Sunday, December 9, 2012

Pennsylvania 7-Year-old Shot and Killed by his Dad

AZ Central reports

Authorities say a 7-year-old boy was shot to death when a gun accidentally went off as his father was getting into his truck outside a western Pennsylvania gun store.

The boy was shot Saturday morning at Twigs Reloading Den in East Lackawannock Township, 60 miles north of Pittsburgh. Store owner Leonard Mohney says it happened in the parking lot.

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports that the boy was shot when his father’s handgun went off as the man got into the truck while holding the gun.

Police say 44-year-old Joseph V. Loughrey told them he had emptied the magazine but didn’t realize a bullet was still in the chamber. Seven-year-old Craig Allen Loughrey was shot in the chest and died at the scene.

State police are investigating the shooting as an accident.
Sometimes I get so angry at these irresponsible idiots that I think losing a kid is not punishment enough. Public flogging or the amputation of an arm might set the scales straight. Then I calm down and realize that "being investigated as an accident" often means a slap on the wrist and a good stiff warning. Then I get angry all over again, but not only at the fat, white man who proved how unfit he was to own guns, but at the whole system, the cops investigating it, the gun-rights fanatics who say "shit happens," and "accidents can happen to anyone."

When I calm down all over again, I remember that losing a child must be one of the worst things that can happen to a parent.  He should be slapped with a felony or two, receive a suspended jail sentence, submit to probation and LOSE HIS RIGHT TO OWN GUNS FOR THE REST OF HIS MISERABLE LIFE.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

59 comments:

  1. I dont understand how this could happen as a ccw holder myself the only time when my gun is not holsterdor on me is when im sleeping or when im going into some place that doesn't allow me to carry

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll tell you how. This guy, like many of your fellow permit holders, was unfit and irresponsible and stupid.

      Delete
    2. You keep saying that, but remember how we've shown you that permit holders rarely commit crimes? You rejected those data, but you couldn't show how they were wrong.

      Delete
    3. And yet it happens all the time.

      Delete
    4. Man from Oregon, carry license holders have a conviction rate of less than one percent. That's what I was talking about. It's backed up by evidence that we've shown your side repeatedly. As always, you have a strange definition of "all the time."

      Delete
    5. Several times a week I find reports. Every day, if you count shootings at home. That counts as "all the time" in my book.

      Delete
    6. Reports of carry license holders or of gun owners? See, you don't need a carry license to have a gun in your home. The problem is that given how sloppy your side is with reporting on this subject, it's hard to tell what you mean.

      What I know is that carry license holders have a rate of committing crimes that is much lower than the average population. If you have evidence to the contrary, show us.

      Delete
    7. Baldr's right. It's in the news too often. We all agree the news does not capture everything, therefore, there are many more incidents than your "less than 1%" nonsense allows.

      Delete
    8. The absence of evidence is not evidence of abundance.

      Delete
  2. i think we all can understand how it happens. more easy access to guns and nra/gun industry out of control..........
    tom webber
    miami

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not even close. In this instance, it was nothing more than negligence. A gun will not fire 'accidentally', the owner failed to follow all safety rules. This has nothing to do with the evil bogeyman NRA.

      Delete
    2. Well, it does actually. The NRA lobbies for lax gun control laws and attitudes that result in too many people like this negligent character holding concealed carry permits. They want the least possible restrictions and qualifications. This is the result.

      Delete
    3. The result is a hundred million American gun owners, most of whom do not have to ask a lot of permission to exercise their rights.

      Delete
  3. Easy access really so is that why ive been waiting over a month to find out if i can buy the gun i want or not

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The reason you can't buy a gun is that you are a moron. Learn punctuation, and you won't look or sound so fucking stupid. Your spelling also sucks, moron.

      Delete
    2. Engaging is ad hominem attacks can potentially make you look less than capable.

      Delete
    3. Never said i cant buy a gun cause i can just not the 1 i want till i find out if the atf approved me or not

      Delete
  4. "Easy access really so is that why ive been waiting over a month to find out if i can buy the gun i want or not"

    You must live in an enlightened jurisdiction; one where they realize that it's better to take the time to make sure that you're not someone who should not be allowed to have a gun in their possession (someone such as the idiot who killed his own child) instead of taking the time to cordon off a parking lot and spending who knows how many taxpayer dollars to investigate something as stupid as a guy accidentally shooting his own kid.





    ReplyDelete
  5. Darwin strikes again. Some people should not pass on their genetic inheritance. This includes anyone who buys a firearm.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why is it that the gun control freaks always express themselves in this manner? We shouldn't be surprised that they don't want anyone to have a gun. They see everyone as being as evil and stupid as they are.

      Delete
    2. Grerg, I want everyone to have a gun who wants one and is qualified to handle it. I figure that would be about half of those who legally own guns now. I've said this a hundred times, why do you still say we don't want anyone to have guns?

