Another tragedy brought about by yet ANOTHER "responsible" gun owner

[BRUTALITOPS]

So, the question to ask is should parents or others be charged when a death results? What should the charges be?

the same charges if a kid falls into a pool. maybe negligence or child endangerment? i dunno

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Oh I see...you are allowed to make all the assumptions you like...I however am not afforded the same luxury.





Oh no...because requiring trigger locks puts us on the slippery slope to a total gun ban...ROTFLMAO!

These people left a loaded firearm leaning in the corner and left the kids unattended in the same room. And you think these people would use a trigger lock?

I am not making a wild assumption. I am using their own behavior as a guide to predicting what they would do. You, on the other hand, are assuming they would be so careless and so negligent, but would use a trigger lock if required by law. Yeah, I think there is a huge difference.

 

[zappasguitar]

Well since you are all for legislating away tragedies tell us what "reasonable" restrictions we should put on abortion providers to prevent another Gosnell?

Your silence will be telling on this as well.

No it won't because as I stated earlier...I'm not engaging you and your idiotic, thread diverting bullshit today.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

And here comes the excuses from the gun nuts.

Always got an excuse for why any form of regulation is wrong.

excuses? you fucking insufferable moron, it's a fucking fact, the things you are suggesting would do NOTHING to stop this incident. You have not once in this thread demonstrated how your fucking stupid ideas would have prevented this type of situation.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

So this was just poor parenting and no actual law could have prevented this? As a non gun owner I am curious about the storage and trigger lock requirements. I'm not a gun guy. I don't own one and I don't go shooting them. If I ever did own a gun however it would be for safety reasons for my family. How long does it take to go from your bed while sleeping (as an example) to your storage locker and take off your safety clip? I'm thinking if you are awaken at night by a burglar in your house and you need to grab your gun quick.

Bingo. There are also quick safes for people who have young children and want to keep a pistol handy. Not ideal (a rifle is best for home defense in most instances) but better than nothing.

 

[zappasguitar]

So you think expanded background checks would determine if a parent would leave a loaded rifle leaning in a corner with unattended children???

Would determine? No...background checks can't see into the future.

WTF? What would be in their background that would still allow them to own a firearm but would show they would do something so stupid?

NOTHING!

BINGO!

UN-fortunately...nobody wants EXPANDED background checks.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

it just blows my mind there are people as stupid as zappas in the world. I keep forgetting the internet allows people I would never encounter in real life to have their existence acknowledged by me. He actually thinks that some magical background check would let people know if there are guns in the corners. And he thinks that a law mandating trigger locks would be successful despite the fact that there are laws about leaving your guns out unattended near kids but that didn't stop anything.

Like is he the most elaborate troll of all time? Or is he really this much of a fucking retard? I really can't even believe it. I am like stunned reading his posts.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

Would determine? No...background checks can't see into the future.




NOTHING!

BINGO!

UN-fortunately...nobody wants EXPANDED background checks.

and how does your magical fairy tale background check predict the future that the guy would leave his gun out in the open? Please explain this.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

No, this is not an excuse. This is rational thought. Anyone who would leave a loaded rifle leaning in a corner when there are two small kids in the room would not put on a trigger lock.

Besides, in most states it is already illegal to leave a loaded firearm unattended around children. Do you really think requiring trigger locks would be a law they listened to when they ignored another law and pretty much every basic safety rule involving firearms?

Its illegal in every state, its federal law.

 

[zappasguitar]

excuses? you fucking insufferable moron, it's a fucking fact, the things you are suggesting would do NOTHING to stop this incident. You have not once in this thread demonstrated how your fucking stupid ideas would have prevented this type of situation.

And why should I...just re-read the vitriol spewing from you and the others.

excuses? you fucking insufferable moron

EVERY.

it just blows my mind there are people as stupid as zappas in the world

SINGLE.

your fucking stupid ideas

ATTEMPT.

I have made to discuss this rationally gets met with the same bile and derision spit right back in my face...so you tell me why I should bother trying to offer up some suggestions?

The fact is there isn't a single idea, concept or rationale being put forth you think is worth discussing. you shout down any suggestion and berate anyone dumb enough to try and come up with some ideas.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Would determine? No...background checks can't see into the future.




NOTHING!

BINGO!

UN-fortunately...nobody wants EXPANDED background checks.

Ok, you are dancing around my question.

What question(s) would you put on a background check that would have averted the tragedy listed in the OP??? Please tell us what sort of expanded background checks you think COULD have seen into the future?

