Three-Year-Old Girl Second Amendments Two-Year-Old Brother

Back to article

Comments

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of children.

smajor82 on April 21, 2014 at 7:09 AM

RepubliKKKans on gay rights: "Think of the children!"

RepubliKKKans on gun rights: "Blow the children's brains out!"

Original Andrew on April 21, 2014 at 7:16 AM

How does "live rounds in the magazine" equal "unloaded state"?

Cork on April 21, 2014 at 7:30 AM

Last night I had alcohol in my bloodstream but none in my hand, so I must have been in an un-inebriated state.

Banna on April 21, 2014 at 7:44 AM

Yes, I'm sure the best thing to do at this point is to have the 3 year old do some hard time in juvie for his role in murdering his sister and for the father to be jailed for at least 5 years for failure to secure the gun he didn't kill someone with.

ChefJoe on April 21, 2014 at 8:06 AM

Oops, got the genders reversed. 3 year old sister shot the 2 year old brother. Even more culpability because girls are socially expected to be nurturers.

ChefJoe on April 21, 2014 at 8:10 AM

How is this not at least reckless endangerment?

on April 21, 2014 at 8:17 AM

A Ned Stark reminder... Off with his head.

sperifera on April 21, 2014 at 8:28 AM

@7 Did you really think Dan was suggesting the toddler go to prison? I'm really asking.

SoUt on April 21, 2014 at 8:37 AM

lol.

Lew Siffer on April 21, 2014 at 8:39 AM

@7 that little girl is obviously in a home situation of imminent danger if something like this happened in the first place. Children get removed from homes for considerably less. At the very least, they need to keep her away from his home until he can demonstrate competence to keep his own children safe.

Hernandez on April 21, 2014 at 8:44 AM

Children are only expendable after birth. When in the womb, their protection is paramount.

NeitherThisNorThat on April 21, 2014 at 8:45 AM

looks like a nice place - who could have expected? http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhome…

Max Solomon on April 21, 2014 at 8:48 AM

@12, the 3 year old can chamber a round, point a rifle at her brother, and fire so obviously she deserves punishment for her role in pulling the trigger. There can be no exceptions, just like $15Now says.

ChefJoe on April 21, 2014 at 8:50 AM

I don't know about arrest and prosecution for murder. Maybe criminal negligence. There's little question in my mind that this particular parent cannot be given a sharper lesson by jail than he has already received from his children.

DRF on April 21, 2014 at 9:00 AM

You know what might prompt idiots to think about "the way they store" their stupid fucking guns? The arrest, prosecution, and—if they're found guilty—imprisonment of other gun owning idiots whose improperly stored guns result in the deaths of their own children.

While I'm all for gun control, the devil's advocate in me thinks this sort of thing is not going to help. Think of the kind of irresponsible people who leave unsecured loaded guns within reach of their children. The thought of their children accidentally killing themselves or others has obviously not entered their head or been enough to affect their behavior; do you really think they are going to suddenly pay attention just because they might go to jail? Do you think the threat of prison is a more powerful motivator than the threat of losing their children forever?

I'm not arguing whether or not such a law would be just. I just don't think it will move the needle on child gun fatalities.

seilo on April 21, 2014 at 9:06 AM

Obviously she was concerned about the threat of 2 year olds threatening America by having temper tantrums ...

Will in Seattle on April 21, 2014 at 9:09 AM

@17:

Worst False Equivalency Argument, Ever!

COMTE on April 21, 2014 at 9:20 AM

@7,@8,@17 are you jealous of Bailo's Dumbest Motherfucker On The Planet title? Trying to dethrone him? You should just head over to his blog and post there instead.

JonnoN on April 21, 2014 at 9:33 AM

@22: That kind of ruins the point of Bailo's blog being a place where he posts and nobody else ever ventures.

venomlash on April 21, 2014 at 9:34 AM

Prosecuting parents may feel good but it won't reduct these senseless deaths. One would assume parents are more motivated to keep their kids safe than to stay out of jail.

What would reduce these deaths is a repeal of firearm manufacturer immunity. A lawsuit alleging product liability for failing to have safety devices could be brought (fingerrprint I.D., a childlock system like we have on pill bottles). Gun manufacturers would make their products safer if financially motivated to do so. Trial lawyers are just as American as guns, dontchaknow!

Tim Horton on April 21, 2014 at 9:50 AM

@24:
the former can happen if individual prosecutors want it to.

the latter would require action by the federal legislative branch.

so I assume you're being sarcastic.

Max Solomon on April 21, 2014 at 9:59 AM

Anyone else think this might be our last chance at natural selection? With no predators left to thin the herd, stupid negligent gun owners are taking their own kin out. What are the chances that the product of this idiot being raised by this idiot was going to contribute enormously to society? If this "tragedy" happened more often leaving only responsible people to procreate, who could argue we wouldn't be in a better place in twenty years?

tike0vitz on April 21, 2014 at 10:08 AM

@18 "...this particular parent cannot be given a sharper lesson by jail than he has already received from his children."

@19 "Do you think the threat of prison is a more powerful motivator than the threat of losing their children forever?"

@24 "Prosecuting parents may feel good but it won't reduct [sic] these senseless deaths."

Ok. I think I get it: if I get drunk, get behind the wheel, and--let's say--cause the death of someone I love...then the pain of my loss is sufficient, right? I need not face any prosecution or legal consequences?

