Can you say "Improper storage?"

[firestorm]

I can read for comprehension and in your first statement without making this personal (as you always do) you concluded that without knowing any of the facts that DCF took this child out of pure "FAGGOTRY" whatever that is supposed to mean. The mere fact that you have filed many 51As should be enough to make you aware that every case is different.




I didn't state that politics is never involved, but at least I would wait to hear the facts before making or assuming that determination. However, you, as did Mr. Deschain, already determined without having any facts that this case was a pure accident and the state is punishing the father because, "a gun." The both of you know that gun powder residue tests were done on both parents to conclude that neither one of them pulled the trigger. You also know that the parents were not arguing or fighting. You also know that the father didn't hand the gun over to the child or was playing with the child with the gun in his hand. You also know that both parents are mentally stable. You also concluded that the little girl is strong enough to fire the handgun in question with one hand.

In brief, neither one of you know squat about this case.




As I mentioned above, it has nothing to do with comprehension with regard to what you stated as a fact.

Ok, first there are of course questions to be asked about this. But you don't have any more insight than we do. You are claiming that its not political, I am simply leaving that door open. You are saying that it has nothing to do with the fact that its a gun, I'm saying it might. I'm just showing parallels to other times in which DCF went way overboard and used their power to punish parents by taking the kids away and stripping their rights.

Do you have proof, or at least something pointing strongly to the fact there is something more here than it seems? Something pointing to another explanation for the taking the kid away than punishment for conduct (Except leaving the gun for the kid to get hold of) that in nearly any other state is totally legal and fine? He is being accused mostly of breaking mass laws that criminalize just having guns, mere possession that while we know is illegal here. Although he should have checked, for many growing up away from here it isn't even a thought.

If this kid got hold of dad's keys and ran the car into the garage hurting herself badly would they have been so quick to take the kid away? I don't know there wasn't some other abuse or problem, and if so then taking the kid might be the right choice. I'm just saying don't be so quick to rubber stamp the actions of a state department that has been known to abuse its power and take away people's families from them with virtually no recourse.

 

[Glockster30]

Ok, first there are of course questions to be asked about this. But you don't have any more insight than we do. You are claiming that its not political, I am simply leaving that door open. You are saying that it has nothing to do with the fact that its a gun, I'm saying it might. I'm just showing parallels to other times in which DCF went way overboard and used their power to punish parents by taking the kids away and stripping their rights.

Do you have proof, or at least something pointing strongly to the fact there is something more here than it seems? Something pointing to another explanation for the taking the kid away than punishment for conduct (Except leaving the gun for the kid to get hold of) that in nearly any other state is totally legal and fine? He is being accused mostly of breaking mass laws that criminalize just having guns, mere possession that while we know is illegal here. Although he should have checked, for many growing up away from here it isn't even a thought.

If this kid got hold of dad's keys and ran the car into the garage hurting herself badly would they have been so quick to take the kid away? I don't know there wasn't some other abuse or problem, and if so then taking the kid might be the right choice. I'm just saying don't be so quick to rubber stamp the actions of a state department that has been known to abuse its power and take away people's families from them with virtually no recourse.

Not even going to bother reading past your first paragraph as I already stated my viewpoint with regard to politics, but I'll repeat it for you:

"I didn't state that politics is never involved, but at least I would wait to hear the facts before making or assuming that determination."

 

[firestorm]

Not even going to bother reading past your first paragraph as I already stated my viewpoint with regard to politics, but I'll repeat it for you:

"I didn't state that politics is never involved, but at least I would wait to hear the facts before making or assuming that determination."

Okay, TLDR: I'm not making assumptions, you are the one making assumptions and stating things are as you say they are. Perhaps if you don't want to read things you should move on and not just troll.

 

[Glockster30]

Okay, TLDR: I'm not making assumptions, you are the one making assumptions and stating things are as you say they are. Perhaps if you don't want to read things you should move on and not just troll.

Figures, fall back on the troll crap.

