guns have to be locked or disabled with ammunition stored separately in homes with underage children. When I was growing up, the guns were locked up. My dad locked them up mostly because he did not trust our friends from handling them and possibly dropping them. The ammunition was locked up, so the guns could not have been fired anyway. This was in the 60s and 70s.

Witness the guy who just got off with probation for leaving his gun around where his kid managed to kill himself.

I seem to have missed it.

It's only been all over the local news. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3112011

some idiot leaving a gun under a pillow and his 4 year old shot his 2 year old brother. He did not shoot himself.

WTF is the difference? It's a dead kid, and the guy gets off.

in jail, he has to do 100 hours of community service in the Hmong community teaching them how important it is that firearms be locked up. He certainly seems remorseful. I suppose the judge could have sentenced him to more time. I think the community service will do more good than keeping him in prison would do as a deterent to others.

"WTF is the difference?" The difference is that I thought you were referencing a different story. It's that simple.

Last edited Sat Jun 29, 2013, 09:09 PM - Edit history (1)

for child neglect that results in a death. If that had been a mother who left the house to go shopping and the kid slipped and fell, she would do 20 years. Guns as usual have a special dispensation.

I can really see you working hard for gun control here.

similar to what you describe. If you post a link, I'll read it.

someone posts a thread on DU about a toddler or small child who kills or is killed with a loaded gun left laying around. Stories of women imprisoned for neglect have been in the papers for decades. You seem to expect others to point basic news to you. You yourself have a responsibility to keep yourself informed.

links to stories about women getting 20 years for child neglect? Isn't that as important as the stories whicj you do post links?

and inevitably some of your gunner friends and the rest of the resident misogynists come into the thread to tell me I have no right to talk about anything pertaining to women. I despise misogynists and I dislike the views of gunners. When a gunner turns out to be misogynistic, that's as low as it gets.

I have no problem with someone getting 20 years for negligent manslaughter in a child's death. I just don't think someone should get off because that negligence involved leaving a loaded gun lying around.

If you believe I am a mysinogist, you are sorely mistaken.

Or do you simply not care about respecting group rules on this site?

indicating Minnesota has a law about guns being locked up in homes with underage children. I then wrote an anecdote about my own family and how my father locked up his guns. How can that post violate the SOP?

And say whether you support it. It's clear you do not. The purpose of this group is to promote gun control, not to attack those who do or minimize the deaths of children.

the death of a child. I was unfamiliar with a story that you made a reference to. I merely asked for a link.

I am in favor of universal back ground checks. I am in favor of stronger penalties for straw purchasers of firearms. I am also in favor of laws requiring firearms and ammunition to be locked up in homes with underage children. That was the point of my first post on this thread.

and instead promote a pro-gun viewpoint, which is precisely what you are doing today.

I know you have participated in common threads with me. I also know that I do not attack people in all of my posts. I sometimes challenge people, but I have not even done that one this thread.

I am not accusing you of making personal attacks. I am saying that your posts make it clear to me that you fall more clearly on the pro-gun side than the gun control side.

should or could be banned. Does that make me evil? I believe the states could and should do more to make it more difficult for criminals to acquire guns. I encourage debate on the issue. I know I have occasionally been annoying to others on these threads, but I do not attack people. I have only gottesn three or four posts hidden in total and one of those was because of a typo (I still don't understand that one). I'll be leaving now.

another "cold dead hands" spokesperson. I guess the stench over there drives even the most devoted out from time-to-time. I just wish they wouldn't come over here and stink this Group up. It's annoying...

approach: to appear to be sincere, while spouting thinly veiled NRA-apologist bullshit propaganda. All gunz, all the time, is their mantra, and their support for Zimmerman and Florida's SYG law has no bounds.

It's just a shame that they feel such a need to shit on everyone else's parade while idolizing their gun toting role models. Uncle Wayne must be so proud...

me, you are mistaken. I have never been a member of the NRA. I also think Zimmerman should be found guilty. I have not watched all of the trial nor do I know Florida law, but I think he should have stayed in his vehicle. Heck, I don't think he should have been armed with anything other than a cell phone and maybe a can of pepper spray, if allowed under Florida law.

of mine where I supported George Zimmerman, I sure would like to see it.

The States passed and modified the child endangerment laws, increased penalties, and began a media blitz to inform and educate.
Many cities began a specific and intense effort to take to trial and convict adults for these crimes, and there was a marked declin in these tragedies...
I believe if your gun is found unattended with a child you should b charged with a felony, lose your right to access firearms and do time, if injury or death occurs, then the owner/ responsible party should be charged as if they had been the one holding the gun.
A significant part of a right is the responsibility attached to it. The burden of security of a firearm is squarely on th owner, and they need to be firmly and safely secure at all times.