Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's what I mean when I said the 4 year old more than likely doesn't understand how final death is...
I don't think the problems will be as severe now as when he is older.
I also think that even though he doesn't understand the severity of what happened, he does understand that everyone around him is crying and upset and it's because of something he did. I don't know if he witnessed the panic after the shooting, what he saw when the bullet hit the boy's head, the other boy's parents running to the child screaming, the ambulance and police and sirens and oxygen masks and stretchers... I hope not, but I do think he knows he has done something that has resulted in turmoil, even though not intentional, and it will affect him regardless.
Really? Who, specifically? Can you post that quote by a "leader of the gun control movement"?
Sen. Dianne Feinstein: 'If I could have gotten 51 votesin the Senate of the United States for an out right ban,picking up every one of them. . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in," I would have done it.'
You have a child...you must respond to that child. Responsibility literally means to have the will and capability to respond to a situation - or a thing. Imagine the gun as a child. You must be in a constant state of supervision. People bather about "responsible" gun ownership. I believe they take their guns for granted. If a person has guns stolen the any remaining guns in the home should be removed and the permits revoked. No different if you put your child in danger - that child should be removed from your care because you are non-responsive.
You think a gun is comparable to a child... and it's those of us who are for gun rights who are termed "nuts"?
Thanks, however, for making the point that "reasonable" gun control is anything but.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein: 'If I could have gotten 51 votesin the Senate of the United States for an out right ban,picking up every one of them. . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in," I would have done it.'
You didn't provide a link but I think she was referring to assault weapons. I agree, regular Joes don't need them for anything. If you want to store one at the range for "fun" then it's not getting out on the street.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein: 'If I could have gotten 51 votesin the Senate of the United States for an out right ban,picking up every one of them. . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in," I would have done it.'
Nice try, but this was regarding assault weapons, she said nothing about wanting all guns banned for anyone except government agents. You also had to go back 18 years to find even this supposed example of how "too many leaders of the gun control movement want all guns banned". Here's the quote in context, which it seems you purposely left out:
Discussing why the 1994 act only prohibited the manufacture or import of assault weapons, instead of the possession and sale of them, Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."[26]
Nice try, but this was regarding assault weapons, she said nothing about wanting all guns banned for anyone except government agents. You also had to go back 18 years to find even this supposed example of how "too many leaders of the gun control movement want all guns banned". Here's the quote in context, which it seems you purposely left out:
Discussing why the 1994 act only prohibited the manufacture or import of assault weapons, instead of the possession and sale of them, Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."[26]
Gun nutz are so defensive nowadays that they have to resort to 20 year old quotes. Sad.
Very sad and should have never happened. And where were the parents? I think the parents should start being charged as an accessory to murder in crimes like this. Maybe that would make them think about leaving guns unlocked when children are about.
Lets not turn this into another gun debate, there are other places on cd for that.
Very sad and should have never happened. And where were the parents? I think the parents should start being charged as an accessory to murder in crimes like this. Maybe that would make them think about leaving guns unlocked when children are about.
Lets not turn this into another gun debate, there are other places on cd for that.
Why is it never OK to bring up the elephant in the room? Jeezus, Americans are so friggin' sensitive nowadays. We wouldn't be having a national debate WITHOUT such large-scale tragedies as Newtown. That's how set in our "guns are always OK everywhere" attitude the NRA has ingrained in half the population.
Golden Grain the fingerprint gun is a great idea on paper. The problem is reliability. When that idea was proposed a few years back many Police Departments wanted their Police officers exempt from the requirement. Why? When you need a gun to SAVE your life you want to know that it is going to be 100% reliable. If your life depends on it do you want a weapon to work 99% of the time? Heck if I want to gamble I will buy a Lottery ticket.
GL2
Is the fingerprint gun available to sell to the public?
I know government agents can get them.
I am thinking that the majority of guns in this country are probably not used much at all. I think that many average citizens just keep them around the house as protection in case someone breaks in.
This sort of gun could be kept next to the bed, right out in the open, with no untoward effects.
It would prevent a lot of accidental(and deliberate) shootings by children.
Sandy Hook may never have happened, neither would some other of those mass killings by children.
I would think, for anyone who simply wanted protection, this would be the gun of choice, even if it cost more. He or she could keep it fully loaded in the home.
Even if there were other guns in the home, they would be under lock and key.
Why are people/the media not discussing this? It seems like a good compromise and would prevent deaths.
Last edited by goldengrain; 04-13-2013 at 09:03 AM..
Is the fingerprint gun available to sell to the public?
A gun is a pretty simple thing. All mechanical, the power is provided by a very stable chemical source initiated by a slightly less stable one. No batteries to run down, no electronics to fail when you need them most. Adding a fingerprint sensor ruins all that. Now you have batteries, now you have electronics and electromechanical parts, now you have a sensor which is not reliable under the best of circumstances. Also now your gun won't fire if you're wearing gloves. This is a real pain in any gun, but it can be fatal in a gun intended for self defense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
