School Kids Dying in Ohio: It's a Gun Problem
Dennis A. Henigan
Vice President, Brady Campaign; Author, 'Lethal Logic'
Once again, the nation's attention has been captured by a horrific act of violence. Gunfire in a high school. A teenager killing teenagers. Any family's worst nightmare. Chardon, Ohio, will never be quite the same.
Inevitably, the question on most people's minds is "Why?" What possibly could have caused 17-year-old T.J. Lane to turn a gun on his fellow students, killing three and wounding two more? There is talk of bullying. Of an abusive father. After all, he was attending a school for kids who have had trouble in traditional schools.
The "Why?" question is certainly important. If we are ever able to offer meaningful help to troubled kids, we must better understand the factors that cause teens to be so alienated and enraged that they would engage in violence. But the dominant focus on "Why?" often obscures the nature of the problem posed by tragedies like Chardon.
Let's face it. Chardon happened not because an Ohio teenager was so troubled that he became violent. Chardon happened because a troubled, violent Ohio teenager was able to get access to a gun.
More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-a-henigan/school-kids-dying-in-ohio_b_1321867.html
I would add that it is not just access to any guns, it is access to handguns in particular. And
= new reply since forum marked as read
Thanks
...when clearly incidents like that are very rare. 
Parents need to know what the mental state of their kids is. That is also an issue. Sometimes kids are beaten to death.
And sometimes parents just don't care, which is why making safe-storage the law is important so that some legal standard can exist for responsible gun ownership.
...clearly, hyperbole is the game you are here to play.
Especially when it comes to incidents of gun violence. 
...than a craven apologist for a death cult. ( requisite 
)
Children are precious and the entire post is a red-herring. re
(Note to jurors: I am not being anymore over-the-top than the above post).
You met Og, the guy who invented the hammer?
I'd put even money that it was developed first as a weapon.
"Og put rock on stick and smash animal on head"
Looks like a sailboat to me.
It may have only been a frigate but it did pretty well against Royal Navy ship of the line.
As far as an unattended vessel being liable, if it drags anchor or you fail to account for the swinging circle based on how much scope you have out under normal or foreseeable circumstances, it's one thing. If it is ripped from its moorings by a tidal wave and dumped several miles inland it is quite another.
Having your boat (or anything else stolen) it's one thing to have a physical barrier breached by force and quite another to have someone violate a position of trust. If the harbormaster decides to take your tub for a joyride while you are ashore and hazards another vessel is it your fault?
By your reasoning, if someone were to take their gun to an armory for storage and the guard stole it, you seem to insist that the owner should be held liable.
So back to your real position, no one can steal what you don't have. And that is the bottom line for you, the only acceptable security is for no one to possess anything worth stealing.
...what would your response be other than derogatory criticism? 
Before there can be a serious policy discussion, both sides need to see eye-to-eye that there is a problem; we are nowhere near that level of dialogue.
How about YOU stop BEING REDUNDANT WITH YOUR STATEMENTS; WELL REASONED, WELL THOUGHT AND WELL SUPPORTED ARE SYNONYMOUS. PLEASE STOP CAPITALIZING INDIVIDUAL WORDS BECAUSE IT MAKES IT SEEM LIKE YOU ARE YELLING AND DOING THAT ON THE INTERNET IS A SURE SIGN OF UNWILLINGNESS TO ENGAGE IN A PRODUCTIVE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS AND BELIES AN IDEOLOGICAL RIGIDITY THAT IS UNBECOMING OF THE PATRIOTIC COMPROMISES THAT ARE AT THE HEART OUR NATIONAL COMPACT FOR GOVERNANCE. I HOPE YOU'LL DEIGN TO RESPOND TO THIS CAPITALIZED MESSAGE WITH PROPER LEVELS OF CAPITALIZATION THAT DON'T MAKE IT SEEM LIKE YOU HAVE A SERIOUS CHIP ON YOUR SOLDIER AND WANT TO DENIGRATE THOSE THAT DISAGREE WITH YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONCERN ABOUT THE DIFFICULTIES WITH WHICH WE APPROACH OUR TASK OF COMING UP WITH BETTER POLICY. AMEN.
...than 99% of what you post in this group to be sure. Both sides do recognize there is a problem. Your side just can't get away from blaming inanimate objects. That is a problem in and of itself.
How about you just start trying to apply some of that vaunted academic training to more than self-serving taunts and being original. Capitalizing a full paragraph of your twittery just proves that this discussion is WELL beyond your capability and that you yourself have failed on numerous occasions to offer any detail of policy that has even a shred of merit to both sides of the issue ...
Keep trying oh ninja of the history books, you'll get there....someday.
Case in point. That is a deliberate and dishonest characterization of an argument. No one is "blaming inanimate objects," they are asking why violence happens and what can be done toa address it's occurrance. That is a radically different statement than what you suppose.
Here's a proposal - Child Access Prevention Laws in all 50 states. A number of studies show this reduces accidental shootings, theft, and use of guns for violence. Why don't we put this useful law on the books nationwide?
"that you yourself have failed on numerous occasions to offer any detail of policy that has even a shred of merit to both sides of the issue ...
