Sorry sometimes it's hard to reiterate the same winning argument every time someone posts some lunatic silliness.

Would it totally blow your mind to realize that a bunch of people that you know actually have guns, and haven't used them to kill people?

I generally agree with this. Suicide is by far the #1 cause of gun death, and I would guess that the drug war is by far #2, although it would certainly be difficult to classify.

The word you are looking for is "negligently" not accidentally. Guns do not ever load themselves and fire. The do not "just go off" . Some assclown put their boogerhook on the bang switch while pointing a deadly weapon at something the did not intend to destroy. The language used in these stories apart from being histrionic is selected to imply that guns cause accidents. This is patently false, ****tardery causes "accidents" be they from guns, cars, or toasters.

Or he could beat her unconscious and at some point realize he could still have a life if he stops and lets her live.

But FWIW I don't think this case is some idiot with a gun who grabbed the nearest weapon in a fit of rage. It's obvious Belcher was very disturbed and was 100% set on killing her. If no gun is around he probably graps a butcher knife.

Wonderful, Fly doesn't read the article, opines anyway.

Ok, that's as much of a concession as I'll likely get from you.

The fact that utilizing google you know you need to preface "shot to death" with "accidental" to locate the results you seek tells me you understand and acknowledge my position on colloquial speech here as correct.

No that doesn't work either. Negligently shot his kid multiple times on purpose doesn't fit.

Lol you

Accidental in the search didn't change the results much because, shockingly, your bizarre definition of shot to death is ******ed and wrong.

Provide a screenshot.

RJoe, be honest here.

You think he intentionally murdered the boy, don't you?

Lol no. I would have thought that even you can't be stupid enough to think I would. Maybe I'm wrong.

Yea, that's not misleading at all.

**** I think every time a plane crashes the headline should read "X dead in 9/11 style plane crash".

Reports on people who die in car crashes constantly confuse me into thinking that the person intentionally drove their car into a telephone pole, but that's because of the anti-car agenda of headline writers. You know, Agenda 21.

I'd like to not believe it, but I can't help but question the intelligence of anyone who can't see the gun control rhetoric and intellectual dishonesty of that article.

DBL that art is not there in the full version. Perhaps only the mobile site is the clutches of ZOG?!??!?!?!

Didn't he shoot her like 9 times?

Couldn't he have stopped at 1 bullet and let her live possibly?

So you admit there could have been another way to phrase the article title? Like, "Boy killed by misfire outside of gun store"? or "Boy killed outside of gun store"? or "Boy tragically gunned down by father immediately after making purchases inside a gun store, WONDER WHERE HE GOT THE BULLETS TO MURDER HIS SON, EH?"

I mean, these are all the exact same, right?

Please find where I said there was no other way to word the headline.

Your go to defense is to call people stupid or reading impaired. When you think everyone that disagrees with you is dumb it means you don't have to question why they aren't buying your lolbad arguments.

In this case, people disagree because they are wrong. Sorry.

I know it's not festivus yet, but I just want to say, I hate all of you. This is dumber than our typical gun thread derails, and the typical derails are horrible.

That's from the story.

Guys, we all see the appeal to whatever paranoid nonsense is convincing you that the AP headline writer is in on the scheme to disarm 'mericans...

but did we think this through all the way? (of course not)

How does the shooting being unintentional hurt the gun control agenda?

Like, the headline is "misleading"? Setting aside that it clearly is not, what the **** is the conspiracy here? Flesh it out for our amusement.

Interesting that the entire media doesn't know shot to death means multiple times with intent imo

The headline on a inconsequential website makes no difference to me, and neither does this ******ed spat you've got going with DBJ.

Please. It's sensational bull****. I dunno if anyone else thought this or would be willing to betray their personal arguments or politics by admitting it, but when I read that headline I assume I was about to read a story about a kid standing outside a gun shop when something happened, perhaps a robbery nearby or at the shop, and someone either intentionally aimed at and pulled the trigger while aiming at the kid or he was shot in crossfire.

Of course that's not what happened. The headline was intentionally misleading to get more attention. That's what the media does. But it also frames the issue for the reader going into the article who them might make assumptions based on their initial reading of the title.

I don't know if it hurts the gun rights side or not, but I think it's clearly a misleading title.