Yes, yes. If I am really upset about the totally preventable human tragedy that I caused through sheer, and unalloyed irresponsibility, then everyone calls it good and I just walk.

Yeah, I like that. Hand me that fifth of whisky and my keys.

Ophian on April 21, 2014 at 10:11 AM

Even the tone of this article is fucking ridiculous. The first sentence states: "A 2-year-old boy injured when his older sister reportedly shot him by accident Friday died of his injuries while in a hospital[.]"

He didn't die from his injuries. He died because he was fucking shot by a gun. Don't act like a prepositional phrase excuses the gun (and gun owner's) role in this crime. (And for the grammar nerds, I'm probably using prepositional phrase incorrectly, but I think you get the point).

dave1976 on April 21, 2014 at 10:11 AM

@28, I think you are missing the point here [see above]. The father is the victim, because he is really sad. And the phrase, "...died of his injuries while in a hospital..." clearly indicates that it is the medical establishment that is culpable.

Ophian on April 21, 2014 at 10:22 AM

@29 you're probably right. Just like others have noted, we don't really need drunk driving laws because we'll all be really sad after we smash our loved ones through a windshield...and that's punishment enough.

dave1976 on April 21, 2014 at 10:29 AM

There's little question in my mind that this particular parent cannot be given a sharper lesson by jail than he has already received from his children.

I'm sure the overwhelming opinion from the majority of people that the father did nothing wrong and that his supposed anguish over losing his son (side note: what if he didn't/doesn't love his kids? what if he's happy to see them dead?) is punishment enough had absolutely no role to play in his decision to be an irresponsible idiot.

How about this? The daughter is taken away from him permanently for her own protection. Is that good enough for you? Or is that "too much" punishment?

keshmeshi on April 21, 2014 at 10:50 AM

@ 19 - "The thought of their children accidentally killing themselves or others has obviously not entered their head or been enough to affect their behavior; do you really think they are going to suddenly pay attention just because they might go to jail? Do you think the threat of prison is a more powerful motivator than the threat of losing their children forever?"

Yes. Obviously, if they leave loaded (or quasi-loaded) guns around their own children, they don't really care about them and their safety, they're only interested in what they themselves want to do at any given point in time ("I'll put it away later"). This reveals a rather egocentric personality, so a threat to their freedom will be a lot more efficient.

Ricardo on April 21, 2014 at 11:00 AM

"I'm sure the overwhelming opinion from the majority of people that the father did nothing wrong and that his supposed anguish over losing his son (side note: what if he didn't/doesn't love his kids? what if he's happy to see them dead?) is punishment enough had absolutely no role to play in his decision to be an irresponsible idiot."

There's a huge distinction between "losing the child is punishment enough" and "the father did nothing wrong." The phrase "punishment enough" acknowledges that the father deserves punishment, which inherently admits that he did something wrong. As for taking the daughter away, I personally agree. But the point there isn't so much to punish the father as it is to ensure the daughter's safety.

XiaoGui17 on April 21, 2014 at 11:33 AM

Again, I go back to OJ Simpson.

These stupid, negligent parents and their uncontrolled guns? No, don't send them to prison.

Take - their - money. That's what happened to OJ and it pretty much taught him a lesson that no amount of jail can.

Huge fines, probation and loss of ability to own a gun - that would make people snap to who do not want to protect their own children.

westello on April 21, 2014 at 11:33 AM

@28 & @29 Oh FFS. "Died from his injuries at a hospital" is commonly used in journalism to indicate two things:
(1) He died days later, not immediately at the scene, and
(2) It was the gunshot wound that killed him, not some secondary complication such as an infection.

Why would you read into that some tortured attempt to "absolve the gun"? It seems to me the phrase serves a purpose of clarifying the sequence of events. No more, no less.

XiaoGui17 on April 21, 2014 at 11:36 AM

@34: go back at look at my real estate link. they live in north nowhere, UT. it's likely they don't have a lot of money.

he'd have to be prosecuted and convicted of a felony to lose his right to a gun. but cache county. UT ain't a place where taking gun rights away is going to get the commissioners re-elected.

Max Solomon on April 21, 2014 at 11:38 AM

I know, I know!!

We have to drop millions of loaded Saturday Night Specials from airplanes, with brightly colored parachutes, all over the suburbs, on a school day just as the kids are getting home.

Won't that make the NRA happy!

Brooklyn Reader on April 21, 2014 at 11:41 AM

@19
"Do you think the threat of prison is a more powerful motivator than the threat of losing their children forever?"

Dan wants to ban guns.
This is about Dan wanting to punish people who have guns.
Think about what would happen if a parent went to jail every time a child died from something that their parents could have prevented.

How about taking the children away and putting them in foster homes instead? Except for the problems with child abuse and death there.

fairly.unbalanced on April 21, 2014 at 11:52 AM

@22,23: Oh god, he has a blog? Wait, of course he has a blog. I'm putting the over under on posts that mention either hydrogen fuel cells, Kent, or "fast regional transportation" at 95%.

Hanoumatoi on April 21, 2014 at 12:24 PM

@35, "Oh FFS..." Right back attcha. I think you're missing the forest for the pedantry.

@38, "This is about Dan wanting to punish people who have guns." I can't speak for Dan, but I want to punish those who cause the death of children through gross negligence. Casual care of loaded firearms is only one such sin of omission.

