Re: "Accidental" Day-Care Shooting

Phil Smythe wrote:

FerdinandAkin wrote:


You say "An eight year old has no business having a gun in a day care"
and I totally agree. This argument supports my comment which was
critical of  your claim that "It
has nothing to do with the gun itself." Thanks for backing up my claim
and detroying your own.





Your insistence that this incident is totally dependent on the
presence of the gun is incorrect. I have done nothing to back up your
claim, and far from ignoring the fact that it was a gun that the eight
year old had, it was the focus of my comments which you over look in
your rush to condemn guns. My point about education still stands and is
far from being destroyed.



Sadly you join a long line of TPG posters whose only way of making a
point is to INVENT the claims of others. I DID NOT say "that this
incident is totally dependent on the presence of the gun" which you
falsely claim, I disputed your statement that "It has nothing to do
with the gun itself.". Even you have subsequently conceded that an 8
year old has no business with a, wait for it, "gun" in a day care
centre. The gun was a vital part of the incident, not the only thing,
but NOT "nothing to do with" the incident which you belatedly
acknowledge.

If you are going to discuss what another claims, do what I do and
debate what is written, not what you concoct as the other's claim.



Let me simplify this.
The father had a stay with the criminal justice system where he failed to learn from the inadequate education provided that he was legally restricted from owning a gun. It had nothing to do with the gun itself.
The father made the decision to illegally buy a gun and takes it home. The gun had no input in this decision; it had nothing to do with the gun itself.
The father does not provide his son with gun safety education. The father does not provide his son with education about right and wrong particularly when guns are involved. The father does not take measures to prevent the eight-year-old boy from gaining access to the gun. The gun did not make itself available to the boy; it had nothing to do with the gun itself.
On the day of the incident, the gun did not say, "Take me! Forget about those other implements of destruction about the house, Take me in your backpack!" The gun is an inanimate object and is unable to communicate with a human. The boy made the decision to take the gun to the day care; it had nothing to do with the gun itself.
The eight-year-old boy made the decision to use a gun instead of any other available item. The gun is cannot make a decision. At the day care, the gun did not aim itself and then pull its own trigger. It took a human to make the decision to shoot the gun; it had nothing to do with the gun itself.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Russell Hantz is a complete fake!
    ... savage rape and/or murder of a loved one ANY AGE... ... the father returns home about 3 AM. ... in his glove compartment and gabs his gun. ... what you are left with is gang members and other criminals ...
    (alt.tv.survivor)
  • Re: 8 year old boy dead from Uzi
    ... Uzi, which, since the Republicans blocked renewal of the Assault ... the weapon; it kicked back toward his head as he fired again. ... Second is the father who allowed the boy to pick up the ... poor judgment on the part of the parent and the gun dealer. ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
  • OT-Condoleezza Rice on Gun rights.
    ... Rice says gun rights are as important as right to free speech and ... WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, ... She said her father, a black minister, ... Rice said she favored background checks and controls at gun shows. ...
    (sci.med.diseases.lyme)
  • Re: UPDATE / Boy 8, Killed by Uzi
    ... What can one say, a physician father. ... Boy Accidentally Killed by Submachine Gun at Firearms Expo ... Christopher Bizilj was testing a 9 mm Micro Uzi at the Westfield ...
    (alt.true-crime)