Lawyers Set to Sue Purse Manufacturer Over Toddler Shooting

[roger thornhill]

"We'll work pro bono", pledged attorneys in Houston, Texas, after a 4 year old boy shot his 2 year old brother in the head with a loaded .32 calibre automatic handgun which he was able to extricate from his mother's purse.

"We're investigating the circumstances surrounding this tragedy," said a visibly stunned local Police Sergeant, who wished to remain nameless in case his own children attempted a copycat assault on Mom's purse. "At this stage we believe that the child somehow managed to unzip the zip compartment of the bag, but we're not ruling out the possibility of foul play. It's feasible that the purse's manufacturers had disabled the device that detects the presence of children, the elderly, crack addicts, escaped convicts, inquisitive dogs, and Michael Jackson, and this in turn resulted in this terrible, terrible tragedy."

The mother and father of the two boys were too shocked to speak, but a friend of the family said that they would leave "no stone unturned" in order to bring the purse manufacturer to book.

The NRA issued a brief statement: "We deeply regret the incident in Houston. We join with all Americans on this tragic day in remembering before God not only this fine young boy, but also all the innocent victims of malfeasance and criminal negligence by greedy leather merchants and zip companies. When these kinds of tragic events happen, it serves to remind all Americans of our obligation under the Second Amendment to exercise our responsibilities as Militiapersons to protect our children and preserve our freedoms."

A spokesperson for Michael Moore said that the award-winning film-maker had rushed from his gun club to his private jet on hearing the tragic news. Before taking off for Houston, sources say he had taken up options on a new documentary project, provisionally entitled "When Will This Madness End?"

[mhendo]

I guess this is supposed to be a parody of America's penchant for litigation.

Do you have a bigger point you'd like to make about the solution to the problem? Where do you stand on current tort reform proposals? How would you reduce frivolous lawsuits while preserving proper legal safeguards against negligence and malfeasance?

[Ice Wolf]

Not sure what the parody is specifically aimed at (excuse the pun) but I liked it. Sounds like something the Onion would do.

[Little Nemo]

I'm guessing Roger is trying to parody some other lawsuit. But it's hard to tell.

[roger thornhill]

I read in today's paper about three "gun-related tragedies" over the weekend in which people were killed or wounded by people firing handguns in the USA. The third story (following those on killings of seven people in a church and three in a courthouse) was about a four year old boy who shot his two year old brother in the head with his mother's gun, which he took out of her purse, which was in her bedroom.

In Chinese, there is an expression "to point at a deer and call it a horse". C.S. Lewis wrote an essay called "Fern-seed and Elephant", in which he talked of those who "claim to see fern-seed and can't see an elephant ten yards away in broad daylight". In other words, those who, wittingly or unwittingly, divert attention from or obfuscate the issue.

In England, the Not The Nine O'Clock News (the TV programme on which Rowan Atkinson cut his teeth) team did a sketch based in the format of the BBC programme Question Time, on which politicians and other public figures answer questions from the studio audience. In a classic spoof, the panel are discussing the prospect of imminent nuclear war, the four-minute warning having just been sounded. It comes to the trades unionist to have his say: "Here we are casually debating the end of the world, and ignoring the real issue, which is that three million people are going to die unemployed."

Hope that clarifies things a bit.

[duffer]

Originally Posted by mhendo

I guess this is supposed to be a parody of America's penchant for litigation.

Do you have a bigger point you'd like to make about the solution to the problem? Where do you stand on current tort reform proposals? How would you reduce frivolous lawsuits while preserving proper legal safeguards against negligence and malfeasance?

This may be a first. I'm standing right here next to you beside myself. (Bonus points if anyone gets that movie reference.)

Roger, what the hell is the point? Let us in on the sick evil joke. And for God's sake, quit posting stuff that leads mhendo to post a response that I can't get pissed at. It's unbecoming of you and anti-climactic for everyone else.

[duffer]

Originally Posted by roger thornhill

I read in today's paper about three "gun-related tragedies" over the weekend in which people were killed or wounded by people firing handguns in the USA. The third story (following those on killings of seven people in a church and three in a courthouse) was about a four year old boy who shot his two year old brother in the head with his mother's gun, which he took out of her purse, which was in her bedroom.

