, unfortunately after the fact of the crime, but
that's better than nothing. The point is to reduce the number of guns
available... to secure them better as well.

It's not a matter of being unavailable. It's a matter of no longer being
used or minimally being used. Few things are absolute, except maybe vodka.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:06:09 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
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).

So, to hell with child safety? That's what you're arguing for... let's go
back to the robber barrons...

http://tinyurl.com/2f57cwl


We already have a buttload of swimming pool rules but drowning it is
still the biggest cause of death for toddlers. (mostly because people
disconnect the pool alarm and leave the door open) Again, should we
throw grandma in jail for it?
The question is where do you stop?

Should we require a fence on your boat dock and all the way down the
canal? How about a fence around every lake and pond? (BTW that has
been suggested here after a kid drown in a lake)

Should we require stoves have locks on them so kids can't turn them on
and burn themselves? (a couple thousand a year)

How about child safety locks on lamp holders so kids can't unscrew the
bulb and stick their finger in the hole (again there have been NEC
proposals to ban edison lamp sockets as the incandescent bulbs are
phased out).



Nope... http://www.statisticstop10.com/Cause..._Toddlers.html

Feel free to cite ridiculous examples.

jps wrote:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 21:47:18 -0400, wrote:


jps wrote:

On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 22:39:38 -0400, wrote:



On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 15:41:01 -0700, wrote:



On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 18:31:43 -0400, wrote:



On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:09:17 -0400, Secular Humorist
wrote:



A three year old is killed while playing with one of daddy's loaded guns
and you call it an accident? It was negligence at the very least. The
father should be brought up on criminal charges.


I don't disagree as I said in my last note but being devil's advocate,
would you feel the same way if the kid found the car keys and drove
the car out in front of a school bus full of handicapped kids, driven
by a pregnant woman?


The even bigger question is how does the three year old tell the
difference between your example bus and a bus filled with normal kids
being driven by a barren woman?

Given the choice, what which bus would the three year old hit?


OK I just threw in the school bus, the handicapped kids and the
pregnant woman to push as many buttons as possible but back to the
point

Would you throw a parent in jail if their kid found the car keys, got
in the car and killed themselves someone else?
It is a similar weapon, potentially deadly for whoever it hits.
There is only one kind of dead.


My point is: That this trouble with guns is so out of control that
our best answer to negligence in gun safety has us prosecuting parents
of dead kids?

WTF is wrong with this picture?

The cat is out of the bag and now we're coming up with idiotic answers
because lawmakers are too scared of the gun lobby, it's money and
political clout.


Darwinism.

You're going to use darwin to explain the death of a 3 year old?

No, Dawinism. Big difference.