The Times News reports
Don't you think it's funny the way gun-friendly news sources report these things as simple accidents, as if they could happen to anyone. And naturally the gun-friendly police in Tennessee report that "At this time, we have not gotten far enough into the investigation to determine if charges will be filed."Investigators report the 7-year-old boy was playing with his 4-year-old and 13-year-old brothers in a bedroom when the gun went off and struck the 7-year-old in the head.
According to investigators, the three boys thought the loaded weapon was a toy.
The unidentified boy was flown to UT with possibly life-threatening injuries.
Major Michelle Jones said the children reside at the home with their parents and grandparents and the gun was registered to a member of the household.
How about this for a plan. Every time a child gets ahold of a gun the owner of that gun goes immediately to jail. Then, the investigators can put together all the details for a judge to render the appropriate sentence.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
mikeb302000 said...
ReplyDelete"How about this for a plan. Every time a child gets ahold of a gun the owner of that gun goes immediately to jail. "
WOW, what did the Constitution do to piss you off? Just shred that thing like an Enron CEO.
2A naw, let's just strike that one out.
4A it's just pesky to keep around.
5A naw, let's get rid of that one, too.
14A due process, what?
It's a shame that your hatred for the Constitution got in the way of your message.
You know what I hate, it's the stupid mother fuckers who leave their guns around for kids to play with. What baffles me is guys like you who defend them.
DeleteSome crimes are considered serious enough that people get locked up immediately and cannot even post bail until the trial. I say this is one of them. It's for the children, man.
I agree that this is a sad and tragic story and I think the father is a dumbass and I didn't defend him. I merely pointed out your willingness to trample the rights of the would be accused.
DeleteNO ONE 'hates' the Constitution. Bullshit. That is a false and dishonest argument.
DeleteWOW, what did the Constitution do to piss you off? Just shred that thing like an Enron CEO.
2A naw, let's just strike that one out.
No. Lets NOT shred it and read it as it is written, to apply to militias and armies, not guns the way we have them now. Our current gun culture was never what was written, never what was intended, and there is no indication that this would be tolerated for five minutes if the founding fathers were here today. There is no significant historical or cultural acceptance of weapons as a right, whereas there is substantial and well established consensus that people have a right to be SAFE, a safety ensured by law and law enforcement, not nuts with individual lethal weapons who act capriciously, impulsively, emotionally and destructively.
4A it's just pesky to keep around.
5A naw, let's get rid of that one, too.
14A due process, what?
Again,bullshit all of your words. What we are arguing is that there is NO legal basis for people to behave recklessly and negligently and stupidly with lethal weapons, and that when other people - like these kids - are either hurt or threatened by their inability to responsibly handle and maintain and secure those weapons, they should face a very stiff set of consequences as a result, through due process and the court system.
But because you have no valid or sane or logical justification for your position, you have to resort to lies and bullshit.
These kids deserve to grow up in a safe environment with responsible people who are not themselves advocates of violence, not be shot and not have the opportunity to shoot another kid.
Their neighbors and family should have the right to be safe and free - yes FREE - from lethal violence and weapons in their home and community.
"No. Lets NOT shred it and read it as it is written, to apply to militias and armies....."
DeleteThe 2A has nothing to do with armies. It's a restriction on the Federal government from infringing on the rights of the states to form militias and from infringing on the rights of the people to bear arms. How do you think the militias were armed? Because the people were armed. "Well regulated" had nothing to do with the federal government, it meant self governed and self trained. When the people of the states started forming their militias, they weren't governed by the states, it was community based and George Mason even said the militias were self supporting and there was no reason to tax the people to support the militias. Furthermore, most of the states today have a right to bear arms clause in their Constitutions and Bills of Rights. Some states' Constitutions even bar the legislators from making laws restricting the carry of firearms so you see, it's not right only protected by the US Constitution, but by the states' Constitutions as well.
"you have to resort to lies and bullshit."
I didn't resort to lies or bullshit, mikeb said that the gun owner should go to jail and await sentencing, not that the gun owner should be arrested and prosecuted. I'm surprised that no one around here has called for a summary execution.
