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.
If gun owners ever do lose their right to bear arms, it will be due to their own stupidity, not any efforts by us "libruls".
At least an arrest was made in this incident. That doesn't always seem to be the case. I get the feeling the prevailing sentiment in Gun Country is that the occasional loss of a child by firearms negligence is just part of the price of freedom
As colorful a statement as that is, its not very well thought out, and shows a fair amount of bigotry. Personally, and perhaps I speak for some others, I do not see the death of a child, caused by negligence with a firearm, to be any different than a childs death, caused by his parents drinking and driving, and crashing with the child in the car. There is NO difference. The result is the same, either way.
The responsible parties, therefore, should be beld accountable, and justice served. It's not a matter of needing more laws, or outlawing personal arms.
firearms dont kill kids, parents that leave loaded weapons unguarded around the house are responsible not 5 year olds nor the smith and wesson corporation. if firearms were evil we would not mandate that police and soldiers carry them.
Sad the child died, what is more sad is that, just as the OP, they (the left) are using this to push an agenda.
First, this was not a responsible gun owner, do not lump all gun owners in this catagory, she was not responsible and she is getting everything she deserves.
Second, what kind of mother leaves her 5 year old alone anywhere. Are you going to lump all mothers into this catagory, because she left her child, so all mothers are going to do this?
I don't really see an agenda, it's an opinion on something that is a problem. Just like when people were being killed with drunk driving, laws went into effect to keep responsible people safe and keep irresponsible people from causing harm. This person was neither a responsible gun owner or parent, and we should have some things in place to make sure that harm is lessened where possible.
I am a responsible gun owner, and parent (we'll see in their teens), and I do believe there needs to be some check to make sure people who are not don't harm others. We have laws to try and keep parents responsible, and we have laws that show the extent of the freedoms afforded by the constitution. If you think those freedoms are complete, go threaten to kill someone and see how free you are by the end of the day.
However, every time some one brings up the merest whisper about gun ownership some people turn into shouting frothing lunatics screaming about tyranny, or Hitler, or any other millions of imagined horrors. Even if it's very well endorsed (even by other gun owners) things like keeping people who think the goblin king is telling them to wage war on the mole people from owning a military style assault rifle...or keeping violent felons from buying guns legally at gun shows.
I don't really see an agenda, it's an opinion on something that is a problem. Just like when people were being killed with drunk driving, laws went into effect to keep responsible people safe and keep irresponsible people from causing harm. This person was neither a responsible gun owner or parent, and we should have some things in place to make sure that harm is lessened where possible..
And those laws did work, to a point about DD, however, you still see people being killed by DD, right? What you don't see is more laws being tossed on top of laws to stop DD, unlike us gun owners. I feel that is what their agenda is...more laws that make no sence.
The only reason this was even brought up was the OP hates guns, he/she has lumped all gun owners into this group, period.
Just like the nee jerk reaction of sandyhooks, ban guns and hi-cap magazines, but don't worry about what we should do to protect the children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmeraldCityWanderer
I am a responsible gun owner, and parent (we'll see in their teens), and I do believe there needs to be some check to make sure people who are not don't harm others. We have laws to try and keep parents responsible, and we have laws that show the extent of the freedoms afforded by the constitution. If you think those freedoms are complete, go threaten to kill someone and see how free you are by the end of the day..
And again, these laws are being broken every single day, or this story would not be here, would it?
If these laws are being broken, what will more laws do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmeraldCityWanderer
However, every time some one brings up the merest whisper about gun ownership some people turn into shouting frothing lunatics screaming about tyranny, or Hitler, or any other millions of imagined horrors. Even if it's very well endorsed (even by other gun owners) things like keeping people who think the goblin king is telling them to wage war on the mole people from owning a military style assault rifle...or keeping violent felons from buying guns legally at gun shows.
I have yet to see anything backing up the gun show theroy. It maybe a personnal transaction at a gun show, but not a person who is registered at the gun show.
It's hard to have any kind of discussion when people bring up nucler weapons, fully auto weapons, bazooka's, battle ships, Aircraft carriers, and the list goes on.