After all the shit that has happened recently I realized the one thing we'd hear about for the next few weeks. Guns are evil!

Nothing (I hope) can surpass the rage I feel towards these fucksticks taking lives of innocents and destroying families. But running a close second are the people that will, based on these 3 fruitcakes, once again say all guns should be banned. The same people that will use the deaths to gleefully pad the numbers of gun victims while never telling you the guns used in a criminal way are a far lower percentage.

When you see the stats for this year, there won't be any side-notes about the high number of these deaths being committed by only 3 people. All guns will be called into question. It wasn't until yesterday that I realized how rare it was for the Chicago guy caught in West Allis to have not tried to take out as many as he could.

[roger thornhill]

Originally Posted by duffer

Nothing (I hope) can surpass the rage I feel towards these fucksticks taking lives of innocents and destroying families. But running a close second are the people that will, based on these 3 fruitcakes, once again say all guns should be banned.

But the whole point of my little effort was that in the third case it was a 4-year old boy who pulled the trigger, because his mum had a loaded automatic handgun in her purse, because of her sacred Constitutional right to own and carry these weapons as part of a "Militia" against God knows what.

And we all know that like everything else established or decided 220 years ago, this particular human decision is inviolate and irrevocable.

[duffer]

Originally Posted by roger thornhill

But the whole point of my little effort was that in the third case it was a 4-year old boy who pulled the trigger, because his mum had a loaded automatic handgun in her purse, because of her sacred Constitutional right to own and carry these weapons as part of a "Militia" against God knows what.

And we all know that like everything else established or decided 220 years ago, this particular human decision is inviolate and irrevocable.

The mother would have the right. She also has the onus of responsibility when owning a gun.

Millions of people also have the right to own knives. Care to look up stabbings in the US? There were probably a few in Chicago in the time it took to write this response. Anything, including bats, golf clubs and sewing needles can kill someone.

Oh, I suppose we could ban guns to the point there would be as many as before they were invented. That would solve the problem. I mean, surely murder never occured before that, right?

[roger thornhill]

I have no interest in statistics. I work with them and place no faith in them. Plus, they lead to ever more detailed minutiae, plus the inevitable fruitless definitions, which take the discussion bacwards not forwards.

The situation in which a 4-year old a) knows that his mum carries a gun in her purse and b) has easy access to it and c) uses one to settle an argument with his 2-year old brother (they'd been in a fight) rather than, say a knife, or a sewing needle or a hammer - all fo which he would have seen used - because "gun" for him is synonymous with how to solve problems is truly frightening.

[Bippy the Beardless]

Is the Mom being charged with anything? Not that it would do any good, but she was not keeping the gun in a safe and secure manner. Unless the purse involved was sold specifically as a child proof bag for the carrying of conceiled weapons, then the mother (not the gun, not the 4yr old, not the purse manufacturer) holds all existant blame in this terrible tragedy.

[Exgineer]

Originally Posted by roger thornhill

... because "gun" for him is synonymous with how to solve problems is truly frightening.

How did you leap to this particular conclusion?

Also, given that you are a brit in Hong Kong, how does US firearms law affect you in any way?

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Exgineer

How did you leap to this particular conclusion?

Also, given that you are a brit in Hong Kong, how does US firearms law affect you in any way?

Well, while questioning roger thornhill's particualr conclusions is entirely unproblematic, your second question is just silly.

So what if he's a Brit in Hong Kong? So what if US firearms law don't affect him?

Is there some rule that i failed to read which states that members of this message board must only engage in debates on topics that directly affect them?

Your attitude is intellectually unsustainable and, if adopted by everyone, would stifle conversation to such as extent that the Boards would probably have to shut down.

[Exgineer]

Are you hyperventilating? Get over yourself.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Exgineer

Are you hyperventilating?

Not at all.

I'm just wondering why you think that a Brit in Hong Kong shouldn't give his opinion on US firearms law.

The fact that you think this suggests that it's you who needs to "get over yourself."

