Misery is the only result time and time again.

Especially if the attacker is going after someone weaker.

n/t

Ok. If I accept the philosophy that no one in a mature culture should be armed in any way I might also accept a repeal of the Second Amendment on the belief that it is a dangerous relic of a less enlightened era. Let's assume that we can outlaw all firearms ownership and institute peaceful total confiscation. Here's what I think will happen.

Millions of gun owners will meekly surrender their weapons. The minute the authorities drive away these folks will go right in to the garage and use some of the exact same tools I use to build guitars and ukuleles out of cigar boxes (Howdy, CBG Luthier!!) to build at least one replacement. The formula for black powder is over 800 years old, so that is easy to make. There are probably formulas for workable smokeless powders out there as well. Primers for the ammunition can be made with materials obtained from ordinary grocery or hardware stores. The only reason people don't do this more often today is because factory made ammo and primers are cheaper and safer. If someone who wants a gun has no other option, however, necessity will become the mother of invention.

After I hand over my weapons politely, with a smile, I can be re-armed after a single busy weekend. Theoretically. (I wouldn't do this because that would be illegal ) The new crop of guns will all incorporate sound suppressors ("silencers" for the uninitiated) to allow practice in rural areas and makeshift indoor ranges without drawing unwanted attention. In this scenario owning the gun is illegal anyway, so why not build an illegal "silencer" to reduce the risk of getting caught.?

I'm not going to try and convince you that total civilian disarmament is a bad idea or morally wrong or something. You might actually be right. My point is simply this; anyone who thinks prohibiting legal gun ownership would get guns out of the country and away from our children must also consider the likely responses by people who want guns anyway. Prohibition is the mother of black markets. I don't know how you'd "brainwash" (to use Eric Holder's term) everyone to never want guns in the first place. My mom was unable to do this with me, so how would you do it with 300 million strangers? How do you keep the black market and homebuilt gun industry from starting and growing underground? I don't know the answer to that but it needs to be considered in the discussion of removing guns from American life.

The problem is in the details of a firearm ban. Banning all firearms is just NOT possible, even in Europe, no such bans have been enacted. Japan in the closest to a total ban, but if it has exceptions.

Now, a ban on pistol is doable, for farmers and other civilians who use firearms for various "chores" generally prefer Shotguns and Rifles. Thus the biggest non-military, non-police user of pistols are armed security guards. The problem is most armed security guards are tied in with movement of money and other valuable items. If you ban them from having pistols, then Police Officers must do that work, and do we want Police Officers, whose pays is based on taxes, provide security for banks? Thus even a ban on pistols will have to have exceptions, through not as many as the exceptions for Rifles and Shotguns.

Now, Rifles and Shotguns are used by Farmers and many people in Rural America for such farmers and residents of rural America have to take care of pests of their lands, and the alternative to Rifles and Shotguns are poisons, which cause more harm to wildlife then do rifles and shotguns. Thus such rural residents will have to have access to rifles and shotguns, OR you have to be willing to pay high taxes so such rural residents can call on a Police Officer to take care of such pests. Right now, Police do NOT take care or pests, that is up to the Farmers and Rural Residents. Thus you have to have a lot of exceptions for Rifles and Shotguns if a complete ban is adopted, and sooner or later the exceptions will overcome the ban.

My point is a complete ban of firearms in the hands of Civilians is not workable. A ban on pistols is workable for the number of exceptions can be kept quite small. That is not true of Rifles and Shotguns. I like people who advocate such a ban, for such advocacy shows they have NOT even looked at the downside of such a ban, and all bans have downsides for someone. You have to address those downsides to achieve anything and a complete ban on firearms do not address the downsides of such a ban.

They buy a stainless-steel .44 Magnum revolver, load it with four or five rounds, set the hammer down on an empty chamber (to completely eliminate the possibility of the gun firing accidentally) and put it in the toolbox on their tractor. Should a coyote or rattlesnake need to be shot, the gun's right there.

There are "legitimate" uses for a pistol, and those uses need to be respected. Walking around the local burger joint with a huge pistol strapped to your leg in plain sight because "Second Amendment, Fuck Yeah!" is not one of them.

All I was pointing out was while it is POSSIBLE to eliminate Pistols from the hands of Civilians, a total firearm ban is impossible. Now as to the issue SHOULD they be banned, that is a separate issue. Your example of a pistol in a farmer's tool box is an example that goes to the issue of SHOULD there be a total ban (i.e. the example of a tool box pistol is a good argument AGAINST a total ban of Pistols in the hands of Civilians). On the other hand, the option of using a rifle or a shotgun exists and while a little bit more of a problem to have handy, can do the same job. Thus you could ban pistols in the hands of Civilians and rural residents (including farmers) can just replaced their pistols with rifles to be used the same way. A bit more of a problem having on hand, but capable of doing the job.

