Boy, 4, Accidentally Killed During Target Practice at Holiday Weekend Gath

[NNN0LHI]

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBYVHFQC9E.html

TOWER, Minn. (AP) - A 4-year-old boy was fatally wounded when he wandered behind a paper target while family and friends were practicing shooting, authorities said.
Evan Davis Klassen, of Chisago City, was shot around 1:45 p.m. Sunday at Lake Vermilion, where a group of about a dozen people had gathered for the Memorial Day weekend.

"They thought they had the kids under control," said Sgt. James McKenzie of the St. Louis County Sheriff's Department.

While the paper target didn't completely obscure the child, he was wearing camouflage pants that made him difficult to see against the foliage, McKenzie said.

What kind of idiot would dress their kid in camouflage to go target shooting?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PDXWoman]

2. What kind of idiot...

Would take their 4 year old with them while they target shot?

[barb162]

44. hunters?

[Skittles]

50. YUP

f***ing morons

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skittles]

59. I have no real affection for people who entertain themselves by killing

not at all. Target shooting is fun but this was criminal negligence. Yes I agree children who will be around weapons should be taught to respect them at an early age. Actually in this day and age it might be a good idea for all children.

[bullimiami]

3. Q and A

Q : What kind of idiot would dress their kid in camouflage to go target shooting?

A : Republicans.

[VegasWolf]

202. Just the poor, god fearing republicans. The rich ones hire others.n/t

[benburch]

4. A Freeper! That the sort of idiot that does this.

Whole damned family probably has three teeth between them.

[progmom]

12. that's an unfair stereotype

x(

[benburch]

15. As I grew up with people just like this...

I certainly know whole families like I described. You should try growing up in a redneck tavern in rural Illinois some time.

But I will admit that most Freeps have most of their teeth due to Fluoridation, so I apologize to those Freeps with good dental hygiene.

[Webster Green]

19. Thank You!

I'm dentally challenged, but I'm no freeper.

[bicentennial_baby]

22. Same here

"I'm dentally challenged, but I'm no freeper."

'Zactly, thanks to our fine Amurikan lack-o-health-care, I have dental problems, and this stereotype hurts me more than any other on DU. I'm thick skinned about most things, but not this.

[benburch]

23. Sorry if I offended!

My intention was to bash freepers, not you.

[bicentennial_baby]

24. I know Ben

It's ok, it's just something that comes up with ridiculous regularity around here at DU. It's all good, man, I know you're fighting the good fight! :headbang:

[Total Disaster]

21. Actually, that should be "among" them. n/t

[Kingshakabobo]

171. It's between.

The teeth fell out and are on the ground.

[teryang]

5. What kind of idiot brings a child to a shooting range?

I have never seen a range that allowed children. Anyone who shoots with children present is nuts.

[Pepperbelly]

20. who said it was a range?

:shrug:

Maybe it was a picnic.

[teryang]

54. When you place targets for shooting its a range

When you get hit, you are "downrange"

[Megahurtz]

90. Shooting Range???

In Minnesota???

[Retired AF Dem]

6. accidents suck

Been plenty busy in my area this weekend.
http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=3407228&nav=0hBBaR9e
http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=3403662&nav=0hBBaPRs

[Wickerman]

8. I don't see the similarities

at all.

"A 40-year-old man fired a handgun about 30 feet through the target and into the boy, he said."

"Rufo Martinez is charged in connection with the deadly crash. The 20-year-old is charged with four counts of negligent vehicular homicide and one count of assault. Police say he ran the stop sign on Research Park Blvd."

"He'll determine if speed is going to be a factor. Also see if anything like alcohol is involved at that point," said Sgt. Michael Walker with the Huntsville Police Department.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wickerman]

28. How in the hell did a quote from an article

make make you infer I am a racist? That is disgusting. I didn't even notice the driver was of Spanish descent until you pointed it out and it wouldn't have mattered at all to me. I guess the question is why would you make such a leap?

My quotes all had to do with responsibility. Note in the car accidents there was responsibility assigned - in the gun accident it was all just unfortunate.

[Retired AF Dem]

29. I didn't make myself clear?

"Only thing not similar with your post is you didn't make any comments such as people with Spanish surnames have no business driving cars" Maybe I didn't. No I don't think you are a racist. I can't say that about several of the posts on this thread.

[Wickerman]

35. Then alert on them

you've been around long enough to know the rules.

[Retired AF Dem]

36. I should just give up

I never seem to convey my feelings correctly in the written word. Time to quit posting and go back to reading only. Much better at that. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

[The Icon Painter]

39. Please don't

Don't stop posting because of this misunderstanding. Many people have difficulty is writing what they mean. The lack of physical cues is the cause behind all too many misinterpretations. That is why g-d gave us smilies.

I believe you will find it easier to be understood with practice. If you stop posting you will always feel you couldn't hold your own in the discourse on this board. That would be a shame. I feel sure you have much we can profit from hearing. Generally the back and forth here is courteous but sometimes one or more of us gets a bit more excited than is expected and fires off a statement which is questionable. It is not the end of conversation. So please, do not give up on us.

[obxhead]

51. gotta jump in

By holding a loaded gun intended for use requires the utmost responsibility.

[Wickerman]

146. Yes, and I communicated poorly, too.

I should've used a :sarcasm: note as I am personally offended that there will be no accountability determined in this case. Actually, check that, authorities have determined that no charges will be filed. That means, in effect, they have determined that the 4 year old in responsible for his own demise. Sad, where does parental responsibility figure in?

[Pert_UK]

63. There are different degrees of "accident".........

You skid on a patch of oil that you couldn't see.

You go slightly over the speed limit and aren't able to stop without rear-ending the car in front.

You race at 100mph and can't make the bend.

You reverse out of the garage without looking behind you first and hit a neighbour's kid walking up your drive.

etc. etc. etc.

You see, for me, this accident is one of the "easily preventable" kind - you don't have to speed, you should take reasonable precautions that nobody is in your way when you start driving.

IMHO this "accident" is akin to KNOWING that your kids are playing somewhere out the front of the house but then speeding out of your garage without checking if they're in the driveway.

You can accidentally cut yourself if the knife slips while you're gutting a deer, or you can accidentally shoot yourself because you failed to check your gun wasn't loaded when you started juggling it to impress your friends. Both accidents, but one suspects that the shooting involved a LITTLE bit of human error, eh?

Still, nice of you to join in the debate with your delightful and compassionate dismissal of this child's death as just another "accident".

Shit yeah, accidents happen all the time - I presume that it would go against the 2nd amendment to look at accidents and try to work out how we can stop them from happening?

[iverglas]

66. beat me to it ... again ;)

IMHO this "accident" is akin to KNOWING that your kids are playing somewhere out the front of the house but then speeding out of your garage without checking if they're in the driveway.

But actually, I'd say it's more akin to the proverbial sending your kids out to play in traffic. Maybe "holding a family picnic on the median of an 8-lane highway" would be a bit too extreme; after all, drivers at high speeds on highways can't be expected to know there are kids picnicking up ahead, or to be able to stop in time to avoid them.

No, these parents didn't send their kids out to play in the middle of a minefield. They just took them to the equivalent of a suburban street, where drivers *can* be expected to watch out for kids and be prepared to act to avoid hitting them. Who on earth would expect a four-year-old to wander in front of a car on a residential street? All of us, if we have any sense, so parents don't let four-year-olds wander the streets and the rest of us don't drive at high speeds on kid-infested streets.

Who would expect a four-year-old to wander behind a target at a friendly target-shoot? Anybody with a grain of sense. So parents don't let their kids wander around unattended at such events, and the people participating in them exercise care to avoid harming them.

Or not.

Oh dear, so sad, but really, there's just nothing can be done. Kids being kids, they'll just run in front of cars and wander behind targets that people are shooting at. It's all just good clean fun, and there's just no reason why any moron with a few dollars in his/her pocket shouldn't be allowed to have a pistol there too.

[NMDemDist2]

7. what kind of idiot sets up paper targets with no backing (ie bales)

to stop the bullets?

stupid and tragic

[Wickerman]

9. and, there were only 12 people there

how difficult is it to keep track of 11 others before you pull a trigger.

[tblue37]

70. I bet there was some alcohol involvement.

When people are drinking, they are less careful, less aware, less attentive.

[Blaze Diem]

10. Poor baby....People are stupid.

I cannot even believe the ignorance of these people.

Most people are careful and diigent when in a practice range..
------------

What kind of idiot would dress their kid in camouflage to go target shooting?

My thoughts exactly..and why would a group of family, friends, and kids be anywhere near target practice?

This is like the parents we hear about that leave a loaded weapon in the unlocked nightstand, and cannot believe it when the 2 and 4 year old kids find it, and one ends up dead!
This kind of negligence just baffles me..

How much is taken for granted in families anymore?

Its the sort of irresponsible assinine behavior like this, that makes me hate the NRA mantra.
Target practice at a fuckin' family gathering..God Almighty!!

[AtLiberty]

11. Hmmm....

I wonder who these people voted for president?

[GOPFighter]

13. Damn!

As much as I dislike the gun culture in this country, someone lost their four-year-old son and someone shot a kid by accident. They'll have to live with this the rest of their lives. In hindsight it was an accident waiting to happen. Some people learn the hard way.

[Blaze Diem]

18. True! and they're probably the same people that bitched and

moaned and voted for Bush and bought the lies of the NRA when child safety locks were implemented.
This kind of irresponsiblity is what leads to those kinds of laws in the first place.

Fuck the NRA..a baby is dead and that's a tragic way to learn a lesson.

[Cicero]

136. I have a hard time seeing how...

... a child safety lock would have had any impact on the outcome of this tragic event. By the time you are ready to fire at a target, whatever locking devices you may have had on the gun would have long since been removed.

This is a tragedy, but it makes no sense to try to turn this into an anti-NRA diatribe.

Later,

[iverglas]

67. yass

They'll have to live with this the rest of their lives. ... Some people learn the hard way.

