Harvard Grad Student Facing Eviction over Legally Owned and Stored Firearms

You are an idiot! LOL at you saying mixing cleaning ammonia and cleaning bleach is going to be harmful to the other tenants! What, are they going to sit there while the child is blowing it up their noses, hmm, what's that smell, dunno, but I'm going to stay in this position and ignore it! And are these students living in an industrial chemical factory where this bleach and ammonia is industrial strength?

And as for your statistically zero, you clearly have no clue what statistically zero means!

1. 2-year-old boy hospitalized after shooting himself with his father's unsecured gun in Clive, police say
https://eu.desmoinesregister.com/st...ing-self-parents-gun-clive-police/1037139002/

2. 2-year-old boy dies after shooting himself with father's gun
https://kutv.com/news/local/father-arrested-after-2-year-old-son-shoot-himself-dies

3. A two-year-old boy in Houston has died after shooting himself in the head with an unsecured gun that he found inside his home, according to Texas police.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44772682

4. Police: Texas toddler dies from self-inflicted gunshot wound
https://eu.jsonline.com/story/news/...er-accidental-shooting-charges-say/420471002/

5. A 4-year-old Georgia boy found a gun hidden inside his house and shot himself in the head with it
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...8/4-year-old-boy-shoots-kills-self-in-georgia

6. 8-year-old boy fatally shoots himself while handling father’s gun in Maine
He had been handling his father’s 12-gauge shotgun inside a closet of his parents’ second-floor bedroom when the gun went off, McCausland said.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...kland-maine/eIjLHjSDYvJeHmG0tPtkTM/story.html

7. Police: Boy finds gun under father's pillow, shoots himself
https://www.wjbf.com/news/crime-new...nder-fathers-pillow-shoots-himself/1601046154

8. Parents charged in accidental shooting of boy, 3, in Englewood
https://abc7chicago.com/news/parents-charged-in-accidental-shooting-of-boy-3-in-englewood/1805201/

9. 5-year-old boy finds gun, shoots baby brother in head
https://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/20/us/missouri-boy-shoots-baby-brother/index.html

10. A recent investigation by the Associated Press and USA Today found 49 children had accidentally shot someone in Michigan over a two-and-a-half year span. Seventeen children died as a result
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ots-children-critical-condition-a7972741.html

11. The family of a 7-year-old St. Louis boy who was killed over the weekend believes that the boy’s younger brother found the gun and accidentally killed his sibling while looking for candy. Erica Jones, the god-sister of the boys’ mother, who is acting as a spokesperson for the family, said that it is believed that Jermon’s 5-year-old brother walked into his parents’ bedroom looking for candy when he opened a dresser drawer, found the gun, which belonged to their father, and took it back to his siblings.
https://www.theroot.com/missouri-boy-looking-for-candy-found-gun-instead-accid-1824288277


BTW Here is your sentence again that you keep ignoring "Now, after I have had a little one, I am more aware of those guns, and when he is able to walk and until he is old enough to realize the responsibility that comes with guns, yea.... They will be out of reach."

 

Let's hope the NRA helps in a lawsuit against this idiot building owner and roommates for violating the gun owner's civil rights. As far as a child's accidental death, a FAR more likely scenario is the gun being used successfully for self defense, it has been estimated that armed citizens stop about as many crimes as the police do. Apparently the gun hating roommates strategy in such an event is waiting for the cops to arrive a half hour later to draw a chalk line around their bodies.

 

Why thank you for the kind comment.... Coming from a lefty, I know what the name calling usually is followed by... I just can't wait for you to tell me how I'm a racist or a homophobe....
Now... Since I am such an idiot as you call me, I'd love to offer you some light reading... Well.. I won't call it light for those of the "lesser mental capacity", but you should be fine right?

Since you obviously DON'T understand stats or numbers, maybe you should educate yourself..... (And I restate that accidental deaths in the home by children HAS NO STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE!)

https://measuringu.com/statistically-significant/

As for your attempt to say I have ignored ANYTHING.... I've addressed that.... Sorry you fail to be able to read it.

Here's you some more reading materials.... Not that you will actually READ it, but I love pointing out the obvious to people like you!

Mum-of-three nearly dies from chlorine gas poisoning after combining three household cleaning products
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mum-three-nearly-dies-chlorine-10945120

Parents warned of dangers of household products after baby dies from drinking herbal oil
https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...news/baby-died-swallowing-herbal-oil-13740147

2-year-old dies from accidental drug overdose, officials say
https://www.daytondailynews.com/new...verdose-officials-say/UW06eQo5PwaF2wE9XGYuJL/

I could go on... But I think you see I can use Google just as well as you can..... The sad attempt to change my mind by flexing your (Google muscle) is laughable.

I might would suggest one last article though.... This one isn't about a particular person dying, but rather how household chemicals are the 2nd leading cause of deaths in the home.... I will point out... guns are on that list, but notice where they are on the list! Wonder why?

https://www.asecurelife.com/home-accident-statistics/

Of course you're not going to read ANY of this soooo...... you'll just spew some other garbage about how I'm wrong while ALL of the evidence shows that gun deaths in the home by accidental shootings have no statistically significance.

 

Oh, so you calling me thick is not name calling but now you are crying about being called an idiot? You are a desperate hypocrite.

And your links are nothing to do with the OP case of 6 tenants being at risk from someone else finding a loaded gun or dangerous chemicals. I gave relevant links of others being shot by someone finding a gun, you know, like in the situation in this thread, you gave nothing but self inflicted accidents that were no risk to anyone else.

