OT: Another Washington Kid Shot

[davidmcbeth]

So what?

 

[OC for ME]

That is sexist.

'Mommies' should be held to the fire exactly like Daddies -- if there is a law broken. To advocate for the immoral, unethical and preferential treatment of women in the legal system is called....

"Family Court."

That unfair and biased outlook should not make its way to criminal court.

Your righteous indignation is noted.

If this issue were about the mommy and daddy then you may have a point. Since this issue is not about the mommy and daddy, you do not have a point.

From a practical standpoint, mommy is likely the better choice to address the emotional issues that will develop. This issue is not about the firearm or even the parents, but the kids. The stability of the family unit should be the primary focus. Daddy goes off to work, mommy may go off to work as well, but, the reality is that mommy, even a working mommy, is typically the 'emotional glue' in the typical family.

What family has a daddy as the emotional glue? I am sure there are some families out there where mommy is not the emotional glue, but hey, married men (daddies) are not typically the 'go to guy' for a little kid who skins their knee. Mommy has been the first word out of little kids mouths, when they get hurt, ever since there have been little kids and mommies. I don't make this stuff up, it is what it is.

As has been noted, daddy is likely safe from any legal entanglements, mommy is as well because daddy is a cop. remember 'it's for the children'.

As to your allegation that I engage in sexism, or that I am a sexist....well, in this case yes, and rightly so.

I am rather confident that my wife prefers that I exhibit some sexist tenancies from time to time. Like, opening doors for 'liberated women'. Taking out the garbage. Thinking that women actually are the 'fairer sex'. I do not find many women who actually want to have men treat them as equals all of the time. When I do find the occasional woman who wants to be treated as a true equal, I find that they are not worthy of my acquaintance.

This tragic incident is not about any adult, but the kids. The law will do what it always does where cops are the the potential 'perp', absolutely nothing unless forced to by public opinion.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Your righteous indignation is noted.

If this issue were about the mommy and daddy then you may have a point. Since this issue is not about the mommy and daddy, you do not have a point.

From a practical standpoint, mommy is likely the better choice to address the emotional issues that will develop. This issue is not about the firearm or even the parents, but the kids. The stability of the family unit should be the primary focus. Daddy goes off to work, mommy may go off to work as well, but, the reality is that mommy, even a working mommy, is typically the 'emotional glue' in the typical family.

What family has a daddy as the emotional glue? I am sure there are some families out there where mommy is not the emotional glue, but hey, married men (daddies) are not typically the 'go to guy' for a little kid who skins their knee. Mommy has been the first word out of little kids mouths, when they get hurt, ever since there have been little kids and mommies. I don't make this stuff up, it is what it is.

As has been noted, daddy is likely safe from any legal entanglements, mommy is as well because daddy is a cop. remember 'it's for the children'.

As to your allegation that I engage in sexism, or that I am a sexist....well, in this case yes, and rightly so.

I am rather confident that my wife prefers that I exhibit some sexist tenancies from time to time. Like, opening doors for 'liberated women'. Taking out the garbage. Thinking that women actually are the 'fairer sex'. I do not find many women who actually want to have men treat them as equals all of the time. When I do find the occasional woman who wants to be treated as a true equal, I find that they are not worthy of my acquaintance.

This tragic incident is not about any adult, but the kids. The law will do what it always does where cops are the the potential 'perp', absolutely nothing unless forced to by public opinion.

Traditional male chivalry toward females is not a bad thing, chivalry in the "law" and courts are. Ask any father who has been through a divorce in this state a so called 'no fault' state and you will immediately discover that the people executing and judging the law are not equal in the law.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

Your righteous indignation is noted.

If this issue were about the mommy and daddy then you may have a point. Since this issue is not about the mommy and daddy, you do not have a point.

From a practical standpoint, mommy is likely the better choice to address the emotional issues that will develop. This issue is not about the firearm or even the parents, but the kids. The stability of the family unit should be the primary focus. Daddy goes off to work, mommy may go off to work as well, but, the reality is that mommy, even a working mommy, is typically the 'emotional glue' in the typical family.

What family has a daddy as the emotional glue? I am sure there are some families out there where mommy is not the emotional glue, but hey, married men (daddies) are not typically the 'go to guy' for a little kid who skins their knee. Mommy has been the first word out of little kids mouths, when they get hurt, ever since there have been little kids and mommies. I don't make this stuff up, it is what it is.