Clearly you think that protecting children is a ridiculous and unreasonable aspiration.

[FWIW, as a small child I was introduced to shooting by my father, a gun enthusiast. I'll give you one guess as to what was never, ever, ever left around the house--loaded or otherwise--where I could mess with them unsupervised. Go on then, take a guess.]

Ophian on April 21, 2014 at 12:27 PM

@42
"Clearly you think that protecting children is a ridiculous and unreasonable aspiration."

Straw man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

fairly.unbalanced on April 21, 2014 at 12:32 PM

@43
"This is about Dan wanting to punish people who have guns."

Straw man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Goose and gander, you twit.

Ophian on April 21, 2014 at 12:34 PM

@27: I did not say there should be no legal repercussions. I merely said I did not think such penalties will reduce the number of child gun fatalities, because the people responsible are already not paying any attention.

@32 has answered my actual question with an intersting point; I wonder if it is true. I would be in favor of trying out such laws to see if they help.

seilo on April 21, 2014 at 12:50 PM

@44
"Goose and gander, you twit."

Try reading Dan's other posts.
Or Dan's post today.
Pay attention to the word "imprisonment".

In the meantime, you still haven't addressed the points I originally made.
Think about what would happen if a parent went to jail every time a child died from something that their parents could have prevented.

How about taking the children away and putting them in foster homes instead? Except for the problems with child abuse and death there.

fairly.unbalanced on April 21, 2014 at 12:51 PM

@45, "I did not think such penalties will reduce the number of child gun fatalities..."
"I would be in favor of trying out such laws to see if they help."

Whether or not such penalties would be a deterrent, I was making the point that when one's gross negligence kills another human being, there are usually significant legal consequences. We don't need to try out such laws they are a matter of course in any other comparable circumstance.

I find it appalling that when it comes to child fatality by gun-owner negligence, we get all wishy-washy about where to assign blame and what to do about it.

If I left my sulfuric acid in a screw-top bottle in the kitchen fridge, or exposed electrical wiring in the bathroom, and that directly resulted in the grievous injury or death of my toddler, the appropriate response is not, “I think it’s really just a tragic accident is what it is and you just feel bad for them, and your heart goes out to them.”

Ophian on April 21, 2014 at 1:34 PM

Hey, everybody, Dan said "imprisonment" and "guns" in the same post! He wants to arrest all the gun owners in Americurrr!

LOGIC!

"Except for the problems with child abuse and death there."

As apposed to the child abuse and death with their negligent, gun-owning parents?

LOGIC!

Bloated Jesus is Bloated on April 21, 2014 at 1:34 PM

@46 how deliberately obtuse are you being? Or do you seriously not understand that mishandling a device specifically designed to kill human beings is an order of magnitude or two more egregious than the other forms of negligence you're attempting to equivocate it with?

MajordomoPicard on April 21, 2014 at 1:35 PM

As a resident SLOG 'gun nut,' I have no problem whatsoever with the father being prosecuted for his blatant fucking stupidity.

CPN on April 21, 2014 at 1:44 PM

@46 Frankly no one should waste their time addressing your so called "points" by your own admission they are fairly_unbalanced. Beside all you ever post is Gish Gallop.

Machiavelli was framed on April 21, 2014 at 1:48 PM

@46, "This is about Dan wanting to punish people who have guns."

If you can cite where Dan says he wants to punish gun ownership I will concede that point. Otherwise it is you who is putting up the Straw Man.

"Think about what would happen if a parent went to jail every time a child died from something that their parents could have prevented."

I have thought about it, and the result would be punishment for those who fail to reasonably* protect their children [a legal, as well as moral obligation in our society]. But you clearly think that is unreasonable.

*Unless you meant to stretch could to hyperbolic lengths, in which case it is again you who is putting up the Straw Man.

Ophian on April 21, 2014 at 1:54 PM

@52
"If you can cite where Dan says he wants to punish gun ownership I will concede that point."

I don't need to.
All I need to do is to point out that you are not familiar enough with Dan's previous posts that you are not aware that Dan has advocated for banning guns.
Therefore, whatever you declare to be a "straw man" about my response to Dan's posts is immaterial.

Educate yourself.

fairly.unbalanced on April 21, 2014 at 2:14 PM

Kids will be kids. Sometimes not sharing toys gets out of hand. What can ya do? Besides, buying a small casket, loading it up once, & putting it away someplace safe is so much easier than trying to keep up with all of the guns and ammunition (that the evil Obama administration has taken away from everyone). /sarcasm/
Then again, what do I know? It isn't safe for me to marry my boyfriend (of almost 28 yrs.) in our state. But we can stand our ground.

TampaDink on April 21, 2014 at 2:18 PM

@27 This is less like a drunk driver and more like someone who leaves the car in the driveway with the keys in or the motor running so that a child can come inside, step on the pedal, and run over another child who was making chalk drawings. That might be criminal negligence but it's not a DUI.

@35 Yup.

DRF on April 21, 2014 at 2:20 PM

@53 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNEwsCFn…

Bloated Jesus is Bloated on April 21, 2014 at 2:47 PM

@55

You know, I don't think either of those work. Its more like leaving a loaded weapon unattended around children who are, more likely than not, going to fuck around with it.

This is its own thing and in no way, shape, or form does it have to be compared to anything else.