Don't give them any ideas, Someguy. Laci's already stated that he looks forward to my killing myself. Summary execution for gun owners is the next step.
DeleteSo no trial would be necessary--just go straight to sentencing? A couple of points, though:
ReplyDelete1. There is no registration of firearms in Tennessee.
2. British gun rights is a strange label for this article.
When crap like this happens, children should be removed permanently from their parents, and ALL guns should be removed permanently from any adult who owned the firearm involved.
ReplyDeleteAnd then they should do jail time.
"One strike and you're out" should be the rule. The parents should lose their right to own a gun and should be charged.
ReplyDeleteName any other subject about which you are so vindictive.
Delete1.We are not in the slightest bit vindictive. Why do you care so little about the children involved in this, why do you not recognize the terrible harm done by these people with their damned utterly unnecessary and destructive weapons? This is stupid, reckless endangerment of children.
DeleteTHAT is the reason for arguing these are not good parents, that they should not have firearms because they have proven they cannot safely tore and handle them.
You will excuse any evil, any negligence, any amount of destruction that is caused by a firearm, including to innocent people like these kids, and claim........oh, they're good, oh.....we can't possibly deny irresponsible terrible people who harm other the necessity and right of having a firearm.
Well, yes, we can and we SHOULD, because people like this have proven they are incompetent and dangerous and stupid and don't give a rats ass about the other people who are affected by their stupid, dangerous, lethal firearms.
Jackasses like these people make ALL of us, including their children, their neighbors, EVERYONE ELSE LESS SAFE. They violate the rights of everyone around them, including their own children to be safe.
For NOTHING. For a delusion. For a fetish, for a myth that it gives them power, that it gives them something it does not, for a fantasy of an uncivilized and violent culture.
There is a huge difference in the number of children harmed where one or more firearms is present compared to those where there are no firearms.
And that is acceptable to you. You don't apparently give a damn how many people die or are injured so long as you and your delusional friends have your fetish toys. Any number, no matter how many is acceptable to you.
That is sick, it is a complete denial of the rights of others to be safe.
Safe from you and your gun nut friends.
Maybe you should start by asking yourself why children would think a firearm is a toy, and that shooting one at other people is fun.
DeleteGood question for Greg. Why DO the kids so often thing guns are playthings? I blame the parents first and the rest of the gun-rights people second.
DeleteMy question about vindictiveness comes from your arguments in favor of restoring rights to all manner of dangerous and irresponsible people. You oppose the death penalty. You support restoring voting rights. I can't even get you to agree that clearly violent felons and sexual predators belong behind bars, not out walking the streets. The only time that you want tough sentences is when the wrong in question is an unintended use of a firearm.
DeleteBut to answer your question, human beings have been using weapons as long as we've been. It's a natural impulse of boys in particular to play battle with anything that can be made to look like a weapon. Play is how mammals learn adult behavior. You see no reason to permit private citizens to learn the use of weapons, but that's a strange idea, in consideration of human nature and history.
The parents here appear to have been irresponsible, but responsible parents can train their children in how to use firearms and can secure those weapons when not under their direct supervision. When the child demonstrates both skill and safety, more freedom can be allowed.
I believe that law enforcement, child protective services, and the criminal justice system should handle this situation like they would handle any other situation where children were unnecessarily exposed to danger and a child was gravely injured. Anything beyond that is an emotional reaction and an affront to the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law.
ReplyDeleteWhat MikeB and dog gone and their like apparently don't understand is that every pro-gun rights person I have talked to advocates for all of the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, Rights, and Due Process. I don't see where Greg or Someguy is excusing or condoning what happened. What they are doing is speaking out against MikeB's discourse.
The tragic event was almost certainly avoidable. Shame on the parents. I took my daughter outside to watch me shoot a pistol when she was three years old. She got to see how loud it was and how it "jumped" (recoil of course). This achieved four incredibly important outcomes. First, it gave even that three year old an innate sense that a firearm is dangerous. Second, it demystified firearms. Third, she learned what it looks like. Fourth, she learned that it isn't a play toy. I recently took the time to show it to her again (now that she is 4 1/2 years old) and explain that it isn't a toy and that only grown ups should touch or use any firearm. There is no reason why other parents cannot do the same.