6-year-old boy dies after being shot during road rage incident

Let's not put them in charge of our healthcare decisions please.

 

110% agree! I've worked for city and state governmental agencies. My father was a Chicago police officer and my mother was an official with the state. Oh, it would blow up the internet if I told you all the things we've seen.

The ONLY people that want the government to run anything are the people that make money off that happening.

 

The first bolded: you didn't word it that way the first time.

Also, I am not attempting to "control" your behavior. LOL. What hot fresh malarkey is this, I ask?

*checks notes*

*checks them again*

Ok, this is a message board. People contribute their thoughts. People can also come and go as they please. They can also answer questions or choose to not answer at all. Do you know what that is called? Why, it's called "free will". Yes, that same free-will that so many Conservatives claim to cherish. Now, if you think that my free will is an attempt to control you, surely that are qualified psychologists in your area who can assist you in this area, but that's not my profession.

Now, if you would simply ask why I think those people, in a sane timeline, would or should not have died, then feel free to ask that question and I may even answer. But that question has nothing to do with any other kinds of deaths.. It's not as if just because we are talking about strawberries, I am required to list every type that ever existed and than every other possible fruit as well. I remember my daughter once asking me these illogical, badly strung-together questions at one time in the past. She was 4 years old at the time. I chuckled about it because she was a 4 year old, a developing child. When an adult does the same stuff, I don't chuckle.

 

Ok, this is a very good question and I think you worded it well.

The answer from me is: no, the gubbermint is not charged with power nor required to avoid all avoidable deaths, but there is indeed the general welfare clause in the US constitution and then there is also the fact that, for instance, a once in a (hopefully) lifetime pandemic is a situation unlike most everything else or runaway, psychotic gunnutz who mow down innocent civilian. So, a good gubbermint should do it's damndest to reduce avoidable deaths to a minimum and in a perfect world, to zero, or better put, to help create circumstances where people themselves can avoid such deaths.

There are no guarantees of life in this world, but working to increase one's chances of living a long a productive life would definitely seem to be part of a pro-life culture to me. I do remember that most Conservatives claim to be pro-life, but when it comes to a things like pandemics or out of control gunnutz, all of a sudden they don't seem to give a **** whether people die or not.

I find that to be very, very bizarre and probably part of the reason why so many Conservatives are just despised by huge swaths of the US population. Oh, well, lie down with dogs, you get fleas, nöööö.

 

How do you reduce the chances of unnecessary death without controlling the behavior of society?

Am I not a member of society?

 

I have no idea what you are. And sometimes, it`s better to let sleeping dogs lie.

 

So no comment on the conflict between your statement that you have no desire to control me, and the desire to control society to prevent an avoidable death. I have to assume you are not able to explain that.

 

Who gets to decide what deaths are necessary and what deaths are unnecessary?
I vote me.

 

Perhaps Rexxon can explain to me which of these two guns he thinks might make me more likely to easily shoot a 6 year old child. One of them is illegal in CT. It's apparent that CT agrees with Rexxon in some capacity, and feels that the potential danger posed by the ownership of one of these firearms is too great. One of these firearms is classified as an assault weapon in CT. As a result, I am no longer allowed to purchase one of them, or transfer one into the state that I purchased elsewhere.

They are both made by the same manufacturer. They are both the same caliber (22lr). They both hold the same number of cartridges (10). The ammunition for both is generally the least expensive of the available calibers. They are both single action, semi automatic. One bullet leaves the barrel when the trigger is pulled. Before another bullet can be fired the trigger must be reset (released). Pulling the trigger can not cycle the bolt, or reset the internal hammer. Both have removable magazines. Both are primarily used for practice, plinking, and very small game. Some people use them for personal protection, but they are not widely used for this purpose.

What's the difference in risk of criminal use between these two guns that would justify preventing anyone from owning or making one? Perhaps if we identify this difference, manufacturers could produce firearms that posses less potential for the risk of criminal use.

 

Both can legally accept a picatinny rail above and below the barrel for the purpose of mounting a flashlight, aftermarket sight, or laser.

 

More "common sense" from the anti-gun Democrats / liberals / leftists, below:

 

Yup. Looks like it has the same problem.

 

Oh, but its "common sense".

 

Oh, here's some more "common sense" from the anti-gun Democrats / liberals / leftists:

 

Only if it's not pinned. If it's pinned, you're good. Who knows what might happen if you take it off?

 

They caught guys. $1 million dollar bail for each of them.



Two Arrested in Road Rage Shooting of 6-Year-Old Boy on 55 Freeway in Orange


https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/...rage-shooting-boy-shot-orange-county/2611322/