      Delete
    3. Because I think that you're either lying or delusional. You admit to wanting to disqualify half of current gun owners. You want rules that hardly anyone could meet. You have zero credibility.

      Delete
    4. Greg, you're frothing-at-the-mouth comment is so wild you're contradicting yourself. 50% is not "hardly anyone."

      Delete
    5. Pay attention, Mikeb. You want to take away gun rights from half of the current gun owners. You want restrictions that would make legal gun ownership for the remaining half so difficult that hardly anyone would pass. Carry would be all but impossible. There was nothing contradictory about my statement.

      Delete
  6. Mikeb, your feigned indignation over the death of children is laughable.
    http://www.thenation.com/blog/171582/us-military-approves-bombing-children#

    orlin sellers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not feigned and it has nothing to do with military abuses or any others.

      Delete
    2. Mikeb, that is inconsistent, and a cop-out. The issue is innocent children being killed.

      orlin sellers

      Delete
    3. Are you telling me what my blog is about.

      "arma virumque cano" - look it up if you have to.

      Delete
    4. It's the opening line of the Aeneid, and no, Laci and Dog Gone, I didn't look it up.

      Delete
    5. Mikeb said, "Are you telling me what my blog is about."

      Today it looks like it is about Frank Zappa, Monsanto's GMOs and not responding to my criticism of your moral inconsistency.

      It appears to me that the comments are responses to individual posts specifically, not your blog in general. Is that correct?

      orlin sellers (munching on popcorn while I await your response)

      Delete
    6. Orlin, You're becoming a real drag with this thing. I don't write about the millions of hungry children in the world either. That doesn't mean I approve of that, nor does it make me inconsistent for writing about the child gun deaths.

      You don't get to call the issue on my blog. It happens to be gun control and gun rights. It isn't "innocent children being killed." If it were I'd be blogging about hunger or any number of other things.

      Delete
  7. orlon zapped:

    When will you get it through your thick, but soft as tete de veau puddin', skull of yours that this is not the "mikeb302000" has to talk abou YOUR shit blog? Wanna blog about the connection between mikeb302000's call for sane and sensible firearms regulation and U.S. foreign policy--do it at your own blog, moron.

    FWIW, chuckles, the guyz who like to bombin on teh kiddeez? prolly a whole lot more of you gunzloonz in that group then you'd want to admit.

    "Not even close. In this instance, it was nothing more than negligence. A gun will not fire 'accidentally', the owner failed to follow all safety rules. This has nothing to do with the evil bogeyman NRA."

    Bullshit. It has everything to do with the NRA's relentless lobbying and their demonization of anyone who publicly states that some form, ANY FUCKING FORM, of firearms regulation is a GUNZHATIN'CONFISCATIN'UNPATRIOTIKKK SUMBITCH.

    I know how much you guyz hate the facts, but those, bud, are the facts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fact: Of the 300,000,000+ guns and 100,000,000 gun owners in this country, less than one tenth of one percent are involved in an injury or death in a year.

      Name any other group that you require more than 99% performance from.

      Delete
    2. Firearms still endow the mere person with the ability to resist the authority of the collective State. Petty statistics are of no consequence.

      Delete
    3. It's far from a 99% performance rate. You can't divide by all the gun owners, some of them don't even know where there gun is. Half of them think you're a fanatic and agree with us.

      Delete
    4. Then why don't they vote with you? Notice how gun control fails just about everywhere in this country.

      Delete
    5. Mike, if they don’t even know where their gun is, wouldn’t you call that irresponsible and have them disarmed? And you think there are on your side?

      Delete
    6. Greg, did you miss the second presidential election in a row in which the NRA and other gun-rights groups spent fortunes and LOST?

      Delete
    7. Did you miss the fact that gun control wasn't on the minds of most voters?

      Delete
  8. Take off your hate-colored glasses and maybe you would see the issue is innocent kids being killed.

    The NRA is not the Evil Empire you idiot.

    orlin sellers

    ReplyDelete
  9. Greggie, honey:

    Citation, asshole, do you know the meaning of the word? Back up the claim or just add it to the long list of FUCKING LIES that you've been spewing since you started commenting here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Filthy old man, are you still demanding citations? What about the last several times you did that? I gave them to you. You haven't acknowledged receiving those. What makes you think I'm going to do what you ask again? Besides, what now do you need cited? The volume of common knowledge that you don't have would fill books. In fact, it does.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, pretty much agree. DC has lost the right to demand any citations. He can, however, regain that right as soon as he answers the many many citations that have already been given to him that he just doesn't like.

      Delete
    3. The thing that refers to itself as "demmocommie":

      "Greggie, honey:

      Citation, asshole, do you know the meaning of the word? Back up the claim or just add it to the long list of FUCKING LIES that you've been spewing since you started commenting here."