 

[CRSIII]

This thread went from bad to worse pretty quick.

 

[Garys]

Firestorm is right about the transfer to Boston. No community hospital is going to want to do anything but the bare minimum to a 3 year old with a GSW to the hand. At the least, a pediatric hand surgeon is going to take a look at it. Children's wouldn't be my first choice, but that's a different story.

As to DCF taking the kid. That's going to happen in every state in the Union. If DCF didn't take the kid at least in the short term, the head of the Commissioner or whoever is in charge at DCF would be on the Governor's desk by noon tomorrow. Along with everyone down the line to the on call social worker who didn't take the kid. Whether they return the child later on or not, they are going to remove any and all kids until they sort it out.

The guy is likely done as a gun owner. Even if he's not charged, he'll never own a gun again.

Too many people here get caught up in the weeds and don't see that most people, including most gun owners, see him as irresponsible. Pick the most gun friendly state in the country, and it's not going to vary by too much.

 

[KBCraig]

Since they re-transported the kid to Boston, my sad guess is that it was a hollow point that did massive damage to her small hand. Hopefully the super-skilled surgeons in Boston can put her hand back together to be functional.

The majority of ammunition is hollow point, so that's a safe bet; but, I don't believe that a three year old girl's hand contains enough tissue in any dimension to make expansion a factor. FMJ would probably do the same, especially since it was likely a contact wound with muzzle gas involve.

 

[firestorm]

Firestorm is right about the transfer to Boston. No community hospital is going to want to do anything but the bare minimum to a 3 year old with a GSW to the hand. At the least, a pediatric hand surgeon is going to take a look at it. Children's wouldn't be my first choice, but that's a different story.

I only used childrens as an example. Any of the other good Boston hospitals are within a few minutes of that time.

 

[USCav82]

I'm thinking you really need to try hard to even remotely come up with a defense for this guy. Short of a lack in Mental capacity for whatever reason he damn well knew better. He's not being punished for the weapon charges, he is being punished for the damn hole in his daughters hand.

 

[Feral]

This thread went from bad to worse pretty quick.

Hey Maura,was it a Glock fortay?

 

[308rifleman]

Sure by the time they're done with him, this guy is going to wish his kid had put one into his head. He is toast.

You can't legislate common sense. And there should be no such thing as an "unlicensed" gun. God, I loathe this state.

That "large capacity" nonsense makes me laugh. My wife's generation 4 model Glock 19 holds about 15 or so rounds of 9mm. My Ruger GP100 holds six rounds of .357 magnum. Would a person be less dead or less crippled by my .357 versus my wife's "high capacity" Glock. Just glad that the little girl did not get a .357 round through her hand. She would have to be fitted for a prosthetic limb. No matter, sad case all around.

 

[DPR]

I'm thinking you really need to try hard to even remotely come up with a defense for this guy. Short of a lack in Mental capacity for whatever reason he damn well knew better. He's not being punished for the weapon charges, he is being punished for the damn hole in his daughters hand.

Well said. It's unfortunate that we don't have any laws that would allow for punishment for being an idiot.

 

[rep308]

Eddie Eagle is sad by this: https://eddieeagle.nra.org/

“STOP! Don’t Touch. Run Away. Tell a Grown-up.”

The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® program is a gun accident prevention program developed by a task force made up of educators, school administrators, curriculum specialists, urban housing safety officials, clinical psychologists, law enforcement officials and National Rifle Association firearm safety experts. It began in 1988 with one mission: teach children four simple, easy to remember steps so they know what to do if they ever come across a gun. In 2015 the NRA introduced a fresh, new Eddie and added some friends—his Wing Team. Though Eddie has evolved, his mission has not. In the brand new video, Eddie and his friends remind children that if they see a gun, they need to Stop! Don’t touch. Run away. Tell a grown-up.

