Detective Hollis said, with the information they have so far, the shooting appears to be an accident. No charges have been filed.What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Indiana 5-year-old Shot in the Head
Am I wrong to blame the state of Indiana and the gun owners there who are responsible for such nonchalance when it comes to guns and accidental shootings?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Am I wrong to blame the state of Indiana and the gun owners there who are responsible for such nonchalance when it comes to guns and accidental shootings?
ReplyDeleteAs opposed to blaming--oh, I don't know . . . the people who left a 5-year-old unattended with a loaded gun?
Of course you're wrong. What the hell does the state of Indiana have to do with it? You've covered similar incidents in #1 Brady ranked California, too--or do you blame Indiana for all such shootings, wherever they occur?
Zorro misses the point again.
ReplyDeleteQuite rightly, he identifies the fact that an adult left an unattended gun for a child to misuse.
But then he stops. He doesn't want to explore the root cause. That is: how did this adult come to possess a gun in the first place given the demonstrated fact she would violate several safety precautions.
Gunloons are big on addressing symptoms. But want to ignore causes.
"how did this adult come to possess a gun in the first place given the demonstrated fact she would violate several safety precautions."
ReplyDeleteUh, Jadefool, where was this demonstrated?
Jadefool:
ReplyDeleteThat is: how did this adult come to possess a gun in the first place given the demonstrated fact she would violate several safety precautions.
Well, I have to admit that I've long suspected Indiana of being a hotbed of government nonuse of psychic powers--effectively no Department of Pre-Crime whatsoever.
It's almost as if you have to do something wrong, in order to be punished!
Sheer insanity.
We still haven't seen an explanation as to why Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader doesn't seem interested in holding his favorite state responsible for this, similar, incident.
ReplyDeleteMike W: When you permit anybody to buy and possess a firearm--you should really expect these tragedies to take place.
ReplyDeleteStill not Mike W. Are you truly slipping into insanity, or just determined to be wrong all the time?
ReplyDeleteAs for this: "When you permit anybody to buy and possess a firearm--you should really expect these tragedies to take place."
Two things:
One, we don't "permit" it. It's a right to be able to keep and bear arms. Therefore, it is not within our authority, power or rights to deny it.
Two, yes. The 'unfortunate' messy side of freedom and rights is responsibility. People are free to choose, and free to fuck up royally, too. The lady in this story showed no responsibility, and her child was the victim of her poor judegment and lack of sense. And, yes, we should expect that. Because you can't legislate against stupid, or you would completely illegal, Jade.
BTW, you still didn't address this:
"how did this adult come to possess a gun in the first place given the demonstrated fact she would violate several safety precautions."
Uh, Jadefool, where was this demonstrated? Where was it demonstated that she WOULD violate several safety precautions?
Mike W: In reality, your definition of a "right" to a gun bears no resemblance to what the Supreme Court says. Thus, your definition is so much gas.
ReplyDeletePer the Supreme Court, localities can levy restrictions including things such as mandatory training, registration, background checks and the like. When you don't have these--w e have incidents such as the topic of this post.
Whenever you have unfettered access to firearms by folks like you--you will have a demonstrated propensity to commit all kinds of safety violations.
You do like being wrong, is that it?
ReplyDelete"Whenever you have unfettered access to firearms by folks like you--you will have a demonstrated propensity to commit all kinds of safety violations."
So, now I (personally, though still not Mike W) have a demonstrated propensity to commit safety violations? And even if that were true, which it clearly is not, how is it demonstrated? Please look up the definition of the word demonstrated before continuing with your stupidity.
Also please note that at no time did I mention the Supreme Court, nor did what I say go against what the SC ruled.
If you're gonna play, Jade, at least use the walnut-sized brain God provided you.
Why do I blame Indiana and not California in a similar incident. Well, The gun attitudes that not only allow this kind of thing to happen but quickly excuse the guilty parties for just having had an accident are more prevalent in Indiana. It seems that way to me anyway. It's a "feeeling" I get reading the news and blogs.
ReplyDeleteJadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader:
ReplyDeleteWhy do I blame Indiana and not California in a similar incident. Well, The gun attitudes that not only allow this kind of thing to happen but quickly excuse the guilty parties for just having had an accident are more prevalent in Indiana.
Er . . . "quickly excuse"?
A woman and her boyfriend were arrested Wednesday on charges of neglect and improper control of a firearm in the accidental shooting in Jeffersonville last week of a 5-year-old girl.
Bonds of $7,500 each were set for Latanya M. Taylor, 40, and Avante Devon Hill, 21. Their initial hearings were set for Thursday in Clark County Superior Court 1.
I await your apology to Indiana.
You'll probably find this a happy prediction on my part: I predict the accused will be found guilty.
ReplyDeleteI base this on the fact that LaTanya Taylor is black, and I might be forgiven for jumping to the conclusion that her boyfriend, Avante Hill, is, as well.
Their race makes their conviction more likely, of course, because blacks and other minorities tend to bear the brunt of "gun control" policies--a situation that has historically been, after all, kinda the intent.