In the News-Green Beret killed by son-with a GUN

Posted in the Keavy Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
SpeakUp

Harwood Heights, IL

#1 Jun 9, 2013
That's right folks. During an unannounced visit, a Green Beret, who survived combat, went to visit a friend who had left an unattended gun in his garage. Now even though this visit was unannounced giving the homeowner no opportunity to hide the gun, it IS LEGAL where he lives to have a gun out in the open.

Now thanks to this lawful, unattended, exposed gun, a 35 yr. father lies dead and his little 4 yr. old son, without a clue, will be wrecked the rest of his life when he's old enough to absorb what happened, even though it was accidental.

But hey, let's keep on fighting for these guns.

Judged:

21

21

19

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
SpeakUp

Harwood Heights, IL

#4 Jun 9, 2013
I was looking forward to all the gun advocates? Let's hear it now, shall we?
SpeakUp

Harwood Heights, IL

#7 Jun 9, 2013
..and you are obsessed.

That was a completely different case and the man was ex military. He was a military expert with a gun on a robber. This was a gun sitting right out in the open garage where any kid or lunatic could have gotten hold of it.

And don't try to act like I'm making a political issue out of it. Guns aren't political. They kill when in the hands of the wrong people. In this case, it's a crying shame that your obsession with guns will cause this 4 yr. old to live a life of regret and anguish.

Try your reverse pyschology on someone else. You're just flat too stupid for me.

“smiling on a cloudy day”

Since: Jan 09

Shakedown Street

#8 Jun 10, 2013
Sorry, not that big of a tragedy. Accidental death, no different than other accidental deaths that occur at home. Why does the fact this incident involves a gun make it any different? It is absolutely political, regardless of your denial. If the kid kicked a jack out from underneath a raised car and crushed this man, you wouldn't be making a thread about it and it would not be in the news.

How many children die every year from drinking drain cleaner or antifreeze stored in a haphazard manner at home?

How many people die from drowning due to a inattentive mother or being intoxicated near a backyard pool?

How many people fall off a ladder cleaning gutters or trimming trees?

People are far, far more likely to die in an accidental manner at home. So why does the fact that this particular accident happened due to a firearm make it any different or require government restrictions where other causes of accidental deaths don't?

Especially given the fact that our rights concerning firearms are enshrined in our Bill of Rights, our rights to drain cleaners lacking those same protections.
Blue Boy

Whitley City, KY

#9 Jun 10, 2013
SpeakUp wrote:
..and you are obsessed.

That was a completely different case and the man was ex military. He was a military expert with a gun on a robber. This was a gun sitting right out in the open garage where any kid or lunatic could have gotten hold of it.

And don't try to act like I'm making a political issue out of it. Guns aren't political. They kill when in the hands of the wrong people. In this case, it's a crying shame that your obsession with guns will cause this 4 yr. old to live a life of regret and anguish.

Try your reverse pyschology on someone else. You're just flat too stupid for me.
Dr. Pitiful,
What do you mean my obsession with guns??? This is another one of your universal statements.
Shame on you for trying to make this political. I pointed out that you are a liar and hypocrite and your only recourse is to call me stupid.
So you are fine with guns when trained military have them??? You cannot have it both ways because people will continue calling you a liar.
You have to be hired by the Tea Party!
walt

Whitley City, KY

#10 Jun 10, 2013
Blue Boy wrote:
<quoted text>
Dr. Pitiful,
What do you mean my obsession with guns??? This is another one of your universal statements.
Shame on you for trying to make this political. I pointed out that you are a liar and hypocrite and your only recourse is to call me stupid.
So you are fine with guns when trained military have them??? You cannot have it both ways because people will continue calling you a liar.
You have to be hired by the Tea Party!
I own guns so I guess I am guilty of killing this father also. This is the thinking process of ignorant, clueless people. When someone kills with a gun, why am I expected to not own one anymore? Why would they want to punish me for something I didn't do?
SpeakUp