Bloated Jesus is Bloated on April 21, 2014 at 2:51 PM

@53 Oh, you little sweetie. I know it gets tough for you, but I do want to help you out.

Firstly, if you try and concentrate, you will see that there is a difference between banning gun ownership [which, I agree, Dan is largely in favor of] and your claim--entirely unsubstantiated--that he wants to "punish it."

Now, because you have not cited your claim, and insist that you, "don't need to," the dubious underpinning of your position can be summed up by the argument: Yuh-huh.

While that is a very effective rhetorical technique on the playground, you will find it less so against anyone who has a bit more acumen than a second grader.

Perhaps I can make it clearer if I give you an example:

Me: You said that you are a poopy-head, doo-doo face.
You:Nuh-uh!
Me:Yuh-huh!
You:Prove it!
Me:I don't have to!

Now, in the above dialogue, I would expect that you would remain unconvinced of my assertion. I'm sure you will agree that if I fail or refuse to produce any citation or proof, you will be able to safely dismiss my claim.

Good. Now that you have been educated as to how your argument fails to work, why don't you change in to some dry underpants and give things another go. You can do it!

Ophian on April 21, 2014 at 3:01 PM

Stop calling shootings like these "accidental." This was a successful shooting. The gun performed as it was designed. A human pulled the trigger, the gun fired the bullet, and the bullet killed a human, just like it was supposed to. Not an accident.

The designers and manufacturers of this gun should be proud of themselves for creating a product so functional and foolproof that even a toddler can successfully use it for its intended purpose of killing people. I hope they're patting themselves on the back right now.

john t on April 21, 2014 at 3:07 PM

@56 *tee-hee*

Ophian on April 21, 2014 at 3:07 PM

@58
"Now, because you have not cited your claim, and insist that you, "don't need to," the dubious underpinning of your position can be summed up by the argument: Yuh-huh."

No.
The point is that your initial reply to my post was a straw man.
My reply to that was pointing out that it was a straw man.
Your reply to my reply was to claim that I had posted a straw man.

And now you are claiming that if I convince you then you'll admit that you are wrong.
No. I don't need to do that. Read Dan's other posts.
Here is your original straw man.

"Clearly you think that protecting children is a ridiculous and unreasonable aspiration."

fairly.unbalanced on April 21, 2014 at 3:24 PM

@61

From @38, "This is about Dan wanting to punish people who have guns."

That statement is untrue and a misrepresentation of Dan's position, i.e. a straw man argument. You have been invited to show otherwise, but cannot.

"And now you are claiming that if I convince you then you'll admit that you are wrong."

Well, yes. I'm sorry I thought you understood how discourse works. My mistake.

"No. I don't need to do that."

I will take that as your concession, and tip my hat to you, you sophomoric blatherskite.

Ophian on April 21, 2014 at 4:07 PM

fairly.unbalanced, commit sudoku.

Now he'll stop blathering about guns and start blathering about how he has a stalker.

venomlash on April 21, 2014 at 4:16 PM

Commit sudoku? Well now I'm picturing someone regaining his honor through logic puzzles that everyone thinks are math puzzles but aren't.

DRF on April 21, 2014 at 4:54 PM

Re: @62 uh oh fairly_unbalanced @63 is here and he has pwn'd you for a very long time. You better go run and hide now rather then after you've been made a fool of once again.

Machiavelli was framed on April 21, 2014 at 9:05 PM

In before "I have an internet stalker who makes thinly veiled threats that I kill myself."

I wonder if he has it in a Notepad doc somewhere.

Hanoumatoi on April 22, 2014 at 2:33 AM

@62
"You have been invited to show otherwise, but cannot."

No. I will explain it to you again.
The point is that your initial reply to my post was a straw man.
My reply to that was pointing out that it was a straw man.
Your reply to my reply was to claim that I had posted a straw man.

Here is your original straw man argument.

"Clearly you think that protecting children is a ridiculous and unreasonable aspiration."

Since you were not able to understand my initial post or you chose to post a straw man, and you have not yet admitted doing that, you can do your own research.
But you won't.
You will just continue to demand more links.
Read Dan's other posts on your own time.

fairly.unbalanced on April 22, 2014 at 9:38 AM

@67: Ophian is calling you a hypocrite by pointing out that, the validity of characterizing your position as opposing children's safety aside, you mischaracterized Mr. Savage's statements yourself and therefore have little standing to complain about other people mischaracterizing your statements.
Scientists still can't explain why kids love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch, and you still can't explain why American states with higher rates of gun ownership have higher rates of suicide. Become an hero, why don't ya?

venomlash on April 22, 2014 at 10:06 AM

@68
My internet stalker who makes thinly veiled suggestions that I kill myself, I have answered you many times.
Which is why you now attempt to exclude Japan and England from the data set.

But then you believe that stalking someone is a rational response when disagreeing with them.
http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…
"I promise to stop stalking you if you leave The SLOG and never return."

I do not believe that stalking is a rational response when disagreeing with someone.
I have an internet stalker.
And my internet stalker likes to make thinly veiled suggestions that I kill myself.

fairly.unbalanced on April 22, 2014 at 11:16 AM

@67

"Think about what would happen if a parent went to jail every time a child died from something that their parents could have prevented."

I have thought about it, and the result would be punishment for those who fail to reasonably* protect their children [a legal, as well as moral, obligation in our society]. But you clearly think that is unreasonable.