Indeed. That's what we usually say when someone kills someone else, eh? Yup, they learned a hard lesson, they'll have to live with it.

Funny how the dead kid won't have to live with it. Quite the conundrum.

Funny how some people react to such events by wondering whether something could be done to prevent more of them happening.

[devinsgram]

14. What a price to pay for the

"freedom to bear arms."

[Jack_DeLeon]

40. Its a price worth bearing...

why should I give up any of my rights just because some parents were idiots and didnt look after thier child.

The kid is dead due to the parent's negligent, its no different than if he drowned in a swimming pool because the parents werent looking or dying by any other reason.

[LeftyMom]

49. You know, that's easy for you to say

and I probably would have agreed to some extend with you at one point. Then one day I got to the front of the viewing line and looked down on the cold dead body of a friend who died very young in an accidental shooting.

I really don't knkow what else to say except that you are weighing an abstract ideal (in this case the right to bear arms) against a real human life. It's easier to say the ideal is worth more when the flesh gone cold isn't someone who matters to you.

-LM, herself the mother of a four year old boy, who can't imagine what the poor child's parents are going through.

[iverglas]

68. indeed

It's so easy to tell someone else to bear the price of what one wants.

Funny how that doesn't actually work when applied to many things in life.

"I want that Corvette! Now you pay for it with your cash."

Hmm.

How about "I want to lie in court and say you committed that crime, even though you didn't -- I have a right to free speech! Now you pay for it with your liberty."

I want to play with guns. ...

[Merope215]

93. Well said, LM

People should always come before ideology.

[expatriot]

104. you know, I am pro-gun control but I can't help but think your argument

in this instance sounds a LOT like those who argue that the loss of civil liberties is a price worth paying for increased security.

Like I said, I am playing a bit of the devil's advocate here because I agree with you in principle about gun control.

[lastliberalintexas]

140. Yes, it's exactly the same

If we can save only one life, then that life is worth the loss if the 6th Amendment (and therefore the right to counsel). If we can save but one life, it is still worth the loss of the 4th Amendment (and its prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures). Etc.

This is a case of adults acting foolishly and carelessly, and other adults should not be punished for the actions of these few.


And I don't believe in gun control. I believe in the rights of the individual, and appropriate prosecution/punishment AFTER a wrong is committed. Not before.

[iverglas]

147. blame, punishment, blame, punishment

It's such a mantra. And it has so nothing to do with any of this.

This is a case of adults acting foolishly and carelessly, and other adults should not be punished for the actions of these few.

Just because some people cause car crashes when they drive 100 mph, why should *I* be punished by having some speed limit imposed on me?

NO ONE IS BEING PUNISHED when limitations are placed on the exercises of rights that apply generally and according to rational criteria that have bugger all to do with any particular individual's past behaviours and everything to do with the foreseeable harmful consequences of the behaviour it is sought to limit or prevent.

The fact that someone doesn't like a limitation on what they may do does NOT mean that s/he is being punished.

Women in most US states may not obtain abortions in the third trimester of their pregnancies. This is a limitation on their exercise of their rights. What might they be being punished for, I wonder?

And I don't believe in gun control. I believe in the rights of the individual, and appropriate prosecution/punishment AFTER a wrong is committed. Not before.

Good. I don't believe in speed controls. I believe in the rights of the individual, and appropriate prosecution/punishment AFTER a crash is caused.

What tripe.

You know what Benjamin Franklin said, right? (I mean, it's hard to find a reliable source for the actual words, but we can get a good idea.)

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

ESSENTIAL liberty. A LITTLE TEMPORARY safety.

And what your constitution says?

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE. That's what governments, elected by peoples, do. That's why we have speed limits, and firearms controls.

It is simply never enough to say "that interferes with my liberty! you can't do that!" Because, where a sufficiently important public interest is demonstrated, and a sufficient connection between the measure proposed and the protection of that interest is shown, "we" CAN do it. (I, personally, can't do anything about what you down there do, but I can propose measures that limit the exercise of individual rights and freedoms under my own constitution on essentially the same basis.)

If the liberty is not essential and the benefit in human security is not little and temporary, then the limitation may well be justified.

But whatever. It sure as hell is not punishment.

[lastliberalintexas]

148. It is a punishment to be denied a right

We simply disagree on this issue, iverglas. If you knew me or my posts, you'd know that I am rather consistently a (small l) libertarian when it comes to civil liberties issues. In fact, I don't believe that the government has the authority to limit my access to reproductive choices regardless of what trimester I might be. Any more than I believe the government has the authority to limit what I may ingest or whether I choose to *possess* a weapon.

What the government rightly may do in its exercise of promoting the general welfare is prosecute me AFTER I commit an offense against another, whether that is done with a gun, knife or baseball bat. What the government may rightly do is prosecute me for the illegal, improper *USE* of that weapon, rather than the mere possession of same. And at least for now, my government still bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that I actually committed the offense, and doing so with evidence which was obtained properly and in accordance with the Constitution.

What most gun control legislation attempts to do, however, is to limit the individual's right to mere possession of an instrument BEFORE any crime is committed, whether there are indications that a crime would/possibly be committed or not. That concept is not only contrary to my country's Constitution, but also to the social contract on which most modern governments are founded.

This is an area in which "liberals" tend not to be liberals at all, and instead tend to fall into the Hamiltonian way of thinking. I simply prefer Jefferson and his faith in the individual, rather than the Federalist approach that some leftists want us to take on the gun control issues.


And just so you know- I do not own a gun. I have no desire to own a gun. I do not allow my husband to have his guns in our home. But I'll be damned if I'll give up my right to make that decision and allow the government to make it for me.

[iverglas]

151. non-responsive

"It is a punishment to be denied a right"

Either you think you can write your own dictionary, or you're working with a crap logic manual.

A punishment may consist of "being denied the exercise of a right". (If a right is "inalienable", one can hardly be denied it.) That is, the denial of the exercise of a right may be a punishment.

This does NOT mean that being denied the exercise of a right is always a punishment. Period. You know. Aristotle is a man ... not all men are Aristotle.

And it is simply abject nonsense to say that someone who has done nothing blameworthy is being punished. What that denies is the meaning of the bloody word.

What are people whose access to firearms is limited being punished for? What are those 7-months-pregnant women being denied abortions being punished for? Why no answer? Maybe because it's one of those loaded question thingies -- because they're not being punished for anything? And because if there isn't something that they're being punished for, then they necessarily are NOT being punished?

In fact, I don't believe that the government has the authority to limit my access to reproductive choices regardless of what trimester I might be. Any more than I believe the government has the authority to limit what I may ingest or whether I choose to *possess* a weapon.

Bully for you. If you knew my posts, you'd know that I seldom give a flip what people believe. It's of no concern to me.

What concerns me is public policy. I don't believe that women's ability to exercise reproductive rights may legitimately be limited -- but I'll present the facts and arguments that lead me to that belief, not repeat my belief as if that belief, or the fact that I hold it, is for some reason conclusive of some issue. It ain't.

What the government rightly may do in its exercise of promoting the general welfare is prosecute me AFTER I commit an offense against another, whether that is done with a gun, knife or baseball bat. What the government may rightly do is prosecute me for the illegal, improper *USE* of that weapon, rather than the mere possession of same.

What tripe. How come the government can prosecute you for driving your car without functioning brakes, even if you caused no harm to anyone with it?

How come people who spew this tripe just don't seem to be the least bit concerned about preventing the harm from happening?

I don't care whether you don't believe it's the government's job to attempt to prevent harm from happening to members of the society it governs. It is. If you think that stop signs are an impermissible limitation on your liberty, and you should only be punishable for running down a pedestrian but not for not stopping at the stop sign, feel free. It's tripe.

What most gun control legislation attempts to do, however, is to limit the individual's right to mere possession of an instrument BEFORE any crime is committed, whether there are indications that a crime would/possibly be committed or not.

Yup, just like what speed control legislation attempts to do is limit the individual's right to drive at whatever speed s/he needs or wants to drive at. BEFORE any harm is caused, and EVEN IF no harm is caused. Regardless of the individual's level of skill and circumspection, and past driving history.

Any chance you'll stop ignoring that fact?

That concept is not only contrary to my country's Constitution, but also to the social contract on which most modern governments are founded.

Funny how the concepts of it being illegal to should "fire" in crowded theatres, or tell lies to courts, or advertise snake oil to cure cancer, or conspire to commit a crime, or broadcast without a licence, are all also contrary to your country's constitution. You know ... the one that says that Congress shall make no law abridging
the freedom of speech. And how it's illegal to do all those things whether or not any harm is caused by them.

This is an area in which "liberals" tend not to be liberals at all, and instead tend to fall into the Hamiltonian way of thinking. I simply prefer Jefferson and his faith in the individual, rather than the Federalist approach that some leftists want us to take on the gun control issues.

Means nought to me. I'm not a liberal. And "Jeffersonian liberals" are properly called right-wing libertarians in the modern world.

I do not allow my husband to have his guns in our home. But I'll be damned if I'll give up my right to make that decision and allow the government to make it for me.

Let me know how you're doing on not letting the government decide what speed you'll drive at, or what you may shout in crowded theatres or say to courts, and all that jazz.


(edited to add omitted word, to make sense)

[lastliberalintexas]

157. Well alrighty then

So much for civil discussion I guess.

Pregnant women who are denied their right to choose to terminate their pregnancy are being punished by being forced to continue a pregnancy. I am not saying why they are, though in the right wing's minds it is usually just because she is a she who had sex. I'm not making a value judgment, just stating that those women are being punished by being refused control over their own bodies.

The government can regulate the speed at which I travel on public roads in a motor vehicle because my driving on public roads affects others. My decision to *possess* a weapon (whether gun, steak knife or baseball bat) affects no one but myself, and therefore the government has no dominion there. My decision to USE that weapon (whether gun, steak knife or baseball bat) affects another and the government is therefore acting appropriately in prosecuting me for that act.