[roger thornhill]

Originally Posted by Exgineer

How did you leap to this particular conclusion?

The same way I leap to all my conclusions. After years of practice, after serving my apprenticeship at it, I am now a fully qualified conclusion-leaper.

Originally Posted by Exgineer

Also, given that you are a Brit in Hong Kong, how does US firearms law affect you in any way?

No way at all. But I get all pissed because everyone in Hong Kong, even after I tried to learn the language and go native culture-wise - I even pretended I liked eating chicken's feet and going to endless banquets so that I'd get accepted, and all they'd do is laugh at my chopstick use and answer in English every time I spoke Cantonese (and laugh like fucking hyenas at my fucking tones - did you know they have 9 tones - they never stop telling me, the dickheads...and I'm the fucking linguist and they know shit) - looks at me as a "foreigner" (and I've got a fucking Chinese wife, a fucking permanent ID card, and I even learned the words (in Putonghua) to their crappy National Anthem - okay, the last bit's a lie) - after 17 and a half fucking years.

Meanwhile, when I go back to Britain (my so-called mother country - even though my mum was actually born in New Zealand, but that's another story - I'm not accepted by my 13 first cousins there either), everybody there, apart from my mum (whose affirmation I neither want nor need), thinks I know fuck all about Britain. My own place of birth! Even on this board, it's taken me 8 fucking months to be accepted - no, not accepted, tolerated - by my own flaming compatriots.

So, your conclusion is spot on. Perhaps you could tell me how you can get to the right conclusions a) without leaping and b) without getting emotional?

Right, I'm outta here. And don't bother starting a pit thread or a crappy lovefest thread.

I won't read them.

[pizzabrat]

Originally Posted by mhendo

I'm just wondering why you think that a Brit in Hong Kong shouldn't give his opinion on US firearms law.

Because it has nothing to do with him. Whatever his opinion is, he'd by definition have less of an appreciation of the consequences of that opinion than any single person in this country. So that's 300 million people we'd have to hear from first about this issue before his views become even close to relevant.

[roger thornhill]

Originally Posted by pizzabrat

Because it has nothing to do with him. Whatever his opinion is, he'd by definition have less of an appreciation of the consequences of that opinion than any single person in this country. So that's 300 million people we'd have to hear from first about this issue before his views become even close to relevant.

Wot he says. I'll take my turn behind the citizens, the nationals, the green card holders, the legal immigrants, the illegal immigrants, the Al Qaeda cell members at the flying clubs, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the research students from China. Oh, and the toddlers...

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by pizzabrat

Because it has nothing to do with him. Whatever his opinion is, he'd by definition have less of an appreciation of the consequences of that opinion than any single person in this country. So that's 300 million people we'd have to hear from first about this issue before his views become even close to relevant.

So you don't believe that the issue is open to rational debate and logical arguments that might transcend someone's direct experience of the way the policy is implemented?

That's an astoundingly shallow and narrow view what constitutes allowable expression and relevant discourse. My sympathy for your provincial ignorance.

[duffer]

Originally Posted by roger thornhill

because "gun" for him is synonymous with how to solve problems is truly frightening.

Shit. Your whole argument went the way of the French Army. As in, it can't be found.

How did the FOUR YEAR OLD make 'gun' synonymous with 'problem solving'?

Oooh, oooh, oooh, I know!(wildly waving hand in air) It must be because guns are inherently evil, right? A 4 YEAR OLD would know that the gun is the best way to solve whatever problem is facing him at the time.

What do I win?

What? That wasn't the right answer? OK, I'll try again. Maybe a different tack is needed.

If a 4 year-old is ready to pull a Glock on a playmate, the problem may be, oh I don't know, whom could we look to:

THE PARENTS!. But that doesn't help your view of banning gun ownership, so let's try something else. Since mom keeping a gun in her unattended purse upsets you so much and you see, *ahem* THE FUCKING GUN *ahem* as the problem, you show yourself as a whiny little bitch blaming items for tragedy rather than those responsible for those items being kept in a way that don't cause undue harm.