Harwood Heights, IL

#11 Jun 10, 2013
Bronston Man wrote:
Sorry, not that big of a tragedy. Accidental death, no different than other accidental deaths that occur at home. Why does the fact this incident involves a gun make it any different? It is absolutely political, regardless of your denial. If the kid kicked a jack out from underneath a raised car and crushed this man, you wouldn't be making a thread about it and it would not be in the news.
How many children die every year from drinking drain cleaner or antifreeze stored in a haphazard manner at home?
How many people die from drowning due to a inattentive mother or being intoxicated near a backyard pool?
How many people fall off a ladder cleaning gutters or trimming trees?
People are far, far more likely to die in an accidental manner at home. So why does the fact that this particular accident happened due to a firearm make it any different or require government restrictions where other causes of accidental deaths don't?
Especially given the fact that our rights concerning firearms are enshrined in our Bill of Rights, our rights to drain cleaners lacking those same protections.
Bronston, you're following the same MO as gun lovers normally do with that "he could have fallen from the sky and got hit with a huge hail ball". And no, I'm not offering this as a political issue. Despite all the other ways that people can die, are you trying to justify more deaths that might be prevented?

Back when the Consitution was written, times were very different. Isn't it funny how we go back to that, if it's something we want to promote, yet amendment on amendment has been made due to "we the people" since then? It's like some folk on here talking about MSNBC and other media outlets (minus Fox)- they are just so biased and bad, yet when something is aired that agrees with an agenda, all of a sudden, it's being copied and pasted.

Bronston, I find it difficult to agree with anyone and everyone bearing arms in this 21st century madness. And to me, they shouldn't even be used to kill our beautiful animals roaming the earth that God intended to be here. Our children are getting hold of guns. Bronston, old school philosophy on guns doesn't work 21st century any more than we ride horses everywhere we go. I could almost assure you, the Bill of Rights meant guns were to be used for "protection" and that didn't mean in the accidental hands of a 4 yr. old, or a mad man that goes in and shoots his entire family or visa versa.

The problem with thinkers today is, we can live old school in the new school. Had that been the case, it would have resulted in zero progress since then?

“smiling on a cloudy day”

Since: Jan 09

Shakedown Street

#12 Jun 10, 2013
SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
Bronston, you're following the same MO as gun lovers normally do with that "he could have fallen from the sky and got hit with a huge hail ball". And no, I'm not offering this as a political issue. Despite all the other ways that people can die, are you trying to justify more deaths that might be prevented?
Back when the Consitution was written, times were very different. Isn't it funny how we go back to that, if it's something we want to promote, yet amendment on amendment has been made due to "we the people" since then? It's like some folk on here talking about MSNBC and other media outlets (minus Fox)- they are just so biased and bad, yet when something is aired that agrees with an agenda, all of a sudden, it's being copied and pasted.
Bronston, I find it difficult to agree with anyone and everyone bearing arms in this 21st century madness. And to me, they shouldn't even be used to kill our beautiful animals roaming the earth that God intended to be here. Our children are getting hold of guns. Bronston, old school philosophy on guns doesn't work 21st century any more than we ride horses everywhere we go. I could almost assure you, the Bill of Rights meant guns were to be used for "protection" and that didn't mean in the accidental hands of a 4 yr. old, or a mad man that goes in and shoots his entire family or visa versa.
The problem with thinkers today is, we can live old school in the new school. Had that been the case, it would have resulted in zero progress since then?
First off, refusing to restrict the rights of citizens in no way "justifies" deaths that could have been prevented.

Are you asking me if we should prevent as many deaths as possible? Absolutely not. Not only is it not possible, but it also causes undue burden on our populace.

Hundreds of people die from aspirin every year. These are deaths that could be prevented, if we only banned aspirin. Does that make it a good idea? One example, but the list goes on and on. Doctors, automobiles, swimming pools, soda pop, boats, alcohol. All causes of preventable deaths.