The traffic laws you raise are not good analogies to the gun control debate. Traffic laws do not attempt to prevent people from purchasing or even using the vehicle at all- merely the manner in which it is used.

The local, state and federal governments in the US do not have the authority to prosecute me if I drive with faulty brakes, and neither can they take my car or refuse to allow me to purchase one for same. Maybe it's different north of the border.


I *AM* concerned with prevention, which is why I could give a shit about gun control- it does nothing to really address crime issues. Education, jobs, and economic conditions bear more on crime prevention than anything else. Always have, always will. One can argue for pro-nanny government BS all day long, but it does nothing to address crime rates and issues. It's just politically expedient for both sides in this country, since it's an issue that some use to show that they are "tough on crime" and others use to motivate gun nuts.

[iverglas]

182. non-responsive

Pregnant women who are denied their right to choose to terminate their pregnancy are being punished by being forced to continue a pregnancy.

I didn't ask how they were being "punished". I asked what they are being "punished" for. No answer, so far.

You're reminding me of the billboard I saw everywhere in Havana one of the last times I was there, quite a while ago now.

"Emulación". Hmm, who/what are we emulating? I asked my Cuban English-teacher date. Blank face. Well you can't just "emulate", I said. You have to emulate someone or something. No, no, he said; we're just emulating.

You can't just "punish" someone unless you are punishing them for something. And to keep repeating that someone is being punished, without ever offering a clue to what they're being punished for, is to just strew words around the monitor.

I am not saying why they are, though in the right wing's minds it is usually just because she is a she who had sex.

I'm sure. However, laws have to have a little more rational basis than that, these days. And obviously, if what they wanted to do was punish women for having sex, they wouldn't just be picking on the 7-months pregnant ones. I've had sex in the US, with people I wasn't married to. How come I didn't get punished?

The government can regulate the speed at which I travel on public roads in a motor vehicle because my driving on public roads affects others.

Ya think? I drove on the public roads today, and my driving on those public roads didn't affect anyone at all. Except the people behind me who wanted me to drive faster. Even though I was already driving over the speed limit. And not even my driving over the speed limit affected anybody. It was just one of those damned "prior restraints" on my liberty.

The traffic laws you raise are not good analogies to the gun control debate. Traffic laws do not attempt to prevent people from purchasing or even using the vehicle at all- merely the manner in which it is used.

Not entirely true, even if it were relevant.

There are indeed laws that prevent people from purchasing vehicles for use on the public roads if the vehicles do not meet certain (numerous) basic standards. Where I'm at, anyhow. What the laws require are things called "safety checks", without which the vehicle cannot be registered to its new owner, without which registration no sane person will sell the vehicle. If the car doesn't have functioning brakes, and I want to register it to drive it on the public roads, I pretty much may not buy it. Not until it has functioning brakes.

There are a few people who want to buy cars for purposes other than driving on the public roads. They may want to cannibalize them for parts, or drive them exclusively on their country estates. If they wish to buy a car for that purpose, they will have to de-register it on purchase. There aren't really all that many people who want to buy cars that they aren't going to cannibalize and *not* drive them on the public roads. Really.

Anyhow -- even if it were relevant. There are few laws in North America that attempt to prevent people from purchasing a majority of the firearms that people want to purchase. So why the straw?

Laws in Canada require that people be licensed before they purchase firearms (for which purpose they must demonstrate proof of completion of a firearms handling course), and register their purchases.

Oh, and I think those big pointy fins and sharp pointy hood ornaments have had laws made against them. Ya just haven't been able to buy a new car with big pointy fins and sharp pointy hood ornaments for a long time now. The government enforcing good taste? Nope. The government making laws with the aim of preventing harm to members of the public.

The local, state and federal governments in the US do not have the authority to prosecute me if I drive with faulty brakes ... . Maybe it's different north of the border.

If what you say is true, I guess it is different. No authority to prosecute someone for driving with non-functioning brakes. (You did note how I said "non-functioning" and not "faulty", right?) Whew. Add one more reason to all the reasons I have no plans to visit the US again in any near future.

However, the fact that no legislature has done this (which I'd really need some better evidence of anyhow) really isn't proof that no legislature has the authority to do it. I'd say they do.

Oh my goodness. I picked a state at random, and asked google for illinois traffic code brakes, and look what I got first up: the town of Normal!
http://www.normal.org/Code/23_06.asp

SEC. 23.6-6 BRAKES. It shall be unlawful to drive any motor vehicle upon a street unless such vehicle is equipped with good and sufficient brakes in good working condition, as required by the State traffic law, or to operate any vehicle which is so loaded that the operator does not have ready access to the mechanics operating the brakes of such vehicles.

1.Brake equipment required. ...

Well that was easy.

And no more repetitions of "the state doesn't have the authority to make those laws" are really going to hold any water, I'm afraid. That's your idiosyncratic belief as to how things oughta work, maybe. But it isn't how things work.

So that's where it becomes pointless to "debate" something like firearms control measures. There's simply no adequate common basis with which to work. It's like "debating" how votes should be counted with someone who doesn't believe elections should be held.

In a society in which the fundamental consensus is that governments MAY impose limits on the way rights are exercised, in the pursuit of an important interest to which its measures are rationally connected and in a manner proportionate to that interest, etc. etc., what's the point of "debating" with someone who says governments may NOT do that? You simply define yourself out of the discussion. Refus global? No! No! No! Ya can't make me.

I *AM* concerned with prevention, which is why I could give a shit about gun control- it does nothing to really address crime issues. Education, jobs, and economic conditions bear more on crime prevention than anything else. Always have, always will.

Yes, that's another lovely mantra.

One day, no men will hate women and want to oppress and exploit women. When that day comes, no man will ever walk into the kitchen and come back with the firearm he keeps there and blast his wife's living body into a bloody, dead corpse.

One day, no one will hate anyone else based on their inherent characteristics. When that day comes, everyone will have picnics on the lawn and happy liberated sex, and everyone will have enough of everything, and no one will ever shoot other people because s/he hates them or because they have what s/he wants.

In the meantime, tough titties to all you hated and victimized folks. There's no justification at all for the rest of us to make it just a teensy bit harder for someone to do nasty things to you. Suck it up.

One can argue for pro-nanny government BS all day long, but it does nothing to address crime rates and issues.

You don't get to define the issues all by yourself, y'know. "Crime" is not the only target of firearms control measures.

And you don't get to make great big sweeping statements like that without any facts to back them up. And if you had facts to back them up, a lot of people who spend their time trying to find the answers to these questions would be taking nice vacations somewhere instead. And John Lott and Mary Rosh would be picnicking on the lawn and having happy liberated sex ...

It's just politically expedient for both sides in this country, since it's an issue that some use to show that they are "tough on crime" and others use to motivate gun nuts.

Your assertion the issue is used to demonstrate toughness on crime is undoubtedly correct. Buy you have sinned by omission. Some use the issue to show they are tough on crime, some use the issue to motivate gun nuts, and some people are genuinely attempting to find measures that will address a problem that is so bloody obvious to the entire rest of the world that we wonder what blinkers you all down there must be wearing.

Huge numbers of harms are caused in the US by people who use firearms to cause them. Some people actually give a shit about the people to whom those harms are caused (and the society as a whole that ultimately suffers from them) and seek to minimize the risks of the harms occurring -- and a list of characterizations of people who "use" the gun control issue for some purposes is not exactly a full and frank statement of the motivations of people who advocate firearms control.

[iverglas]

152. oh, and by the bye

And just so you know- I do not own a gun. I have no desire to own a gun. I do not allow my husband to have his guns in our home. But I'll be damned if I'll give up my right to make that decision and allow the government to make it for me.

Enjoy building stuff out of straw, much?

[primavera]

155. Rights divorced from responsibilities

I think what bothers me about the libertarian point of view is that it celebrates rights as absolutes, without consideration for the responsibilities that must go hand in hand with the exercise of those rights. In Germany, for instance, you have the right to own a gun, if you're willing to go to the time, expense, and energy of joining a shooting club, participating in gun safety instruction courses, passing annual gun safety examinations, and allowing government officials to perform periodic inspections to ensure that you are abiding by the terms to which you committed yourself when you applied for a gun permit, such as secure storage of the gun and ammo. These are the responsibilities you undertake in Germany when you wish to exercise your right to use a mortally dangerous weapon. Personally, I see nothing wrong with that: the greater the right, the greater the concommitant responsibility to practice it wisely and safely.

Yet the libertarian point of view seems to perceive no such connection between rights and responsibilities, all rights are inherent and inalienable, it is our freedom to use and abuse them at our personal discretion without regard for the harm we may do to others. I'm sorry, but I don't agree with that assumption. If you wish to operate a motor vehicle on the public roads where I and my family will also be driving, why isn't it reasonable of me to expect that you pass a driver's test to ensure that you have at least some knowledge of how to operate that vehicle safely and in such a manner that you will not injure me? If you are unwilling to learn to operate a vehicle safely, fine, you are free to drive it on your own property to your heart's content, but I see no reason to extend to you the right to barrel along public streets running over school children because you can't be bothered to learn how to operate a vehicle safely. What right do you have to get plastered and then take the lives of others into your hands by crawling in a semi-conscious state behind the wheel of a car? Answer: none whatsoever. So what gives you the right to use a lethal weapon without first establishing that you have the common sense, mental stability, knowledge, and dexterity to use it in such a manner that others won't be harmed? I don't see how that's an unreasonable request.

[lastliberalintexas]

162. That's also what conservatives say about the media

Or used to say, back when we actually had journalists instead of bobble heads just reading the "news". Yes, they agreed, the media probably had the right to report something, but the responsibility not to. Especially things like those pesky Pentagon Papers.


That said, I never posted that we have no responsibilities, so I'm not quite certain whether your post was actually directed to me or not? I just do not believe that a right should be taken away before the government either shows a crime was committed, was being planned, or was attempted. I kind of get hung up on that little thing called Due Process of Law. :)

[primavera]

176. Also what liberals say about the media

Who among us would decline to find fault in Faux News' journalistic integrity? And appropriately so: the role of journalism in a democracy has been established over the space of centuries, and those who subvert it are appropriately chastised.