*Unless you meant to stretch could to hyperbolic lengths, in which case it is again you who is putting up the Straw Man.

If you didn't think such measures were unreasonable, why pose the hypothetical? You really don't have a grasp of what a straw man argument is, do you?

And more links, please, you ninnyhammer.

Ophian on April 22, 2014 at 11:16 AM

John Bailo may be the dumbest motherfucker on the planet, but fairly.unbalanced is like some kind of feedback loop of stupidity that just gets worse and more irrational as it goes.

The dumb is not quite as scathing, but it is so repetitive and unending that it is like gazing into some odd purgatory of stupidity and egocentric thought from which there is no escape. Basically, he is a black hole of dumb.

Theodore Gorath on April 22, 2014 at 12:26 PM

@70
Your posting history in response to me in this thread.

#38 My post
#42 You post a straw man about my post.
#43 I point out that you posted a straw man.
#44 You claim that I posted a straw man and you post a personal insult.
#46 I suggest you read Dan's previous posts and point out that you still haven't addressed my points.
#52 You again claim that I posted a straw many. You fail to address your straw man.
#53 I suggest, again, that you read Dan's previous posts on the subject.
#58 You, again, resort to personal insults.
#61 I point out the pattern of your posts and that you still have not read Dan's other posts.
#62 You, again, claim that I have posted a straw man. You post personal insults.
#67 I, again, point out the pattern of your posts and that you still have not read Dan's other posts.
#70 You, again, post personal insults and claim that I have posted a straw man.

Your original straw man is
"Clearly you think that protecting children is a ridiculous and unreasonable aspiration."

What I had originally posted was
"Think about what would happen if a parent went to jail every time a child died from something that their parents could have prevented."

You are posting another straw man by changing that to
"I have thought about it, and the result would be punishment for those who fail to reasonably* protect their children [a legal, as well as moral, obligation in our society]."

No.
The result would be the loss of income from that parent.
Which will probably lead to the loss of their house.
Possibly also welfare for the remaining parent and children.

That is why the adults in that situation decided that the best course would be to NOT pursue any further legal punishments at this time.

fairly.unbalanced on April 22, 2014 at 1:01 PM

@68 venomlash, "you still can't explain why American states with higher rates of gun ownership have higher rates of suicide."

I know you're too smart to hold your breath waiting for fairly.unbalanced to deliver on that, but Freakonomics did some great podcasts on it in summer 2011. One immediate causative bit is obvious - the lethality of suicide attempts with firearms versus anything else.

I found the bigger, underlying factors fascinating. (Broadly) young, poor, urban black males are at greatest risk of homicide. Older, richer, white, lonely, rural males are at greatest risk of suicide.

DAVIDinKENAI on April 22, 2014 at 1:08 PM

@71 A feed back loop of stupidity indeed.

Machiavelli was framed on April 22, 2014 at 1:09 PM

@72, so, because the punishment of the father would result in jail time or fines, thereby causing him and his family financial distress, there shouldn't be a punishment? Sign me up for that awesome world where I can just show my shitty paystub and get out of any consequences.

bripatrick on April 22, 2014 at 3:55 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you leave a bottle of cyanide out on the counter within reach of children, and one of them kills themselves or someone else with it, you go to prison for negligence-causing-death, right?

I fail to see how this could possibly be different?

gromm on April 22, 2014 at 4:11 PM

@71: It IS a "feedback loop of stupidity". Lemme lay out some pseudo-code:

public post FairlyUnbalancedPost(post postRespondedTo){
do{
try{
argue(Topic.muh2ndAmendment, postRespondedTo);
} catch (ArgumentNonSequiturException e){
criticism.ignore();
}
if(postRespondedTo.GetAuthor()==user.venomlash){
postStatement(Statement.stalker);
}
postStatement(Statement.RefutationUsingEvidence(null));
} while(1);
return new post.RhetoricalMasturbation;
}

@76: Because cyanide isn't necessary to the security of a free state and therefore we're allowed to regulate it and do research showing how dangerous it is. Whereas guns are too important to be subjected to regulation or any sort of research.
/sarcasm

venomlash on April 22, 2014 at 4:39 PM

@75
"Sign me up for that awesome world where I can just show my shitty paystub and get out of any consequences."

You may need to review the context of the discussion.
The father of child A leaves a gun unlocked and child A picks up the gun and shoots child B.
Child B dies.

My point is that putting child A on welfare and taking away her home and one of her parents because of something she did when she was 3 is probably not in her best interest.

You may feel that she deserves that.

fairly.unbalanced on April 22, 2014 at 5:34 PM

@78: It's not because of what SHE did (accidentally shooting a kid). It's because of what HE did (leaving a loaded gun where a child could reasonably be expected to come across it with the result that a child died). We don't give people clemency just because others depend on them. Should people be allowed to get away with whatever crimes so long as they have little mouths to feed?
You are, as usual, an idiot.

venomlash on April 22, 2014 at 7:34 PM

@79
"Should people be allowed to get away with whatever crimes so long as they have little mouths to feed?"

My internet stalker who makes thinly veiled suggestions that I kill myself, you are wrong.

But then you believe that stalking someone is a rational response when disagreeing with them.
http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…
"I promise to stop stalking you if you leave The SLOG and never return."

