‘Responsible Gun Owner’ Threatens To Shoot 9-Year-Old Daughter For Stepping On His Dog’s Tail

[onehandle]

A “responsible gun owner” in Cleveland, Ohio is facing charges of menacing, child endangerment, and domestic violence following an incident involving one of his daughters, a dog, and his trusty “Second Amendment Stick” during a weekend visit at his Westside home on Bellaire Road.

Daniel Roman wanted to be sure that his nine-year old daughter would be nice to the dog — reeeally be sure. After she stepped on the dog’s tail, Roman allegedly pointed his gun at her, threatening to pull the trigger if she did it again.

Roman’s grandmother claims that she was present, and that no threats of any sort were made. However, police records reveal that he also told his seven-year old twins, ”You tell anyone, I will hurt you and your sisters.”

The girls’ stepfather says that Roman pre-emptively called to dispute the claims. ”He called us denying it so I knew there had to be some truth in it, he said. “Cause why would he call us if we didn’t ask him any questions?”

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/02/responsible-gun-owner-threatens-shoot-9

[Hoyt]

1. Bet he keeps his guns. How else is he going to discipline his kids?

There are no statistics for this kind of gun abuse.

[clarice]

24. Yes there are...

3 out of ten people are CRAZY.

[Stargazer09]

2. No more visitation for him

I'd never let my ex see the kids after that kind of incident.

[MoonRiver]

6. You would have to get a court to strip his parental rights first.

But in this case that might not be too difficult.

[Shrike47]

16. Well, no you wouldn't. Courts can and do limit visitation without terminating parental rights.

That way, you don't get out of your child support obligation.

[MoonRiver]

40. Poster wasn't talking about just limiting visitation.

She said NO MORE visitation.

[billh58]

3. Because

Freedom, Second Amendment, My Rights, and most of all my precious, couldn't-live-without-it, boogiemen-under-the-bed, GUN! Yay America -- the most armed and dangerous nation in the civilized world, and damned proud of it!

[geckosfeet]

4. Confused use of the "responsible gun owner" meme

Clearly he is not responsible in any meaningful sense of the word.

[onehandle]

7. Just having a gun automatically makes you a 'responsible gun owner.'

Until you aren't.

[geckosfeet]

8. More nonsense.

[Iggo]

21. Now you're catching on.

[Lizzie Poppet]

9. Then the headline should be "Formerly Responsible Gun Owner..."

As it reads, it's a logical contradiction.

Of course the default is to assume responsibility. That's an outgrowth of the "innocent until proven guilty" precept. Whether it's a good idea in this particular area is probably open to debate. Some countries, like Finland, require at least something of a demonstration of responsibility: Finnish law enforcement will inspect secure storage provisions before issuing a firearms license, for example.

[TheCowsCameHome]

11. The US isn't like Finland

the yahoos over here would riot in the streets if they had to prove reasonable measures had been taken before receiving a permit.

Thanks, NRA - for nothing.

[Lizzie Poppet]

15. Permitting's probably a non-starter, yeah.

Permits for concealed carry are one thing. Permits for simple possession are another. the latter would never fly, at least in most US locales. I have mixed feelings about that. On one hand is the considerable benefit of screening out obviously unsuitable people (or at least placing a significant barrier in the way). But on the other hand is my rather dim view, post-OWS, of placing that discretionary power in the hands of law enforcement.

Safe storage mandates could receive a lot warmer reception among gun owners, though. I don't think proactive measures along those lines would be politically possible. Police inspection of the premises? No chance in hell that would fly. But as a reactive measure, with stiff penalties if an improperly secured weapon is used in a crime and a widespread educational program to emphasize the importance of secure storage, are do-able and would do some good.

[bobclark86]

12. I was going to go with "fucking asshole"

But whatever...

[Lizzie Poppet]

13. The guy's a jackass, no doubt.

But my point to the OP was that any gun owner who does that sort of thing immediately gives up the "responsible" title. The OP's headline is self-contradicting.

Of course, I suspect its purpose was never to inform. With the vast majority of gun threads in GD, the purpose is to snark and vent. *shrug* The hosts are okay with that these days, so I guess it's all good. =P

[Ed Suspicious]

17. I think reasonable people can come to the conclusion that not all gun owners are irresponsible.

I think the point of the snark is that it is to be assumed without prejudice that a gun owner is a responsible one. It isn't until they demonstrate irresponsibility that they're not. Often it takes dead people to determine that formerly responsible wasn't so responsible after all. I think many people find this reality unacceptable.

[geckosfeet]

23. Somewhat disagree with "it takes dead people to determine that formerly responsible wasn't so

wasn't so responsible after all." This monkey is apparently guilty of brandishing and/or menacing. No one was killed and irresponsibility was clearly demonstrated. This is not to say that irresponsible handling of firearms never results in death. All to often it does.