More people die from car crashes than gunshot wounds every year. If you care about life, ban cars. Otherwise, shut the fuck up. College students in the '60's beat you to the gun banning and they, at least, had the common sense to get stoned and leave everyone else to live their lives.

And to think I respected and defended you.

[roger thornhill]

Originally Posted by duffer

More people die from car crashes than gunshot wounds every year. If you care about life, ban cars.

No, ban illegal car racing. Cars are designed to take people from a to b. Guns are designed to kill and maim. Which is fine when used by the army in wartime, and by police forces, if they must. But, otherwise, not so fine.

[Typo Negative]

Originally Posted by roger thornhill

No, ban illegal car racing. .

I think they already did.....

[duffer]

Originally Posted by roger thornhill

No, ban illegal car racing. Cars are designed to take people from a to b. Guns are designed to kill and maim. Which is fine when used by the army in wartime, and by police forces, if they must. But, otherwise, not so fine.

spooje beat me to the obvious point. Illegal car racing, is, well, illegal. In America we still have enough sense to know that something illegal is, by definition, banned. And anything that is banned? Well, it's usually illegal.

Cars are designed to take people from one point to another? You obviously live in a country that doesn't have the insane amount of open spaces spaces to drive that us Americans have. Seriously, look at a map of the US and compare the danger of someone in Brooklyn versus me up in North Dakota driving 75 mph. Notice how it may be different? Other than the fact that Brooklyn to my city is further than most European countries are from each other, let's assume most of the US has access to open spaces where non-Autobahn situations are the norm.

I could race anyone on a 2-mile stretch of highway, with 100-beer drinking spectators, and never give a second thought to the Highway Patrol that would never show up. (There are some bennies to living here)

Oh, and the guns? We'd be shooting them as well. In fact, the two races I drove (among the many I attended) held on ND Hwy 15 west of Northwood (look it up, damnit!) went off without a hitch.

Guns, booze, cars, racing. I guess we're just manlier men. Nobody has ever been hurt. (Yet. OK, yet. I'm not doing it now. Have you seen the idiocy of kids these days?)

[Moirai]

A mother who kept a gun in her purse where toddlers had access to it? You have got to be kidding me. I don't even keep lip blam where my little ones can reach it!

This is all on her. I know she feels horribly now (at least I hope so) but the fact is that it is all her fault that her 4 year old got to that gun.

I grew up with guns in the house (and in my dad's truck). They were kept well out of my reach, and before I was old enough to touch them, I was taught respect for them. I learned to shoot when I was 13, but only with my dad.

A gun in the house is not an automatic tragedy in the making. A dipshit parent sure seems to be, though.

[UncleBeer]

I have no interest in statistics. I work with them and place no faith in them. Plus, they lead to ever more detailed minutiae, plus the inevitable fruitless definitions, which take the discussion bacwards not forwards.

Well, if moving the debate forward is your objective, would be so kind to let us know how your irrational rodomontade, your inane harangue, your senseless screed, is a step in that direction?

[NurseCarmen]

Originally Posted by duffer

This may be a first. I'm standing right here next to you beside myself. (Bonus points if anyone gets that movie reference.)

Number 5 is ALIVE!

[NurseCarmen]

Remember folks, Guns don't kill people!

Tiny little baby fingers kill people.

[Larry Mudd]

Originally Posted by EJsGirl

I don't even keep lip blam where my little ones can reach it!

"None of your lip!" *BLAM!*

[kidchameleon]

Originally Posted by roger thornhill

Guns are designed to kill and maim.

No, you dolt. Guns are designed to fire a projectile out of the barrel at high rates of speed. They can be used for a great variety of uses, including as paper weights and dust collectors.

[Larry Mudd]

Yes, but should collectors have legal access to assault dust?

[UncleBeer]

I've got an asbestos fiber; don't make me use it!

[kidchameleon]

Originally Posted by Larry Mudd

Yes, but should collectors have legal access to assault dust?

As long as they have a feather duster.
Or Pledge.
Mmmmm, Lemon Scented Pledge....

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by NurseCarmen

Remember folks, Guns don't kill people!

Tiny little baby fingers kill people.

When tiny little baby fingers are outlawed, only outlaws will have tiny little baby fingers.

