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

Jim Bianchi <jimbo@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> Bo Raxo wrote:
>> "Jim Alder" <jimalder@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote... 
>>> "Bo Raxo" <crimenewscenter@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote: 
>>>> "Benj" <bjacoby@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote... 
>>>>> "_ 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..

   I thought so. And that's the last time he made any sense.
 
>> But the only way that would happen is if the law required him to do so
.

   Or, someone could have suggested the idea to him.
 
>      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.

   Unlike a law requiring him to do so. If he didn't do something about it

after the kid put a hole in the wall, why would he do it because the law
told 
him to?

> 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. 

   Isn't that what laws are for? To make sure everyone is guilty of
something, 
and are hence easily pressured?

>>>>> 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.

    Ooh, good point. And they die by the droves, while he hopes to
regulate 
millions of gun owners in order to stop something that happens
considerably 
less often than lightning strikes the Empire State Building.
 
>>>   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.


-- 
"Life isn't about waiting for the storm 
to pass... it's about learning to dance 
in the rain."