However, the OP and many snarkish posts using the term "responsible gun owner" conflate criminal activity and behaviors with irresponsible activities and behavior. There may be a fine line distinguishing the two, and some irresponsible behaviors (leaving firearms unsecured, handing a gun to a child, brandishing, menacing) are criminalized by statute. But in general being stupid is not a crime. Unfortunately being stupid does not disqualify one from owning a firearm.

[denverbill]

25. No, I think we use 'responsible gun owner' snarkily because it's used to rebut every argument.

Why should 'responsible' gun owners have to get background checks? Why should 'responsible' gun owners not be able to buy semiautomatic assault weapons? Why should 'responsible' gun owners not get to carry concealed (or even open carry) everywhere, including bars, schools, and churches? The argument is constantly used by gun owners to promote more widespread gun carrying, more deadly weapons, and less background checking.

As you said, we can't prevent stupid people from getting guns. You also can't prevent people who treat guns with the utmost caution and respect from that one lapse (the cop who left his gun in the theater bathroom, the firearms safety instructor that accidentally discharges his weapon in class, etc).

The point is that when even 'responsible' gun owners frequently make mistakes, and when stupid people like the above can't be prevented from carrying, it makes a very strong argument for more gun control, not more gun proliferation.

[Adrahil]

30. Just to be clear, a semiautomatic weapon is not an "assault weapon" by definition.

An assault weapon is a weapon with select-fire capability. Otherwise, it's just a semi-automatic rifle that looks scary.

[Ed Suspicious]

54. Just to be clear, it's been pointed out before and it still

isn't something that makes much difference. A gun with fast shooting capabilities is still a fast shooting gun by whatever name you want to give it.

[Adrahil]

57. It does matter...

That word is used with a very specific rhetorical objective. That's why you see the term extended to thing like magazines. For those who advocate such bans, just be honest and say you advocate banning semi-automatic weapons.

[geckosfeet]

41. You mix several unrelated thoughts into your statements, and

seem to advocate snarky memes as a legitimate way to address serious issues. Frankly I don't think "responsible gun owner" is used to rebut every argument. I do think that trying to hold all gun owners responsible for the criminal behavior of a tiny minority is misguided and wrongheaded.

Just to address one train of thought out of your stream of consciousness ramble, the idea that cops or safety instructors are immune to accidents. Cops make mistakes just like anyone else. Safety instructors make mistakes just like anyone else. They are human.

Mistakes are also why we have traffic accidents. Or any kind of accident for that matter. Somehow regulation seems to be the preferred solution/answer for firearms accidents. How exactly would tighter regulation lead to fewer accidents - for firearms OR for any other type of accident?

Seriously - how would tighter regulation reduce accidents? How do you regulate accidents? How do you regulate stupidity? Or random equipment failure? I am not sure how you would regulate these things, or that it would achieve the desired result even if it could be done. Background checks? Stupid careless people can pass a background check. Cops pass background checks. Firearms instructors pass background checks. In the state where I live you cannot buy a firearm with passing a background check. How does that prevent accidents? I am not advocating doing away with background checks, but how do they reduce accidents?

That said, if the monkey in the op is convicted he will and should lose his carry permit - if he indeed has one.

[denverbill]

47. I think snarky memes are much more legitimate that outright assholery, but you have your preference.

Are you really so feeble minded that you don't realize how many regulations we have related to driving?

Seat belt laws, traffic signs, traffic lights, speed laws, drunk driving laws, insurance requirements. We have one way streets and laws telling you you have to drive on the right side of a two way street. We have written tests and eye tests and driving tests before you get a license or permit. You have to renew your license every few years and if you get too old or incapacitated, they take it away. We have a probationary period for kids with learners permits. You can be ticketed for speeding, driving recklessly, or having defective equipment. If you have to many violations or accidents, you get your license revoked, even if you don't kill anyone. You have to register your vehicle and keep license plates visible so you can be easily tracked if your vehicle is involved in an accident.

We pass law after law making driving safer. Laws requiring padded interiors and seat belts and safety glass. Laws mandating air bags and anti-lock brakes. We even have laws about the kinds of gasoline you can use so we aren't all breathing in lead vapors.

The stats speak for themselves on auto safety and regulation. We add new regulations almost yearly, and year after year the death toll in term of vehicle miles traveled and total fatalities keeps dropping, even though speeds have been increasing.

Where are the laws making guns safer, or training gun owners? How about making guns traceable? If anything, gun nuts like you are trying to make guns deadlier, make it easier for criminals to get guns, and make guns less traceable.

[geckosfeet]

55. You sir, are ignorant of the facts around firearms, laws regarding firearms

and training requirements and opportunities regarding firearms.

You have zero standing to dictate regulation and technical innovation relating to firearms.