I'm waiting for the new bumper stickers to come out. Imagine "You'll get my purse when you pry it from my cold dead (tiny little baby) fingers"

[roger thornhill]

Originally Posted by kidchameleon

No, you dolt. Guns are designed to fire a projectile out of the barrel at high rates of speed. They can be used for a great variety of uses, including as paper weights and dust collectors.

I think my ignorance is slowly being squeezed out of me, albeit at gunpoint. I had indeed forgotten the burgeoning paperweight industry. Now that I think about it more rationally and less subjectively, I can see that an automobile is effectively a bullet. Both CAN kill or maim when they strike a fleshy object, but ONLY when they are aimed at such soft fleshy object, or, I suppose, hard not so fleshy object in the case of the cranium. (A 2-year old's skull has hardened up, I'm assuming.)

Only a maniac or a Muslim suicide killer would aim an automobile at a group of people with the intention of harming them, while a wide range of folk, ranging from God-fearing Militiamen to paperweight collectors to nutters to Chuck Heston to Michael Moore to 4 year-old children, would use an automatic handgun in defence of their 220-year old Constitutional Rights. Lots has changed in the United States since Jefferson and his band of brothers dipped their quills in their inkpots (rumour has it that slavery has been abolished, and the descendants of slaves allowed to sit on buses next to white folk, but I have no cites, so I'm not going to come right out and assert that). These changes, though, I am forced to agree, are no reason why Americans should change their Constitution and amend their Amendments. After all, slavery - and those pesky blacks - wasn't even mentioned in the Constitution, and didn't merit any Amendment.

Now, of course, things might change if the grandchild of an incumbent President was shot in the head, but American politics having never been influenced by irrational rodomontades, or indeed legalistic humbug (Madison's three-fifths rule comes to mind), before, will doubtlessly take such a tragedy in its stride. Or blame the Arabs.

[duffer]

Originally Posted by roger thornhill

Only a maniac or a Muslim suicide killer would aim an automobile at a group of people with the intention of harming them

Well, if the maniac aimed the car at a group of people, how would that make him suicidal? Seems that as long as he isn't driving some piece of shit Yugo, he may have protection from hitting a person or four.

As for the rest of your post trying to guilt us Americans over slavery, save it. Millions of families, including mine, didn't emigrate here until after 1870. Oh, and considering both sides of my family left Ellis Island and went directly to Minnesota and North Dakota, let me give you a double fuck you.

And I'm still amazed that I liked your previous posts and tried to defend you. I guess our board's lefties are right, I'm an idiot.

[duffer]

Originally Posted by NurseCarmen

Number 5 is ALIVE!

Hehe. I didn't think anyone would respond to that. Here's a bottle of Dom for the effort.


A side note to everyone else. You may have noticed a mini-debate earlier about guns or children killing people. Neither are correct based on what has been said here so far.

It's the bullets that kill people. Jeez, I thought that joke was so old everyone would know it.

[roger thornhill]

But why get so hot and bothered about mt views about a piece of metal that fires bullets? I think countries like Britain are much better off without them, and it's one serious issue that I feel deeply about. Now, if I was right, and it would reduce the number of people killed and injured in America if handguns were banned, and if this would also lead to other social benefits, then isn't it okay for me (or others - though I can't see too many of them) to say what we think.

In fact, isn't it just on those issues where public opprobrium is overwhelming and seemingly almost unanimous that we need to be on our guard to ensure that contrary views are aired. And even encouraged. To me, that's what the open society is all about.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by roger thornhill

After all, slavery - and those pesky blacks - wasn't even mentioned in the Constitution, and didn't merit any Amendment.

Well, the word "slavery" might not have made it into the Constitution, but everyone knew who the "other Persons" in this sentence referred to:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

And i'm not quite sure what you mean when you say that slavery didn't merit any Amendment. I refer you to Amendment XIII, passed and ratified in 1865:

Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Amendments XIV and XV were also closely tied to the issue of slavery and emancipation.