Yeah, fathers, who needs them? Useless waste of space sperm donors. Bah, humbug. They are just soooo irrelevant to a child, and a family.

On second thought, "parenting: you're doing it wrong." What you typed clearly shows that imho.

Thanks for admitting that it is sexist. I don't care if you are sexist, that's your right. But allowing sexism to determine child custody in a court of law is a travesty. And allowing sexism to determine if charges are filed in a criminal case is, well, illegal (as well as immoral, unethical, unfair, and just frack'n stupid).

And your claims "This tragic incident is not about any adult, but the kids" -- you are flat out wrong.

An adult purchased that firearm. An adult loaded that firearm and then placed it into an unlocked glove box in the van. An adult drove that van into the city and parked it. An adult placed children in the van (you know, minors. Persons not capable of making adult decisions or of being held legally responsible to the same degree as an adult). An adult walked away from that van leaving the minor children unattended with the loaded and unsecured firearm.

Those most affected are the children involved, but this issue itself is about the adults. The adults caused it. The adults are legally and morally responsible for it -- not the children.

 

[Vitaeus]

Absulety agree 100%! I am going to put something in my gun that not only is going to keep me from using it when I need it most, but is also going to keep me from even making my gun able to fire? Really?

I have two children, the oldest is six. The safety bullet allows me to have a pistol in my nightstand, with the assurance that even if they get it out the only thing they can do with it is make it a very unbalanced club. That my wife and I would have to rack the slide ONCE to make it ready to use, twice if we put a second bullet at the top of the magazine, is our version of keeping it available for use, but keeping it safe to have around. I am most certainly NOT advocating having one of these in your carry piece on your hip or wherever you carry. Gun-locks don't keep a child from puzzling it out and a gun-safe is either expensive or cumbersome in the middle of the night. If someone racks the slide on a gun once, let alone twice, they are no longer having an "accident" they are intending to do harm. Teaching the kids gun safety, still, in MY opinion requires the gun owner to provide safety from at least a bit of others lack of thought.

 

[amlevin]

I wonder what was so wrong about the way kids were raised during "My Generation" and all those before it?

There were more "guns around kids" when I grew up and I raised my family the same as I was. Guns were to be properly used, period. Hands off unless taught how to use them safely. There were no gun safes or trigger locks. There were parents that handled the job properly. For some reason young kids then feared "Dad" more than the law. Of course back then, Dad was the law.

 

[OlGutshotWilly]

I wonder what was so wrong about the way kids were raised during "My Generation" and all those before it?

There were more "guns around kids" when I grew up and I raised my family the same as I was. Guns were to be properly used, period. Hands off unless taught how to use them safely. There were no gun safes or trigger locks. There were parents that handled the job properly. For some reason young kids then feared "Dad" more than the law. Of course back then, Dad was the law.

This is exactly the way I was raised, and have raised my kids accordingly as well. In previous generations, guns were needed for food and defense of the home. They were a fact of life and a tool just like your horse. Kids grew up with them and respected them.

I actually remember when my oldest told me...." Dad, I'm not afraid of you anymore". I thought......."well, there goes my advantage ". But, they are both good kids and have/are turning out well.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

I wonder what was so wrong about the way kids were raised during "My Generation" and all those before it?

There were more "guns around kids" when I grew up and I raised my family the same as I was. Guns were to be properly used, period. Hands off unless taught how to use them safely. There were no gun safes or trigger locks. There were parents that handled the job properly. For some reason young kids then feared "Dad" more than the law. Of course back then, Dad was the law.

The issue is kids are not exposed to firearms, and discussion, sufficiently, IMO.

I have never seen any use in having a handgun that is locked up in the gun-safe 24/7. I leave mine sitting out, and have had zero issues with any of my kids wanting to touch the handgun while it is just sitting there.

I think it is a number of things:

I have talked with my children about firearms, safe handling, and reminded them that mishandling a firearm can kill you.

I take my children shooting with me, so they get to handle all of the firearms we have; there is no unknown, interest factor; they want to fire off a couple of rounds all they have to do is tell me, and I am more than happy to go to the range, and shoot--anyone here that wouldn't be more than happy to go shooting??? LOL

My kids look up to me, they respect me, my knowledge, and trust that if I tell them not to touch something without asking, they won't.

