FYI - The Kindergarten shooting - gun didn't fire when dropped

[RamboLiberal]

I'm not excusing what happened or that kid should never have had access to the gun. Just wanted to set the record on the facts of the story. Looks like the kid must have pressed the trigger and the gun was not defective. Again just setting the facts straight.

Chief Charles McClelland said earlier reports that the 9-mm handgun fell from the boy's pocket were incorrect. He said the boy took the loaded weapon out of a bag to show it to a friend and that's when it discharged

http://www.khou.com/news/local/HPD-6-year-old-Ross-student-got-gun-from-family-friend-120413184.html

[slackmaster]

1. If only Texas had a law making it a crime to leave a gun where a child can get it

46.13 Making A Firearm Accessible To A Child

(a) In this section:

(1) “Child” means a person younger than 17 years of age.

(2) “Readily dischargeable firearm” means a firearm that is loaded with
ammunition, whether or not a round is in the chamber.

(3) “Secure” means to take steps that a reasonable person would take to prevent
the access to a readily dischargeable firearm by a child, including but not
limited to placing a firearm in a locked container or temporarily rendering the
firearm inoperable by a trigger lock or other means.

(b) A person commits an offense if a child gains access to a readily dischargeable
firearm and the person with criminal negligence:

(1) failed to secure the firearm; or

(2) left the firearm in a place to which the person knew or should have known the
child would gain access.

http://ss.utpb.edu/media/files/university-police/TEXAS-WEAPON-LAWS.pdf

[sharesunited]

2. Laws and/or compliance with laws are pretty much irrelevant to the problem.

Need to make 'em scarce.

[rrneck]

3. You are a laugh riot.

"Laws and/or compliance with laws are pretty much irrelevant to the problem."

Making them scarce presumes laws to accomplish that end.

:rofl:

[sharesunited]

4. Right you are! At the spigot instead of out in the pond weeds.

[rrneck]

5. Whoooosh!

You need one of these:




And one of these:

[sharesunited]

6. No, I got it. But punishing people for not securing their guns is futile after the fact.

[rrneck]

8. Punishing them for owning them is pretty futile too. nt

[sharesunited]

10. Punish makers and sellers. There's your shutoff valve.

We even took away the use of civil lawsuits to punish them. What's up with that?

[rrneck]

11. So you would create a

tier of second class citizens to punish.

Bigotry.

[sharesunited]

13. Who is second class? Persons deprived of all their actual rights by dying from gunshot wounds?

[rrneck]

14. How about

*are you ready?*

All the people who get assaulted and are unable to defend themselves from harm by those who are larger and stronger than themselves.

And now here we goooooooooo--

DO YOU HAVE A FIREARM FREE SELF DEFENSE SOLUTION?

[sharesunited]

17. "There is little need for individual self-defense guns."

http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html

[rrneck]

18. When are you moving there?

You got that solution yet?

[sharesunited]

19. Promote peace not violence.

[rrneck]

20. Good idea.

How do you plan to deal with those who fail to do so?

And when are you going to answer the same question you have dodged about a thousand times?

[Atypical Liberal]

25. How has that worked out for all of recorded history?

Promote peace not violence.

That sounds great and all, but despite 2000 years of a major religious dogma of "thou shalt not kill", it hasn't seemed to slow down those who are bent on violence.

History shows that Man is a violent beast. There have always been those who are unwilling or unable to put the needs of others before their own needs and desires, and who have been willing to use violence to sate themselves. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that this is changing or is going to change or even can change. It is likely an artifact of the human condition, and, barring some evolutionary change, will likely be with us forever.

So the question is simple: Do you want to make it so that law-abiding people have no access to weapons with which they can defend themselves without resorting to a contest of physical strength against their aggressor?

Without firearms, the weak will always be at the mercy of the strong. You can promote peace all you like, but every time it fails and there is a violent attack, the weak will always be at the mercy of the strong.

[krispos42]

31. Because suing the gun maker for what the gun buyer did...

...was fucking stupid when the gun maker didn't sell the gun to the gun buyer.


It's like suing Pfizer because your spouse OD'd on prescription medicines... that she acquired illegally from a pharmacy.

[PavePusher]

32. Punish people who have not commited a crime?

You certainly do seem to be pushing a Fascist credo on a Progessive website. Why the fuck are you here, Troll?

[Atypical Liberal]

23. Punishing people before the face has a small problem, too.

Namely, people are considered innocent until proven guilty.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[rrneck]

9. If humans were machines

we wouldn't need laws either. If people like you could open their mouths without insulting people we wouldn't have to discuss the nature of civilized behavior.

You got that statement yet?

[Starboard Tack]

21. Who have I insulted?

How does not supporting carrying guns in public insult anyone? Why do you want to restrict my 1A rights?

[rrneck]

26. Read your own post.

That innocent obtuse shtick is pretty transparent too. Every word you say is public record.

[Starboard Tack]

27. Every word you say is public record. So what? I'm not running for office.

What's with the personal attacks all the time? Do you respond to everyone who disagrees with you like that? At times, you respond with very civil and quite articulate arguments. Then you resort to what you would describe as "obtuse shtick". Can we not exchange ideas and try to learn from each other without the personal insults?
And the "public record" thing you keep throwing at me. What's that all about? I thought we were having a conversation, not throwing veiled threats at each other. I engage with you, because you have demonstrated an ability to argue reasonably and intelligently and at times you have caused me to question my assertions. You are among the few pro gun members who have earned my respect in that regard. Do you feel a need to attack me because the hard line toters might otherwise disapprove?

[rrneck]

30. Then return the courtesy you have been shown.

You ain't seen nothing yet.

[Straw Man]

34. Bad faith, boyo...

If you don't like the outraged howls, stop casting the aspersions. The mealy-mouthed "Shucks, what'd I say?" routine is getting very old very fast.

"Uncivilized," "fethishists," etc. These are not neutral words. Your protestations ring false: disingenuous or clueless are the only explanations.

[rl6214]

28. Starboard, what is a fetishist

or are you just insulting all gun owners by calling them "fetishists"?

[right2bfree]

12. The parents need to have thier guns siezed and put behind bars. nt

[rrneck]

15. Locking up guns....

:rofl:

For some reason that makes sense coming from you.

[oneshooter]

24. +100 n/t

[RamboLiberal]

16. OP story says he got gun from a family friend

[rl6214]

29. The parents?

If I remember correctly the child is living with the mother only. The father was interviewed and has no idea where the child would get a gun or why there would be one in the ex wifes house for the kid to have access to.

[PavePusher]

33. Your reading is teh phale.

Go back to school.

[Straw Man]

35. Incarcerate the hardware...

The parents need to have thier guns siezed and put behind bars.

...and let the asshole parents go free. Yeah, that'll work.

[Atypical Liberal]

22. So which laws will you pass to make them scarce?

And will criminals find those laws and complying with them irrelevant, too?