NotOneMore!!!

Here is what some other countries have done:
legal requirement to keep guns unloaded unless being used.
legal requirement to keep guns and ammo separate and locked.

That way, when some drunken gun idiot accidentally kills somebody, he violates multiple laws with assorted penalties, which penalties in addition to fines, jail time, etc. include loss of all rights to ever own a gun again.

Most or many states have a law that you have to store a gun with the safety on, and no round in the chamber. I can see the gun nuts jumping up and down, throwing a hissy fit about some maniac kicking in their front door, and running straight at them, and killing them before they'd have a chance to unlock their ammunition and load their gun... But you can't really claim that for a law about keeping a gun with the safety on, and the chamber empty. With a 9mm automatic like the one used here, it would take you two seconds to release the safety and put a round in the chamber.

The beauty of those laws is that assclowns like this guy can't really argue that they weren't guilty of keeping a gun with a round in the chamber, and the safety off. Those laws are specifically designed to prevent you from shooting somebody by ACCIDENT, but don't really take away your ability to defend yourself.

I don't know if Florida has those laws, but if they do, I'd like to see this guy try and explain how he 'accidentally' released the safety, accidentally put a round in the chamber, accidentally cocked it, and then accidentally touched the trigger.

But then again, this is Florida, so...A) I wouldn't be surprised if they DIDN'T have those gun safety laws, and B) I wouldn't be surprised if a jury of gun-cowards acquits him anyway, like they did with Zimmerman.

I know I don't and won't. Its possible to live and not have to have a gun around the house for protection

how much of that do we see with many gun lovers and the nra?

would be able to bring about the level of focus and seriousness needed for many people to be qualified to handle firearms. (People like this shooter.)

When I think of the number of people lately who have shot themselves or someone else while demonstrating how to use a gun (often a guy showing wife or girlfriend how to use it), I wonder if some people are simply incapable of concentrating sufficiently.

I think there should not only be mandatory classes, but very stringent mandatory TESTING, to demonstrate true proficiency. At least proficiency would demonstrate the ability to concentrate on the matter at hand.

what about the cases of trained police officers who accidently discharge their firearms?

you should be banned from having any gun ever.

It's the one thing the NRA does right, good gun safety classes.

instead of gun ownership. Have them back a product that improves our lives instead of promoting a product that destroys our lives. If gun companies could make as much or more money promoting gun safety, they'd do it. This innocent blood is on their hands.

I was very hesitant to take the class, initially, because it was run by the NRA. But it was extremely good, and I came away with a deep understanding of how much damage guns could inflict.

It's such a shame that the NRA behaves like a paranoid gun cult instead of an education and safety advocate.

owners should take accountability

evidence is presented that the training was taken? would there be a pass or fail grade or can the person just show up in a drunken state and qualify for all the guns he/she wants to hoard?

Do you really believe this bullshit?

to know that they shouldn't handle a firearm while under the influence, leave rounds in the chamber, store them in places easily accessible by toddlers, clean it while loaded, etc. etc...

I weep for that family, and for that newborn child.

And goddamn that shooter.

This just breaks my heart. The poor man was experiencing perhaps the happiest moment of his life, and the careless actions of a neighbor killed him. Beyond tragic.

There is only one way to rid us of "the minority terrorizing the majority"

We all know what I mean!

Don't blame the guns they say, unless they are involved. My, how the worm turns.

"It wasn't MY fault. The damned gun wasn't supposed to go off when I pulled the trigger. BAD GUN! BAD, BAD, BAD BOY!"

That's it. End of discussion. Only professionals and potty-trained hunters should be allowed to handle it, not open carry gun nuts.

As a group the NRA certainly makes this kind of thing more prevalent. SPLC was able to do some damage to the KKK using lawsuits. I wonder if it would work on the NRA.

absolutely sickening. Guns aren't safe, even in the hands of people who know what they're doing.

But you're right that this is sickening.

but I keep reading about LEO's and other people with proper training and lots of experience accidentally shooting themselves or others.
It just seems to happen a lot. (and I'm not discounting the fact that millions of people handle weapons on a regular basis without ever shooting anyone.) It's just that reports like this one are so damn heart-wrenching.

They do not have a more trditional safety only one on the trigger. Makes it more important to keep anything away from the trigger.

