# Authorities: Florida girl, 5, killed in accidental shooting



## BackyardCowboy (Aug 27, 2014)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/girl-5-killed-accidental-shooting-brother-8-201423710.html


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

From the story to which we've been linked: "Police said 34-year-old Maurice Antonio Mobley, the mother's boyfriend, was arrested after he turned himself in and [was] charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon."

The imbecile who left a loaded gun where children could find it was already forbidden from possessing any firearm.
So tell me: Do you think that more stringent and universally-applied background checks would have prevented this tragedy?

Do you believe that Maurice bought his gun at a gun store? Or at a gun show? Or from a law-abiding private party?
No, I didn't think so either.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> From the story to which we've been linked: "Police said 34-year-old Maurice Antonio Mobley, the mother's boyfriend, was arrested after he turned himself in and [was] charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon."
> 
> The imbecile who left a loaded gun where children could find it was already forbidden from possessing any firearm.
> So tell me: Do you think that more stringent and universally-applied background checks would have prevented this tragedy?
> ...


The anti gun folks do not care about reason...... All they know is more and more anti gun laws would have prevent this tragedy.....  :anim_lol:


----------



## win231 (Aug 5, 2015)

These tragedies occur with law-abiding gun owners as well as felons. The victim would not be any less dead if the gun was legally acquired, so it's quite irrelevant that the owner was a criminal. _The issue is irresponsible firearm storage._


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Cait43 said:


> The anti gun folks do not care about reason...... All they know is more and more anti gun laws would have prevent this tragedy.....  :anim_lol:


It's not about guns. Gun control is about disarming the citizenry so the Left can create the dictatorship they long to create in this nation without having to worry about 100 million angry citizens with guns.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

win231 said:


> These tragedies occur with law-abiding gun owners as well as felons. The victim would not be any less dead if the gun was legally acquired, so it's quite irrelevant that the owner was a criminal. _The issue is irresponsible firearm storage._


You did a good job of cutting thru the BS and summing it up. :smt023


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

win231 said:


> *These tragedies occur with law-abiding gun owners as well as felons.* The victim would not be any less dead if the gun was legally acquired, so it's quite irrelevant that the owner was a criminal. _The issue is irresponsible firearm storage._


While that may be true. But I'd venture to say that most of these incidents do indeed happen with those who are prohibited by law from having firearms in the first place. They could care less about the consequences of their actions. They haven't led a life of being a responsible citizen. That's why they're criminals in the first place.

People who are responsible do not have to be lectured. Articles such as this are an attempt to lump us all in togther.


----------



## Craigh (Jul 29, 2016)

win231 said:


> These tragedies occur with law-abiding gun owners as well as felons. The victim would not be any less dead if the gun was legally acquired, so it's quite irrelevant that the owner was a criminal. _The issue is irresponsible firearm storage._


I agree with you, but it does have to do with the anti-gun reaction of the left. Though this is a case regarding safe storage, they will still claim more stringent control is needed because people will not store their guns in a safe manner. I have no statistics available and I'm not sure there are any but I would guess a live-in felon is less likely to follow safety laws than the average law abiding gun owner. Law enforcement would be better served, even in cases such as this, by enforcing existing laws, than attempting to disarm more law abiding citizens, who by definition, abide by the law. This includes gun safety laws as well as gun safety rules and guidelines. I would imagine if law enforcement were to spend the same money now spent infringing on legal owners to do rolling court ordered searches on convicted felons, people who've been convicted of domestic violence, gang members, and the mentally/violently disturbed; there would be a lot fewer weapons improperly stored around young children. There would probably be a lot less violent crime as well.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

desertman said:


> ...I'd venture to say that most of these incidents...happen with those who are prohibited by law from having firearms in the first place. *They [couldn't] care less about the consequences of their actions.* They haven't led a life of being a responsible citizen. That's why they're criminals in the first place...


Exactly!

The little girl died as a result of criminal negligence, not because of improper gun storage.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Felon, law-abiding citizen, or a police officer, all have at one time or another, left a firearm unsecured / unattended. You put children in the picture and the outcome will be the same. 

Sure, the felon should never have had the firearm in the first place, but that doesn't diminish the fact that the firearm was left unsecured. He could have been a pillar of his community and that wouldn't have changed the fact that a child died. 

