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.

On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 21:47:18 -0400, LG 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?

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?

In article ,
says...

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?

Yes!

--
OH, I could do the 105 footer, but I would hate to waste the last few
seconds of my life with my eyes closed, screaming like a little
girl...

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.

In article , says...

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.

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.

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article , says...

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.

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.

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... :)

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.

In article ,
says...

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.

I've seen military swords used to cut wedding and birthday cakes.