Obviously gun laws aren't working since this felon was able to get a gun. A total ban would at least reduce the number of guns that could fall into careless hands.

Maybe in a couple generations the country will be one of those with a total ban.

A drunk felon with a loaded gun. And a felony weapons conviction from 2006. Fucking swell.

That poor young man...and his poor family. I can't imagine their horror.

I have a friend who is right-wing who was talking about the guy next door who would target shoot in the backyard. They live in a rural community. She said that his bullets would sometimes hit her house. She just took this as a natural, acceptable by-product of the Republican idea of the 2nd Amendment.

No weapon is fired by accident. someone does something stupid that causes the weapon to fire. In this mans case it was pulling the trigger. Guarantee you old Mr. Shisler doesn't have 2 nickels to rub together and that poor family will never see any compensation. No but we are worried about the mentally ill in this country getting guns, how about the pathetically stupid people living next door who already have them. The first image that came through my head is the day my first child wad born. I can still see the look in her eyes and I remember the joy I felt at becoming a parent. What a shame.

Who wasn't supposed to have a gun.

His previous felony conviction was on weapons charges.

at the same level as skittles and we have a terrorist organization defending ANY control on them what did you expect to happen?

No telling when the 3-day-old might have spit up.

This tragedy could have been prevented.

next door? This is one screwed up country.

When will we ever learn, when will we ever learn?

Based on the dates. Not that it helps much.

The insanity continues thanks to the right-wing gun lobby and its marketing/PR arm, the NRA.

The guy who picked up the gun by the trigger considered himself a "responsible gun owner," or even a "good guy with a gun."

Mom, Baby, any other family members should each file a lawsuit against this drunken stupid.
Sue him into the oblivion he so clearly wants.

McVeigh Central.

Shut them down!

check by law at most booths at gun shows per the feds. You do know that right?

Why not at all booths?

or fishing gear and tents etc.

it looks like those booths are actually selling firearms, but are somehow exempt from having to do a background check.

Get a grip: no one is suggesting background checks for buyers of beef jerky.

I assumed you'd never been to a gun show and didn't know how many non gun things are sold

I think there are now 42+ states that require background checks, Form 4473, all the same as if you bought it in a brick and mortar store. All the firearm vendors have to obey the law, the state police that attend the shows and usually run the background check tables, make sure of it.

And I have an excellent grip, thank you.

A lot of people have never been to one and don't actually know that there are a lot of non firearm sales at "Gun Shows" which are usually "Outdoors and Sports shows" to draw a larger audience of fishermen, campers etc.

The Brady people and others rely on that lack of experience (small i ignorance) to get people all worked up over "sales with no background checks". They just don't mention that the sales are not for firearms.

that means by definition that are some states that don't--providing opportunities for people who might flunk a background check to buy weapons.

So you're saying the "Brady people" are conflating gun sales with sellers of beef jerky? I'd love to see some evidence of that. Sounds to me like a straw man argument. The fact that you admit that some states at least don't require background checks at gun shows demonstrates that the Brady people have a point.

So, would you be in favor of all 50 states requiring a background check on all gun sales. Duckhunter answered the question, saying he would support such a change in state law. How about you? Are you willing to see those states amend their laws, and if they don't or won't, to have the federal government pass a law requiring background checks at all gun shows?

and here's just a few of the things I saw for sale:

A body sized target of President Obama with bullet holes in the heart area.
Books on how to make explosives
The Anarchist's Bible
About a gazillion white trash, beer-bellied ignoramuses who looked to me like they couldn't tie their own shoes let alone be careful with a gun.

I could go on.

Oh, and at this particular place where gun shows are held on a regular basis, some guy picked up a gun to look at it and shot someone at the gun show. The "seller" said he didn't know it was loaded.

As I said, ignoramuses.

as it is not a gunshow loophole but a private intrastate issue that can also be changed at the state level.

All cancelled out by murderous lunatics' "right" to have guns to play with.

I keep on being assured that since gun deaths have decreased in the last decade or so guns just aren't such big problem in this country.

I'm with those who would take away guns. Mandatory safety training won't make any difference to people like this idiot. If he hadn't had a gun that young father would still be alive. Period.

Yay well-regulated militia for keeping us safe and free!

...this just sickening.

Charge the guy with murder...he had the gun...he caused it to go off. Period.

and he better not get it, either.

Is there something in the water there? Geez.

