>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>UnderwaterMike wrote:You can't call it "Darwinism" when an innocent little kid is shot by an equally innocent little kid. Whether the five-year-old had shot before or not is irrelevant; kids that age do not have the cognitive capacity to understand logical relationships between their actions and potential consequences, nor do they fully understand the concept of permanence.
If the mother had been shot, I'd be tempted to say Darwinism -- except that wouldn't consider the terrible burden that the kid would feel for the rest of his life after shooting his mother.
Who the f*** keeps a gun in "a corner" when there are kids in the house? Mom and/or Dad need some quality time with the criminal justice system.
Of course it's natural selection. It's just that in our modern era, the mechanism isn't always instantaneous. If we were still hunter-gatherers, both parents of those poor little girls would have become saber-toothed tiger poop before they were old enough to breed. In a world that is not only without saber-toothed tigers but also full of self-appointed cradle-to-the-grave nannies, these two dumbasses cheated the odds and lived long enough to pollute the gene pool. But their stupidity caught up with them and vindicated Mr. Darwin because they ultimately proved too stupid to keep their offspring alive. Either way, "stupid" genes get eliminated from the gene pool. Natural selection is natural selection; whether or not there is a half-generation time lag, and whether it involves tiger poop or unsecured loaded weapons. Yes, it is truly horrible to contemplate dead children, but those are merely the unpleasant details.