Much of these things with kids taking firearms to school, or shooting their siblings has to do with firearm ignorance, the parent didn't teach the children. Now these two children in this incident were quite young but not so young they wouldn't understand not to touch a firearm, and that a firearms is dangerous. Although, personally, I wouldn't just leave a sidearm laying around in my vehicle if my child was three years of age, that is a bit young, IMO; seven years of age, they are well old enough to understand the lethality of a firearm, and direction on safe handling of a firearm, and when it is appropriate, and not appropriate to handle a firearm.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

Apparently here's how a NON-LEO is treated when they leave a gun out for a kid to pick up, and shoot someone. Woman is charged, man is charged, child is charged.

http://today.seattletimes.com/2012/...ed-with-assault-in-bremerton-school-shooting/

LEO does the same thing.... and.... bada bing, bada bam, free pass.

 

[BigDave]

I have never had no expect to have such an issue, either the kids go with me or they are at home with Mom or with a baby sitter if of age, it is called prior planning, one thing drilled into me in the U.S. Army know as the 5 P's Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance.

To me this entire incident has to do with poor judgement and poor parenting which amounts to negligence.

 

[GuidoZ]

That's some funny stuff. That fake lawyer letter is a crock. Opinions and critical information is still free speech. You can register a domain that contains part of another companies name -- perfectly legal. Like www.cokeisbetterthanpepsi.net and you can use it to host information critical of the company. You just can't post false information.

Yeah, it was worth the few minutes of reading. =)

Anyways, a snap cap isn't designed to temporarily 'lock' in the barrel when the hammer strikes it. The product that http://www.safetybullet.com/ sell does lock up in the barrel and needs to be driven out of the chamber from the barrel end with a rod.

I totally get that - for a revolver, like I said. Read it again for teh semi-auto. It says to simply "load two safety bullets" and then "rack the slide twice" to clear it. How is this different than a snap cap? No rod is needed to remove it from a semi-auto. You just rack the slide. (It's in both text and video.)

It's a spectacularly stupid idea imho. It will likely get someone killed. It's hard to get dumber than Israeli carry, but damn it looks like those guys managed to do it.

Either way, I'm with you on this. Looks like a complete waste of money.

--
Peace. ~G

 

[Dave_pro2a]

I totally get that - for a revolver, like I said. Read it again for teh semi-auto. It says to simply "load two safety bullets" and then "rack the slide twice" to clear it. How is this different than a snap cap? No rod is needed to remove it from a semi-auto. You just rack the slide. (It's in both text and video.)

It locks the slide when the safety bullet is actuated, as far as I can tell. A rod is then needed to remove it -- because your pistols extractor won't have enough force. That's the whole "selling feature." It's why the seller claims it creates safety.

They advise to place 1 in the chamber and 1 in the mag, according to the vid, in case a BG doesn't pull the trigger upon picking up the weapon, but rather cycles it to make sure it's loaded and then pulls the trigger.

So in theory it does do more than 2 snap caps, provided no one cycles the slide 3x

That seems to be their theory anyways, and it's still a horrible idea imho.

Best quote from that safetybullet sucks site:

My name is Mike Worley. I hold the copy write

Quick. Someone should tell the Feds that it's "copy write" and not "Copyright" http://www.copyright.gov/

 

[kparker]

Apparently here's how a NON-LEO is treated when they leave a gun out for a kid to pick up, and shoot someone. Woman is charged, man is charged, child is charged.

http://today.seattletimes.com/2012/...ed-with-assault-in-bremerton-school-shooting/

Wait--I read elsewhere that the mother was a "prohibited person"--is this not true?

 

[amlevin]

Wait--I read elsewhere that the mother was a "prohibited person"--is this not true?

You are correct. Mother is a Felon. That would also make the "boyfriend" culpable as he provided her the firearm (or at least access to it)

 

[MSG Laigaie]

Another dead kid 'cause someone did not secure a weapon.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Boy-3-kills-himself-with-gun-found-in-familys-car-142616396.html

 

[OC for ME]

Yeah, fathers, who needs them? Useless waste of space sperm donors. Bah, humbug. They are just soooo irrelevant to a child, and a family.

I did not make that statement, nor did I imply it.

On second thought, "parenting: you're doing it wrong." What you typed clearly shows that imho.

You are entitled to your opinion.

Thanks for admitting that it is sexist. I don't care if you are sexist, that's your right. But allowing sexism to determine child custody in a court of law is a travesty. And allowing sexism to determine if charges are filed in a criminal case is, well, illegal (as well as immoral, unethical, unfair, and just frack'n stupid).