Wtf good was it? Idiot.

and its just manslaughter

If a death is the result of negligence, then it is manslaughter. Now if you can show GROSS NEGLIGENCE then you back to murder. Under the Common Law if you fire a weapon, you are responsible for anything it hits. Thus if someone is killed do to a weapon going off, even by accident, it is Manslaughter,

Now, this means this 62 year old man will be sentence for manslaughter. He will also have to face Federal Charges of being a Convicted Felon with a firearm. That is generally a mandatory five year sentence. This 62 year old man is not going to see the outside of a jail for a long time. Please note Florida also has laws as to felons NOT having firearms, and he can be sentences under those laws in addition to Manslaughter and the Federal Firearm Charges. He is heading for jail and then for a long time.

Our problem is that, both directly and indirectly, we have allowed and even fostered along a society that worships guns and their use as a means-to-an-end to manage conflict. It is at the core of the reasoning for owning a handgun aka "stand your ground" and "castle doctrine".

I mean a "good guy" with a gun might have to kill a "bad guy" with a gun. I'm so glad we passed that federal law that requires all gun owners, like the one walking into your local mall, to wear a "good guy" or "bad guy" sign. Breath a sigh of relief citizen, he's wearing a "good guy" sign! This waste of skin, that showed no concern for the life he ended and the never-ending pain and suffering he caused, should never see daylight again but in FL I'm sure he will by sitting at home by tomorrow night to slowly stroke his gun again....my preciousssssss.

Gungeoneers?

He didn't like the looks of that newborn either.

And before anyone cries about the money, you have to pay to drive a car and you need your car to go to your job. Almost no one needs a gun to go to their job.

The NRA would make lots of money on this. Insurance would not cover any illegal acts, probably not this case as the firearms owner was a prohibited person. You do not need insurance for a car, only if you drive it on public roads. A car is not a right per the constitution and affirmed by the USSC.

Death death death

Heartache heartache heartache

the way MADD did with drunk driving crashes: they are no longer referred to as "accidents." this man's death was NO ACCIDENT - and so, so many of the "accidents" involving guns are NO ACCIDENTS. they result from criminally negligent use of a firearm. when it's the case of a child picking up a gun and shooting someone - how often does this happen?! - it's pure homicidal negligence.

the stupidity, the senselessness. in this society we don't need guns and by they way, they kill people. this killer was drunk and shooting off his gun. please i don't want to hear that this was an accident.

and people need to be charged and convicted in these cases.

For anyone who, while drunk, negligently harms another person.

Yes, the shooter is looking at Five years in a Federal Prison, for he was an ex-felon and as such it was illegal to have a firearm. This is in addition to any state time for a similar state law AND the manslaughter conviction.

I have problems with Minimum jail times, in most cases they do nothing but increase the costs of prisons. Five years probation would be a better option, if it included weekly checkups in the residence of the felon. i.e. put the felon on probation if he agrees to permit anyone to enter any building he is in, if he has the power to grant such entrance. If the felon does not agree, the felon goes to jail for the duration of the time period in question. That would have prevented this accident for the shooter would have had to get rid of the pistol, let it be found during a search of his house (or if he did not agree to the search, be sent back to jail).

The same rule could apply to anyone who killed a person while DUI, waste of time to send such a person to jail but saying he or she has to stay in her or his home, except to work, and subject to weekly checks to make sure the drunk did not do anything else that would endanger people (and again if something is found, off to jail the drunk does go).

He didn't know it was loaded, didn't know it would go off, after 4 FUCKING HOURS they give him a blood test and it comes in at .79.....

He will go home, with his gun and the family will have to sue the gun nut for wrongful death...

Yep another law abiding citizen practicing his GOD GIVEN right to be an asshole.

And another innocent victim is dead and a child just born into the world will grow up never knowing his father.

Thanks gun nuts, this is blood on your hands... again.

has gone beyond the pale with this story.
Now, many responses are Well, his time on earth was up...you never know when your number is called... meant to be, etc.

Like he wasn't in the right place at the right time with his wife and baby... In his castle?

But castle doctrine didn't save him from this worthless tool of a next door neighbor. In the midst of joy, hideous tragedy.

I've seen this before. It's like it's a crime to celebrate life anymore. Some cosmic force will not allow it, or something.

I wouldn't wish what his wife is feeling now on anyone but the shooter. This is likely to ruin her life and it'll keep going.

The pistol is contraband and will remain in the hands of the Police until a court tell them what to do with it (i.e. destroy it or sell it).

who bought or straw purchased it for him... Wrongful death suit and prison.

If the shooter was a Republican, that is. Unless he was a "country" musician.

I call bullshit on the old farts story.

Then I'm sure this tragedy could have been avoided!

Why his or her father is not around.