[cui bono]

48. Well said. n/t

[Adrahil]

31. You mean like you're a responsible drinker, until you aren't? NT

[Ghost in the Machine]

44. No it doesn't!! That is just pure, unadulterated bullshit!! Answer this question HONESTLY....

then see if you can smell your own bullshit. Here is what you said:

onehandle

7. Just having a gun automatically makes you a 'responsible gun owner.'

Until you aren't.

Now answer this HONESTLY:

If a convicted felon buys a gun off the street, knowing full well he is not allowed to own a gun, does *that* "automatically make him a reponsible gun owner... until he isn't"???

Take your time, look deep inside yourself if you must, then answer this legitimate question HONESTLY. Don't use anti-gunner talking points, don't use anti-NRA talking points**, use your own heart, mind and soul to answer. When you do, I believe you will be looking for some air freshener.

** Just for full disclosure, I am not, nor have I ever been, a member/supporter of the NRA. I have no use for them at all. All I want is a 'from the heart and brain' answer from YOU, not some regurgitated BS you've read somewhere. Fair enough??

Peace,

Ghost

[oneshooter]

45. Is that like just owning a car makes you a responsable car owner, till you aren't?

[XRubicon]

49. Let us know when cars are used for murder

[sarisataka]

56. Woman charged with murder in pedestrian’s death in Douglasville

Updated: 3:07 p.m. Sunday, Feb. 2, 2014 | Posted: 3:21 p.m. Saturday, Feb. 1, 2014

A woman accused of striking another woman with her vehicle and killing her has been charged with felony murder, Douglasville police said Sunday.
Brehonna Nicole Turner, 23, of Ellenwood, is accused of hitting Alexandria Wells at a Douglasville townhome complex Friday night.

Wells, 23, of Douglasville, was pronounced dead at the scene, Douglas County coroner Randy Daniel said. She died of asphyxiation, he said.

“She was pinned under the car and couldn’t breathe — that’s what killed her,” Daniel said.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/pedestrian-hit-and-killed-by-vehicle-in-douglasvil/nc9Q2/

[Pretzel_Warrior]

33. actually....perfect use of the meme

sorry you don't get it.

[geckosfeet]

42. I get it. It's nonsense bordering on masturbation.

[packman]

5. Second Amendment Stick

I like that. Conjures up image of a cave man holding his thunder stick.

[sadoldgirl]

27. Oh, I think the second amendment is fine, except

that it should add to arms "those that are available at the writing of this amendment".

[friendly_iconoclast]

28. Did you post that with a quill pen?

[TheCowsCameHome]

10. He fails m iserably on both counts...

....as a parent and as a gunowner.

[azurnoir]

14. ‘Responsible Gun Owner’ in the title was a sarcasm I take it

This guy is an obvious psychopath not the material of a responsible owner of anything

[A Simple Game]

18. This never would have had to happen if the dog had it's own gun. n/t

[onehandle]

19. A missed opportunity for the GOPNRAhadists.

WHAT DO WE WANT!

GUN RIGHTS FOR DOGS!

WHEN DO WE WANT IT!

BEFORE WALKIES!

[Paper Roses]

20. A sick man. n/t

[Oilwellian]

22. The psychopath's pic

[denverbill]

26. Holy crap.

It's a shame gun sellers can't reject someone who looks f'ing nuts.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

35. they can. just like any other retailer they can reserve the right to refuse service

to anyone. But most gun sellers don't give a rat's ass about anything other than selling more guns.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

34. uh....wow

[cui bono]

39. For real? n/t

[Oilwellian]

46. Yes, Raw Story has it up

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/10/ohio-dad-accused-of-threatening-to-shoot-9-year-old-daughter-for-stepping-on-dogs-tail/

[onehandle]

50. Looks like every third person at a gun show. nt

[oneshooter]

58. And how many gun shows do you attend each year?

[calimary]

29. I ask again

HAD ENOUGH YET, AMERICA??????

Sorry to shout, but

WHEN is ENOUGH - ENOUGH????????

[lpbk2713]

32. Irresponible and a bully to boot.

Big dumbass ought to have his bang-bang toy taken away from him.

[Rex]

36. America certainly does have it's share of cowards no doubt.

Roman being a prefect example of a scared little man that hides behind a gun and expects it to solve all his problems for him.

[arthritisR_US]

37. Another knuckle dragger...

[cui bono]

38. This is why we need to arm every newborn.

You never know what kind of parents they might have to defend themselves against.

[In_The_Wind]

43. This man shouldn't be allowed around children.

[Deep13]

51. So, what's worse...

that he threatened a little kid or that he thinks his dog is more valuable than she is?

[onehandle]

52. The right to point a gun at a little girl is in the Constitution.

There are no dog rights in the Constitution.

(GOPNRAteahadist Reality)

[Deep13]

53. That's right...

"A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of sociopathic assholes to threaten children shall not be infringed."