Here is the link to materials: https://eddieeagle.nra.org/program-resources/program-materials/

They give them free to Law enforcement agencies, schools, hospitals, daycare centers and libraries. I use to buy the comic books by the dozens and hand them out. All my Cub Scouts went through the program

 

[Len-2A Training]

Well said. It's unfortunate that we don't have any laws that would allow for punishment for being an idiot.

I think that DCF/DYS feels this is their job in life.

 

[UNSUB]

Obligatory "Nothing good ever comes from a .40" comment added.



Define "a large capacity of a firearm" ???

Proving once again that when guns are involved, the media always gets the details wrong.

Well played sir well played

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

 

[UNSUB]

A kid was injured, someone is responsible for her custody and care, there was a firearm of which someone was responsible for custody and care, thats the reality. We/you some of us live in a Commonwealth where DYS is responsible for doing the work for the Commonwealth for those kids. Are they a terrible agency with a terrible track record that is understaffed overworked and underfunded yes. Thats the system its not politics its their job they have a duty. When they don't do it and some little kid dies from abuse or neglect or carelessness everyone yaps about they should have done their job. You cant have it both ways.

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 12999]

This is all very interesting... considering that there are plenty of stories I found in Mass, and across the country where kids aren't taken away from parents when an accident happens. We'll see if there is more to the story, but I doubt it.

I'll be generous because of Christmas Spirit, and just say that if you aren't even considering the potential that this has political undertones, you (a general YOU, I don't want to hurt any snowflakes in particular) are dense.

 

[cthorne98]

What the hell is an unlicensed weapon ? I'm licensed, my gun never went and got a license ?? I also heard on the scanner today the dispatch say someone had their LTC and they had several registered guns ????

 

[HuntMaine]

Another dumbass making it that much harder for gun owners who actually use their brains.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KBCraig]

Has a child ever been taken away because of a car accident that didn't involve DUI?

 

[wahsben]

Laws can't fix stupid and they don't stop those with criminal intent. We don't need more laws just more common sense which isn't very common these days and seems to becoming even less.

Well said. It's unfortunate that we don't have any laws that would allow for punishment for being an idiot.

 

[bigblue]

So much liberal brainwashing in this thread, it makes reading NES these days difficult.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

So much liberal brainwashing in this thread, it makes reading NES these days difficult.

 

[drgrant]

Has a child ever been taken away because of a car accident that didn't involve DUI?

Would be fun to see if say, someones kids were ever taken away because they got the keys and started mom or dads car and crashed it, if we want to align things closer on a negligence scale, maybe.

If the answer to this is "no" then its quite obvious that this is "cuz guns are specially bad" kind of political moonbat BS.

In any other state DCF/DYF/etc might get involved but I think the bar for "taking the children away" would likely be a lot higher than it is in MA.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

Thats the system its not politics its their job they have a duty.

(thing flips around with your quote on it)

Contestant Shouts: "Excuses people make for statists??!?!??"



If this kid burned the shit out of her hand on a hot stove, or fell into a swimming pool and had to be resuscitated, do you think DCF would have taken her away? Honest question. If you think this should be "yes" at least you're being consistent. Most of the time the MA statist types would likely turn up the heat if a gun was involved because "a gun is extra bad!!!" etc. vs some other typical household accident.

It's probably all protected BS but I'm sure somewhere in MA some toddler cut their fingers/hand off with a radial arm saw or something but nobody gives 2 shits because it didn't involve a gun.

-Mike

 

[Garys]

So, now a negligent discharge (which is what this is even though the negligent person didn't pull the trigger) is an accident?

The hypocrisy is strong here.

Would be fun to see if say, someones kids were ever taken away because they got the keys and started mom or dads car and crashed it, if we want to align things closer on a negligence scale, maybe.

If the answer to this is "no" then its quite obvious that this is "cuz guns are specially bad" kind of political moonbat BS.

In any other state DCF/DYF/etc might get involved but I think the bar for "taking the children away" would likely be a lot higher than it is in MA.

-Mike

 

[Deleted member 12999]

(thing flips around with your quote on it)

Contestant Shouts: "Excuses people make for statists??!?!??"