Children in a house with an improperly secured firearm in it, no matter who owns / possesses it, is a tragedy just waiting to happen.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Gonna hafta agree to disagree here, I think.

I expect that a felon in illegal possession of a firearm is not the most forethoughtful or responsible member of the community, probably prone to waving his gun around and to leaving it laying around to prove his _machismo_ and power.
Therefore, I think that it is more likely that a gun illegally possessed by a felon will end up doing unforeseen damage, than will a gun legally possessed by an otherwise responsible citizen.

Certainly many supposedly responsible citizens have allowed tragedies like the one in question to happen. I merely suggest that the criminal possessor is _more likely_ to cause a tragedy than is an otherwise responsible citizen.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Craigh said:


> I agree with you, but it does have to do with the anti-gun reaction of the left. Though this is a case regarding safe storage, they will still claim more stringent control is needed because people will not store their guns in a safe manner. I have no statistics available and I'm not sure there are any but *I would guess a live-in felon is less likely to follow safety laws than the average law abiding gun owner.* Law enforcement would be better served, even in cases such as this, by enforcing existing laws, than attempting to disarm more law abiding citizens, who by definition, abide by the law. This includes gun safety laws as well as gun safety rules and guidelines. I would imagine if law enforcement were to spend the same money now spent infringing on legal owners to do rolling court ordered searches on convicted felons, people who've been convicted of domestic violence, gang members, and the mentally/violently disturbed; there would be a lot fewer weapons improperly stored around young children. There would probably be a lot less violent crime as well.


You've hit the nail right on the head! They probably leave all of their drugs such as crystal meth and heroine lying around too where children can easily get ahold of it. They probably do not even know where their children are most of the time. When I was a kid there were apartments across the street from us. A few of the families that lived there I guess you could call them "undesirables". Their young children would be out all hours of the day and into the night with out any supervision. My father used to call them "street urchins". I'd say that probably nine times out of ten the authorities know who these people and their families are. But their hands are tied because of our corrupt, turnstile criminal justice system. Or maybe it's just another example of another failed government bureaucracy. Probably both.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

win231 said:


> These tragedies occur with law-abiding gun owners as well as felons. The victim would not be any less dead if the gun was legally acquired, so it's quite irrelevant that the owner was a criminal. _The issue is irresponsible firearm storage._


Ah but does this mean that government should pass laws that require stipulated storage procedures and facilities in private homes? For me, I think not. How I keep my firearms in my home is none of the government's business or concern. How I keep them in my home is 100% my responsibility and concern and believe me, I do what I deem necessary to make certain they are under my control or placed somewhere where they will not be a danger to my grandchildren.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Gonna hafta agree to disagree here, I think.
> 
> I expect that a felon in illegal possession of a firearm is not the most forethoughtful or responsible member of the community, probably prone to waving his gun around and to leaving it laying around to prove his _machismo_ and power.
> Therefore, I think that it is more likely that a gun illegally possessed by a felon will end up doing unforeseen damage, than will a gun legally possessed by an otherwise responsible citizen.
> ...


Yes sir. For example when my grandchildren, in particular the two boys (ages 6 and 10) are to come over to our home, I make damn sure my handguns which are normally hidden for my purposes are secured. Their mother, who is my younger daughter, has been told by me to alert me when she is heading over to our house so that I can do what I must to make sure all is safe and well. As for my granddaughter, who is 14, I don't worry. She is very responsible and knows I have arms and that I carry. Her dad's father also has a bunch of firearms. Still I don't take chances, even with her. My handguns find nice safe places to hang out until the kids are gone. The way I look at it is you can't recall a bullet that is on its way out of a barrel. Better to think ahead and use your God-given brain so that your family won't have to go through what we see here in the OP's link.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Gonna have to stick to my guns (no pun intended) in regards to irresponsible persons (of all kinds) and firearms.

The data doesn't indicate that felons leave guns unattended any more than law-abiding citizens do. My experience over a period of 30 yrs. also confirms this as well. 