Child custody is not a issue at this stage. And as such it is irrelevant at this stage. The law routinely takes into account sex in a great many legal matters. This 'accounting' is neither right nor wrong, it is what it is. Our opinions one way or the other carry little weight with the law.

Example: How many females have be executed as a result of their heinous crimes when compared to men who commit similar heinous crimes, since 1976?

http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/usexecute.htm

And your claims "This tragic incident is not about any adult, but the kids" -- you are flat out wrong.

It is unfortunate that your focus is on the adults and not the children. The adults must address the well being of the children in the short term. The adults and their well being is secondary until all of the facts and possible options are determined. The kids are kids and as such have, to my knowledge, no say in this matter.

An adult purchased that firearm. An adult loaded that firearm and then placed it into an unlocked glove box in the van. An adult drove that van into the city and parked it. An adult placed children in the van (you know, minors. Persons not capable of making adult decisions or of being held legally responsible to the same degree as an adult). An adult walked away from that van leaving the minor children unattended with the loaded and unsecured firearm.

Did any or all of the adults know the firearm was in the glove box on that fateful day?

Those most affected are the children involved, but this issue itself is about the adults. The adults caused it. The adults are legally and morally responsible for it -- not the children.

There is certainly a moral responsibility. We do not yet know if there will be any legal responsibility. Accidents happen to folks who take precautions to protect their children, as best they can, from harm.

How many times has a child/have children been left in that vehicle, with that firearm in a unlocked glove box and nothing happened.
Is it possible that the glove box is always locked except for this one time?
Did one or both adults believe the glove box was locked?
Did both adults believe the other adult locked the glove box if either or both of them knew the glove box was unlocked?
Was the child in the rear section of the vehicle and the adults did not know that a child would move to the front of the vehicle?

The weight of justice will descend upon anyone the law deems responsible and desires to hold accountable. Or, the law just may chalk this up to another tragic accident where no one is to be held responsible or accountable. There is a possibility that the daddy's employment status may be on the mind of the law when considering accountability.

 

[Dave Workman]

We got another one....in Tacoma.

Another tragic child death; Is answer new law, or existing one?

…What were both men thinking when they left firearms that they both could legally carry on their persons, openly or concealed, in a vehicle with children? It is perfectly legal in Washington to carry a handgun, concealed if legally licensed, or openly…


http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-...child-death-is-answer-new-law-or-existing-one


This really is like a bad dream....

 

[Dave_pro2a]

Did any or all of the adults know the firearm was in the glove box on that fateful day?

How many times has a child/have children been left in that vehicle, with that firearm in a unlocked glove box and nothing happened.
Is it possible that the glove box is always locked except for this one time?
Did one or both adults believe the glove box was locked?
Did both adults believe the other adult locked the glove box if either or both of them knew the glove box was unlocked?
Was the child in the rear section of the vehicle and the adults did not know that a child would move to the front of the vehicle?

Wow, holy justification Batman.

And it wasn't an accident. It was negligence. It is negligent imho to leave a loaded firearm within easy access of young children, in a vehicle while they are unsupervised, especially in light of the fact one of them is now dead because of it. Not accidental -- negligence.

If that is an accident, then every crash caused by a person who is DUI is just an accident too, and they don't deserve harsh charges.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

Another tragic child death; Is answer new law, or existing one?

…What were both men thinking when they left firearms that they both could legally carry on their persons, openly or concealed, in a vehicle with children? It is perfectly legal in Washington to carry a handgun, concealed if legally licensed, or openly…


http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-...child-death-is-answer-new-law-or-existing-one


This really is like a bad dream....

Coming soon, mandatory lock up laws. The pessimist in me says the battle is already lost.

 

[OlGutshotWilly]

Oh for crying out loud,

This is just getting out of hand. I'm just so flippin' pissed at the complete stupidity of these parents. My entire extended family has lived with guns and kids for close to 100 years without a single problem.


Then these stupid morons just don't even think...........


This is like the parents who leave their kids unattended in their cars and the kids get stolen or the cars stolen with the kids inside them. And even when the papers and TV publicize it to great lengths, the parents continue to do it again and again and again.........


And I will say it again......you just can't legislate stupidity. Stupid people will continue to do this no matter what the law says.


They should charge the cop in Marysville and they should charge the parent in Tacoma.

Rant over, and I cleaned up my language from the original draft........:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead: