Re: Five-year-old boy accidentally shoots, kills sister
 

[quote=Giantone;1009699]1)Sandy and Moore are two completely different thing and Ray Charles could see that.
2) It's not that "you're done explaining" ,fact is you still haven't come up [B]with any good reason yet why if a law that one side says won't work anyway, saves just one life ...is a bad law[/B] .[/quote]

A law that saves one life is just a bad law. Then we would not have anymore buckets, electricity, cars, bikes, plane, trains, bath tub, showers, etc... I could go on all day. Just about everything we make has killed one person in some way so if your willing to make a law to save one life lets not stop there.

BTW I forgot football and how many people have died playing the game.

Re: Five-year-old boy accidentally shoots, kills sister
 

Law Banning 4th Grade field trips enacted after tragedy:

[url=http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/23/1-child-dead-1-missing-after-landslide-sweeps-over-fourth-graders-on-field-trip/?intcmp=trending]1 child dead, 1 missing after landslide sweeps over fourth-graders on field trip in Minn. | Fox News[/url]

[COLOR="White"][/sarcasm][/COLOR]

Re: Five-year-old boy accidentally shoots, kills sister
 

[quote=firstdown;1009729]A law that saves one life is just a bad law. .[/quote]

If any parent that has lost a child has a choice and that one law would save their child how much you wanna bet it wouldn't be a bad law?

Re: Five-year-old boy accidentally shoots, kills sister
 

[quote=Giantone;1009934]If any parent that has lost a child has a choice and that one law would save their child how much you wanna bet it wouldn't be a bad law?[/quote]

They have already lost a child, how would that law save anyone? All your suggesting is allowing piss poor parenting to be hand-held by the rest of society.

No.

Re: Five-year-old boy accidentally shoots, kills sister
 

[quote=Giantone;1009934]If any parent that has lost a child has a choice and that one law would save their child how much you wanna bet it wouldn't be a bad law?[/quote]

Then address the post above yours.
Would you ban field trips?

(this is so looney I cant believe I'm even asking this question)

Re: Five-year-old boy accidentally shoots, kills sister
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;1009943]Then address the post above yours.
Would you ban field trips?

(this is so looney I cant believe I'm even asking this question)[/quote]

Consider it an act of charity. Keeping GiantOne from annoying members of another forum.

Re: Five-year-old boy accidentally shoots, kills sister
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1009936]They have already lost a child, how would that law save anyone? All your suggesting is allowing piss poor parenting to be hand-held by the rest of society.

No.[/quote]

wow, this is........wow.



I didn't realize pro gun nuts could be this ignorant, I was wrong.

Re: Five-year-old boy accidentally shoots, kills sister
 

[quote=Giantone;1009958]wow, this is........wow.



I didn't realize pro gun nuts could be this ignorant, I was wrong.[/quote]


You're really not very articulate, are you? "Wow"? You come across as a Twittering teenage girl, not a particularly bright one either.

Just point out where I'm wrong, bed-wetter. Try. Go on.

Re: Five-year-old boy accidentally shoots, kills sister
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1009959]You're really not very articulate, are you? "Wow"? You come across as a Twittering teenage girl, not a particularly bright one either.

Just point out where I'm wrong, bed-wetter. Try. Go on.[/quote]

Your assumption that all child deaths or violence is due to "piss poor parenting" , is moronic. You also need to learn how to read . #93

Re: Five-year-old boy accidentally shoots, kills sister
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1009865]Law Banning 4th Grade field trips enacted after tragedy:

[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/23/1-child-dead-1-missing-after-landslide-sweeps-over-fourth-graders-on-field-trip/?intcmp=trending"]1 child dead, 1 missing after landslide sweeps over fourth-graders on field trip in Minn. | Fox News[/URL]

[COLOR=white][/sarcasm][/COLOR][/quote]


Ok, I'll agree to that law and you must agree to a law where no child under the age of 15 can have a gun

[QUOTE=Giantone;1009961]Ok, I'll agree to that law and you must agree to a law where no child under the age of 15 can have a gun[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't agree to either law, because both would be based on flawed logic.

edit: on reflection, I am pretty sure most laws don't allow children under 15 to purchase or own guns so I guess you are on your way to banning field trips.

Re: Five-year-old boy accidentally shoots, kills sister
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1009968]I wouldn't agree to either law, because both would be based on flawed logic.

edit: on reflection, I am pretty sure most laws don't allow children under 15 to purchase or own guns so I guess you are on your way to banning field trips.[/quote]


You're argument is nothing but flawed logic, lol, again reading is fundamental....I never said "purchase or own guns" ,I said have a gun.

[QUOTE=Giantone;1009989]You're argument is nothing but flawed logic, lol, again reading is fundamental....I never said "purchase or own guns" ,I said have a gun.[/QUOTE]

So they can't purchase or own legally now but you want the law to read "can't have guns"?? How would they "have a gun" without owning it?

[QUOTE=Giantone;1009961]Ok, I'll agree to that law and you must agree to a law where no child under the age of 15 can have a gun[/QUOTE]

So no more field trips for 4th graders. What else are you going to outlaw in your crusade to stop accidents from happening?

I really cannot believe if you are actually as dumb as you seem to be.

Re: Five-year-old boy accidentally shoots, kills sister
 

[quote=Giantone;1009989]You're argument is nothing but flawed logic, lol, again reading is fundamental....I never said "purchase or own guns" ,I said have a gun.[/quote]

I understood what you meant, but assumed(apparently incorrectly) that you misspoke. Assuming that you are defining "have" in that sentence to mean that a law should be written that makes it illegal for a child under 15 (kind of an arbitrary age) to, in any way, shape or form; use, handle, or bring into their possession -without ownership- a firearm would be a dramatic change in current laws. Further, to say that a child, with proper parental supervision, can't have a gun is to go against 200+ years of US history. To enforce such a law would be practically impossible, and enforcement after a tragic accident like this one can be handled by existing laws.

The fact is you can be taught to be safe with guns, and responsible parents who own guns understand that you need to make their children aware of the dangers and keep them secured so that unsupervised children don't have access to them.

Most 5 year olds, if they have no or improper supervision, will drown if they go to into a pool. The parent would be negligent at that point. But a 5 year old with proper supervision can be taught to respect the dangers of a large body of water, and still learn how to enjoy swimming in it. No one thinks that a 5 year old should have unsupervised access to a gun, and if it is allowed and tragedy occurs, that parent or adult who was responsible should be punished to the full extent of the law. But, you can teach children to respect and be aware of the dangers, and teach them the right way to use it safely.

In the OP, those parents were irresponsible, and there are laws on the books that should be used to punish them appropriately.