[duffer]

Damnit mhendo, stop bringing up the 13^th Amendment. It only takes away a facet of 'Merkin bashing! There are so many arguments made about The Evil White Man ^TM that started this country and using the Constitution as a cite, we need not mention silly little things like Amendments!


*this whole slavery aspect being used yet again to make Americans feel somehow guilty for past wrongs is pissing me off*

[roger thornhill]

Originally Posted by mhendo

I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say that slavery didn't merit any Amendment. I refer you to Amendment XIII, passed and ratified in 1865:Amendments XIV and XV were also closely tied to the issue of slavery and emancipation.

My apologies. I reckoned that since it was carefully and assiduously avoided in the Constitution, there would have been no requirement to draft an amendment dealing with it; given that it hadn't been "legislated" for or against.

Let's invoke the spirit of the FFs then, and amend the 2nd.

[duffer]

Originally Posted by roger thornhill

My apologies. I reckoned that since it was carefully and assiduously avoided in the Constitution, there would have been no requirement to draft an amendment dealing with it; given that it hadn't been "legislated" for or against.

Let's invoke the spirit of the FFs then, and amend the 2nd.

OK, I like drinking, too. But this is getting beyond sanity.

Know what else isn't covered in the US Constitution? Drunk driving, pedophilia, identity theft, wire fraud, media piracy and mail theft.

None of those warranted an Amendment, yet they're still illegal in all 50 plus DC.

Let me ask again. What the fuck is your point?

[GusNSpot]

Originally Posted by roger thornhill

Let's invoke the spirit of the FFs then, and amend the 2nd.

They are not your FFs, what do you know of their spirit? And thank goodness you don't get to vote here.

You do get to post your views......... Is this a great country or what?

[duffer]

Originally Posted by roger thornhill

Let's invoke the spirit of the FFs then, and amend the 2nd.

And of course, nobody saw me giving up this one right?

roger, come over here. No, really, come here for a moment before I say this out loud. *looks over both shoulders*

OK, you've said you're a Brit. And you live in Hong Kong. Everything you know in life has had fuck-all to do with gun ownership. Er, responsible gun ownership. It's likely (though I may be wrong) that you have never even known a gun owner. And yet more likely that you have never fired a gun. And almost certainly have never taken the time to become trained in gun safety and use. Fear that which you do not know. It plays well on these boards. Let's get back to the board, people are waiting.

*warp to public posting*

I'm now curious. For those living in countries that have banned guns, what is the main cause of non-health related deaths in your homeland? Surely without guns the taking of another's life is unheard of, right? RIGHT?


Oh, one more thing roger. For taking the opportunity to call for an amendment to the Constitution of a country you've never been a citizen of, a triple shot of your forced salad-tossing.

Ass monkey.

[roger thornhill]

Originally Posted by GusNSpot

You do get to post your views......... Is this a great country or what?

But I do fork out 15 greenbacks, you know!

Duffer, I first shot a rifle (.22) when I was about 11 (at school in the indoor firing range), and I enjoyed it. Still do, actually. In the summer of 2003, my family visited friends in the States (CA and KY), and while there, I shot rifles, shot guns (clay pigeon) and a handgun (no idea what calibre - quite a kick, though). This was on a small holding in Kentucky, with the father of our host. He was meticulous about safety. My wife and daughter (8) both had a go with the rifle.

So, my main objection is to the widespread availability and use of handguns, and other classes of firearm that don't have a primary sporting function. I've attempted to give my feelings and reasons, both here and in at least a couple of other posts. Actually, I prefer joking around and displaying my dazzling wit, discussing movies, football, etc, but this is one issue that I really feel strongly about. I believe that some other Americans on the board feel similarly, but refrain from posting because to do so is to walk into a shit-storm and very tiring.

[duffer]

Fine. roger, all previous references to you not knowing/shooting guns are fully retracted.

You, your wife, daughter (let's go here next) all shot a rifle? You realize that a rifle is what killed JFK, right? RIGHT?

Why did you allow your own daughter to use an instrument of imminent death? Oh, sure, you can say a rifle is different from a handgun, as that's your foreigner point in supressing my rights. If you can tell me that a piece of metal being launched from a rifle or handgun are different, please do.