If this kid burned the shit out of her hand on a hot stove, or fell into a swimming pool and had to be resuscitated, do you think DCF would have taken her away? Honest question. If you think this should be "yes" at least you're being consistent. Most of the time the MA statist types would likely turn up the heat if a gun was involved because "a gun is extra bad!!!" etc. vs some other typical household accident.

It's probably all protected BS but I'm sure somewhere in MA some toddler cut their fingers/hand off with a radial arm saw or something but nobody gives 2 shits because it didn't involve a gun.

-Mike

This is all that I'm trying to say...

except I'm a dick.

 

[fencer]

Has a child ever been taken away because of a car accident that didn't involve DUI?

Probably, if there were other issues. Like Mommy was passed out on heroin while Junior grabbed the keys. Or Daddy led police on a high speed chase while Junior napped in his car seat.

 

[Garys]

Yes, because it's happened. Also, consider that a removal from custody isn't always (or usually) permanent. Kids have been removed while an investigation was conducted and returned back after after it's been determined that there was no abuse or neglect.

I probably wrote a few hundred 51As over the years. The problem with doing that is that once I wrote them and called the 800 number, I never got follow up. What might have looked like a huge deal to me, might not have turned out to be that. And vice versa.

The threshold for a mandatory reporter to file a 51A is very low. Filing one doesn't mean that the initial report will turn out to be substantiated or that abuse took place.

If this kid burned the shit out of her hand on a hot stove, or fell into a swimming pool and had to be resuscitated, do you think DCF would have taken her away? Honest question. If you think this should be "yes" at least you're being consistent. Most of the time the MA statist types would likely turn up the heat if a gun was involved because "a gun is extra bad!!!" etc. vs some other typical household accident.

It's probably all protected BS but I'm sure somewhere in MA some toddler cut their fingers/hand off with a radial arm saw or something but nobody gives 2 shits because it didn't involve a gun.

-Mike

 

[UNSUB]

(thing flips around with your quote on it)

Contestant Shouts: "Excuses people make for statists??!?!??"



If this kid burned the shit out of her hand on a hot stove, or fell into a swimming pool and had to be resuscitated, do you think DCF would have taken her away? Honest question. If you think this should be "yes" at least you're being consistent. Most of the time the MA statist types would likely turn up the heat if a gun was involved because "a gun is extra bad!!!" etc. vs some other typical household accident.

It's probably all protected BS but I'm sure somewhere in MA some toddler cut their fingers/hand off with a radial arm saw or something but nobody gives 2 shits because it didn't involve a gun.

-Mike

The farther this is moving along the more vivid and horrifying your examples are becoming. Which has made for great reading I have so thank you truly. This thread is a screenwriters gold mine. I see completely where you are going with this. I think the problem is like any crime control model IE the balance of freedom vs. Crime control is the issue. I'd be willing to believe that system would rather side on the side of caution (especially with children). Those who believe in limited govt. are going to say mind your own business this is my business which is their right but doesn't necessarily help some kid who truly needs it. Everyone including myself with kids is probably thinking of this as a me and mine situation which tends to color out decisions as no one wants their personal life invaded. I'm sure my next example is going to incense some of you so here we go. There's a lot of grey area in this post about at which specific point someone or anyone should interfere with this guys parental rights due to this injured child everyones "common sense" or final outcome is different. Is it an accident is it reckless behavior is it negligent is it a crime? Apparently there's several strong points of view. Its like being at the range and seeing truly solid safe enthusiasts along side truly unsafe people. Some of you think to yourselves that unsafe idiot is going to kill somebody and shouldn't own a gun some of you will say its his right to own a firearm regardless of how reckless or dangerous he/she is. Its about personal responsibility. People make mistakes humans make errors did this guy do the MINIMUM BASIC things to be safe. If he didn't he's at fault thats cut and dry. We don't have the whole picture and were basing our judgements on the cliff notes without the nuances of the situation without that no one can have anything other than an opinion or even a guess.

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk