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

Incorrect in that sentence there is no reason to use the word Liable UNLESS you are going to sue for damages.

the Judicial side of things is covered under the word Guilty.

The only context for the word Liable is as follows:

So like i said failed at written english of fits the catagory

If he indeed was not fitting into that catagory he would have used the Word "responcible".

in fact there is no reason to phrase the sentance in that way at all if he where not more interested in apportioning blame rather than consern for the child or preventing reoccurance.

Which was my original point in the first place.

Then you officially fail at written english.

If you want people to make the correct assumptions, try using the right words for what you mean.

which you are STILL not using by the way, you are still saying that you are glad that the parents will have to pay money the other child.

the fact anyone can take any Joy (again your words) out of the liablity of the parents in an incident like this just reinforces the view that you are a blame apportioning law suit happy American.

Think about what you are saying in you post here If you read it correctly is that you are happy that the parents will be sued for damages rather than guns be to blame.

If thats not what you mean then try changing the words you are using.

Edited, Tue Jan 24 17:53:22 2006 by tarv

Yeah. Levitt uses it as a "question your assumptions" point, not a "fill in your swimming pools" argument.

Here's an excerpt quoting his stat. It doesn't give a full source, though.

Well, next time you use it, remember to specify an age range so you're at least partially accurate
Interestingly, while the numbers support the jist of Levitt's claims, none of them actually match the CDC data.

Levitt says that 742 children 10 and under drowned in 1997 while the CDC reports 888 drownings in the 0-10 age bracket. He then says that "about" 175 children in that age died from firearms (in 1998) when the CDC reports 206 deaths in that bracket; 54 accidental and 152 considered homicides.

Levitt says that 75% of drowning deaths for that bracket occur in swimming pools. The CDC doesn't provide hard data on rate of swimming pool involvement in drownings any select bracket but the article in which it states its 10% number also says:
Residential home pools, however, do play a major role in childhood drownings when toddlers fall or wander into them. There is strong evidence that adequate fencing and self-latching gates substantially reduce the number of childhood drownings and virtually eliminate drownings among toddlers

While toddlers typically represent an age bracket of 1-3, I can accept from it that the rate of drownings involving swimming pools is greater for ages up to 10 than it is on the national average. Still, it's a little strange that his data doesn't add up. I'm not implying anything by that other than the queerness of data though, especially since the broad argument is untouched.

Edited, Wed Jan 25 08:51:57 2006 by Jophiel

What's your point?

A stationary gun without a person pulling the trigger is just that, a stationary gun. It's nothing more then metal and moving pieces. It takes a person and some level of stupidity, and/or evilness to make the gun go "bang" and hurt/kill.

The question is how to solve the issue of people being undeservedly shot. Do you take the gun away from the society, or do you try to fix society at large and prevent the person from using the gun in the wrong way. I prefer numero 2. I like my social liberties and don't want them stipped away.

Edited, Tue Jan 24 23:54:03 2006 by fenderputy

my point is that it takes both. One, or the other alone wont hurt but together its a deadly combo.

Harder to shoot people, I reckon.

I do not understand what the hubub is over guns. I've lived in the south most of my life and nearly everyone has a gun. I've known where my father's gun is since I was 5 or 6 years old. Since that time my father took the time to raise me and give me a little bit of gun safety training.

He keeps it loaded, unlocked, unchambered, and safed. It took me until I was about 10 to be able to chamber a round myself.

I'm no super marksman or somthing, but I do know that if the situation arises that I won't blow my own head off or somthing stupid.

So, from my experience, all it takes is a little parental caution until the child is old enough to understand and take instruction on guns. If you're going to have guns around then this is the only sensible course of action. Otherwise, hooray for natural selection.

Nothing to see here.... post pharming for the win..

Edited, Thu Jan 26 12:38:28 2006 by tarv

Tarv, do you honestly think less guns will mean less overall deaths, or just less gun deaths?

That's crazy talk. That's like thinking that letting pedophiles babysit your children makes them more likely to be sexually abused.

Sorry to interrupt the bullsh[/b]it conservative posturing and the limp-di[b]cked anti-gun liberal rhetoric, but there are more details on the news story in question today.

http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=104&sid=653038

Quick breakdown for people too lazy to click:

- boy (shooter) is 8 years old, girl (victim) is 7.

- The weapon used came from the boy's father, John L. Hall Sr., age 56.

- John Hall and his 8 year old son share a bedroom together; the weapon was kept in a hatbox there. Hall has been arrested for five counts related to this shooting.

- John Hall taught his son how to **** and fire the weapon in question.

- John Hall is a convicted felon who cannot legally purchase a handgun. The handgun is actually registered to Clyde Colmes Jr, age 53. The handgun was legally purchased and then later transferred to Hall. Colmes has been arrested for providing a weapon to a convicted felon.



There was discussion about this on the radio this morning, and the radio folks had some more details that I haven't verified yet. They said that the boy made threatening statements to the victim prior to the shooting - specifically, telling her that he was going to rob her, then kill her. They also said that the boy's father, Hall, had been convicted of something like seventeen separate offenses over the course of his life, including violent crimes and one count of intimidating a witness.

It was also said that the 8 year old boy, the shooter, was on Ritalin; furthermore that he had a history of violent problems himself.

Sounds like an awesome home environment.



Juicy stuff, but it's all hearsay, for the moment; unless it appears in print somewhere I can't take it as factual. DC area news stories tend to run on opinion for a week or two before people sort out what's actually happening (as it did during the DC Sniper fiasco, where authorities were telling people to look out for the White Truck of Doom).

I don't see that as a compelling argument to ban guns.

Next post try making sense.

Not the words, the logic behind the sarcasm. I want to know if Tarv thinks that:

A) Less guns = less gun deaths, but not violent deaths overall (i.e. I can't find any guns but these knives sure are sharp)

-or-

B) Less guns = less gun deaths = less violent deaths overall(i.e. Man I would kill that as[/i]shole if I had a gun, but since I don't, and have no imagination whatsoever, I will instead go take a nap)

-or-

C) Something else I am missing.

Then you came in out of left field with your kiddiefu[i]cker comparison which had nothing to do with my post.