Not a popular stand to take I know, but it is what it is.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

paratrooper said:


> Felon, law-abiding citizen, or a police officer, all have at one time or another, left a firearm unsecured / unattended. You put children in the picture and the outcome will be the same.
> 
> Sure, the felon should never have had the firearm in the first place, but that doesn't diminish the fact that the firearm was left unsecured. He could have been a pillar of his community and that wouldn't have changed the fact that a child died.
> 
> *Children in a house with an improperly secured firearm in it, no matter who owns / possesses it, is a tragedy just waiting to happen.*


That's true, but here it was a convicted felon as most of the time it is.

When you take into consideration that there are over 300 million firearms in circulation amongst approximately 100 million lawful gun owners the accident rate is surprisingly low. If it were as high as the propagandists would like you to believe you'd be hearing about it relentlessly from both the broadcast and print media. They do have an agenda, there's no doubt about that. What better way to further that by sensationalizing every accidental death by firearm especially when children are involved. They rarely differentiate whether the gun was owned lawfully or not. In this case to their credit they did mention that the gun was brought to the home by a convicted felon.

You and I both live in Arizona, a state where just about everyone owns some type of firearm. You'd think we'd be hearing stories like this on a daily basis at least on our local news, yet they are far and few between.

I don't know what the exact statistics are, but I'd be willing to bet that more children die of accidental causes because of a lack of adult supervision from a plethora of other things besides firearms. Yet these instances seldom make the national news.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not at all trying to advocate that people leave guns lying around where any unauthorized hands can get ahold of them. *That does not do our cause any good.* Anyone that does that should be held accountable for either their negligence or stupidity and the consequences thereof.

It's just that we've really got to put this all into perspective.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Some years ago, it came out that data for "children" killed by accidental or negligent handling of firearms included people up to eighteen years old. People that old who are killed by firearms misuse are more likely to have a criminal bent than purely innocent children. When the peak age was reduced to fourteen years, there was a huge drop in the reported numbers.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Are we focusing on the number of children shot or killed in the home by accidental / negligent discharge, or the frequency of felons leaving a firearm lying around unsecured in a home?

I thought it was the later? My point was, and still is, felons are no more prone to leave an unattended / unsecured gun lying around in a home, then is your average law-abiding citizen.

There really isn't any legitimate correlation.

And......a little off-topic I know, but the proper use of _then_ and _than_ is always confusing for me. :smt102


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

paratrooper said:


> Are we focusing on the number of children shot or killed in the home by accidental / negligent discharge, or the frequency of felons leaving a firearm lying around unsecured in a home?
> 
> I thought it was the later? My point was, and still is, felons are no more prone to leave an unattended / unsecured gun lying around in a home, then is your average law-abiding citizen.
> 
> ...


I guess the argument that we're discussing is the actions of those that are responsible against those that are irresponsible. So it stands to reason that those who are irresponsible will be far more negligent than those who are responsible. Criminals by their very nature are more irresponsible than those of us that are responsible. Responsible people do responsible things and act responsibly. Irresponsible people do irresponsible things and act irresponsibly. Therefore irresponsible people are more prone to doing irresponsible things than those who are responsible. How's that for confusing?

In other word's: How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

paratrooper said:


> ...the proper use of _then_ and _than_ is always confusing for me. :smt102


*Then*: _adverb_ "at the time," "in addition to," "therefore"
For instance, "back then, I was in New York," or "first I did this, and then I did that," or "if you behave, then I won't spank you"

*Than*: _conjunction_ or _preposition_ a comparison, an exception, a contrast
For instance, "you don't know more than I do," or "other than that, I don't know," or "if not this, than that"

Does that help?


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

desertman said:


> I guess the argument that we're discussing is the actions of those that are responsible against those that are irresponsible. So it stands to reason that those who are irresponsible will be far more negligent than those who are responsible. Criminals by their very nature are more irresponsible than those of us that are responsible. Responsible people do responsible things and act responsibly. Irresponsible people do irresponsible things and act irresponsibly. Therefore irresponsible people are more prone to doing irresponsible things than those who are responsible. How's that for confusing?
> 
> In other word's: How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?


Uh, I get the Woodchuck part, but that's about it. Yes, criminals are prone to acting irresponsible, but that's neither here nor there in regards to what we are talking about. Blanket statements can be misleading at times.

