patrick.net

last night, 3 more die in chicago ... because of the gangs battle over drug trafficking.
the cities liberal mayor have let gangs control the streets and kill people every day.

Chicago Shootings: 3 Killed, At Least 17 Wounded In Overnight City Gun Violence

The shootings began around 6:15 p.m. when three people -- including a 16-year-old boy and two men aged 40 and 44 -- were shot in the 10800 block of South Princeton Avenue. According to the Chicago Tribune, the 16-year-old was listed in stable condition and the older men were in serious-to-critical condition.

This is a tragic story and the parents are truly stupid. That being said...

The lefties will play/show this story to the max and bore us all with it.....

While the abortion doctor/monster, whose crimes are truly sensationally horrific, news of that trial barely makes the paper or TV.

I always find this kind of unfair treatment of stories, one reason I no longer trust journalism. I used to be a news junkie and still am of sorts, but I shake my head in dismay. And both the right and left are guilty of it. But around where I live the lefties rule.

Thinking about it a while, I've decided that gun nuts really SHOULD give guns to their children, the younger the better; always loaded but never to leave the house.

For anti-abortion gun nuts, it is even sweeter because it brings the underlying "love the fetus but disregard the human once born" philosophy right home to their own family. Finally.

By "gun nuts" I mean people who cling to the belief that the second amendment means no restriction or control of guns no matter how sensible or reasonable, or tragic the consequences of limitless guns for all.

Automan Empire says

Thinking about it a while, I've decided that gun nuts really SHOULD give guns to their children, the younger the better; always loaded but never to leave the house.

Liberals have already damned their own Children with drugs. Their life is doomed.

thomaswong.1986 says

Liberals have already damned their own Children with drugs. Their life is doomed.

I'm a liberal but I only let my kid have drugs after she does her homework.

MsBennet says

While the abortion doctor/monster, whose crimes are truly sensationally horrific, news of that trial barely makes the paper or TV.

Automan Empire says

For anti-abortion gun nuts, it is even sweeter because it brings the underlying "love the fetus but disregard the human once born" philosophy right home to their own family. Finally.

Both assertions are incorrect. Furthermore, the abortion issue and the gun issue are independent of each other. Please direct all abortion arguments (for or against) to http://patrick.net/?p=1218980&page=1#comments

And before submitting an argument, be sure to read the original post including the initial comments on page 1 as they discredit all common arguments on both sides.

MsBennet says

While the abortion doctor/monster, whose crimes are truly sensationally horrific, news of that trial barely makes the paper or TV.

Now that Dr. Kermit Gosnell's Philadelphia murder trial has finally gone to the jury, we should take a moment to debunk, once and for all, the delusional right-wing claim that "the liberal media" supposedly refused to cover the story because "the liberal media" supposedly didn't want to publicize the dark side of abortion.

This claim of a media blackout conspiracy is laughable (no surprise there), as we shall soon see. But, the right's worst delusion is its belief that Gosnell — charged with four counts of killing fetuses during illegal late-term procedures — will be a boon to the national anti-abortion movement.

the abortion issue and the gun issue are independent of each other.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I know, sometimes I can't help responding to loaded nonsequiturs. I'm working on it. ;)

Kristian's rifle was kept in a corner of the mobile home, and the family didn't realize a bullet had been left in it, Cumberland County Coroner Gary White said.

http://news.yahoo.com/coroner-boy-5-shoots-2-old-sister-ky-030521203.html

The most disgusting part of the whole tradgedy, and yet it was the easiest thing to do to prevent it.

Unload the weapon, and LOCK IT UP!!!

From your article

Sharon Rengers, a longtime child advocate at Kosair Children's Hospital in Louisville, said making and marketing weapons specifically for children was "mind-boggling."

