Mock

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212

Cars, I agreed with everything in your post up until you said the gun was just the tool.

The gun provides a safe, easy, FAST way for cowards to do their killing.

Can you sneak up on one or two people and knife 'em to death? Could you use a machete, hand grenade, etc? Sure.

But why is the gun the chosen tool for inflicting mass carnage? For the reasons I stated above.

If the little creep in Charleston pulled out a knife, even at a Bible study, do you think he'd have killed 9? Or even 1, knowing what a pansy-ass he appeared to be?

Gun lovers try to deflect and say it's not the gun. It is the gun, folks. It's designed to kill things.

(07-01-2015, 04:19 AM)Cutz Wrote: [ -> ]My problem with it is that you're still making guns the culprit when you're aiming gun lockup laws at protecting against negligence.

Good news for you Cutz -- you really don't have a problem at all, it's all in your head.

You won't find one post where I made the gun, rather than the negligent adult, the culprit. I haven't suggested charging guns with negligence and throwing all those tools (the guns) in the clink. I haven't suggested that guns be taken from any individuals or households with children.

Rather, I've stated that adults (you know, the "culprits") should be prosecuted for negligence every time their small children get a hold of their loaded weapons and fire.

(07-01-2015, 04:19 AM)Cutz Wrote: [ -> ]You're never going to pass federal legislation with the gun lobbyists out there. If your goal is negligence, make federal negligence laws for any case where kids die because they weren't supervised properly. You'll save a lot more kids with a lot less opposition.

I do agree with FU's take tho. Getting the NRA on a gun-safety kick, as you mentioned, would be the best bet. Improve their image and make the community more aware.

I don't know why you're telling me what I already stated in terms of a specific federal law being impossible to pass in the CURRENT environment, but thank you for your agreement.

If a parent causes the violent death of their small child by any means (except via gun negligence) they are almost certainly charged and prosecuted anywhere in this country. There should not be an exception for unintentional firearm shootings. IMO, the only reason there is such an exception is because of backwards rationale, politics and special interests being prioritized over the young victims. That's messed up and needs to change.

It's nothing less than gross negligence by the adults when they leave a loaded deadly weapon in reach of small children; nothing less in the eyes of any objective mentally-sound adult, in any state. But, in many cases where a gun is fired by a small child and it leads to death/injury, that gross negligence on the part of the adult is rationalized or a blind eye is turned to it and the parents are positioned as the victims.

Times change and opposition can be overcome; happens all the time. For example, lesbian couples are getting legally married all over the country today despite decades of strong individual, special interest, and political opposition to same-sex marriage.

If one of those married lesbian couples leaves a loaded gun in reach of their small child and the child fires it, maybe one day in the not too distant future that couple will undoubtedly be charged and prosecuted for neglect because they violated a nationwide mandate regarding gun safety.

Better yet, maybe the fact that the parents were required, by specific law, to practice child gun safety (lest face guaranteed neglect charges in case of an "accident") will have prompted them to keep loaded guns out of their child's reach in the first place.

Giving up on good causes just because there is opposition is for losers.

(07-01-2015, 02:01 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]I would like to see negligence laws applied and enforced consistently across the country in regards to children unintentionally injuring or killing themselves/others with loaded guns. Charges should be brought in all cases; it shouldn't matter whether the state is strict or lax when it comes to gun control.

Just all cases involving guns? Or do we apply the negligence laws for all child deaths, without regard to what caused the death or injury?

(07-01-2015, 02:01 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]If you go back and read the stories in this thread about deaths caused by children shooting guns, you'll see that most of the parents appear to be otherwise generally decent law-abiding people and parents. They were also undoubtedly negligent in leaving their loaded guns in reach of their children and, IMO, should all have been charged (despite their self-inflicted anguish).

They're equally as negligent when they don't belt them in a car properly, fail to latch a pool gate, walk away while they are in a bathtub, fall asleep while smoking... so do we hold all accidental child deaths to the same standard?

I'm not being a pro-gun zealot here either... just trying to point out that whether it's a gun in the nightstand or a parent talking on the phone while their kid drowns in a pool, the negligence is the same.

Interesting debate.

I've already given my opinion in regards to your questions upthread Jimbone.

Can/should lackadaisical be considered/called neglect?

(07-01-2015, 10:55 AM)Carsman Wrote: [ -> ]Can/should lackadaisical be considered/called neglect?

Yes. Being "apathetic or careless" is considered negligence when it comes to known safety risks Cars.

(07-01-2015, 10:55 AM)Carsman Wrote: [ -> ]Can/should lackadaisical be considered/called neglect?

Yes. If a child is hurt or killed while under the supervision of any adult that adult should face charges.

Parents have entrusted their children with me before and you cannot take your eyes off them for a nano second. They require a safe environment in order to be safe!

So in summary, this is about adult negligence while supervising children, and its criminality.