That would be like saying responsible people never do dumb things, or act irresponsibly at times. That is a blanket statement and is not accurate. I've dealt with a whole lot of responsible people who did dumb and stupid things.

Not all bank robbers use guns. That is a fact, contrary to what many may believe.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> *Then*: _adverb_ "at the time," "in addition to," "therefore"
> For instance, "back then, I was in New York," or "first I did this, and then I did that," or "if you behave, then I won't spank you"
> 
> *Than*: _conjunction_ or _preposition_ a comparison, an exception, a contrast
> ...


Yeah....it's sinking in. :mrgreen:


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> *Then*: _adverb_ "at the time," "in addition to," "therefore"
> For instance, "back then, I was in New York," or "first I did this, and then I did that," or "if you behave, then I won't spank you"
> 
> *Than*: _conjunction_ or _preposition_ a comparison, an exception, a contrast
> ...


----------



## win231 (Aug 5, 2015)

paratrooper said:


> Gonna have to stick to my guns (no pun intended) in regards to irresponsible persons (of all kinds) and firearms.
> 
> The data doesn't indicate that felons leave guns unattended any more than law-abiding citizens do. My experience over a period of 30 yrs. also confirms this as well.
> 
> Not a popular stand to take I know, but it is what it is.


Couldn't have said it better.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

paratrooper said:


> Yeah....it's sinking in. :mrgreen:


So how are you with there, their, and they're? Loose or lose? Or a big one, bring and take?

The bring and take confusion is something I see a LOT. In commercials, news commentators, and even my wife. For example, the radio guy says, "So bring your car in today for the special...". This should be "So take your car in today for the special...". It all has to do with one's location and where the object is in relation to that. Very simple but my wife constantly messes this up.

BTW, I'm really not a grammar Nazi to those I don't know; as in intimately. I almost never correct people on websites with their grammar slip-ups. Hell, I make typos all the time so my side of the fence isn't exactly squeaky clean, either.


----------



## Craigh (Jul 29, 2016)

SouthernBoy said:


> So how are you with there, their, and they're? Loose or lose? Or a big one, bring and take?


Most of the time, grammar errors do not bother me, and that's probably because I make my share of them. However, some just drive me up a wall. There, their, and they're drive me a little batty. I don't see how people mess it up unless it's a typo, which I also do, but when people confuse it on a consistent basis, you know it's grammar. To and too also bother me and I see it quite commonly abused, though it's often a typo. Again, consistent errors from a person shows. The one which bothers me the most and seems to me to be the most egregious is your and you're. I don't understand folks screwing that one up consistently. I mean, if you pronounce your as "yer" and you're as "yew-er." It's a perfectly acceptable pronunciation. You're is a contraction of "you are." It has no other uses. This is a 100% rule. You can't go wrong. Just for the sake of it, "yours" can't have an apostrophe. This gun is your's or yours' is incorrect. Absolute possessives cannot have them.

I find it funny how some errors bother some people more than others. I think it's the errors which our mothers corrected us on which drive us more batty than those she did not. For example, my English Schoolgirl trained mother used to correct us on the use of Less and Fewer which most people have never even heard of. In fact as I grow older, I've purposely tried to misuse it in order to get over being bothered by it. Correct: I have less apples in the barrel than I had yesterday. Also Correct: I have seven fewer apples in the barrel than I had yesterday. You can't exchange the Less and Fewer in these sentences. When it's not a countable noun, you're supposed to use "less." When it is countable, use "fewer." It's actually more complex than this, but I'm trying to break the habit instead of correcting people on this.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Craigh said:


> Most of the time, grammar errors do not bother me, and that's probably because I make my share of them. However, some just drive me up a wall. There, their, and they're drive me a little batty. I don't see how people mess it up unless it's a typo, which I also do, but when people confuse it on a consistent basis, you know it's grammar. To and too also bother me and I see it quite commonly abused, though it's often a typo. Again, consistent errors from a person shows. The one which bothers me the most and seems to me to be the most egregious is your and you're. I don't understand folks screwing that one up consistently. I mean, if you pronounce your as "yer" and you're as "yew-er." It's a perfectly acceptable pronunciation. You're is a contraction of "you are." It has no other uses. This is a 100% rule. You can't go wrong. Just for the sake of it, "yours" can't have an apostrophe. This gun is your's or yours' is incorrect. Absolute possessives cannot have them.
> 
> I find it funny how some errors bother some people more than others. I think it's the errors which our mothers corrected us on which drive us more batty than those she did not. For example, my English Schoolgirl trained mother used to correct us on the use of Less and Fewer which most people have never even heard of. In fact as I grow older, I've purposely tried to misuse it in order to get over being bothered by it. Correct: I have less apples in the barrel than I had yesterday. Also Correct: I have seven fewer apples in the barrel than I had yesterday. You can't exchange the Less and Fewer in these sentences. When it's not a countable noun, you're supposed to use "less." When it is countable, use "fewer." It's actually more complex than this, but I'm trying to break the habit instead of correcting people on this.