"It's like, oh, my God," she said, "we're having a big national debate whether we want to check somebody's background, but we're going to offer a 4-year-old a gun and expect something good from that?"

upisdown says

Kristian's rifle was kept in a corner of the mobile home, and the family didn't realize a bullet had been left in it, Cumberland County Coroner Gary White said.

Where I live, the parents would be prosecuted for this act. I don't know about Cumberland County though.

The true crime if childhood indoctrination is religion.

Straw Man says

Is there a "culture of indoctrination into motorcycle culture" too? Because there are kiddie-sized real dirt bikes on the market.

If the children are driving motorcycles, even "kiddie-sized" ones, in traffic, the parents are idiots.

I have nothing against motorcycles for adults. I drove one myself when I turned 20, not when I was 5. It's damn fun riding a hog, but that doesn't mean young children can handle the responsibility of it.

Same goes for guns. There's no excuse for giving a five-year-old a real gun as a toy. I know a lot of people like shooting guns and think it's fun, but a gun is not a toy, it's a responsibility. And obviously a five-year-old isn't responsible enough to handle a real gun. Get him a toy gun that doesn't look like a real gun (so the dumb ass cops don't shoot him) instead. Then his sister would still be alive.

Moderate Infidel says

The true crime if childhood indoctrination is religion.

Very true, but that's another issue altogether. Personally, I hold religious indoctrination of children to be a form of child abuse. I'm sure there are those here who will strongly oppose me on this issue, but I can back up my claim with plenty of facts, but let's leave that to another thread.

Straw Man says

Dan8267 says

A culture of indoctrinating children, especially ones as young as five, into gun usage is a mistake. I wouldn't give a beer or a power-saw, or a motorcycle to a five-year-old. I wouldn't give one a real gun for the exact same reason.

Is there a "culture of indoctrination into motorcycle usage" too? Because there are kiddie-sized real dirt bikes on the market.

Like other pineapples-to-hand-grenades analogies [ban pressure cookers, hurrrrrr!], the difference is, guns have ONE purpose, to shoot potentially deadly projectiles.

But assuming the point is sincere, granted motorcycles are potentially dangerous, but certainly not in the same way as guns. I am a motorsports rider, and at the OHV places you ALWAYS see tots on tiny motorcycles having the time of their lives. It reminds me of learning to ski, laying in the snow as 5 year olds streaked by me with NO POLES! Guns are a different risk/benefit balance than sports.

Furthermore, I've hosted several off roading campouts for youths from the barrio. A few times, someone crashed badly enough to go to the hospital even with full safety gear. Despite this, EVERY ONE of them begged to go again, to get away from the inner city where gunshots ring out night and day, to ride dirt bikes, quads, and go-karts.

So she's "acceptable collateral damage", got it.

Glad to know that there's businesses devoted to marketing rifles to tots and families out here:

?itok=9EDZU7yW

I'm sure it's important that your 4 or 5-year old need to learn how to shoot and HAVE THEIR OWN PERSONAL RIFLE because.... they might be attacked by a rabbit, or the ravaging city gangs or something. And shooting is just not the sort of skill you can let WAIT until they are 8 years old, they'll NEVER catch up sorta like gymnasts gotta start when they are 3 or they'll never make the Olympics.

Straw Man says

Pfff. We all know that "speed kills", don't we? The motorcycles have ONE purpose: to go fast without sensible crash protection like roll cages, seat belts and airbags. Nobody NEEDS a motorcycle in the era of safe cars and public transportation available to anyone. Besides, they are extremely environmentally unfriendly. How do you like them apples? Can we go back to civilized discussion and leave idiotic slogans behind?

Several flaws in you logic. First, motorcycles serve many purposes other than speed. Second, motorcycles are far cheaper than cars and get far better gas mileage. Third, killing is not a purpose of motorcycles, whereas it is the sole purpose of guns.

But most important of all, when a motorcycle driver dies, he's the own who dies, not an innocent bystander. The same cannot be said for guns.