      Yet another fine example of how every agenda has it's token idiot, "demmocommie" only serves to bastardize it's own cause by it's incessant spewing of unintelligible smut. "demmocommie" doesn't have much to say, so it compensates for it's mental inadequacy by making stupid profanity-laden comments which are as pointless and pathetic as their creator.


      Either grow up and quit acting like the other side, or stop masquerading as someone who has something to say. You are an embarrassment to your cause.


      For once I agree with Greg and Fail Liberty.

      Delete
    4. Without "demmocommie", we would have made some REAL progress with these idiots long ago.

      Delete
    5. FL. are you sure you want to use the expression "lost rights?"

      Delete
    6. Mikeb, you do all the time. See how it feels?

      Delete
  10. E.N.:

    "Without "demmocommie", we would have made some REAL progress with these idiots long ago."

    The irony in that comment is too delicious to not savor over and over again.

    FWIW, one can't make real progress with idiotz--because they're idiotz.

    You talk to them any way you like, I'll do the same. At the end of the day, they'll be smirking at you and scowling at me, nothing will have changed in the small shrivelled organ that they use for parroting gunzloonznation talking points.

    Greggie:

    You keep referring to me as being pissed off and enraged. I told my furry little roommate about that and he said, "Why does he think that? I mean, I know you get cross with me sometimes, but it's only when I try to cross the street without permission or shit in somebody's yard. Does he do stuff like that?". I said, "No, it's worse he thinks he AND EVERYBODY ELSE ON THE FUCKING PLANET should be armed, 24/7.". Buddy shook his head and said, "And they call us,"dumb" animals, what a tool!".

    So, the short answer to my request for a citation to back up yet another of your absurd assertions is that you've given it to me before and you don't have to do so, again. And I say you're a liar. If you've given them to me before then you know where to find them. If you haven't given them to me, then you'll have to spend some time looking for them. Either way, this assertion:

    "Fact: Of the 300,000,000+ guns and 100,000,000 gun owners in this country, less than one tenth of one percent are involved in an injury or death in a year"

    is either backed by a citation or it's simply bullshit that you've pulled out of your ass.

    Frail Libertarian:

    I'm all aflutter that you and Greggie don't like me. No, really, I'm crushed that a couple of gunzloonznation moronz who take the denial of reality, on the subject of their precious penis substitutes, to the level of flat earthin', Obama birtherin', FEMA campin' indignorance and burnin' stoopit dislike me. Fuck, if I only HAD a gun, I could shoot myself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Democommie, you talked to your dog, and he told you that you're not crazy? Nothing needs to be said here.

      Regarding the number of guns and gun owners, I'm tired of offering you citations that you then ignore. Look the numbers up. Those are widely accepted estimates of both. Or I'll find the sources for you if you'll address the other citations that I've given you.

      Moving on to your last paragraph, the Earth is an oblate spheroid; Obama was born in Hawaii after that region had become a state in the United States, and FEMA trailers after Katrina weren't exactly peachy, but that was just government incompetence, not anything sinister.

      On the subject of guns, we've shown you repeatedly that we have reality on our side, but I talked about that above.

      Delete
    2. DC: I didn't say I don't like you. Of course I don't so I guess you are perceptive there. But it is only because you don't you drop and run and never stick around to answer for your baseless accusations and claims.

      You constantly ask for citations and proof and then, when you are given that which you so clamor for - you disappear never to face them.

      Delete
  11. What the father did is incredibly tragic, sad, and unnecessary. I believe law enforcement should investigate every "accident" and charge the shooter with negligent homicide (or an appropriate charge such as aggravated assault if the victim did not die) in every instance. Let a jury acquit the shooter if it makes sense.

    And I believe the same should apply whether the negligent person drove a car or bicycle into someone, dropped a rock on someone, or hurled a baseball bat over a fence into someone on another property. People have to be responsible for their actions.

    What I do not support is trying to somehow predict who will be negligent and restricting their rights before they have endangered or harmed anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Just another "law abiding gun owner" acting stupidly -- with his young kid in tow. If only I had a dollar for every instance when a gun owners shoots himself or others out of outright negligence. Just another "tragic accident" that, most likely, the father won't have to pay for in any way whatsover in jail time, or even having his gun rights removed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If only you had a dollar? This is your latest favorite phrase. In the case of accidental gun deaths, you'd get around $600 in a year--not quite worth taking away the rights of 100,000,000 American gun owners.

      Delete
    2. How many would it take for you to think action is needed, Greg? Given your definition of "liberty" I'm guess there is no upper limit. For me, even 600 (which is too low a count, I'll add, since you only count the fatal ones) is far too high.