I learned in junior high school, from my stepfather, that how you speak and write is how people who don't know you will judge you. His point was that a piece of paper could be the difference between getting hired and still being unemployed. And he was right. In my last job, I retired in 2009, we hired a young lady pretty much out of college who's resume was not the best regarding experience, but her cover letter was impeccable. That is what got her the job. And yes, she was a good find.

How you speak and write also acts to give credence to your stance, your argument, if you will. Most of us don't worry about formal writing skills when adding our thoughts on websites and this is to be expected. But we do take notice of those who seem to have a really good handle on the English language and its use. I know I do.


----------



## Craigh (Jul 29, 2016)

SouthernBoy said:


> How you speak and write also acts to give credence to your stance, your argument, if you will. Most of us don't worry about formal writing skills when adding our thoughts on websites and this is to be expected. But we do take notice of those who seem to have a really good handle on the English language and its use. I know I do.


I full well agree with you. People who consistently misspell and/or use poor grammar in a job interview seem similar to people who would show up for that interview needing a haircut and wearing dirty clothes. It's not just job interviews either. You're right, it can make someone more or less credible even in informal situations.

Another thing, which to me, makes a person seem less than credible is when some folks use what I call Twitter-speak. Twitter has I believe a 140 character limit, so people cram things together in very strange ways. They use "coz" instead of because or Ny1 for anyone. L8 for late. B4 for before and so on. Too much and their message becomes a chore to decipher, but I understand the need on Twitter. It's ok. What I detest is bringing that language to other forums, email or other methods of communication. I think it's a sign of pretension at best where someone is looking for a little ambiguity.

It's even leaking over to face to face discussion. I try to put on my best confused country boy smile when confronted by Web-Speak. For example, someone might say they were going to a neighbors garage "Cuz" they wanted to see his new drill press. I answer with, "so, your neighbor is also your 'cousin?' It must be nice to have family that close." Darn, now that I've told this, everyone will know when I do the same here.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

SouthernBoy said:


> So how are you with there, their, and they're? Loose or lose? Or a big one, bring and take?
> 
> The bring and take confusion is something I see a LOT. In commercials, new commentators, and even my wife. For example, the radio guy says, "So bring your car in today for the special...". This should be "So take your car in today for the special...". It all has to do with one's location and where the object is in relation to that. Very simple but my wife constantly messes this up.
> 
> BTW, I'm really not a grammar Nazi to those I don't know; as in intimately. I almost never correct people on websites with their grammar slip-ups. Hell, I make typos all the time so my side of the fence isn't exactly squeaky clean, either.


I'm good with that high-lighted in red. And, I do okay with then and than, as long as I'm reminded from time to time.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Craigh said:


> ...It's ok...


I'd rather that it's *OK*.
Or "okay."

But "ok" makes me think of a cave-man: Ok the Beetle-Browed.


----------



## Craigh (Jul 29, 2016)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> I'd rather that it's *OK*.
> Or "okay."
> 
> But "ok" makes me think of a cave-man: Ok the Beetle-Browed.


i use upper and lower case interchangeably. I think I looked it up once, and it said lower case was an acceptable slang for the upper case. For lower case to be considered cave-man like is a bit of a reach, don't you think? Besides, my genome has very few to zero in the way of Neanderthal markers.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Craigh said:


> i use upper and lower case interchangeably...


who do you think you are? e.e. cummings?

...and the goat-footed
baloonMan whistles
far
and
wee


----------



## Craigh (Jul 29, 2016)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> who do you think you are? e.e. cummings?
> 
> ...and the goat-footed
> baloonMan whistles
> ...