Admitted, you did not specifically say that rights did not come with responsibiltiies, but, to my ears at least, by asserting that rights are things with which every individual is born and which may only be subtracted through due process of law, it sounds like you're saying that the rights exist independently of responsibility, that one is automatically presumed to possess them simply by virtue of breathing. I think that's too absolutist a stance to take.

As far as the right to live, fine, I'll go along with the most absolutist interpretation possible of that particular right. But what about activities that many perceive as rights, yet are nonessential for the purpose of living, and have the potential to infringe upon other people's rights, surely the most basic and fundamental of which is that to go on living? The right to bear arms is I guess kinda sorta a right, although it is one which few other developed nations perceive as a right, one which was laid down centuries earlier under completely different and incomparable circumstances, and one which a majority of Americans in modern times are ready to see abridged, as evidenced by the majority support in this country for responsible gun control legislation. If you stack that weak "right" up against the indisputable right that four year old children have to reach their fifth birthdays, I'm sorry, but there's no question in my mind which "right" wins.

[iverglas]

185. if only what you said ...

I just do not believe that a right should be taken away before the government either shows a crime was committed, was being planned, or was attempted.

... were meaningful in the context in which you're saying it (as compared to some libertarian fairyland).

First, it would be greatly helpful if you would use accurate terminology. How can something that is inalienable -- like, oh, the right to liberty -- be taken away?

Liberty may be taken away. That's actually what your constitution says:

No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...

-- not deprived of the right to life, liberty or property.

Next, we need to know why what you believe is relevant in a discussion of what public policy may be applied.

Let's consider the one little field of employment law.

- Employers may not pay, and employees may not work for, less than the statutory minimum wage.
- Employers may not discriminate against any actual or potential employee on the ground of sex, race, and so on.
- Employers may not offer working conditions that are unsafe to a level below the statutory minimum level.
- Employers may not require employees to work beyond a certain number of hours in a day or week.
- Employers may not dismiss employees for becoming pregnant, joining a union, or writing a letter to the editor. (Well, where I'm at, anyhow. But then this is a bit more of a social democracy than a pure liberal democracy.)

None of the employers to whom those deprivations of liberty and property apply has ever committed a crime.

None of the employers whose right to liberty and property is being violated has ever attempted to commit a crime, or planned to commit a crime (hey, that's no crime, you know, and certainly isn't grounds for interfering in the exercise of any right; sheesh, some libertarian you are - that would be a "thought crime").

Why then is it permissible to interfere in their exercise of their right to liberty and property?

Of course, a proper right-wing libertarian will say "I don't believe it is permissible!" And keep on saying "next year in libertarian fairyland", and excluding him/herself from the discourse in a liberal democracy.

"That's also what conservatives say about the media"

I'll bet they also put on their trousers one leg at a time. Remind me not to let anybody catch me doing that.

I imagine that a whole lot of right-wingers also say that it's wrong to steal candy from babies, it's wrong to beat dogs, it's wrong to walk into people's houses without permission ... . Must I now revise my positions on those things?

I don't hold with the "rights imply responsibilities" stuff myself. Not in the context of a liberal democracy, and according to the meaning that "rights" has in that context. In a context where rights are understood and expressed negatively, as the right not to be prevented from being/doing what one chooses, there are no concomitant responsibilities.

(I'm a social democrat myself, at least in the present context, and so the theory of rights that I'm stating is not necessarily my own. I believe there are positive rights, and they might indeed imply responsibilities.)

What there is, is a requirement that the society as a whole justify any measures it takes that interfere in the exercise of those rights. And, in a liberal democracy, there are justifications for interfering in the exercise of rights.

So as I was saying, a discussion in which party says "Are not!" -- and declines to acknowledge that even s/he obviously believes that there are such justifications -- just isn't going to go much of anywhere.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Retired AF Dem]

17. If you are going to be that way about

let's call it a late term abortion. Jeez

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

25. This is very sad.

Lack of brains demonstrated all around and now a little kid is dead.

[Dulcinea]

34. My heart breaks for the kid's parents.

I can't imagine the loss of a child. :cry:

[Jack_DeLeon]

41. they reap what they sow...

it was thier negligence that got this kid killed.

If someone set up a firing range, you just sit down drink some beers and let your kid wander wherever.

[La Coliniere]

26. How many of those adults were drinking?

I know a number of people who equate many recreational activities with the mass consumption of beer. They can't do one without the other. And I wouldn't characterize most of them as alcoholics.
hunting + beer
fishing + beer
boating + beer
jet skiing + beer
snowmobiling + beer
camping + beer
skiing + beer
watching sports + beer
So shooting + beer wouldn't bee too much of a stretch.
I enjoy beer, but there's a time and place for everything. All those wonderful beer commercials seemed to have achieved their propagandistic point: outdoor recreational activities aren't complete unless you have a beer in your hand.
The adults at that event must be reeling with remorse and feeling like shit today. What a needless tragedy.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

30. That's it! I couldn't have been "How many of those adults were armed?

Most accidental shootings do have one thing in common. A gun.

[La Coliniere]

31. Point well taken

I didn't mean to suggest that alcohol might be the prime factor in this tragedy. Was just making a point about the need for many people to drink in order to enjoy recreational activities and how ridiculous that can be, especially when engaged in risky and potentially dangerous activities. And I do think that, as much as I don't understand the kick, "shooting parties" are what some folks do for fun. I agree that it was someone pulling a gun trigger that was the reason for this needless death. And of course guns are the main problem, not alcohol. I do think it is totally irresponsible for someone to bring a camouflaged attired child to such an event. Stupid mother *uckers everywhere.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

32. I'll sure agree with that. As an ex duck hunter, I was always amazed

to see people with guns and beer at 5:30 AM.

The "SMF" factor is certainly in play.

:toast:

[dchill]

92. "SMF" factor...

Uh, "Sealing my fate?"
"Sucking my fingers?"

Ohhhhhh...

If I'd ever had the slightest interest in hunting, I'd never have considered going out into the woods with all the other armed & dangerous "hunters."

Any combination of guns & kids (especially w/beer) is an IQ test somebody just failed.

[booksenkatz]

33. More detail here

http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/5429940.html

Apparently no alcohol was involved.

How odd to just get in your truck and go home after you've killed a 4-year-old. Of course, I'm not sure what the hell else the man was supposed to do. What a senseless occurrence.

On edit: I got in the first try with no registration, now I'm getting a registration page.
:p

Go here first:
http://www.startribune.com/

Then scroll down to the story -- sometimes I'm getting a registry page, other times I don't. If you do, this bugmenot name/pw worked for me:

guest
guest

[lebkuchen]

37. law abiding Americans out for some fun

What a story they have to tell around the water cooler.

[Swamp Rat]

38. Negligent homicide.

http://www.iejs.com/Law/Criminal_Law/Negligent_Homicide-Manslaughter.htm

[MadisonProgressive]

42. "They thought they had the kids under control"

Darwin strikes again!

[Doohickie]

43. When my son was in Cub Scouts

The first event held every fall was a "shoot out". This involved Cub Scouts shooting BB guns and bows at targets. Being a district-wide event, we had hundreds of kids there, some as young as 6, shooting. There was a safety officer for each range, a safety briefing, etc. We did this year and in and year out with no mishaps. There were times when we did this with just our pack, and even with only a dozen people, we followed the same procedures. The story said there would be no criminal charges, but in the case of ANY gun death, if I were the prosecutor, I would press charges, even if it were negligent homicide. In a gun death, there almost always criminal intent or stupidity involved. In my opinion, stupidity is just as much of a crime. This kind of thing is ENTIRELY preventable.

</rant>

[MADem]

45. Only a STUPID person would do that

I have a friend, Vietnam draftee vet, who probably, in his performance of duty as a sniper, had to kill hundreds of people in his grisly job. He used to be a Republican, but he appears to have recovered completely from that malady.

The guy still has incredible vision--far better than 20/20, and he still hunts every year to fill the freezer. He has brought his kids along with him, not at age FOUR, but around 12, when they are old enough to keep up and help. And he dressed them in the most LURID colors I have ever seen...the day glo orange wasn't enough, the neon green, pink and every color not found in nature. The kids bitched, but he told them that was just too bad. If they wanted to come with him, he had the right to ensure that they came HOME with him.

Good parents don't let their kids be exposed to that kind of danger, and anyone who isn't watching their child like a hawk when guns are about is an idiot.

[DoNotRefill]

46. Oops...I guess that means I'm stupid and a bad parent....

because I let my 6 month old little girl handle a loaded 9mm pistol.... She chewed on the backstrap a bit, but didn't die...

[MADem]

47. I don't know your particular situation, but I would never do that n/t

[DoNotRefill]

87. The gun was in Condition 3 in a pancake on my hip....

when she was handed to me. We went and sat down, she did her wiggle-worm thing, and tried to grab it, so I unholstered it, checked the status of the gun, pointed the muzzle in a safe direction, and let her chew on the backstrap while I supported the slide (and consequently controlled the muzzle). Once she got bored with chewing on the plastic, I cleaned the slobber off and reholstered it, still in Condition 3.

[BikeWriter]

121. So next time she sees it she wants to chew on it, right?

I hope to fuck you're not serious. :(

[LisaL]

48. I would say you are both stupid and a bad parent..

Giving a loaded pistol to a baby? WTF is wrong with you? Are you trying to win a Darwin's award?

[Xithras]

53. WHAT?!!?!?!? I hope it had a trigger or barrel lock on it.

I know she couldn't have picked it up, but still...giving a loaded gun to a baby is dumb. What if she had dropped it?

[DoNotRefill]

76. If she'd have dropped it....

it would have bounced, and that's about it. It might put a ding in the floor, but it wouldn't fire or anything...