The father left the gun unlocked.
But the little girl shot and killed her brother.
So when the father is in jail and the family is on welfare, it is because of something she did when she was 3.
Which is why the adults in the situation have decided not to pursue further legal actions.

You may not agree with the adults there.
I have an internet stalker.
And my internet stalker likes to make thinly veiled suggestions that I kill myself.

fairly.unbalanced on April 23, 2014 at 6:56 AM

@80: My internet stalkee who likes to repeat himself over and over, you are wrong.

When children are under the age of 18 and are not emancipated, their parents or legal guardians are culpable for certain crimes they commit. Additionally, since the act of negligence led to the death of a person, there is a strong legal argument for charging him with negligent manslaughter. Your ignorance is matched only by your dogmatic refusal to acknowledge it.

venomlash on April 23, 2014 at 11:22 AM

@81
My internet stalker who makes thinly veiled suggestions that I kill myself, you are wrong, again.

But then you believe that stalking someone is a rational response when disagreeing with them.
http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…
"I promise to stop stalking you if you leave The SLOG and never return."

"When children are under the age of 18 and are not emancipated, their parents or legal guardians are culpable for certain crimes they commit."

So you admit that she committed the crime.
Which is what I had said.
"So when the father is in jail and the family is on welfare, it is because of something she did when she was 3."

You may not agree with the decision of the adults there.
I have an internet stalker.
And my internet stalker likes to make thinly veiled suggestions that I kill myself.

fairly.unbalanced on April 23, 2014 at 1:28 PM

@82 You spew nothing but pure adulterated Gish Gallop.

In no way does your response address Venomlash's point. Oh sure you pull out a piece of what Venomlash stated then change the context an answer a question of your own making. That's not addressing the question at hand, that is simple bullshit cowardly dissembling. You either know your "argument" (it's not one truly, not in any meaningful way) is bullshit or you are a complete idiot.

I must say Venomlash I do enjoy watching you make Fairly-Unbalanced spin himself into the mud. Oh and the little prank you pulled on him well that just seems to keep giving and giving. Well done Sir.

Machiavelli was framed on April 23, 2014 at 2:07 PM

@82: So you admit that the parents are culpable (guilty, since you don't understand big words) of the crime. Why are we not punishing the people who are guilty of the crime?

venomlash on April 23, 2014 at 2:23 PM

@84
My internet stalker who makes thinly veiled suggestions that I kill myself, you are still wrong.

But then you believe that stalking someone is a rational response when disagreeing with them.
http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…
"I promise to stop stalking you if you leave The SLOG and never return."

"So you admit that the parents are culpable (guilty, since you don't understand big words) of the crime."

"Guilty" means something very specific in the legal sense.
Neither of the parents shot the child who died.

"Why are we not punishing the people who are guilty of the crime?"

You've used "guilty" incorrectly there, again.
The "why" is because the adults who are there have decided that something a child did when she was 3 does not have to result in her father going to jail and her family losing their home and living on welfare.

You may not agree with the decision of the adults there.
But then you believe that stalking someone is a rational response to disagreeing with them.
I have an internet stalker.
And my internet stalker likes to make thinly veiled suggestions that I kill myself.

fairly.unbalanced on April 23, 2014 at 3:19 PM

@85: You can be guilty under the law of murder or manslaughter without actually killing someone. The most common case is "felony murder" and its relative "misdemeanor manslaughter", where someone dies as the result of a crime, and the person who committed the crime is guilty of manslaughter (unless the crime was a felony, in which case it's murder 3). For example, if you commit child endangerment, and a person dies as a result, you're guilty of manslaughter at least. AGAIN, it is not about what the kid did, but rather what the parent did.
I'll say it once more: should we let criminals get off scot-free if they can demonstrate that someone depends on them?

venomlash on April 23, 2014 at 7:07 PM

@85 God you are dumb.

Responses to your sentences in order.
1, Still falling for the same joke? God you're dumb.
2. whining.
3. Venomlash quote.
4. Blatant dodge. You ignore the fact that the parents left a loaded gun out where a toddler could get it.
5. Venomlash quote.
6. I think not Fairly_Unbalanced. I think Venomlash used the word Guilty correctly. Why? Because the adults involved decided to leave a loaded gun out where a toddler could pick it up. They are indeed Guilty.

As for what happens to the kid if Dad goes to jail? Fucking happens all the time idiots with guns are no different then idiots with crack.

Machiavelli was framed on April 23, 2014 at 9:53 PM

@86
My internet stalker who makes thinly veiled suggestions that I kill myself, you are still wrong, again.

But then you believe that stalking someone is a rational response when disagreeing with them.
http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…
"I promise to stop stalking you if you leave The SLOG and never return."

"AGAIN, it is not about what the kid did, but rather what the parent did."

That is your opinion.
But the adults there understand that the little girl accidentally shot and killed her younger brother when she was 3.
The adults there have decided that she should not lose her father, her home and have to live on welfare for something she did when she was 3.

You may not agree with the decision of the adults there.
You may think that a 3 year old girl and her family should be punished even more.
You may think that that 3 year old girl has not suffered enough for your tastes.
But then you believe that stalking someone is a rational response to disagreeing with them.