You find it madness that everyone(even though that everyone certainly isn't) can own a gun in the 21st century? Many find it ludicrous that everyone can speak their mind freely without fear of government persecution, some find it downright diabolical that people can worship whichever god they choose. Some are even appalled that the government has to spend millions holding a trial to prove the guilt of accused murderers, rapists, and child molesters. Instead, if it were up to them, these people would be summarily executed without trial, often after a torturous end.

Thankfully, our Constitution isn't invalidated due to the feelings of those that find "madness" where the founding fathers saw rights deserved of a free people.
SpeakUp

Harwood Heights, IL

#13 Jun 10, 2013
Bronston Man wrote:
<quoted text>
First off, refusing to restrict the rights of citizens in no way "justifies" deaths that could have been prevented.
Are you asking me if we should prevent as many deaths as possible? Absolutely not. Not only is it not possible, but it also causes undue burden on our populace.
Hundreds of people die from aspirin every year. These are deaths that could be prevented, if we only banned aspirin. Does that make it a good idea? One example, but the list goes on and on. Doctors, automobiles, swimming pools, soda pop, boats, alcohol. All causes of preventable deaths.
You find it madness that everyone(even though that everyone certainly isn't) can own a gun in the 21st century? Many find it ludicrous that everyone can speak their mind freely without fear of government persecution, some find it downright diabolical that people can worship whichever god they choose. Some are even appalled that the government has to spend millions holding a trial to prove the guilt of accused murderers, rapists, and child molesters. Instead, if it were up to them, these people would be summarily executed without trial, often after a torturous end.
Thankfully, our Constitution isn't invalidated due to the feelings of those that find "madness" where the founding fathers saw rights deserved of a free people.
If the Consitution's authors were so interested in a free people, then why did they have slaves? Were black people not ...people? I know...it was the times, right?

Again, you are referencing every death causing agent known to mankind. This doesn't serve any purpose. What does serve a purpose is when we refuse don't refuse to do anything and everything we can reasonably to prevent another useless, unecessary death. Did they have assault weapons when the Constitution was written? No, they got a new gun in their hand and thought "hey, now I can stay wealthy and maintain monetary control". You don't actually think they had your best interest at heart do you, Bronston? You think they don't today and that's people you are actually existing with. You basically have no clue of the minds of the people who wrote the Constitution.

(But I do thank you for sticking with subject matter)

“smiling on a cloudy day”

Since: Jan 09

Shakedown Street

#14 Jun 10, 2013
SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
If the Consitution's authors were so interested in a free people, then why did they have slaves? Were black people not ...people? I know...it was the times, right?
Again, you are referencing every death causing agent known to mankind. This doesn't serve any purpose. What does serve a purpose is when we refuse don't refuse to do anything and everything we can reasonably to prevent another useless, unecessary death. Did they have assault weapons when the Constitution was written? No, they got a new gun in their hand and thought "hey, now I can stay wealthy and maintain monetary control". You don't actually think they had your best interest at heart do you, Bronston? You think they don't today and that's people you are actually existing with. You basically have no clue of the minds of the people who wrote the Constitution.
(But I do thank you for sticking with subject matter)
No one is trying to argue the perfect nature of the founding fathers. When the Constitution was enacted non-property owners, women, and anyone not white were certainly considered less equal than white property owners.

But, the Constitution itself was amended in order to change the standing of those not originally protected. When it comes to guns, such an amendment process hasn't taken place.

If people really want to infringe on the right of us free citizens to own guns, they should go about it the same way as abolitionists and those involved with the women's suffrage movement. Pass a new amendment invalidating the 2nd. The process is in place and has happened before.