One of my links was even about a boy who found a gun hidden in a drawer in his parent's bedroom while looking for candy and killed his brother in another room. Another was a gun found under a bed by a four year old girl who killed another 4 year old girl. Do you get the link of these examples to the student situation?

I notice that you've changed from "statistically zero" to "no statistical significance", do you actually know what that phrase means as clearly you have no knowledge what statistically zero means! LOL at you saying that I don't understand stats. Oh and I noticed you lied in your sentence "(And I restate that accidental deaths in the home by children HAS NO STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE!)". You do know what the word "restate" means? What it does not mean is to change words

So try again

 

Why don't you enlighten me???? I love how you never admit that accidental gun deaths are not as much of a factor as accidental poisoning yet you keep bickering about the gun.... nit picking how I say something and trying to find something that is wrong. How about finding facts and statistical proof? Oh I know... because it doesn't exist!

 

You left out the other 417 firearm accidents out of the 161,000 accidental deaths per year.

 

They don't need facts, they have their feelings.

 

That's easy.

They were trigger locked.

If they weren't locked in accordance with MA law, the police would have charged her.

 

Uh huh.

The roommates also wanted to agree for her to be "licensed and registered".

In your realm of logical fallacy thinking, does this mean she was not "licensed and registered" as well?

 

No, bonehead, it meant only that her roommates had no clear understanding of the meaning. It was clear that her firearms were legal. What was not clear is whether they were secured legally. An inspection by local LEO confirmed that they were.

 

Well, bonehead, you're the one who asked "why would they demand them be locked up, if they were already locked up". You were the one defending them, not me.

Glad you realize that making a demand doesn't mean she wasn't already in compliance and they're just stupid.

We can finally agree that the roommates are morons who don't know what they're talking about though.

I'm glad we made progress.

 

Wrong. She wasn't in compliance until after the roomates complained. She then secured them properly.

And, I don't think the roommates are morons. Misguided? Maybe. But, every single American has a right to feel secure in their surroundings, and an instrument of death, no matter how legal it may be, makes some people uncomfortable.

As a gun owner, I understand and respect that. It's obvious that you do not.

 

You don't know that. You're engaging in logical fallacies again.

If you point to the letter saying "we request the guns be locked up" and say "see, she didn't have the guns locked up"....then I point to the part where they say "she will get licensed and registered" and you say "her roommates had no clear meaning of what that meant"......then you can't even be consistent in your argument.

Fists are instruments of death.

Did these people own a set of kitchen knives? Also instruments of death. How hard would it be to wait for one of them to go to sleep and stab them?

As a gun owner I know that killing someone you live with doesn't require a gun.

 

Let's not forget that the bill rights applies to government, not to private universities or private landlords. If the University wants a no gun policy, nothing in the constitution prevents that. In answer to your questions:

1. Most lease agreements allow for such a thing. While rarely used, they are still there. If there weren't then the landlord would be guilty of breaking and entering his own property.
2. It isn't an excuse. If the landlord considers it dangerous, he can prevent the tenant from it. It is his property. Leases would be the size of books if the landlord had to exclude every possible thing that anyone might consider dangerous. I would bet that a standard lease agreement in Massachusetts would ban guns but I don't know if that is true.
3. I think we are talking about firearms, not hats.

I'm on your side by the way. I'm a gun owner myself. But there is a large segment of the population on the opposite side. Most of those people are in large cities where there is less freedom overall.

 

-----------------------------------------> My Point











--------------------------------------> Your Head

 

You have no point, as I clearly laid out for you to grasp.

You point to the same document with two different arguments, and now you try some weak "you didn't get my point" as a defense.

Without actually explaining your point, that is.

 

Not really true, and no, the bill of rights doesn't "apply to governments".

It's the job of the government to protect your rights via laws, so that NO ONE can infringe on them.

Can the college quarter guards in your house? Can they search you any time they want? Can they limit your right to free speech?

 

Sorry, the bill rights protects citizens from government, not from anything else so you are incorrect. It is definitely the job of government to protect the rights of citizens. That is what the bill of rights is all about.

A college can do any of the things you mention as long as it abides by the laws or any written agreements such as a lease or admission document. Yes a college can limit your free speech. Your right to free speech is only protected when government is doing the limiting. You don't have a correct concept of the bill of rights I'm afraid.

 

No, the bill of rights recognizes natural rights that no one is allowed to infringe on. Those rights are not "granted" by the government.

The government is there to protect those natural rights from everyone else.

Even Vox knows that:

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/10/25/16524832/campus-free-speech-first-amendment-protest

And the courts:

https://www.thefire.org/in-court/state-of-the-law-speech-codes/

https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/victory-free-speech

It's ridiculous to call something a "right" when the only people who can't infringe on it is government.

 

Perhaps but the bill of rights still only applies to government infringement of those rights.

 

Did you read the links? What did the courts say?

No, the Bill of Rights are individual rights that NO ONE can infringe on.

Can your neighbors come over and peek in your windows? Can they strip search you when they want? Can they come over and tell you to stop tweeting? Can they station troops in your house?

Your rights cannot be infringed on by anyone, unless you agree to waive them.

You have ZERO understanding of what you're talking about.

 

I have a very clear understanding of what I'm talking about. You have confused the constitution with laws. The activities you mention are illegal, not because of the bill of rights but because of legislation. They may deal with rights but the bill rights only limits government. Limits on the private sector are legislated, not spelled out in the bill of rights. I didn't read the links because I know what I am talking about. Sorry.

 

You've confused that laws are based on your rights, THATS THE GOVERNMENT PROTECTING THEM.

 

That's right. Those laws are not the bill of rights. No point in going with this any longer. Good luck to you