I have an internet stalker.
And my internet stalker likes to make thinly veiled suggestions that I kill myself.

fairly.unbalanced on April 24, 2014 at 9:40 AM

@88: One imagines you chanting that over and over as you masturbate yourself into a trance. You should get it printed on a t shirt.
Venomlash is not stalking you Unbalanced, as much as you might wish it to be true. This is another of your persistent delusions. You just both hang out on the same blog, where in he consistently hands you your ass. That's it.
Now you go get yourself a box of tissues and start up with that chant of yours

IhaveaninternetstalkerandmyinternetstalkerlikestomakethinlyveiledsuggestionsthatIkillmyself
IhaveaninternetstalkerandmyinternetstalkerlikestomakethinlyveiledsuggestionsthatIkillmyself
IhaveaninternetstalkerandmyinternetstalkerlikestomakethinlyveiledsuggestionsthatIkillmyself
IhaveaninternetstalkerandmyinternetstalkerlikestomakethinlyveiledsuggestionsthatIkillmyself..........AAAAAHHHH.........

Lissa on April 24, 2014 at 12:52 PM

@89
Since you are implying that you agree with him, how much additional suffering do you think that 3 year old girl should have to go through?
Would losing her father for a few years, losing her home and having to live on welfare be enough additional punishment, in your opinion?
Or do you believe that she deserves even more punishment?
How much suffering do you want that 3 year old girl to go through?

fairly.unbalanced on April 24, 2014 at 1:34 PM

IhaveaninternetstalkerandmyinternetstalkerlikestomakethinlyveiledsuggestionsthatIkillmyself
IhaveaninternetstalkerandmyinternetstalkerlikestomakethinlyveiledsuggestionsthatIkillmyself
IhaveaninternetstalkerandmyinternetstalkerlikestomakethinlyveiledsuggestionsthatIkillmyself
IhaveaninternetstalkerandmyinternetstalkerlikestomakethinlyveiledsuggestionsthatIkillmyself
IhaveaninternetstalkerandmyinternetstalkerlikestomakethinlyveiledsuggestionsthatIkillmyself
IhaveaninternetstalkerandmyinternetstalkerlikestomakethinlyveiledsuggestionsthatIkillmyself
IhaveaninternetstalkerandmyinternetstalkerlikestomakethinlyveiledsuggestionsthatIkillmyself
IhaveaninternetstalkerandmyinternetstalkerlikestomakethinlyveiledsuggestionsthatIkillmyself
IhaveaninternetstalkerandmyinternetstalkerlikestomakethinlyveiledsuggestionsthatIkillmyself
IhaveaninternetstalkerandmyinternetstalkerlikestomakethinlyveiledsuggestionsthatIkillmyself
IhaveaninternetstalkerandmyinternetstalkerlikestomakethinlyveiledsuggestionsthatIkillmyself
IhaveaninternetstalkerandmyinternetstalkerlikestomakethinlyveiledsuggestionsthatIkillmyself

Lissa on April 24, 2014 at 1:56 PM

@91
Again, since you are implying that you agree with him, how much additional suffering do you think that 3 year old girl should have to go through?
Is losing her father for a few years, losing her home and having to live on welfare enough additional punishment, in your opinion?

Lissa, how much additional punishment do you think that 3 year old girl deserves?

fairly.unbalanced on April 24, 2014 at 2:55 PM

Lissa on April 24, 2014 at 3:44 PM

@93
Lissa, you were the one that implied that you agreed with him that more punishment needs to happen.
So, how much additional punishment do you think that 3 year old girl deserves?

How much additional suffering does that 3 year old girl have to go through, in your opinion?

fairly.unbalanced on April 24, 2014 at 4:10 PM

@94

answer the questions posed to you before you ask more questions yourself.

>>"should we let criminals get off scot-free if they can demonstrate that someone depends on them? "

until you answer this question you are just a troll (which we knew) and your ridiculous strawman questions will go unanswered.

(don't let this thread die - i want to here more insanity from FU)

on April 24, 2014 at 4:17 PM

every thing that FU post should be flagged as trolling. . .

on April 24, 2014 at 4:30 PM

Here's a question from the unregistered commentor @ 95. Would you like to take a crack at answering them? Or we could just go back to your chant .....

answer the questions posed to you before you ask more questions yourself.
>>"should we let criminals get off scot-free if they can demonstrate that someone depends on them? "

Lissa on April 24, 2014 at 4:34 PM

@97
Since you implied that you agreed with him that more punishment needs to happen, how much additional punishment do you think that 3 year old girl deserves?

How much additional suffering does that 3 year old girl have to go through, in your opinion?