Furthermore, your statement that we have no clue as to the minds of those that wrote the Constitution could not be more off the mark. Do you think that the only writings surviving that period are the official documents enacted into law? Far from it. Many, many pages of journals, writings, correspondence, and orders survive that were written by those same people that wrote the Constitution. It is easy to see from those writings exactly what they intended when they put the Bill of Rights to paper.

Regardless of whether or not the founding fathers had my best interest at heart when they mandated the people have the right to free speech, freedom of religion and press, freedom to own a firearm, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, freedom from a government imprisoning me without a trial, I certainly am better off with these freedoms in place. In fact, it is hard to imagine how any of these rights granted to a free people helps those in power maintain that power.

In fact, it seems to me the very opposite is true, hence the reason despots and dictators immediately curb or abolish such rights as soon as they gain power.

“smiling on a cloudy day”

Since: Jan 09

Shakedown Street

#15 Jun 10, 2013
And you still haven't answered how an accidental death from a firearm is any more tragic than an accident death from an aspirin. I didn't list every death-causing agent known to man, far from it, simply a short list of those things causing accidental death.

Why does an accidental death from a gun immediately call for a limit placed by the government on a free society, yet far more accidental deaths that occur from other devices should be roundly forgiven, justified, or ignored?
Blue Boy

Whitley City, KY

#16 Jun 10, 2013
Blue Boy wrote:
<quoted text>Dr. Pitiful,
What do you mean my obsession with guns??? This is another one of your universal statements.
Shame on you for trying to make this political. I pointed out that you are a liar and hypocrite and your only recourse is to call me stupid.
So you are fine with guns when trained military have them??? You cannot have it both ways because people will continue calling you a liar.
You have to be hired by the Tea Party!
Dr. Speaky,
You do a lot of flip flipping.
SpeakUp

Harwood Heights, IL

#17 Jun 10, 2013
Bronston Man wrote:
And you still haven't answered how an accidental death from a firearm is any more tragic than an accident death from an aspirin. I didn't list every death-causing agent known to man, far from it, simply a short list of those things causing accidental death.
Why does an accidental death from a gun immediately call for a limit placed by the government on a free society, yet far more accidental deaths that occur from other devices should be roundly forgiven, justified, or ignored?
I didn't say it wasn't anymore tragic. That isn't the point, Bronston. And it's not just one accidental death caused by a gun. We have far too many.

Bronston, aspirins help headaches and in fact, alot take them to help prevent heart attacks. Aspirins are a "prevention".

In truth, guns are not necessary except in the hands of our military who fight and die for our country to ensure we maintain the freedoms we have. If "we the people" weren't such an angry and greedy lot, guns would have little reason to be in the hands of a public, other than military. Those guns originally started in our hands for a reason and that reason was, personal revenge.

Some have rested upon this fantasy world that someday, this mean ole' govt. of ours is going to overtake us at gunpoint. That's been a thought for decades and in the meantime, many unecessary deaths happened. Best intention does not always guarantee the best result.

You may have seen my post in the past, but I take this personally. I did have a 12 yr. old nephew "accidentally" kill himself while cleaning a gun. Yes, he was taught the right way. Yes, his father was nearby and yes, his father taught him full respect of guns. But....it still happened "accidentally". So did the Connecticut mother teach her son, who wiped out a classroom.

The worst things happen with...the best of intentions. Can we prevent every accident? No. But what we can do is, take every step possible to try to prevent it from happening again and last time I checked, we certainly don't need an assault rifle to kill a rabbit.