LOL, I love it. I wish I had his capability to include self-created compounds and decapitalization in such an artistic manner. Maybe you're inspired by the coming of Spring and my prose are limited to the mundane. In a similar jester (sic), one of my very favorites by Carroll, I give you:

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

...


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Okay, okay........so now all this is just getting weird. :smt017


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

paratrooper said:


> Okay, okay........so now all this is just getting weird. :smt017


Hey... You started it, asking about a point of grammar.
We're just carrying it to an absurd extreme, that's all.

*Grammar* by Walt Kelly (Pogo)
"Do you herd sheep?" my gran'pa said.
My gran'ma reeled in fright!
Your grammar's wrong, my gran'ma said,
"Have you heard sheep?" is right.


----------



## Craigh (Jul 29, 2016)

paratrooper said:


> Okay, okay........so now all this is just getting weird. :smt017


Let's eat grandma! (Punctuation saves lives.)

When people type "to funny," I imagine them on a quest with sword held high, looking for jokes.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Craigh said:


> Let's eat grandma! (Punctuation saves lives.)
> 
> When people type "to funny," I imagine them on a quest with sword held high, looking for jokes.


Well, that's *two* funny!


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Craigh said:


> Let's eat grandma! (Punctuation saves lives.)
> 
> When people type "to funny," I imagine them on a quest with sword held high, looking for jokes.


Ah yes, punctuation... the bane of us all.

One of the worse problems people frequently make with commas is with lists. For example...

"The colors of our family cars are red, blue, green and yellow."

What this sentence means is that this family has a red car, a blue car, and a car that is two-tone green and yellow. Leaving out the comma after the word "green" makes the phrase "green and yellow" mutually inclusive. Inserting a comma after "green" means they have four cars. A very common mistake and worse, it has been taught in schools for over 25 years that this comma is no longer really necessary. Bull. I know of a case in England many years ago where a murderer was acquitted for lack of a comma (learned that in a law class in college).

So use those commas when making a list like your teachers taught you back in the 50's. They were correct.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Well......here's my little tidbit of wisdom. 

The road less traveled, usually is. :smt033


----------



## win231 (Aug 5, 2015)

paratrooper said:


> Okay, okay........so now all this is just getting weird. :smt017


HAHA. Whenever the original topic makes some people uncomfortable, "Comfort Hijacking" happens.


----------



## CW (Mar 20, 2015)

SouthernBoy said:


> So how are you with there, their, and they're? Loose or lose? Or a big one, bring and take?
> 
> The bring and take confusion is something I see a LOT. In commercials, news commentators, and even my wife. For example, the radio guy says, "So bring your car in today for the special...". This should be "So take your car in today for the special...". It all has to do with one's location and where the object is in relation to that. Very simple but my wife constantly messes this up.
> 
> BTW, I'm really not a grammar Nazi to those I don't know; as in intimately. I almost never correct people on websites with their grammar slip-ups. Hell, I make typos all the time so my side of the fence isn't exactly squeaky clean, either.


Doesn't it depend if you car is driven [take] or towed [bring]?


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

CW said:


> Doesn't it depend if you car is driven [take] or towed [bring]?


No it has to do with the subject's location and its relationship. Example. My car as to go in for a recall and I call the service department up and speak to a service writer. He says, "You can bring your car in this morning if you'd like and we can take care of it while you wait". I then turn to my wife and tell her, "Honey, I'm going to take my car in to have that recall taken care of and I'll be back in two hours".


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

*SB*, I think that you have a higher-level Black Belt in English than do I.
Your explanations are much more lucid than mine tend to be.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

It's good to be lucid.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

paratrooper said:


> It's good to be lucid.


Yes.
I love Lucid!

;-) :mrgreen:


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> *SB*, I think that you have a higher-level Black Belt in English than do I.
> Your explanations are much more lucid than mine tend to be.


Thanks so much for the nice compliment.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

paratrooper said:


> It's good to be lucid.





Steve M1911A1 said:


> Yes.
> I love Lucid!
> 
> ;-) :mrgreen:


I used to watch "I Love Lucid" in the 50's. Starred Lucille Ball.


----------