fairly.unbalanced on April 24, 2014 at 5:47 PM

@98: Very well, chant it is! But are you sure you have enough Kleenex and lubricant? Do you need to run to the store? No? Alrighty then.
IhaveaninternetstalkerandmyinternetstalkerlikestomakethinlyveiledsuggestionsthatIkillmyself
IhaveaninternetstalkerandmyinternetstalkerlikestomakethinlyveiledsuggestionsthatIkillmyself
IhaveaninternetstalkerandmyinternetstalkerlikestomakethinlyveiledsuggestionsthatIkillmyself
IhaveaninternetstalkerandmyinternetstalkerlikestomakethinlyveiledsuggestionsthatIkillmyself
IhaveaninternetstalkerandmyinternetstalkerlikestomakethinlyveiledsuggestionsthatIkillmyself
IhaveaninternetstalkerandmyinternetstalkerlikestomakethinlyveiledsuggestionsthatIkillmyself
IhaveaninternetstalkerandmyinternetstalkerlikestomakethinlyveiledsuggestionsthatIkillmyself
IhaveaninternetstalkerandmyinternetstalkerlikestomakethinlyveiledsuggestionsthatIkillmyself
IhaveaninternetstalkerandmyinternetstalkerlikestomakethinlyveiledsuggestionsthatIkillmyself
IhaveaninternetstalkerandmyinternetstalkerlikestomakethinlyveiledsuggestionsthatIkillmyself
IhaveaninternetstalkerandmyinternetstalkerlikestomakethinlyveiledsuggestionsthatIkillmyself
IhaveaninternetstalkerandmyinternetstalkerlikestomakethinlyveiledsuggestionsthatIkillmyself
IhaveaninternetstalkerandmyinternetstalkerlikestomakethinlyveiledsuggestionsthatIkillmyself

Lissa on April 24, 2014 at 6:19 PM

100

@99
In your post #89 you implied that he was right and that I was wrong.
"You just both hang out on the same blog, where in he consistently hands you your ass."

Since then you have posted references to your masturbation fantasy 3 times. #91, #93, and #99.
But you have not explained how much additional suffering that little girl should go through for something she did when she was 3 years old.

You agree with him that there should be additional punishment for that 3 year old girl and her family.
So, at what point would you say that she had been sufficiently punished for your tastes?

And yes, I am aware that you are posting your masturbation fantasies in a discussion thread about how much a 3 year old girl should suffer.

fairly.unbalanced on April 24, 2014 at 7:23 PM

101

I'd like to see FU answer the question, he won't though. I agree with his assessment about jailing the Dad. The little girl would absolutely see that as her fault, kids think parents divorcing are their fault. Poor kid is going to need so much help with this, but likely won't get it, as when kids shoot each other, its just one more chance for everyone to mouth off about the legalities of gun ownership, which on this site bas the additional liklihod of devolving into another round of abusing the mentally ill commenters. I'm depressed. That poor litttle girl.

AllisonM on April 24, 2014 at 7:31 PM

102

longer but quicker FU --

cut and paste, cut and paste, cut and paste! neener neener neener!

on April 24, 2014 at 8:33 PM

103

@101: I think it's interesting that if he weren't the victim's father, that if his daughter had shot a friend due to her negligent dad, the little boy's parents would be baying for his blood, and he would face at the very least civil repercussions if not criminal charges. It seems you get a pass if your own child is killed but negligent homicide if it's someone else's. And no one takes into account the suffering of the children when their parent is put away for any other crime now do they? My cousin went away for many years over an accidental death he caused. No one took into account the suffering of his young son at his father's incarceration. Should my cousin, as Unbalanced suggests, have gone unpunished? Hadn't his family suffered enough? Should we as a society have accepted his genuine remorse as punishment enough?
The justice system said no then and I think it should do the same in this case.
The little girl will think this her fault no matter what. This will follow her forever, and that is her father's fault. A child is dead, and another scarred for life, and he should pay for that the same way he would if he weren't related to his victims by blood.

Lissa on April 24, 2014 at 8:45 PM

104

@100: You should ask the father how much suffering he thinks is enough since he has been the sole cause. I guess death was enough for his son, but he must really have a special devotion to causing his daughter pain since she'll get to live with this for the rest of her life. Every day she'll wake up, and look at her dad and know that because of him, her brother is dead by her hand. That he cared so little for them both he allowed that to happen, and that he is such a coward he will hide behind her instead of facing punishment for his actions.
Go jerk off to that when you tire of :
IhaveaninternetstalkerandmyinternetstalkerlikestomakethinlyveiledsuggestionsthatIkillmyself
IhaveaninternetstalkerandmyinternetstalkerlikestomakethinlyveiledsuggestionsthatIkillmyself
IhaveaninternetstalkerandmyinternetstalkerlikestomakethinlyveiledsuggestionsthatIkillmyself........
Oh who am I kidding, you'll never get tired of Venomlash!

Lissa on April 24, 2014 at 8:58 PM

105

@103
"Should my cousin, as Unbalanced suggests, have gone unpunished?"

Why are you lying?
I did not say that.

"The little girl will think this her fault no matter what. This will follow her forever, and that is her father's fault. A child is dead, and another scarred for life, and he should pay for that the same way he would if he weren't related to his victims by blood."

It is her fault.
She shot and killed her brother.
You would not have heard about this if she had not shot her brother.
The adults there have decided that that little girl does not deserve additional suffering.
You claim that she does.
So, how much additional punishment should she be put through for something she did when she was 3?

fairly.unbalanced on April 24, 2014 at 9:02 PM

Three-Year-Old Girl Second Amendments Two-Year-Old Brother

Comments

Please wait...

Add a comment

Preview

Editors' Picks

Two Photography Titans Are Coming to Seattle

The City Sweeps SODO Ahead of All-Star Game

Primary Election Night 2023: The Results Are In and The Stranger's Still Got It! 💅

Versace, Nipples, and a Promo Shoot

Anti-Trans Bills Are Everywhere

Having a Laugh with Bandit Theater Improv

Support The Stranger

Comments

Please wait...

Add a comment

Preview

Editors' Picks

Just Can't Get Enough?

Sign up for our newsletter for news recaps, updates, and more!