Why would you leave a gun where a little kid can get it?Follow

^^^ /liberal rant Oh No! Guess I should Make Jonwin get rid of the amnmo he has in the closet! /Liberal Rant off

Actually it's for when he goes to Single Action Tournaments with a friend. He borrow a gun from his friend, but since the ammo is costly get his own. Even with a gun safe I would have been worry about having guns around my youngest. There were times, I thought of getting a safe to lock up my kitchen knives from her, but then she would have just thought of some other way to kill herself, just so she could stay out of school.

Thankfully she stop threatening to kill herself when she moved out and got her GED. Since her boyfriend is from Texas, I expect her to have her own handgun within a few years.

I keep my ammo in a safe. Guns are kept in separate, locked metal cabinets in the "gun room". Ammo never meets gun until I am ready to discharge the firearm. It's much safer that way.

I don't need to think about the safety of the child, nor do I have to think about how to prevent it from happening again when I know why it occurred in the first place. THE PARENTS ARE IDIOTS!

Not to mention that this isn’t the first time that I have thought about, or talked about this topic. Like the OP said. These stories aren’t uncommon. Your assumption that passing the blame to be my first thought is retarded. It may have been what I posted, by my first though, hardly. Your generalization is as annoying as your assumption.

You want my honest opinion of how to solve such issues? Make parents take a test before they can reproduce. Then pass more laws making parents liable for their children’s actions instead of blaming music, television, video games and guns.

Following this logic we should make **** illegal because it affects a rapists mind. We should also make alcohol illegal because people die from drunk driving accidents all the time.

Edited, Tue Jan 24 15:34:14 2006 by fenderputy

Jesus f*cking chris how thick is this guy?

Ok here is is laid out in simple f*cking terms on the off chance your three underused brain cells are close enought together so that they can have a group hug and work together on this one.

The more guns there are (with me so far? more guns ok) the more deaths per 100 guns per year.

So if there is 10000 guns availible in a city of 1,000,000 Vs a city with 30000 guns in the 1,000,000 population instead of the no of deaths increasing by a factor of 3 it is more like a factor of 8 or higher and then when you have 50000 guns instead of a factor of 5 its a factor of 20 and so on.

It is not deaths per % population it is deaths per gun that increases exponentially

It is also true that restricting the type of weapons effects the no of deaths per 100 guns with the largest leap in DpHG (deaths per hundred guns) being when Handguns are not availible.

Would you like me to explain the exponential increase in DpHG in relation to total number of weapons again or have you got it?

Missing the point again Fender, it about "Blame society" it's about people looking to make a quick buck instead of addressing the issue.

It's about Paramedics being too scared to treat people while off duty incase they get sued.

It's about patients taking doctors to court for trying to save life.

It's about thinking about sueing the parents instead of looking after the child.

It's coming over to the UK and it pisses me off, the "Injury Lawyers for you" adverts asking for people to sue the company because they fell off a ladder or because they tripped over a flagstone when wearing 6 inch stilletto's.

I'm not sure that's the reaction of the average American. I know a lot of people who have been in situations where they could have brought a suit due to injury or grievance, and didn't. On the other hand I don't personally know anyone who has brought such a suit, aside from a workman's comp claim.

At any rate - only a fool would argue that a loaded gun is a safe item to have accessible to a child. However, in terms of fatalities, swimming pools are far more dangerous to children under age 11. More fun facts courtesy of Freakonomics!

Katie the Deathwisher wrote:

Katie, Bob forbid it should happen, but the middle of the night, when your house is going up in flames very, very quickly, it will be safe to assume you will be fairly groggy amidst the confusion. You will not have time to find blankets, smash windows, and undo screens in such an emergency situation.

You've made quite a nice little death trap for you and your family. You'll never make it out alive. When the firemen, fire investigators and insurance investigators discover the nailed windows and your charred corpses, they will be as boggled by this as much as I am.

Others here will attribute it to Darwinism.

The Glorious AtomicFlea wrote:

That's usually the best course of action, in just about any situation.

Jacobdeception the Whackjob wrote:

Jumpin' Jeebus on a pogo stick, Jacob - you need to shoot out some more airholes in your bunker, bud.

Mistress Nadenu wrote:

I've got this spiffy little battle axe that I keep right next to my bed. Woe unto the ************ who tries to break into my house.

ElneClare wrote:
You're Katie's mom?! Better talk to her about those nailed windows!

Sounds like a refined version of Gbaji's claim that most deaths in the home are caused by swimming pools.

Did the book give an actual source and numbers for swimming pool deaths? Going off the CDC reports for unintentional deaths and its own claim that only 10% of drowning deaths occur in swimming pools, that'd be (in 2002) a total of 77 swimming pool drownings and 60 gunshot fatalities for ages 1-14 (they lump ages 10-14 together). Granted, I don't know how that 10% drowning number spreads across age ranges but 17 additional deaths seems a bit under the realm of "far more". I suppose that, by percentages, it's a ~25% increase which sounds better when trying to make a point.

Anyway, I've been unable to find an actual listing of swimming pool related drownings, much less by age so I was hoping the book came annotated. It could be that there was a 99.996% swimming pool involvement rate in drownings age 1-14 for all I know.

Di[sm][/sm]ck!

Couldn't the burglars/rapists/vikings break in just as easily, windows nailed shut or not?






Edited, Tue Jan 24 17:06:12 2006 by trickybeck

I make that assumption on words you wrote, so either you fail at written english or you fit into that catagory.

You are taking it out of context, the especially for cost or damages infers situations where there are cost or damages.

IE your kid wrecks your car into the neighbors house, you would be liable to pay for the repairs/insurance fees.

If you shoot someone in the face and are found liable under the law, that does not mean the other people can automatically sue you because you were found liable, it just means the judiciary system now has rights to your *** and they will go after it.

Liable = fault, not how much I should sue for.