[BikeWriter]

122. That has been repeated many times after an accidental discharge.

[DoNotRefill]

168. Uh huh. Right.

If you drop a pistol without a round in the chamber, there's a chance it will fire. RIIIIIIIGHT. Have you ever seen a dropped pistol rack the slide, chamber a round, and then pull the trigger resulting in a discharge? Have you ever HEARD of that happening?

You're confusing somebody not knowing what condition a gun is in with somebody who actually does know what condition a gun is in.

[BikeWriter]

188. Q: How many people have been killed with "empty" guns? A: Thousands!

[iverglas]

196. gee

You're confusing somebody not knowing what condition a gun is in with somebody who actually does know what condition a gun is in.

Maybe you can bring that wisdom with you when you return with us to the gun dungeon.

Next time someone works him/herself up into a lather about how Diane Feinstein handled that firearm UNSAFELY -- when the firearm had, to her knowledge, been multiply checked by peace officers present at the event before being handed to her -- I'll call on you to explain this point.

A rule of thumb is not a statement of fact. Right?

[DoNotRefill]

89. BTW, no trigger lock on it....

because a gun with a trigger lock on it is useless.

[BikeWriter]

60. WTF was the point of that?

:wtf:

[DoNotRefill]

77. Firearms proofing children has to start young...

or it's not as effective.

[BikeWriter]

120. Bull. shit. Firearms aren't teething toys.

[slamthecrank]

62. OMG!!!! yes, you are a moran

and a bad parent. WTF were you thinking? That it's "cute" that your baby was chewing on the leather strap of a loaded 9mm?!?! Why don't you just put some strychnine in her bottle? Or put a cobra in her basinet? They "might not" kill her just as much as that loaded 9mm "might not" kill her.

Jesus Christ, I can't even believe you admitted that then asked that question.

Out of the gene pool!!!

:puke: :mad: :argh:

[DoNotRefill]

73. Who said anything about a leather strap?

the backstrap of a pistol isn't made out of leather. Of course, I'm not surprised that you didn't know that.

I'm virtually positive that she could handle a loaded 9mm at her present size and never, EVER have an accidental or negligent discharge. Why? Because she was A) sitting on my lap, and B) there was no round chambered, and she's not big enough to rack the slide.

[LisaL]

75. If you want to play Russian Roulette, I suggest you leave your

poor kid out of it.
:spank:

[DoNotRefill]

79. It was physically impossible to play Russian Roulette with it....

Polish Roulette, sure, but not Russian Roulette.

She's going to grow up around guns. Both my wife and I carry them every day. Better to teach her early on than freak out about it, so that she wants to play with the forbidden thing...

[LisaL]

82. So you are going to let her play with it at 6 month old?

And somehow that is going to prevent her from playing with it when you are not around? Have you heard about locking your guns up when there are young children around?

[DoNotRefill]

85. You only lock up guns when kids are around....

and the adult ISN'T. I was obviously there. She's going to find it VERY hard to play with it when I'm not there, since it's my carry piece, and consequently tends to be wherever I am.

[DoNotRefill]

99. What, no chuckles about the "Russian/Polish Roulette" thing???

Man, gun illiterates are no fun....

[Solon]

101. Not a revolver, I knew that when you mentioned chamber...

still stupid though.

[DoNotRefill]

103. Oh, man....revolvers have chambers too....

For somebody who claims to know so much about guns, you sure don't know much about guns. At least you're not claiming that the backstrap of a pistol is made out of leather...

[Solon]

105. I'm sorry, I know little about handguns...

Rifles and Shotguns are more my cup of tea. Never claimed to be an expert, just that I fired them, and went through the safety course of the local PD here. Love my Mauser M-98 rifle, even has the original Nazi eagle on the barrel when my granddad pulled it off a dead German soldier in WWII.

I erroniously assumed that a 9mm you were talking about was an automatic, which I assumed was a correct assumption.

[DoNotRefill]

111. you're still clueless about guns and gun terminology.

ALL firearms, regardless of if they are of an "automatic" design (remember, though, that "automatic" handguns are not "fully automatic", they are "semi-automatic", with very few exceptions) or a rotating cylinder design, have chambers. You cannot differentiate between types of handguns by the presence of the word "chamber" in a description.

Your Mauser isn't an "M-98". It's a "98K" or "K-98". The "98" designation stems from the fact that the action was adopted in 1898. The "K" denotes the variant.

[Solon]

115. I'm so sorry...

No "K" on this gun, they even started up production again.

http://www.mauserwaffen.de/index.php?id=38&lang=en

[DoNotRefill]

117. Once again, you're batting .000

That's a HUNTING rifle. You described a MILITARY rifle. There IS a difference, unless your grandfather whacked some hunter dude...

THIS is a picture of the rifle you linked to:



This is an original G-98 series rifle from WWI:




This is the style of the rifle your grandfather undoubtedly took off a european battlefield during WWII...the K-98:



Now, please keep in mind, remaining stockpiles of G-98s were upgraded to K-98 configuration during the inter-war years, but the "M-98" you linked to is a WAY WAY WAY POST-WWII adaptation of the 98 action. The rifle you linked to does NOT come with nazi markings, unless I miss my guess....but you'd have to talk to them about that...

BTW, you DO realize that "m" comes AFTER "k" in the alphabet, right? I normally wouldn't ask this, but in this case I have to be sure...

[Solon]

118. Of course not, though it is odd...

The gun is original WWII, as far as I can tell, with only the bolt not being original to the gun. The only numbers on it are "M98" on the chamber and Serial Number. Also, it has the bayonet mount similar to the pic at the bottom, but with a metal butt to the stock. Similar in design, but not exact to the picture you have. Another feature of it is the Nazi Eagle on the barrel, very small, barely visible unless you look, that is the only adornment the rifle has. Maybe a sniper variant, I do not know.

[DoNotRefill]

125. There were several styles of buttplates used...

the one pictured was for laminated stocks and is very thin (you can't see it in the pic), there's a bigger one that "creeps" around the buttstock for non-laminated stocks.

A WWII-made bolt-action mauser of German manufacture with "waffenamts" is properly referred to as a "K-98" or a "98K". Trust me on this. This classification covers ALL of the "short" Mausers in 7.92 except for some of the really odd ones, like the mega-short Cavalry Carbine. There were a bunch of variations due to supply and contracting issues, but they're all considered to be "K-98s". Now you can find some REALLY weird markings on them...I've got a K-98 with Persian markings, along with a bunch of Yugo marked ones and even Turkish ones. I don't think ANY of them are actually stamped "K-98", but that's what they are.

[slamthecrank]

156. HA

"Trust me on this."

No thanks. And, I certainly wouldn't trust you around any child, either.

[DoNotRefill]

160. Fortunately....

you don't have any say about it...

:evilgrin:

[slamthecrank]

186. Unfortunately,

your child will grow up with goddam gun-nut, and will have a much higher chance of being injured/killed because of your ridiculous ego.

Get over yourself, fercryinoutloud.

[DoNotRefill]

190. Are you calling me a "goddam gun-nut"?

Have you read the board rules?

You say she'll have a much higer chance of being injured or killed because of my "ridiculous ego". Cite, please.

[iverglas]

144. don't you know??

Your inability to disassemble and reassemble any firearm that might be presented to you, while blindfolded, completely disqualifies you from having an opinion about the appropriateness of giving infants loaded handguns to chew on.

Just as it disqualifies you from having an opinion about any matter of public policy that relates to firearms.

Just as my inability to take my car's motor apart and put it back together disqualifies me from having an opinion about appropriate speed limits in school zones ...

[DoNotRefill]

163. Iverglas....

If you're going to assume something is dangerous, it might behoove you to have a basic understanding of the thing in question.

What y'all are doing here is the intellectual equivalent of seeing a story in the paper about somebody overdosing on Tylenol by eating an entire 500 pill bottle of extra-strength tylenol and dying of liver failure, and concluding that a parent that gives their child a single dose of children's tylenol when she has a fever is putting their child at risk of death.

Ignorance is not a virtue.

[iverglas]

200. you talking to me?

What y'all are doing here is ...

I don't think that "y'all" has anything to do with me.

... the intellectual equivalent of seeing a story in the paper about somebody overdosing on Tylenol by eating an entire 500 pill bottle of extra-strength tylenol and dying of liver failure, and concluding that a parent that gives their child a single dose of children's tylenol when she has a fever is putting their child at risk of death.

Actually, what *I* am saying (and sure, I'll say it again) is that a parent who handed his child a bottle of 222s to play with would be courting disaster.

NOT because the bottle of 222s might suddenly up-end itself and empty into the child's open mouth, but because the child would be learning a very strange lesson about how to treat bottles of 222s.

And I don't need to know the manner in which ASA and codeine work their magic inside the human body to know that. I don't even have to know how child-proof bottle caps work. IT DOESN'T MATTER.

No bottle is child-proof; it is only child-resistant. And a child that regards a bottle of 222s as a toy will one day regard it as a toy that requires further investigation, preferably away from prying eyes. And there will be no little voice in her head saying "no! don't touch!" Or if there is, there's going to be some point at which there's still that other little voice in her head, the one that not long ago was saying "here, play with this, darling". How's she supposed to know which one's worth paying attention to?

And that child - not the 6-month-old chewing the bottle - is the one whose parents may well find themselves at someone's funeral, depending on whether the child then ate the 222s herself, or fed them to the dog, or gave them to her little brother.

If the child has no externally imposed inhibitions on behaviours, she is not going to develop internal inhibitions.

You really, really do need to learn some child psychology.

Ah, I see I didn't just make those high-falutin expressions up. Pavlov seems to have done it. Well ring my bells and call me a behaviouralist ... but I wasn't using the terms quite that way. I'm talking about personality development, values acquisition, impulse control. A child who is not taught what to do and not do, even for self-preservation, is not going to learn by osmosis from the air around her, and is going to be left with that well-known best teacher, experience. Unfortunately, it may happen in the equally well-known school of hard knocks, before any better teacher has a chance to take over. A child who learns by experience that firearms can cause harm to her, or fast cars or boxes of matches or bottles of 222s can cause harm to her, may not get to move on to the next lesson.