Listen carefully. Guns, in every, any and all configurations, shoot projectiles at high speeds that will inflict either life-threatening wounds, death, or really good stories.

The attempt to somehow seperate handguns from rifles and shotguns is less than stellar. Shooting someone with a .30-.06 or 12-guage will have the same effect as being shot by one of my pistols.

Oh, those pistols I own? They are used for target practice to make sure I hit the right spot if someone breaks in the house. It stays in the house just like anyone's corpse will if they want to try taking my shit.

Argue about shitbags using guns to commit crimes? Very low to begin with. Even lower when the victim has a gun to defend him/herself. Check out stats of crime in states that "allow" concealed-weapons versus those that ban the right. (I know this won't be done, as it proves my point).


Oh yeah, I guess I should end this by asking once again, What the fuck do you have to do with gun ownership in the US?!?! If you feel so passionatly about it, come get 'em. Otherwise, shut the fuck up about this topic and let me try to work back to respecting you again. I hate when foreign dictators tell me what to do.

[roger thornhill]

In a nutshell, shotguns = ducks and skeet; rifles = targets (difficult to carry around and cumbersome to keep under the pillow); handgun = to shoot people who intrude, threaten you or your family.

Re handguns, there seems to be a better way, like not having them, as many other first world democratic countries manage. They really are a tragedy waiting to happen, as the events on the w/e in Houston showed.

Please drop the respect schlock. I hardly need your approval to sleep soundly at night - pistol or no pistol.

[duffer]

And I need respect from nobody as well. I was just hoping you'd give one single, solitary reason for thinking you know better than the rest of us stupid citizens of a country you visit, but don't live in, yet demand a change to a basic and fundamental right.

So? Let's have it, tough guy. Give us a reason, as a Brit living in Hong Kong, that your opinion should be relevant about the US Constitution.

I understand a rant about some senseless killings. But you're using guns as your basis and calling for a ban in a country you don't live in!


You still, how did I know this would occur , haven't given any stats on murders in your country. Either one, I'm open to stats from both.

[roger thornhill]

Any toddler getting shot by another is one instance too many, statistically speaking, and I don't think this kind of thing is common in the UK, or indeed in HK.

BTW, with all the tosh that local people - including much of the media - come up with about Hong Kong, many of us here actually welcome input from outsiders. They share much in common with us, including being members of the same species.

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by duffer

As for the rest of your post trying to guilt us Americans over slavery, save it. Millions of families, including mine, didn't emigrate here until after 1870. Oh, and considering both sides of my family left Ellis Island and went directly to Minnesota and North Dakota, let me give you a double fuck you.

Mine didn't get here from Italy until the early 1900's. Like you, my family didn't have any slaves or any involvement with them. Like you, after damn near 40 years of hearing about slavery and demands of reparation for 400 years etc etc etc, I am just as tired as you are, of being blamed for what some other long dead people did. Sure it was terrible, but we didn't do it.

We didn't do it. Our ancestors didn't do it. The ones who did it are long dead anyway. We are not buying into the guilt trip over it.

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by roger thornhill

But why get so hot and bothered about mt views about a piece of metal that fires bullets? I think countries like Britain are much better off without them, and it's one serious issue that I feel deeply about. Now, if I was right, and it would reduce the number of people killed and injured in America if handguns were banned, and if this would also lead to other social benefits, then isn't it okay for me (or others - though I can't see too many of them) to say what we think.

In fact, isn't it just on those issues where public opprobrium is overwhelming and seemingly almost unanimous that we need to be on our guard to ensure that contrary views are aired. And even encouraged. To me, that's what the open society is all about.

Tee hee England. Don't get so self righteous about Mother England. We've heard about the deadly soccer riots. Besides, what "social benefits" are you talking about? The law that forbids anyone from coming to the aid of a crime victim? That's a reall good example. How about hooligans roaming the streets and randomly assaulting people for absolutely no reason because they know nobody will dare confront them? ROFLMAO.
Side note - who brought most of the slaves over to the proto-USA? The English. This was a slave state (in some ways) before the British left.

You can climb off that high horse now (wink wink)