Maybe....."Would you ever allow your child to shoot another child?"

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Yeah, a background check might have.

A background check may have revealed this irresponsible clown had a tendency to leave guns"standing in the corner" where small children might potentially get to it.

Then show me.
Cite the quote where I used those exact words "background checks would reveal if they had left guns in the corners".
You can't even be counted on to quote me with any honesty...it's no wonder I can't expect honest debate from you.

Do talk to us about 'honesty' again...

let me guess... you are going to pretend that by saying 'may have' instead of 'would' that somehow changes the FACT that there is NO WAY... NONE... that a background check would tell you that.

If the person had a FELONY that was a result of neglectful use of a firearm... then that would show. But they have to have done it once. So in this case a background check would NOT have done a damn thing.

 

[zappasguitar]

and how does your magical fairy tale background check predict the future that the guy would leave his gun out in the open? Please explain this.

Why?

You got some more choice derision you want to spit my way?

GFY.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

And why should I...just re-read the vitriol spewing from you and the others.



EVERY.



SINGLE.



ATTEMPT.

I have made to discuss this rationally gets met with the same bile and derision spit right back in my face...so you tell me why I should bother trying to offer up some suggestions?

The fact is there isn't a single idea, concept or rationale being put forth you think is worth discussing. you shout down any suggestion and berate anyone dumb enough to try and come up with some ideas.

I have not called you names or done anything except TRY to have a rational discussion with you. You, however, have tried to lump me in with everyone who ever called you a name.

What I have done is challenge your poorly articulated and ill-thought arguments and asked for clarification. You have refused to have any discussion, and have ridiculed all of my attempts to get you to further explain your claims that background checks (even expanded ones) would have averted this tragedy.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

And why should I...just re-read the vitriol spewing from you and the others.



EVERY.



SINGLE.



ATTEMPT.

I have made to discuss this rationally gets met with the same bile and derision spit right back in my face...so you tell me why I should bother trying to offer up some suggestions?

The fact is there isn't a single idea, concept or rationale being put forth you think is worth discussing. you shout down any suggestion and berate anyone dumb enough to try and come up with some ideas.

It is truly comical that you think you are acting rationale.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Why?

You got some more choice derision you want to spit my way?

GFY.

Well, I guess we could ridicule you for not being willing to have an honest discussion on the matter. I have asked several questions that you have steadfastly refused to answer.

 

[zappasguitar]

Do talk to us about 'honesty' again...

let me guess... you are going to pretend that by saying 'may have' instead of 'would' that somehow changes the FACT that there is NO WAY... NONE... that a background check would tell you that.

If the person had a FELONY that was a result of neglectful use of a firearm... then that would show. But they have to have done it once. So in this case a background check would NOT have done a damn thing.

I understand that for someone focused on playing his little "gotcha" game that "may have" and "would have" mean exactly the same thing, but to those of us focused on what words ACTUALLY mean and not what you WANT them to mean, they don't.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I understand that for someone focused on playing his little "gotcha" game that "may have" and "would have" mean exactly the same thing, but to those of us focused on what words ACTUALLY mean and not what you WANT them to mean, they don't.

You stated that a background check 'may have' found out that they leave guns lying around. It would not have. It was pure bullshit on your part. You are the one who wishes to play semantic word games. But please, go back to telling us about how you want an honest discussion.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Zappa, the problem here is that you address us as "gun nuts" and then expect us to take you seriously.

Those of us who are serious gun buffs take firearm safety very seriously. There are some very basic rules that must be followed. When idiots ignore these rules and misuse a firearm or neglect to store it safely, you want to blame all of us.

These parents are guilty of negligent homicide. Nothing short of banning all privately owned firearms would have prevented this tragedy. I looked into buying one of these Cricket .22 rifles when my daughter was younger, but decided she could do better with another type of rifle. The gun involved is about as safe as they come. It is a small, single shot rifle that requires you manually cock it after you load it. I doubt very seriously that a 5 year old could have cocked it, so I am betting they left it, not only loaded, but cocked as well.

I have bought numeroud new firearms over the years. Not one single gun I have purchased in the last 15+ years did not come with some sort of lock mechanism. Not a single one.

 

[zappasguitar]

Ok, you are dancing around my question.

What question(s) would you put on a background check that would have averted the tragedy listed in the OP??? Please tell us what sort of expanded background checks you think COULD have seen into the future?

Maybe....."Would you ever allow your child to shoot another child?"

Oh maybe..."Are you stupid enough to give an item whose sole functioning purpose is to kill, to your 5 year old child"?