Re: => Negligence by "trained agents" becomes a crime once they become unemployed!

On Sun, 11 May 2008 21:54:03 -0700, Bo Raxo wrote:
> 
> "Jim Alder" <jimalder@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:Xns9A9AD6C10289Cjimaldersssnetcom@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> "Bo Raxo" <crimenewscenter@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>> news:MYidnSZZcrmzqLjVnZ2dnUVZ_qLinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> "Benj" <bjacoby@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>
news:67619687-8806-4cd3-97be-718b19b16d4d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> On May 9, 9:44 pm, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>> Boy, 5, Shoots Little Sister After Fight
>>>>>
>>>>> May 9, 2008, 1:55 PM PDT
>>>>>
>>>>> Indianapolis -- A man whose 5-year-old son accidentally shot and
>>>>> killed his sister was arrested at the cemetery before the little
>>>>> girl's burial.
>>>>>
>>>>> James Michael Booher faces charges that include child neglect for
>>>>> allegedly leaving a semiautomatic handgun where his son could find
it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi says 26-year-old Booher should
>>>>> have been more careful in keeping the gun away from his son.
>>>>>
>>>>> He says that is true especially since the boy had taken the gun from
>>>>> atop a refrigerator and shot a bullet into a kitchen cabinet eight
>>>>> months ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> Police say her brother climbed up to the top shelf of a bookcase to
get
>>>>> the gun. Then shot his 4-year-old Makayla in the face.
>>>>>
>>>>> Booher was being held in the Marion County Jail on three counts of 
>>>>> felony neglect. He faces up to 56 years in prison.
>>>>
>>>> Facts are Booher had the gun as a security guard and thus qualified
>>>> with the "training" that the "gun control" crowd demand as a
>>>> qualification for gun owner****p.  Booher had a hint that the 5 year
>>>> old had picked up a fascination with guns from TV when the boy 
>>>> previously retrieved the gun and fired into a kitchen cabinet.
>>>
>>> The gun control crowd wants people who let a child access a loaded gun
>>> to be prosecuted. The first time this 5 year old managed to get his
>>> hands on a loaded gun, the gun owner should have been charged with a
>>> felony, and lost his right to possess a firearm.
>>
>>    Of course. There could be no other solution.
>>   Or...
>>
>>    The first time the 5 year old climbed up on top of the fridge and
got
>> the gun, the father should have spent a few bucks on a pistol safe. Not
>> as satisfying as taking away a person's rights, but just as effective.
>> More so, actually.
>>
> 
> I like it. How about if he did it *before* the first time the kid found
> the gun.  Duh!
 
	I like that. Makes sense..

> But the only way that would happen is if the law required him to do so .

	The law also requires one to be licensed in order to drive a motor
vehicle. The law also mandates newly sold cars have safety equip. Yet
people
still manage to stack up the family car with amazing regularity. And the
rate of auto fatalities/injuries doesn't seem to've gone down much since
airbags or seatbelts, anti-lock brakes, etc were mandated. Now in the case
of this 5 year old kid, proper gun storage box likely WOULD'VE prevented
the
death of his sister. The problem with enacting such legislation (requiring
firearms be stored in a gun safe) is that many people would use such laws
to
actively penalise those who do not need to be. 

>>>> Then there would have been no dead 4 year old.
>>
>>   There are always going to be dead four year olds. Cars will back over

>> them, swimming pools will claim them, buckets of water will drown them.
>>
> Oh, I love this gun nut argument: if we can't stop 100% of the deaths,
> why stop any at all?

	No. You've it wrong. The arg is, "Why do a thing that has PROVEN to
be utterly ineffective in stopping (or even lessening) the rates of
injuries
and fatalities due to misuse (and criminal use) of firearms?"

> Hey, there are still people who die in auto accidents.  So why bother
with
> licenses and traffic laws safety regulations for cars - there will
always
> be some people getting killed, right?

	Right. And all these people are killed/injured IN SPITE OF the
requirements for licenses, registration, traffic laws, and safety equip
for
cars/trucks.

>>   And there will always be self-righteous control freaks like yourself,

>> who think the government can stop all crime, all suffering, all wrongs.
>>
> There will always be liars like you who claim your opponents take some 
> ridiculous position.  What bull****.
> 
>>> That's how gun control works.
>>
>>   Gun control has never worked. It never will.
>>
> Take a look at the rest of the industrialized world: their gun laws,
their 
> gun deaths.

	Why just the industrialised world? How about Mexico or Haiti? And
surely you don't mean that eg Japan and England are NOT industrialised?
Both
of those countries have a lot of 'gun crime' in spite of some draconian
gun
laws. 
	
> It works.  Proven.

	No it doesn't. Never has. Never will. Because it CAN'T.

-- 
jimbo@[EMAIL PROTECTED]