I made my point in post #37. I stated that it was my point in plain english. I said "That's my point". What could possibly be clearer?
Now, in your post #39, you start rambling about alcohol, prohibition, the constitution, medical marijuana, etc., then finally state, "But to get back to the subject at hand....".
My reponse to your post was the subject at hand. Did you want to talk about something other than the subject at hand? Fine. Maybe we can do that sometime on a relevant thread. But, as you say, back to the subject at hand:
".. because the main culprit of the story was a gun, that you are proposing that we should get rid of guns."
Where did you get that crazy idea? Dedrick Owens could just as easily used a switchblade or a knife or an iron bar to kill his 6-year-old classmate. Why do you insist on turning a child endangerment issue into a gun issue? Trying to stir the pot and change the subject (again)?
The story illustrates what can happen if a child is not removed from an environment which endangers the child. That we should not wait until the child is injured or injures another.
I don't agree with the Libertarian position that a crime needs a victim. Yes, I believe in child endangerment laws. But I also believe in sensible drunk driving laws, speed limits, leash laws for dogs, laws against murder-for-hire, laws against terrorist plots, and a whole bunch of others that don't have victims.
As a conservative, they make sense to me. If someone is shooting a gun at you, are you going to wait until you're shot before you take action? Until you're hit, where's the victim? Stupid Libertarians.
I can tell, which has been my point all along. For the socialist, all you need is a cause.
See ya,