I am not buying it. I want to know about the tox screen on the corpse, if the gun was legally owned, and what kind of gun it was. I am guessing: unlawfully possessed Glock and pot in the blood screen.
Did the child have a concealed carry permit? I'm sure these loving, Second Amendment-suporting parents had taught this kid about handgun safety. Lock up they kid!
Yes, it's totally unheard of for a child of law abiding folk to get hold of a gun and accidentally shoot someone.I was speaking about the adult. Was the adult legally in posession of the handgun. Anti-gun folks love to lump the stupidity of criminals and gangbangers in with the stats for law abiding folk, so they can make believe the two are one.
Yeeah, the story reads totally different when you change all the facts given in the article and substitute stuff pulled out of your...hat. Not that you said any of that did happen, but the story would be different IF it had. That's not a really good point.The story reads a little different if the poor father was recently released from his his second or third five year stay with the state, bought a stolen gun with crack money, and got shot because he got high and left his gun some place dumb while arguing with two of his babymommas after a few hours of violent video games (paid for in 2-1 foodstamps).
Saying it is "Unheard of" and stating that it is much less common than the media would have you believe, because they report with a bias . .. are two different things.Yes, it's totally unheard of for a child of law abiding folk to get hold of a gun and accidentally shoot someone.
Um, yeah, the article reads with almost no facts other than. . . the survivors SAY the three yeard old musta done it. Couldn't a been suicide, couldn't have been some other story. I voice skepticism and you say it isn't a really good idea to have doubts . .. I should just assume that somebody dumb enough to get shot by a three year old is Joe Hunter the typical American gun owner . . And you say MY point is weak.Yeeah, the story reads totally different when you change all the facts given in the article and substitute stuff pulled out of your...hat. Not that you said any of that did happen, but the story would be different IF it had. That's not a really good point.
That's true because they aren't going to report all the times a gun is locked up safely.Saying it is "Unheard of" and stating that it is much less common than the media would have you believe, because they report with a bias . .. are two different things.
That's not in the article either. It actually says that the state trooper reported that the 3 year old shot the dad.Um, yeah, the article reads with almost no facts other than. . . the survivors SAY the three yeard old musta done it.
It could be, but that's pure speculation.Couldn't a been suicide, couldn't have been some other story.
You did a lot more than express skepticism; you went on to make up a totally unsupported scenario, with the dad being an ex-con crackhead. He's a real guy - it seems wrong to just slander him like that.I voice skepticism and you say it isn't a really good idea to have doubts . ..
Dumb enough? The Joe Hunters of the world never get shot accidentally, only the ex-con crackheads?I should just assume that somebody dumb enough to get shot by a three year old is Joe Hunter the typical American gun owner . .
Yes.And you say MY point is weak.
Again missing the point. There is a difference between the way guns are handled and kept by most law abidding folk and the way they are kept and handled by most non-lawabidding folk. The second of those two modes of usage, frequently leads to accidents. Just ask the NBA/NFL (I don't follow those sports) player who blew a hole in his leg because he wanted to carry after the fashion of thugs. Yes, law abidding folk sometimes put holes in themselves with guns (accidently) but it is usually because they are trying to pretend to be non-lawabidding folk.That's true because they aren't going to report all the times a gun is locked up safely.
The state trooper was a witness? The state trooper took witness statements for his report? You see there is a difference in credibility there right? The trooper was a witness carries a tiny little bit more credibility than he trooper wrote down what the witnesses said. . . .That's not in the article either. It actually says that the state trooper reported that the 3 year old shot the dad.
Suicide would be speculation .. . sure. Life insurance doesn't payout for suicide . .. blame it on the kid who is too young to prosecute and arguably too young to cross examine reliably & you have an accidental death claim. It is pure speculation that the three year old did it. All we have is the statements of the people there.It could be, but that's pure speculation.
But you just slandered me, by saying I slandered him. I said, "Was the adult legally in posession of the handgun. Anti-gun folks love to lump the stupidity of criminals and gangbangers in with the stats for law abiding folk, so they can make believe the two are one." And then gave an improbable description which can't be contradicted by information in the article .. . to emphasize the point that such an individual (as described) would be very different from the Joe Hunter most anti-gun folks would like to assume this was. To be slander I would have had to say M. Payless was "X and Z"You did a lot more than express skepticism; you went on to make up a totally unsupported scenario, with the dad being an ex-con crackhead. He's a real guy - it seems wrong to just slander him like that.
Usually when Joe Hunters get shot, there is a vice president in the hunting party or some other plausible story. Young Joe hunter takes the shot on the deer he thinks he hears in the bush and out falls Uncle Hunter . . . that kind of thing. (the following statements refer to gun safety education with unloaded firearms) I know that my three year olds were not able to lift my revolver and point nor pull its trigger without an adults help. With the semi-autos they had difficulty gripping the gun and reaching the trigger with their fingers, there after the trigger pull weights exceeded their strength. Only by holding a gun for them and letting them crank on it with a pair of index and middle fingers could they bring the hammer through a complete trigger pull. (handling empty guns with adult supervision in the context of gun safety training, takes he allure of "forbidden fruit" away from firearms and allows safety concepts to be discussed in an age appropriate manner) My point remains, the story is implausible and I would like more detail. Three year olds have notoriously bad aim from the potty to the firing range . . . three year old marksman are an anomoly of sufficient rarity to support my skepticism.Dumb enough? The Joe Hunters of the world never get shot accidentally, only the ex-con crackheads?
I was speaking about the adult. Was the adult legally in posession of the handgun. Anti-gun folks love to lump the stupidity of criminals and gangbangers in with the stats for law abiding folk, so they can make believe the two are one.
The story reads a little different if the poor father was recently released from his his second or third five year stay with the state, bought a stolen gun with crack money, and got shot because he got high and left his gun some place dumb while arguing with two of his babymommas after a few hours of violent video games (paid for in 2-1 foodstamps).
That is what I said . .. .More likely he bought it from some buddy
Thing so often overlooked is that it is a crime to sell to an inelligible person. It is a crime for an inelligible person to posess a firearm. So most people won't sell without some evidence that a background check has been passed. If he was elligible . .. what difference does a mandatory instant background check vs. presenting his permit to the seller make? If he was inelligible, then both he and the seller were criminals and you have reinforced my points.or at a gun show where background checks don't happen.
Why is it we only hear of these type of things happening in America...mmmm !!!
More likely he bought it from some buddy or at a gun show where background checks don't happen.
Have you ever been to a gun show.
Been to several as well, and had to go through a background check to purchase anything.Yes. About as much dealing going on from the trunks of cars as in the show itself.
Been to several as well, and had to go through a background check to purchase anything.
Yes. About as much dealing going on from the trunks of cars as in the show itself.
What you don't seem to know is how those deals are generally conducted. Let me explain: Gun owners often frequent message boards much like this one (but focused on gun topics) and on those message boards people may talk about wanting to sell some item or buy something. Some message boards even have Buy/Sell/Trade sections. Via the wonderful technologies we have this century, people can exchange information, even such clever items as copies of Carry/Purchase Permits and Driver's licenses. Nobody wants to waste gunshow time with a Lookie Lou or other person who isn't going to buy . .. nobody wants to get caught "holding the bag" as the individual who sold to a prohibited person either . . . so eligibility and sometimes even funds are often done/ confirmed online, before ever arriving at the parking lot. I am sure that when you aren't privy to a half dozen posts and 3 or 4 PM's setting up the deal. . .. it must look very . .. different from reality. Funny thing about truth is. . .. it makes the world less scary.
And a few bridges get sold as well. Thanks for the clarification/