Here's how to tell if an argument against a gun restriction is silly. Does it apply to nuclear weapons as well? Just take the argument and replace the word "gun" or "guns" with "nuclear missile" or "nuclear missiles". For example,

More people die from car crashes than from guns, so it makes no sense to limit what guns you can buy.
change to
More people die from car crashes than from nuclear missiles, so it makes no sense to limit what nuclear missiles you can buy.

Vincent yesterday I saw an article from less than a month ago, where a 4 year old was at Sheriff family get together picnic for some county. Grabbed a hand gun that one officer was showing another, they sat the gun down, while they talked further. Nobody noticed the 4 year picked up the gun and shot the Host's wife dead.

These were not trailer park people here, these were "Professional" law men, and their families there.

But if it helps we can change the narrative, to say there rednecks from Austin and just leave it at that.

CaptainShuddup says

where a 4 year old was at Sheriff family get together picnic for some county. Grabbed a hand gun that one officer was showing another

Equally tragic. However, it wouldn't matter to me who it was in your case. Note the important difference that NOBODY was marketing that 4-year old a firearm, or promoting that small children should be GIVEN their own personal "first gun".

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/05/03/crickett_keystone_sporting_arms_watch_an_ad_for_my_first_rifle_the_gun_a.html

Straw Man says

Dan8267 says

Several flaws in you logic. First, motorcycles serve many purposes other than speed.

Nothing that can't be done in safe and responsible manner, i.e. via car or, better yet, public transportation.

Same can be said of guns for weapons if you want to nick-pick.

Straw Man says

Second, motorcycles are far cheaper than cars and get far better gas mileage.

Their mileage is not that good, especially per passenger and especially compared to hybrid vehicles

Hybrid Motorcycle Gets 282 MPG

Not that good? Look, I know you want to make the position that guns are great and the government should not in any way interfere with your ability to gun any guns or ammo you want. And here's the thing, I don't even disagree with you. I actually haven't formed any opinion whatsoever about what laws, if any, should be applied at the federal, state, or local level. I'm completely open-minded on this issue.

However, open-minded doesn't mean I'll buy any bullshit argument from either side. In the abortion issue, when a pro-lifer says that doctors who perform abortions are heatless evil people, it's obviously bullshit. And when a pro-choicer says that the legality of abortion would not even be in question if men were the ones to get pregnant, that's an obviously bullshit argument as well. Such bullshit arguments do not persuade rational people like myself. In fact, they make the side proposing such arguments sound ridiculous. And it is a ridiculous argument to equate motor vehicles and weapons. They are clearly not the same thing.

Straw Man says

Sometimes killing is necessary for variety of reasons (hunting, war, self-defense) and at least with guns nobody has any illusion regarding their purpose.

Yes, but that is clearly not an argument that killing shouldn't be illegal unless necessary. Nor is it an argument for training a five year old in firearms or allowing him to possess one.

Straw Man says

Sure, we'll use this method when anyone and not just less than 10 governments can afford to buy and maintain a nuclear weapon.

Large corporations can already afford nuclear weapons. Individuals can afford ICBMs, landmines, and other weapons not allowed under law. It is ridiculous to argue that the law should allow people to possess any weapon whatsoever they want. The gun issue is not a debate over whether or not to draw a line between legal and illegal weapons as anyone who says that no such line should be draw sounds ridiculous. The question is where to draw the line and why.

In any case, regardless of where we draw the line on guns and other weapons, clearly a five-year-old is not responsible enough to handle deadly weapons, which is the whole point of this thread. This thread isn't about where to draw that line. This thread is a reaction to the ridiculousness of giving a young child a lethal weapon as a toy. Surely, no matter how much you love firing guns, you can see the absurdity of that? If not, I don't know what to say.

This stuff needs to be played in the media... If it convinces another person not to give a gun to a 5 year-old. Then this making headlines was worth it. You are never going to eradicate stupid people. But you can educate them or at least shame them.