Keep it up. But given the apparent recent nature of your membership, January 25, 2012, according to your profile, I wonder how you are able to make such a determination about an entire side of a debate. I'll address the policy points when they need to be addressed, but frankly, it's much more humorous just to point out the logical inconsistencies and pernicious nature of the argument against better regulation of firearms
I suggest you go read a CAP statute, use the google!
*cough* *cough* *cough*
...as usual....
You have anything to cite that refutes my assertion on CAP laws? I thought not.
and not the person who shot the people.
Um, OK. 
- try that line in GD and see what you get.
The Brady Campaign is objectively non-partisan. Why don't you go to GD and ask if people think FOX News (the national branch, not the affiliates) is a respectable news source? I'll wait.
Once again you crack me up.
The Brady Campaign has gotten out of the partisan politics business: http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00113449&cycle=2002
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/jon-stewart-rips-fox-news-for-mimicking-gop-talking-points.php
Still waiting...go ask GD if FOX is a respectable news source. Don't be a chicken!
If you only take away one tool from a violent person they are simply going to channel that violence in another way.
If you don't address the root problem - violent anti-social behavior - you will never, ever solve the problem. You will simply change the way that the problem is expressed.
Moreover, the kind of firearm this kid used is about as "benign" a firearm as exists:
A law enforcement official familiar with the investigation said the gun used in the shooting, a Ruger .22-caliber Mark III target pistol, was bought legally in August 2010 from a gun shop in Mentor, Ohio.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/ohio_shooting_suspect_may_have_used_LWFs8Dh7Nt6kBetapQBmqM#ixzz1oM7Tc6Mr
It fires the .22 Long Rifle cartridge, invented in 1887. It only holds 10 rounds of ammunition.
It's hard to imagine gun control revolving around trying to control this kind of firearm.
That kinda says it all, doesn't it. Only holds 10 bullets too. That's really benign. One of the four kids shot survived, so it must be really benign. Maybe these Rugers should be issued free to all school kids, they're so benign. One in every lunchbox.
adjective
1.
having a kindly disposition; gracious: a benign king.
2.
showing or expressive of gentleness or kindness: a benign smile.
3.
favorable; propitious: a series of benign omens and configurations in the heavens.
4.
(of weather) salubrious; healthful; pleasant or beneficial.
5.
Pathology . not malignant; self-limiting.
Unfuckingbelievable!
without knowing it's been stolen or is missing.
I mean, what happens if you have a 3 ton gun safe in the basement bolted to a concrete floor and you have several guns in it. You and the wife take a 7 day vacation to Florida and when you come back, the safe is missing? How can you possibly report that in 24 hours if you're thousands of miles away?
If we are to believe you and Henigan, mental instability is not the cause of the problem, the cause of the problem is the tool that was used to express the mental instability? Remove the tool that was used to express the problem, and there is no problem then, right? Just the way that taking drugs from an addict removes the addiction, like taking hateful words from a hateful person removes the hate, right? In all of our compassionate consideration of "the children" why is it that the gun owners of the left are the only ones likely to even talk about the troubles that lead up to this type of violence? Have you no concern for troubled youth at all? It's the guns It's the guns It's the handguns!! But no, it's not the mental illness! Not at all. We have nothing to fear of mental illness, nor do we need to concern ourselves with it at all, because it's not a problem.
I think I got it now.
He didn't make a causal argument. He made a correlative argument. The rest of your argument is hyperbolic and rude. I would note that this child came from a family with substantial domestic violence issues and that is a factor that hasn't been fair assessment
...I think most would say that it is significant correlation.
double
so they prefer to handle disagreements with vicious games of marbles, fling flang flu or cutting a deck of cards to see who gets the high card.
People need to take responsibility for securing their property - CAP laws do that and we shouldn't be pretending this is a choice between addressing the causes of violence and addressing the means of violence.
I don't sell heroin. And frankly, if I knew someone who was selling heroin I'd do this: http://www.wjactv.com/videos/news/mom-charged-with-assaulting-alledged-drug-dealer/vGGyG/
I had a friend die of a heroin overdose who I did not even know was a user. I swear if I had known I would have intervened.
...the concern is with what is possible, not with what is impossible - that is senseless nihilism.
Fuck Nihilists.
Straw man.
"You apparently are less concerned with the fact of murder than you are with the tool of murder. Your agenda is showing."
Pot, meet kettle. - by what reasoning are you making such a conclusion - this isn't a matter of priority - this is a matter of what we can address
...for that to happen, there needs to be a law, and no I would not object to being required to buy a safe before being allowed to purchase a firearm if you have minors in your home.
And wait for it...
Good luck with that...
...it's not an unreasonable regulation for those with children to be required to secure their weapons. Something like 28 states already have CAP statues...so yeah, if you have children and don't secure your weapons it's a crime. 
But having to purchase 3 safes to own 3 guns... that's unreasonable. And unenforceable.
I don't keep my guns in a safe, except for my pistol. But I do keep the bolts or the trigger mechanisms of my guns in the same safe as the pistol. And that means that the kid can't hurt himself with any of my guns, unless he drops one on his foot.
...they have to be secured if there is a reasonable expectation that a child has access. It's extremely enforceable, like a speeding law, don't get caught if you're going to break it.
Well then you would be in compliance with most of the laws I'd wager.