[bitchkitty]

134. You're clueless about child-rearing.

What you describe is sickening, using your baby to justify your sick obsession with guns.

Your knowledge of the difference between the difference types of penis substitutes, pales beside your complete idiocy in giving your baby a gun. And then you brag about it, god help you.

[Cicero]

137. Questions of child-rearing aside, why is it...

...that its always those on the anti-gun side who make the comparisons between guns and male sexual organs?

Stale arguments? Projection?

Please tell me I'm not the only one who has noticed this.

Later,

[silvermachine]

138. If you really don't know...

...consult Freud.

[bitchkitty]

141. Gracias! n/t

[silvermachine]

143. Back atcha...

...The British group Television Personalities have a line in their song "King & Country" that goes:

"It's hard for me to understand
The fascination of a gun for a man"

Indeed.

Although in some cases, the need to compensate is all too illustrative.

btw:yourock:

[Cicero]

164. Freud, hmmm...

Didn't he also say, "Sometimes a cigar, is just a cigar"?

Didn't he also say something to the effect that a fear of weapons is a sign of sexual and emotional immaturity?

Later,

[silvermachine]

166. No fear of weapons here...

...just of the fools that worship them. After all guns don't kill people do they? People kill people riiiight????:sarcasm:

[DoNotRefill]

170. Who here is worshiping guns?

You made an uninformed statement. Live with it.

[Name removed]

174. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

204. of course the thing is

Didn't he also say something to the effect that a fear of weapons is a sign of sexual and emotional immaturity?

Why would he have said that if he weren't identifying weapons as sexually symbolic objects?

I mean, I doubt that he'd have said that a fear of cabbage was a sign of sexual and emotional immaturity ...

Me, I'd say that a fear of other people's sexually symbolic compensation mechanisms - when they're in the hands of such people - is rather eminently rational. People who go looking for that kind of compensation tend to be unpleasant at times.

Funny how irrelevant Freud tends to be, and how pointless it often is to cite him. Nobody quotes Bill O'Reilly on the nature of liberals; why would anyone quote a misogynist asshole like Freud on a typically "female" reaction to something as omnipresent in women's lives since time immemorial as the weapons used so banally against them by men?

My psychologist is the spitting image of him in his declining years, though. Gives me a giggle, that does.

[DoNotRefill]

165. Oh, Goody. Let's consult Freud.

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

Sound familiar?

[Solon]

69. No offense, but DCF should take your child away...

that is criminal negligence, and you should be in jail for that. Just my opinion but hey, what type of parent but a bad one will allow a 6 month old to handle ANY gun, loaded or unloaded?

[Retired AF Dem]

71. DNR was being sarcastic

you know since us gun owners are all toothless dumb ass rednecks and all.

[iverglas]

72. you sure?

I'm not.

Since DoNotRefill inexplicably named his daughter after moi (I kid y'all not, although I'll admit the intent may have been missing and the order and spelling aren't right) and so I feel rather fairy godmotherly toward her, I actually don't want to know.

[DoNotRefill]

88. Don't worry, Iverglas....

there was never any danger....even if she had pulled the trigger (which she didn't), the gun still wouldn't have fired.

[iverglas]

145. well, I guess Retired AF Dem was wrong

And I'm once again disappointed.

Surely it's basic "child psychology" that one does not teach a child that something is a toy (or food, or a nice place to visit ...) when the consequences of the child playing with it (or eating it, or going there ...) could be catastrophic.

What children under the age of 12 need to know about firearms is pretty simple: do not touch them. Pretty much like what they need to know about hazardous household products, prescription medicines, cigarettes, alcohol, the gas pedals in cars, chainsaws, and assorted other things that adults may be wont to use but that children should not. Simply because

- they do not have the intellectual development to appreciate the consequences of improper handling, in all circumstances;

- they do not have the intellectual development to assess the risks of those consequences occurring, in all circumstances;

- they are do not have the emotional maturity to resist impulses to do something unsafe;

- they are intellectually and/or physically incapable of reliably carrying out the procedures and following the instructions that reduce the risks inherent in using such things.

One does not teach one's children not to play in traffic by sending them out to play in traffic and see how it feels.

Undoubtedly, children at some age before 12, in a home where firearms may be accessible to them (which they should never be, but there you go), should be allowed to handle them (unloaded, duh) to satisfy their curiosity. But that is part and parcel of teaching them do not touch -- touch when I am here and allow you to and have ascertained that there is no danger, but otherwise do not. Period.

Your 6-month-old simply is not curious about firearms.

And encouraging her to play with them, to do what she wants with them, and at an age when there is simply no likelihood that she even could learn anything about them other than "tastes good" or "tastes bad" ... well, I'm just about at a loss for words. I've seldom heard anything so stupid in my entire life.

[DoNotRefill]

177. I disagree with you...

"Your 6-month-old simply is not curious about firearms."

She's very curious about a lot of things. For example, cellphones fascinate her. So does the TV remote control (she whacked me in the head with it a few days ago) She saw that the gun was on my belt while I was holding her, and most definitely scrambled to get to it. Did she know it was a gun? Nope, she has no concept what a gun is or does, just as she's not really aware of what a cellphone does.

"One does not teach one's children not to play in traffic by sending them out to play in traffic and see how it feels."

One might well teach a child not to play in traffic by sitting next to a busy road with the child on your lap so that they can see just how fast the cars go by, yes? It's one thing to teach by endangering the child, but there was no danger in what I did. It was a physical impossibility that the gun could have been made to discharge by ANYTHING the baby did. The gun could have fired by the actions of the baby just as much as the baby could have flown of her own volition because she has a bathtowel-turned-superman cape on.

"- they do not have the intellectual development to appreciate the consequences of improper handling, in all circumstances;

- they do not have the intellectual development to assess the risks of those consequences occurring, in all circumstances;

- they are do not have the emotional maturity to resist impulses to do something unsafe;

- they are intellectually and/or physically incapable of reliably carrying out the procedures and following the instructions that reduce the risks inherent in using such things."

You need to start somewhere. You don't teach a child to play classical piano by starting them out by sitting them at a piano on-stage in a crowded concert hall, putting sheet music to a Chopin composition up, and telling them "OK, play this." You start them out by teaching them to play "Chopsticks" or something similar when nobody else is around. It's a progression. As for the risks inherent in using such things, that's why I was there, to make sure that there was no risk, and there WAS no risk.

[iverglas]

194. well ya see

... there was no danger in what I did. It was a physical impossibility that the gun could have been made to discharge by ANYTHING the baby did.

... that may relate to something someone said, but it had nothing to do with what I said.

You don't teach a child to play classical piano by starting them out by sitting them at a piano on-stage in a crowded concert hall, putting sheet music to a Chopin composition up, and telling them "OK, play this."

Uh huh. And if the child attempts to play the piano in your absence, why it's very likely that the piano will ... what? Fall on her head? Make a noise accidentally and scare someone to death?

As analogies go ...

Maybe we could get back to one that's actually somewhat analogous?

One might well teach a child not to play in traffic by sitting next to a busy road with the child on your lap so that they can see just how fast the cars go by, yes?

Well, no. At least not unless the child is of an age when it is likely to run out into traffic of its own accord. It would be foolhardy to introduce a child to the concept of "look how exciting that is! look at the exciting place I could go if someone just let go of me!" before the child is old enough to grasp the concept of danger. Until the child is old enough to grasp that concept (even if the danger s/he understands is only the danger that s/he will be shouted at and packed off to bed), there simply is no reason in introducing the child to dangerous things.

And when the child happens upon such a thing, the only reasonable instruction is "no". Don't touch. It becomes more reasonable to allow the child to touch, in the appropriate conditions, as the child grows older. So it makes no sense to start out by granting access on the child's terms (demanding it, getting it and chewing on it) and then trying to deny access except on your terms.

As for the risks inherent in using such things, that's why I was there, to make sure that there was no risk, and there WAS no risk.

Once again ... I didn't say there was.

I said there were risks inherent in children learning that it is acceptable for them to handle firearms before they are remotely capable of understanding the conditions on which this must be done.

And I said that introducing a firearm to a child as a toy is as ridiculous as introducing vodka to a child as a fun and pleasant thing to drink on a Saturday morning.

The risk of that behaviour isn't that the firearm will spontaneously go off when you put it in your child's hands, any more than there is a risk that the matches you hand her will spontaneously combust.

The risk is simply that the child is *not* learning not to touch, she is learning to play with.

If you continue this approach -- here, play with this, dear -- there is going to come a time when you change it. It's going to have to become don't play with this, when the child is old enough to get hold of the thing when you're not looking and to do something harmful to herself or others with it. And never mind the bollocks: if the firearm is there, that circumstance is going to arise, somewhere and sometime. Even if it means the kid climbing on a chair and grabbing it from your body when you have the new baby in your arms and you have to choose between you dropping that baby and your bigger baby making off with a firearm. At some point, she is going to have access to it when she should not.

If your child has been merrily playing with the firearm(s) and is suddenly being told that firearms aren't for playing with ... you don't foresee a problem?

If your baby had seen you taking a pill and wanted to play with the pill bottle, would you have handed it over? The matchbox? The chainsaw?

Some things just are not toys. And I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would want to teach his/her child that they are.

[DoNotRefill]

197. Heh.

"Well, no. At least not unless the child is of an age when it is likely to run out into traffic of its own accord. It would be foolhardy to introduce a child to the concept of "look how exciting that is! look at the exciting place I could go if someone just let go of me!" before the child is old enough to grasp the concept of danger. Until the child is old enough to grasp that concept (even if the danger s/he understands is only the danger that s/he will be shouted at and packed off to bed), there simply is no reason in introducing the child to dangerous things."