However, again, how are more laws going to prevent what just happened to this little girl?
You are just spewing BS. The total number of children under 14 is less than 100 a year while self-defense is in the hundreds of thousands to millions. In fact, swimming pools murder far more children than firearms.
This is same as that careless parents left their children in locked cars and they died due to exposure to high heat.
I am of the opinion that the parents of the death children should be charged with manslaughter due to negligence at least regardless it's firearm related or not.
1 - swiming pools is a red herring. I did not argue that swimming pools are NOT more dangerous. They are more dangerous than guns
2 - the "self defense" claim has long been discredited. Thousands? Millions? now you are smoking something. When compared to death of children, spouse, and family member . . .those people will die first before a burgular or robber
2 - the "self defense" claim has long been discredited. Thousands? Millions? now you are smoking something. When compared to death of children, spouse, and family member . . .those people will die first before a burgular or robber
These will disagree with you. Can you discredit them?
I'll take note that the first link is from 1995.
Quote:
Based on self-reporting by survey respondents, Kleck has extrapolated that DGU
occurs more than 2 million times a year. Kleck doesn’t suggest that gun owners shoot
potential antagonists that often. DGU covers various scenarios, including merely
brandishing a weapon and scaring off an aggressor.
And those laws did work, to a point about DD, however, you still see people being killed by DD, right? What you don't see is more laws being tossed on top of laws to stop DD, unlike us gun owners. I feel that is what their agenda is...more laws that make no sence.
The only reason this was even brought up was the OP hates guns, he/she has lumped all gun owners into this group, period.
Just like the nee jerk reaction of sandyhooks, ban guns and hi-cap magazines, but don't worry about what we should do to protect the children.
If the OP doesn't like guns, or not, I don't see how that nullifies my opinion.
People keep saying shooting after shooting for years that gun control can't be talked about yet, so when is it time in your opinion that people can even talk about it without it being a knee jerk response from the next shooting? To me saying you can't talk about it yet constantly is just avoiding the subject entirely until people just go away, and it's very disigenuous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
And again, these laws are being broken every single day, or this story would not be here, would it?
If these laws are being broken, what will more laws do?
People still murder, rape, drive drunk, and steal...should we get rid of laws that outlaw those things? People are still going to break the law evey day even if we make them illegal.
Sorry, that argument is stupifyingly rediculous. It special pleading that simply doesn't work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
I have yet to see anything backing up the gun show theroy. It maybe a personnal transaction at a gun show, but not a person who is registered at the gun show.
These investigations involved a total of 84,128 firearms that had been diverted from legal to illegal commerce. All told, the report identified more than 26,000 firearms that had been illegally trafficked through gun shows in 212 separate investigations.
You can find even more by putting "felons buying guns at gun shows" into Google.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
It's hard to have any kind of discussion when people bring up nucler weapons, fully auto weapons, bazooka's, battle ships, Aircraft carriers, and the list goes on.
However, again, how are more laws going to prevent what just happened to this little girl?
It's also hard when people bring up Hitler, Stalin, laws would just be broken anyways so why have them, and all sorts of other crazy arguments when people mention gun control. How about people stop with the crazy arguments on either side and we have a discussion like rational human beings to brainstorm if there is even a way?
These will disagree with you. Can you discredit them?
I'll take note that the first link is from 1995.
Your freaking article states why Kleck is wrong, and even starts off with the statement "Criminologists concur that the unusual prevalence of guns in America—some 300 million in private hands—makes our violent crime more lethal than that of other countries. "
I mean your article contains both the old claim and the rebuttle to Kleck, which was a self reporting survey that then they extrapolated to huge numbers. That is just bad quantitative analysis.
1 - swiming pools is a red herring. I did not argue that swimming pools are NOT more dangerous. They are more dangerous than guns
2 - the "self defense" claim has long been discredited. Thousands? Millions? now you are smoking something. When compared to death of children, spouse, and family member . . .those people will die first before a burgular or robber
I don't see you advocating the elimination of something more dangerous, the swimming pools. Owning a swimming pool is not a right. So we should ban it with easy.
Think about how many children you can save by doing that.
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.
