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?

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

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

On 9/17/10 12:13 PM, 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.


Fretwell doesn't want anything done about anything, because everything
is morally equivalent. Or some such nonsense.

In article ,
says...
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.


Fretwell doesn't want anything done about anything, because everything
is morally equivalent. Or some such nonsense.


It is called freedom. Once we decide it is OK to ban something because
it might hurt someone where do you stop. Cars kill as many as guns.
Why not start there? How about banning boats? Maybe just restricting
them to 5 MPH? Oops, that has already happened here over hundreds of
square miles., not to save humans, to save manatees.



http://www.nj.com/hobokennow/index.s..._woman_says_bo
yfrie.html

Ban all cats!

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 12:16:39 -0400, Secular Humorist
wrote:

On 9/17/10 12:13 PM, 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.


Fretwell doesn't want anything done about anything, because everything
is morally equivalent. Or some such nonsense.


It is called freedom. Once we decide it is OK to ban something because
it might hurt someone where do you stop. Cars kill as many as guns.
Why not start there? How about banning boats? Maybe just restricting
them to 5 MPH? Oops, that has already happened here over hundreds of
square miles., not to save humans, to save manatees.



Completely fallacious argument. By that logic, we should have no
regulations, no criminal laws, and total anarchy.

Oops... we already have speed limits for cars. Get used to it!

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?

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 18:19:23 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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?


We have. The unintended consequence is the mosquito became the most
dangerous animal in the 3d world.

Come on. http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/

On Sep 19, 1:38*am, wrote:
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 22:12:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume"

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

We have. The unintended consequence is the mosquito became the most
dangerous animal in the 3d world.

Come on.http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/

DDT was not really dangerous to people. That was it's selling point.
The reason it was banned was the effect on birds.
(Read Rachel Carson's book)
Like a lot of things the knee jerk was out of proportion to the
problem. Because we thought DDT was safe we were pumping tons of it
into the environment without any thoughts about the effect and any
control on it's use. There are lots of people who think that if we
would use it with the same controls we use with other poisons these
days it would be safer than what we use. Your link to dioixin is a
good example.
Some say there are no safe insecticides. After all it is poison.
If you are talking about some third world countries we are talking
about millions of people dying from diseases spread by insects that
could be controlled more safely with DDT in very small doses.
This is not me talking, it is respected world health authorities.

Howabout Chloradane (sp?). That stuff really doesn't hurt the
environment, it was basically banned because workers were using it
wrong and killing themselves in the fields. They would spray and rub
the trees and next thing you know, they find them dead in the field.
At least that is what I was told by a bug guy. I had a gallon of it
years ago, it was incredible. A quater cup or so in a gallon of water
and it even took out ground bees, all of em, dead or gone...