So I guess we should yank the child safety seat out of the back of the car, and keep the baby in the house 24/7? After all, we wouldn't want to be foolhardy and introduce her to traffic, right? Or should we stick her in the trunk when she needs to leave the house so she can't see anything? (this IS sarcasm, BTW)

"And I said that introducing a firearm to a child as a toy is as ridiculous as introducing vodka to a child as a fun and pleasant thing to drink on a Saturday morning."

Jeez, now you've got something against Vodka??? ;) (once again, this is in sarcastic jest)

[LisaL]

80. Don't know about you, but DNR sure seems to be one.

[DoNotRefill]

83. actually, I have all my teeth...

I hold an advanced (postgraduate) degree, and work in an "intellectual" job for "Tha G".

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

109. I don't care if you have a hat full of PhD's giving an infant a loaded

gun deserves the dumb fuck of the year award.

[DoNotRefill]

113. Thanks.

:)

BTW, once my child is "gun-proofed", she'll be pretty much out of danger from people doing stupid things with guns. She'll know to tell them to stop, or she will know to haul ass and get away from them. Can you say the same about YOUR kids?

[BikeWriter]

127. You don't properly "gun-proof" a child...

by allowing them to teeth on a weapon as a baby, any more than you keep a dog from chewing up your boots by allowing them to teeth on them as a puppy. IMO, your reasoning is illogical, irrational, and dangerous. I advise you to seek professional help.

[slamthecrank]

161. and furthermore...

your idea of child-rearing is actually allowing your child to be brought up in a culture of guns/weapons. This is not any help to anyone, including your child. You, sir, are the problem.

And, I can't believe the audacity and arrogance of someone who continues to argue how "right" they are for teaching their child (at 6 months, no less) how to behave with a gun. For their first birthday, are you going to give the child a k-bar? Or perhaps let them *shoot* down the pinata?

[DoNotRefill]

172. Nah, she will not get to shoot a gun....

until she specifically requests to, and we've found appropriate safety equipment to fit her.

If she wants a knife, all she has to do is go into the kitchen and open the silverware drawer....

You seem to have a problem with gun ownership. As for "the culture of guns/weapons", and it not helping anyone, including the child, I beg to differ with you. Both my wife and I are currently alive because we carried guns on certain days. When our child grows up, she will have the option to not be a victim if attacked.

[BikeWriter]

187. Too, too tempting...

[slamthecrank]

158. HAHAHAH

wow, there's a suprise.

[DoNotRefill]

74. how do you figure it's criminal negligence?

What cereal box did you get your J.D. off the back of?

Guns are a part of life. I'd much rather that our child grow up knowing guns and being comfortable with them than be as ignorant about guns as some people in this thread have demonstrated that they are.

[LisaL]

78. I much rather your kid grew up.

:eyes:
Instead of ending up as the 4 year old in this story. I am sure his parents were gun loving just as you are.
:eyes:

[DoNotRefill]

81. Guns are a tool, nothing more.

And our kids will be taught safe firearms handling, as the shooter in this story obviously WASN'T.

[LisaL]

84. At 6 month old?

Give me a break!
:eyes:

[DoNotRefill]

86. this is BASIC psychology...

if you teach a kid that something is forbidden, you'll just create the desire for them to get it. If it's an everyday thing, they don't seek it out.

[Dora]

95. Nah, I don't buy it.

I was forbidden from playing with my stepdad's tools - that didn't make me mess around with them whenever I went into the toolshed to put air in my basketball.

I was forbidden from playing with my mother's cosmetics - I stayed out of it.

These were both "everyday" things for my parents, but I understood that I was to leave them alone. Period.

[DoNotRefill]

98. And if you did....

mess with stuff you shouldn't have messed with, what was the result?

[BikeWriter]

131. Yeah, right, then a toddler thinks nothing of picking a pistol up...

[DoNotRefill]

180. How is she going to pick up a pistol up...

when the only pistols in the house that are not in the safe are on her parent's belts?

You seem to think we leave pistols lying around under the furniture with the dustbunnies. That's not the case any more. We used to have pistols (and some considerably bigger things) scattered around the house in easy to access places, but we locked them up with her birth, and started carrying instead.

Whenever our daughter is with her parents, she's around a gun. Whenever she's not with either of us, she's not.

[BikeWriter]

189. You or your wife will lay one down. You are not infallible.

[DoNotRefill]

191. True, we're not perfect...

but we DO normally keep our pants on while wandering around the house. And if we take them off, we don't let the baby in, lest she see something she shouldn't.

[BikeWriter]

201. You have admitted you handle weapons constantly...

The child is exposed to them constantly. You have bragged she's teethed on the damn thing, and she will be fascinated by them, if she isn't already. You will let down your guard eventually. There are any number of people in this thread who believe you are endangering your child. Please, reconsider your philosophy. Hell, do some research.

[bitchkitty]

135. So your degree is in Psychology?

I kind of doubt that.

I suggest you visit a child psychologist or two and tell them what you just told all of us. Then after they report you and you're in jail for child abuse, you can borrow the warden's laptop and come back and tell all of us how stupid society is for not letting you let your baby chew on a loaded weapon.

[BikeWriter]

139. Thank you, Kitty.

[DoNotRefill]

159. Mine isn't...

My wife's is.

You say it's child abuse. How do you figure that? Roemember, be SPECIFIC.

[Name removed]

167. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DoNotRefill]

173. Does having a PhD from an accredited State University?

eom

[Name removed]

184. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DoNotRefill]

192. yeah, right...

uh huh....so much for being anonymous on the board....thanks, but no thanks.

[Solon]

91. Let's see if I can explain why I think the way I do...

First, you claim the gun didn't have a trigger lock on it, even if on safety, and no round was in the chamber, even though I assume the magazine was loaded. You broke the first rule in firearms training, treat ALL guns as loaded and dangerous by allowing a 6 month old handle it period.

Second, a 6 month old will not learn a damn thing about gun safety through handling a gun at that age. Hello, child development anyone? At that age, they have almost no language skills, though they are developing rapidly, however, at that age, they don't even have the necessary skills to even understand what a gun is. What was the point of allowing a 6 month old to handle the gun again? I could understand a 6 year old, or preferably older, with a completely unloaded gun with total supervision by a RESPONSIBLE parent, but I guess that's too much to ask of you.

Finally, I say it is criminally negligent the same as if you allowed your 6 month old to handle a lighter, even with the safety mechnasims on those. Or if parent's allowed their kids to play in the street at the age of 2-4 unsupervised. WTF were you thinking?

[DoNotRefill]

94. Then I suggest that you don't understand what "criminal negligence"...

actually IS.

I did NOT violate the first rule of firearms training, because we did indeed treat the gun as if it was loaded, because it WAS loaded. The "dangerous" part is something YOU added to the rule. A gun is no more inherently dangerous than a wide variety of other implements.

You say that a 6 month old will not learn anything about safe gun handling because of her age. What I can tell you is that if I refused to let her see it under controlled circumstances, she MOST CERTAINLY would have wanted to see it even MORE. Don't believe me? If you've got a 6 month old, introduce something new that the baby is interested in getting her hands on, and then remove it without letting her handle it and watch what happens. That result is NOT because the baby is HAPPY.

You're accusing me of committing a crime in a public forum. That's what "criminal negligence" is. I request that you immediately cease and desist accusing me of criminal conduct. You can say I'm a bad parent all you want, because that's your opinion, and isn't a crime.

As to "what I was thinking", I don't see guns as inherently evil items, as you obviously do. They're not even particularly dangerous if handled in an appropriate manner. My child will grow up in an environment where guns are an everyday household item. As such, it's my responsibility to "gun-proof" my child. Training starts young...

[LisaL]

96. The more I read your posts, the more I think you need professional help.

[DoNotRefill]

97. Heh...

thank you. :)

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RebelOne]

133. Yes, the more I read DNR's posts, I have to agree with you. n/t

[Solon]

100. Thanks for putting words in my mouth...

Did I ever say that guns were evil? No I did not, I fired my first gun at 12, sold them, and trained in there use. You object to my use of criminal negligence, fine, look at the definition here:

Criminal Negligence

n : (law) recklessly acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death (or failing to do something with the same consequences)

You put your own child at risk of injury or death by allowing them, at 6 months old, to handle a loaded firearm, regardless of how controlled the enviroment was with exposure. Add to this the fact that you also claimed to not lock up the gun, yet also assure us that it is always on you, I shudder to think of what will happen when the child starts walking around and wanders around to find the gun untended with your back turned. That's reckless to say the least, at the very least, you should not retain custody of the child, nor should you have firearms at all in the house. Irresponsiblity and stupidity aren't rights when others are put in danger, in a case like that, its criminal.

[DoNotRefill]

102. So you say I shouldn't have custody of my child?

Good luck with that, Skippy... ;)

Your rabid anti-gun and anti-parent agenda is showing...We don't give up our civil liberties when we have children.

You say I put my child at risk of death by allowing her to handle the firearm. Please explain HOW I did that. Please be SPECIFIC.

[Solon]

107. Anti-Gun? Anti-Parent?

How about Pro-responsibility for once, I'm sick and tired of the fucking projections others make on those of us who actually advocate for RESPONSIBILE gun ownership, instead of excusing the stupidity of others when using a weapon of any sort. I don't like comments like "Guns are evil." anymore than you do, but you do a disservice to those of us who aren't against 2nd amendment rights by espousing your own brand of stupidity.

[DoNotRefill]

110. You still haven't said how I put her in ANY kind of danger...

and once again, BE SPECIFIC.

As for your being both anti-parent and anti gun, hey, I've only got your words to go on. You know, the ones about no guns in the house if there are kids there, et cetera.

Your idea of "RESPONSIBLE" gun ownership is a pathetic joke. I hope you don't suppport OTHER Civil Liberties in the same manner....because if you do, I'll expect to see you lobbying FOR Patriot II.