(07-01-2015, 11:24 AM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]So in summary, this is about adult negligence while supervising children, and its criminality.

I think a lot of it is, yeah but I feel the same way if an adult lets their fucked in the head family member get ahold of a gun too.

(07-01-2015, 11:24 AM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]So in summary, this is about adult negligence while supervising children, and its criminality.

As it relates to gun safety, yes.

(07-01-2015, 07:54 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]I don't understand what changed since I was a kid. I mean my parents had firearms all over the place [ my dad was a gun dealer]. Ammo everywhere. Taught me how to shoot and reload ammo by the time I was 7. We watched old shoot-em-up westerns, or war movies. We all had toy guns and played cowboys and indians, played war, had bb gun wars. But we weren't shooting each other or our self with real firearms. What has changed that make kids now a days do it where as we did not ? If we could find the answer to that question we might also find the answer.

Little kids have always been shooting themselves with loaded guns, there just wasn't as much coverage and awareness of the problem back when you were a kid.

Because the CODs are all over the board, it's impossible to say with certainty whether it's happening more or less these days. I think some modern guns are easier to fire, and that may result in younger children pulling the trigger more frequently than in the past. But, it might also be true that more modern guns have safeties, so it's happening less frequently. In either case, the fact is that it is happening.

Just because a problem wasn't in the public eye back in the day, doesn't mean it didn't exist, obviously. It is however wrong not to address it rationally today and instead deny it exists, try to justify it rather than solve it, or ignore it altogether when the problem results in serious harm or death to children, IMO.

(07-01-2015, 11:34 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]As it relates to gun safety, yes.

I know you directed me upthread, and I did read your call for a comprehensive Child Safety Law. I thought you meant all negligence in that post. But it's just gun safety I guess? Or only because we're in the gun thread?

Also, I kind of feel like existing laws cover this sort of thing. I think the thing missing or what is maybe most upsetting to you is that prosecutors choose not pursue charges in some of these instances. It's not that there are no legal remedies, rather the legal system sometime decides against pursuing them.

Again, just my $.02

I'm up to $.04 now I guess.

(07-01-2015, 10:21 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]Giving up on good causes just because there is opposition is for losers.

Amen, Sister Hair!

If we listened to all of the naysayers, no positive changes are ever made and, as a society, we remain stagnant and powerless. Thank goodness, for forward thinkers, and who want to make our world safer and more peaceful for all of us. Do we really want a reputation as a violent, gun slinging society.

Those of you who are responsible gun owners, need to join the fight to make it more difficult to get that gun. Your arguments re children dying from gun "accidents" every day, are not valid when you try to use analogies which just don't apply to the issue being discussed on this thread.......

Making it more difficult to obtain a gun, does reduce gun violence according to documented studies. I know many children would still be alive today who died because they found a loaded gun. Every documentary shown on the major TV networks, concerning small children picking up guns, when told not to, do pick them up, and point them at someone, and pull the trigger, much to the amazement of their parents who are watching from another room.

We are not discussing, auto accidents, physical abuse, beatings, abortion, etc.......GUNS on this here thread......

I don't think it's difficult to follow what I've posted, Jimbone, whether you agree it with or not or whether you choose to look at it in a narrow or broad context.

If it is difficult, don't worry about it.

All you've lost is 4 pennies.

Your condescension is noted.

^ Gold star. You understood that on the first try. Smiley_emoticons_wink

Now x2! So clever and intellectual!

I understand it's easier than trying to explain yourself, or why you think existing laws that prosecutors choose not to use in these instances don't cover it.

Or why on one hand you throw other negligence in as something that should be prosecuted, then are condescending to someone who asks if that's what we're really discussing, or just negligence with regard to firearms.

I get it, you're not interested in my $.02, $.04, or other sense. That's nothing new.

Keep calm and condescend on!

Yeah, Jimbone, I haven't explained myself at all, several times.

I meant what I posted just upthread.

If you really don't get it, don't worry about it. Write it off to my inability to articulate or something.

Keeping calm really isn't difficult either. Try it.

You're doing it again, so the third time is a charm obviously.

I have no problem remaining calm, thanks for the tip though.

If you ever feel like addressing why current laws are no good and why prosecutors don't use them, we're all eyes to read about it.

(07-01-2015, 06:50 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]why prosecutors don't use them

I'd be interested in knowing why. They do the same damn thing when a baby is left to cook in a car. Sometimes they prosecute but many times they don't and will say something to the effect of "we can't punish them anymore than they punish themselves". That's nuts to me.

Midwest Spy

HairOfTheDog

Jimbone

HairOfTheDog

Carsman

HairOfTheDog

Duchess

Jimbone

Duchess

HairOfTheDog

HairOfTheDog

Jimbone

blueberryhill

HairOfTheDog

Jimbone

HairOfTheDog

Jimbone

HairOfTheDog

Jimbone

Duchess