My husband doesn't own a gun. He's not necessarily against them, but we have grandchildren we don't even want remotely to smell a gun, let alone find one. What he does have is, a billy club and God help anyone that gets within breathing distance of him. He knows how to use it. We aren't concerned that our grandchildren find a billy club. It doesn't have a trigger.
SpeakUp

Harwood Heights, IL

#18 Jun 10, 2013
Blue Boy wrote:
<quoted text>
Dr. Speaky,
You do a lot of flip flipping.
I have to check in on this one because......you replied to your own post. lol
SpeakUp

Harwood Heights, IL

#19 Jun 10, 2013
Let me say this. Inasmuch as Bronston and I aren't in agreement in totality on this issue, I very much appreciate his/her respectful posts that consist of intellect, and are more than constructive. This is my kind of poster.
Blue Boy

Whitley City, KY

#20 Jun 11, 2013
SpeakUp wrote:
Let me say this. Inasmuch as Bronston and I aren't in agreement in totality on this issue, I very much appreciate his/her respectful posts that consist of intellect, and are more than constructive. This is my kind of poster.
Dr. Speaky,
Then you should learn something from him and do the same. Instead you say racist and degrading remarks. So...are you for guns or not. Your previous post seems to suggest you are a blatant liar.
Blue Boy

Whitley City, KY

#22 Jun 11, 2013
Blue Boy wrote:
<quoted text>Dr. Hypocrite,
Let me paste what you wrote on another thread. "There was a case in Chicago, except it was man to man and the homeowner was being robbed, also unknowing whether or not the robber would shoot him. The homeowner happened to be ex-military and blew the robber to smithereens. In this case, it was justifiable." So...You are a liar and a hypocritical fascist! Try and deny it or blame it on Bush. You are a joke!!!
bump.
SpeakUp

Harwood Heights, IL

#23 Jun 11, 2013
You're getting desperate....aren't you?

I'm against guns except for what they are intended...in the hands of trained military personnel, for the protection of our free country that some right wing nowadays thinks is lowlife and they'd possibly fair better in Iran or somewhere else. As for me, I wish they'd change their citizenship to another country and reduce our radical population.

Now, are you satisfied that SpeakUp has posted? Now...for your next Dr.?????
Blue Boy

Whitley City, KY

#24 Jun 12, 2013
SpeakUp wrote:
You're getting desperate....aren't you?

I'm against guns except for what they are intended...in the hands of trained military personnel, for the protection of our free country that some right wing nowadays thinks is lowlife and they'd possibly fair better in Iran or somewhere else. As for me, I wish they'd change their citizenship to another country and reduce our radical population.

Now, are you satisfied that SpeakUp has posted? Now...for your next Dr.?????
Dr. Contradictory,
So...People with a military background are okay??? Tell that to the people at Fort Hood. You are still sounding a lot like a hypocrite/liar I'll let you decide which one. Let me get straight what you are saying. Homeowners need guns to protect themselves against thugs (please refer to your own words below) but accidents may happen so homeowners don't need guns??? Do you mean only from thugs in Chicago??? You have obviously directly __________ I'll let others that read this fill in the blank.
Shipped to Iran? What the...

Once again these are your words-
"There was a case in Chicago, except it was man to man and the homeowner was being robbed, also unknowing whether or not the robber would shoot him. The homeowner happened to be ex-military and blew the robber to smithereens. In this case, it was justifiable."
Hello

Whitley City, KY

#25 Jun 13, 2013
SpeakUp wrote:
You're getting desperate....aren't you?

I'm against guns except for what they are intended...in the hands of trained military personnel, for the protection of our free country that some right wing nowadays thinks is lowlife and they'd possibly fair better in Iran or somewhere else. As for me, I wish they'd change their citizenship to another country and reduce our radical population.

Now, are you satisfied that SpeakUp has posted? Now...for your next Dr.?????
bump

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Keavy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
more hillary lies 32 min ha ha ha 7
Justice for Abused Animals 4 hr Kathy 1
Steak & Shake Closed?!?! 5 hr Too Busy 10
News Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 5 hr yabadabado 135,676
New Keneland Race tract 5 hr Fritz 26
Does anyone know whatever happened to Donnie Se... (Sep '10) 6 hr doonie 3
Election Who do you support for U.S. House in Kentucky (... (Oct '10) Apr 6 Mee 704
More from around the web

Keavy People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]