[Solon]

114. No I said YOU shouldn't have guns in the house with kids...

that's specific. Show irresponsibility and pay the price, simple really. As far as putting your daughter in danger, let me see, oh yeah, you put a loaded gun in her hand, where can I get any more specific? I would say that you on the same level as the idiot who left a hole a foot from the bed of my friend by cleaning his rifle 3 trailers down from his and swore it was unloaded at the time. He was lucky he didn't kill anyone, and so are you, next time use common sense.

[DoNotRefill]

116. So just holding a gun puts somebody in danger???

even when there's no round in the chamber, and the muzzle is pointed in a safe direction? What do you think could happen? Is the gun going to magically chamber a round and fire, and is the bullet going to do a 180 degree turn and hit her? There was exactly the same amount of danger present by my putting that gun in her hands so she could see and chew on the backstrap as there would have been if I handed her a well-sanded block of wood or plastic. In other words, there was no danger at all.

If I have time this weekend, just for you, I'll take and post a picture of her handling a real-live belt-fed machinegun. :evilgrin:

[Solon]

119. I don't know, those blocks of wood or plastic can have some sharp...

corners, even sanded, may take out an eye with that. ;)

That isn't really here or there though, I'm not talking about impossiblities in cases such as this. I'm talking safety and common sense. How many people such as yourself have claimed the gun was unloaded and "safe" before their kids accidently shot someone or themselves? Why do you think you are any different than that? Do you even have a gun safe/cabinet? Why do you believe you are a responsible gun owner when admitting to the indefensible?

You claim that there was no round in the chamber and that it would be physically impossible for the gun to fire at that time, regardless of whether their were rounds in the magazine. That may be true, and as such, it was pretty much an inert piece of metal in that case. But given your comments on this thread, I do find your flippant disregard of what a gun is, a weapon, and a potentially dangerous one in the wrong hands, that I fear that next time, you may forget to check the chamber, and live to regret it later.

[DoNotRefill]

123. Uh, yeah, I have a gun safe...

it weighs in at 1900 pounds EMPTY, and it's a virtual impossibility for an unauthorized person to get into it without destroying the guns inside of it. I'm not talking about crackheads, I'm talking about professional "safecrackers" with tools. Anybody who tries to "drill" my safe is going to be in for an extremely, EXTREMELY nasty surprise...

We lock up the guns THAT ARE NOT BEING USED in the safe.

As for "people like me" thinking that the gun was unloaded, I'd suggest that there ain't a whole lot of people like me out there. The mere fact that I personally and legally own more than a couple of real, operable machineguns should tell you that.

I'm wondering how familiar you are with Glocks. That's the gun in question in this case, a Glock 19. If you're not familiar with them, when the gun has an empty chamber and the trigger has been pulled, the trigger stays in the "back" position. This is the first part of the disassembly process. I carry my Glock in "Condition 3" (that means a loaded magazine, but no round in the chamber, and the gun uncocked), with the trigger back. I do this because it's safer (you can't have a negligent discharge holstering it without a round in the chamber), and at need, I can chamber a round in a fraction of a second. This means that you can either visually inspect the trigger area or inspect the trigger by touch and tell if there could possibly be a round in the chamber. If the trigger is forward, there is the possibility that there is a round chambered (this doesn't mean there IS a round in the chamber, just that it's POSSIBLE). If the trigger is back, it's pretty much impossible that there could be a round chambered. When I drew the gun from the pancake, I checked the position of the trigger, and it was in the "back" position. I did this before allowing her to grab the backstrap. Even if she had been left ALONE with the gun, she STILL would have been safe, since she lacks the physical ability to "rack" the slide and chamber a round. She was barely able to pick up bits of food and get them in her mouth at the time, much less rack the slide (my mother can rack the slide only with difficulty, it's got a "beefy" spring) and chamber a round.

[LisaL]

150. I am not sure what your problem is. You remind me of the baby

danglers that dangle their babies from balconies or in front of hungry crocodiles. What was the point of giving your baby a loaded gun? You claim you want her to be familiar with guns-does she know at 6 month old if the gun is loaded or not? Obviously something freaky is going on in your head if you feel the need to give a 6 month old baby a loaded gun.

[iverglas]

153. aha!

You remind me of the baby danglers that dangle their babies ... in front of hungry crocodiles.

I'd been considering googling up a pic of that one myself. Here we are:



Best get them used to handling/doing things that are not dangerous ... if done by informed, skilled adults ... when they're young enough not to know that they're not informed and skilled enough to handle or do them safely ...

[BikeWriter]

203. There you go! This "weapon's expert" is doing the same. IMO.

[DoNotRefill]

175. The point was...

that she saw it, scrambled to get it, so rather than allow it to become an issue of "I want it and can't have it so I want it more", I allowed her to see it, touch it, and taste it in a highly controlled environment where there was no danger at all to anybody. I SUSPECT that she's not going to want to taste it any more, because, frankly, gun oil tastes like crap.

[DoNotRefill]

178. I don't have a problem....

but that's not true of some others here...

[BikeWriter]

198. Yes, you do. A number of them in fact.

[BikeWriter]

130. All wise points, Solon.

[BikeWriter]

124. IMHO, you don't have a clue about firearm training and safety.

[DoNotRefill]

126. That's odd...

considering that for years I made at least part of my living as a LEO firearms instructor...

Of course, you know what they say about opinions being like assholes...everybody's got one, and yours....well, we don't need to go there... ;)

[BikeWriter]

128. I trained my children in firearms safety. None have been injured...

in accidents, and they are all expert marksmen and women. I hope you can say that in thirty years.

[BikeWriter]

129. On the following url are stories about LEO firearms instructor's...

children involved in firearm incidents.

http://forums.officer.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-22562.html

[Name removed]

183. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DoNotRefill]

195. Actually, I left the Executive branch after Law School...

and am now in the Judiciary.

[slamthecrank]

199. you're in "judiciary"?

wow, it's a pleasure to meet you.

I am BATMAN. :hi:

[BikeWriter]

205. Hey Batman, I'm Aquaman!

:toast:

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

106. Jesus

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

108. Jesus...

[DoNotRefill]

112. I didn't realize....

that you were so religious....

[Im_Your_Huckleberry]

142. yup, you are. good luck with the kid.

[NuttyFluffers]

57. Now that vet is a very responsible example.

it's a pity common sense isn't so common.

my sympathies for the family. i don't know whether i'm for or against negligent homicide/manslaughter charges in this case. the punishment already seems to be delivered, and a horrific one at that... poor parents.

[Xithras]

52. These people should be charged

First off, they weren't shooting at a range. If you read carefully, you'll see that they just hung a target against some foliage and started shooting at it. Woe to the poor hiker that stumbled behind his bushes.

Also, NOBODY should be present when shooting unless they're either shooting themselves, are learning the rudiments of shooting, or are there as an observer who knows and follows all range rules. My 10 year old owns her own rifle and my 7 year old just recently took his first shot, but neither of them were allowed near the range until they could recite my long list of range safety rules with their eyes closed. I also NEVER take them shooting by myself...we have a rule at our range that you have to have one adult responsible for every child at all times...a "gun buddy" system, if you will. We know where our kids are, and we make sure they never cross the firing line for ANY reason.

The adults in this story didn't simply have an accident, they were criminally negligent and created a situation that grossly ignored the basic safety of both their children and everyone else around them who may have been enjoying the lake. They should be locked up.

[TheWraith]

56. Uh...

"NOBODY should be present when shooting unless they're either shooting themselves"

Perhaps you'd like to rephrase that? ;)

[marions ghost]

65. Agree--charges should be levied

on the basis of criminal negligence. This is the only way these people can understand the seriousness of the situation they created.

[Old_Fart]

55. Was the target in the shape of a human or an animal?

A four year old kid is very small. What were they practicing shooting?

[pinniped]

64. It is required of all participants that they wear camo at these events...

no matter what the age.

Personal responsibility. The shooter should demand he be charged.

[RedCloud]

149. A four year old was killed...

I'll stay focused on that. That any child should lose their life is a great tradegy regardless of how.

I need windshield wipers for my eyes just to deal with it.

If there is any force out there, please have mercy on this kid.

[Jimbo S]

154. Nada a word from the Pro-Lifers I bet.

Once again showing they are only pro-birth, the heck with quality of life.

[stanwyck]

169. I wish this child had been loved

if he had, he'd be alive. Parents who love their children don't put them into situations with live ammo. Why would you do that? It's insane. As a parent, you've made the decision to bring a life into the world. A life you're going to protect. Especially if the child in only 4 years old. Accidents happen. Car accidents. Crib deaths. But combining children with target practice is not an accident. This child was not loved enough to be taken care of adequately.
That's why I'm pro-choice. Every child deserves to be loved, wanted, and protected.

[Gregorian]

179. I'm Pro-LOVE.

What a great post. That is a very good way to put it. I just don't know why the whole world doesn't have that kind of intelligent thought process. It's true. It cannot be denied.
Think what it would be like if we had laws on the books to promote love rather than banning abortion.

[DoNotRefill]

181. Being pro-choice....

suggests that people should be allowed to make their own decisions without being castigated by others, yes?

"But combining children with target practice is not an accident. This child was not loved enough to be taken care of adequately."

I bet you truly don't see the disconnect between your being "pro-choice" and that statement....

/sigh

[SemiCharmedQuark]

193. By your logic, we should respect people's choice to slap their kids around

Or murder people.

And pro-choice means you are legally able to do x. It doesn't mean you are free from criticism for it.

[stanwyck]

206. actually, being pro-choice

means that having a child is a very conscious decision to nurture a life from conception through childhood. This means not having a child you ignore while around drunken adults with firearms. This means not having a child who doesn't receive protection, love, and care. This is the essence of love. You care to create a child who will be nurtured. Conceiving is the easy part. Caring and loving is the difficult, demanding part.
Parents who allow their 4 year old to be in the midst of target practice should be castigated. They may profess to be "pro-life". Yet a child died on their watch.
Why you equate being pro-choice simply with "making decisions without being castigated" is a mystery.
It's about caring about quality of life.
And quality of life isn't children as target practice.

[Moderator]

207. Locking

This thread has become a flamefest.