      Delete
    3. I said accidental deaths, so yes, that's the right number. In my view, people who are criminally negligent should be prosecuted. If you're drunk or you pull a gun out and wave it around and someone gets harmed, that's negligence, at the least. But just like car accidents, we have to recognize that people aren't perfect.

      The only way to have no gun accidents is to have no guns. That's your goal. My idea is to recognize the rights of everyone and hold everyone responsible for their actions.

      Delete
  13. "Democommie, you talked to your dog, and he told you that you're not crazy? Nothing needs to be said here."

    You're correct, he's more sensible and WAY more honest than you are.

    So, you don't have any statistics to back up your bullshit. That is not a surprise. Nor is it a surprise that your gunzloonznation palz back you up. If the stats are out there, find them, give them to mikeb302000 and he can e-mail the links to me. Once I've determined that they are factual and not some figment of John Lott's or some other NRAWhore's imagination, I'll either accept them or rebut them. IOW, if they're not from a reputable organization and don't have good methodology, they're not stats.

    I know that mikeb302000 uses some numbers, like the "10%", those are not statistics, they are estimates (and fall woefully short of the mark, as to how many firearms owners should not have firearms, imo). If those are the sorts of stats you have, anecdotal, apocryphal SWAG's they aren't useful to anyone except a person who already has the answer and will twist the facts to arrive at it. It's sorta like those YEC's, OEC's, anti-choice and racist folks. Pulling numbers outta your ass is a reptilican (and libertarian) art form.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Democommie, you're a true pain in the ass. You want sources for things that are well known. Fine:

      http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

      http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/25/gun-ownership-us-data

      Those sources agree on around 80,000,000 gun owners, although I've seen others that put the number much higher. Certainly, gun sales are on the rise. They also agree that the number of guns is more than 300,000,000.

      What do you have? Typically, you come here cussing and whining, but you offer no useful information.

      Delete
  14. Greggie, you ol' bullshitter you.

    "Once I've determined that they are factual and not some figment of John Lott's or some other NRAWhore's imagination, I'll either accept them or rebut them."

    Your first citation is to something by Agresti? You're fucking kidding, right? He's not an authority on anything but hoodwinkin' teh rubes (in this case, gunzloonz).

    I found this:

    "The new result comes from Gallup's Oct. 6-9 Crime poll, which also finds public support for personal gun rights at a high-water mark. Given this, the latest increase in self-reported gun ownership could reflect a change in Americans' comfort with publicly stating that they have a gun as much as it reflects a real uptick in gun ownership"

    from your second cited source, quite interesting.

    It appears that a number of people might have been uncomfortable about admitting to having teh gunz, so they simply lied about it--not a big surprise in itself. I mean I lie about all sorts of things, gunz just aren't one of them.

    This:

    "1. We don't know the percentage of Americans who live in a house with a gun

    We have to rely on polling data because there is no national database of who owns a gun. One poll is the the now biennial General Social Survey (GSS) conducted by the University of Chicago. These surveys are conducted face-to-face. We also traditional telephone polls conducted by ABC/Washington Post, CBS/New York Times, and Gallup.

    The GSS found in the 2000s that an average 35% of Americans lived in a house with a gun in it, but that average was 7 percentage points higher in 23 telephone polls over the same period. This may not seem like a large difference, but it is, considering that we are dealing with 10,000+ interviews in the GSS surveys and 20,000+ interviews in the traditional telephone surveys. Why the gap?

    The GSS gets about 70% of people to respond to its surveys, while traditional telephone poll response rates have fallen from about 30% in 2000 to about 10% today. Response rates for traditional telephone surveys tend to undercount blacks and Latinos. Africa -Americans and Latinos are also less likely than whites to own guns. Yet that may not have as much of an impact as you might think. We know that low response rates did not affect questions such as whether a person was a Democrat or a Republican."

    from your third "citation"? Not really a lot of certainty exhibited as to how many firearms owners there are. It also calls into question the accuracy/veracity of phone polling v face-face interviews (this is not at all surprising).

    So, regarding your contention about 300M gunz and 100M owners, the math is a bit mushy.

    Regardless the fact that you don't really provide a good citation (the three sources that you provide are not, afaia, peer reviewed journals or official government sources and their methodologies (excepting Gallups) are arcane, you didn't get to the meat of the "debate". Nice try, you don't get the Kewpie doll who looks like Annie Oakley, sorry.

    This, in case you've forgotten, is what you wrote:

    "Fact: Of the 300,000,000+ guns and 100,000,000 gun owners in this country, less than one tenth of one percent are involved in an injury or death in a year."

    There is nothing that I read in any of the "sources" you cite that verifies that "Fact". But, I'm sure that if it's there you'll be happy to cut and paste it and cite the applicable page in the document. Have a nice day.



    ReplyDelete