Because there is NO SHORTAGE of irresponsible, stupid, negligent, arrogant, clueless people who can not own and handle one responsibly.

Sigh... Poor children.

You seem to be trying to use a tragic event to take guns away from responsible people.

that will end up taking away your gun rights. Not the anti-gun zealots. Until responsible gun owners come up with a way to curb these kind of stories and handgun crime, they face restrictions.

Every time a state loosens its gun laws I post a thread about it. So far this year over 20 laws backed by the NRA have been signed in various states.

Further, gun accidents and gun violence have been decreasing.

Since those are who clearly from this and countless incidents those who should not have guns.

Then if that is the case, I'd have to agree with you that you should not have a gun.

I have not stated a desire to take them from law-abiding responsible owners, but to have LESS access to the countless, clueless, arrogant, belligerant, irresponsible and potentially mentally unstable.

And, safeinOhio is correct, it is the irresponsible gun owners who pose a threat to unlimited, nearly unregulated gun industry. It is there that you and NRA and all the others should be focusing your ire and your efforts. NOT trying to increase access to these cretins.

prior to something bad happening. What are you suggesting? A minimum income or education requirement? An IQ test? Subjective judgement by some appointed "authority"?

Since we really can't identify in advance those "clueless, arrogant, belligerant (sic), irresponsible and potentially mentally unstable" gun owners that means any method to restrict access guns to them must apply to everyone - including the responsible gun owners.

Tell me how we identify and brand those irresponsible gun owners.

those are hardly ways to diminish access to those who should not have them and USE by those who should not have them.

NRA used to be a responsible group that took gun safety seriously, gun manufacturing seriously, and worked with others to promote responsible ownership... And responsible gun owners worked to ensure NRA continued that as their primary mission. That is largely no longer the case. So, blame yourselves. I'm not going to take your gun. But the sheer increase in irresponsible gun owners and "shoot first, think later" murders masked as "self defense" will ensure more restrictions eventually happen. There is a critical threshold of carnage beyond which there is no return.

so your first problem is that increased access to guns does not appear to present a public safety issue. If more guns led to more deaths you would have a point - but they don't.

Every year we move further away from that "critical threshold of carnage" - that should make you happy. Why doesn't it?

As your side pushed for ever greater restrictions on guns it caused a backlash from gun owners. That backlash took the form of the modern NRA.

Last edited Fri Apr 20, 2012, 06:37 PM - Edit history (1)

they have in Switzerland. I think those kind of laws would even pass our own 2nd Amendment. Lots of guns, even full autos, strict registration and laws on storing and transporting firearms. Mandatory, ongoing training and limitations on conceal carry. All this equals lower gun crime and accidental shootings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

I am surprised - that is very progressive of you.

doesn't the Swiss experience tell us that wide spread ownership of semi-automatic weapons does not pose a threat to society?

You are not just looking at what is restricted while ignoring what is permitted are you?

ownership, storage and who is allowed to carry. ALL handguns are registered to the owner.

If the cantons want to spend the money on theater, great. It has nothing to do with their low murder rate. But then, Protell does not have to work as hard to deal with their version of VPC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_referendum,_February_2011

My point is, even if we make the NRA more moderate, and make concessions, the other side will not. That is what made the NRA as radical as it is, they decided to fight extremism with extremism. That difference is the NRA is more honest about theirs.

When your violent crime rate is as low as if not lower than Japan's, what would be the point of carrying CCW?

there is no reason for the government to know such personal information.

it is not the government's place to determine whether I have a valid need to carry or not.

I do like their training requirements - I think the government should subsidize training and promote firearm events for young people. I also like the idea of getting ammo from the government at cost.

I particularly like the idea of classifying "assault weapons" as "free arms" that require no permit to purchase.

recording gun ownership would also have a hard time passing Constitutional muster.

It is not the government's business to know what guns I own.

...could you ask her for a list of drivers who are going to get drunk and kill someone? That's the list I would really like to have

more and more guns are responsible too. Your efforts over the next decade will put 100 million more guns in circulation, ensuring more of this 100 years down the road. At some point, we'll have to do something about it.

"Ohio" is exactly right.

Exactly what are YOU doing about it other than whining about it on the internet?

is alive and well.

SafeInOhio nailed it.

(but if it happens, it's won't be because of "anti's&quot

considering auto accidents are the leading cause of accidental death for children? Why should access to guns be the only thing we restrict if our goal is to reduce the harm caused by "irresponsible, stupid, negligent, arrogant, clueless people"?

Or do you drive without a driver's license? Know no one who has lost said license because of irresponsibility, DUI, vehicular manslaughter, failure to maintain insurance, reckless driving and the like. Know no drivers who have lost their license because of loss of sight, mental incapacity, age?

Big fail in your logic, my friend.

you want to restrict their right to own a gun prior to them doing anything irresponsible. The bar to get your initial drivers license is ridiculously low.

a review of outstanding driving related tickets in most states, must be of legal age, must pass an eye exam and can be denied for any number of reasons--including a doctor or family member's notification of DMV that there is an incapacitating concern.

Nearly all of these are PRIOR, but we have ongoing regulation to monitor as well. Again, sorry, this is a big fail in terms of an analogy you think proves any point.

We do not block ownership nor use on private land, just use on public roads.

I don't need a license to buy and own a gun and keep it on private property.

I do need a license to drive a car on public streets.
I do need a license to carry a gun in public.


Get it now?

To take a gun out in public, in most states requires a license - a CCW. To keep one at home on private property requires no license, except for some states that require one.

To drive a car in public requires a license. To keep one on private property requires no license or registration. Here in Texas many older pick-ups are kept on farms and ranches as work trucks and never taken on public roads.

Or have you just not watched other peoples' driving lately?

"Big fail in your logic, my friend." Indeed... Sheesh.

whether they are too young, had the license revoked or just never bothered to get one so your arguement is a big

FAIL

That neither side likes, our children will encounter guns. There is no getting around this fact. Even a complete reversal of the 2A would not remove guns from our society for a very long time.

So what can we do?

We accept that at some point our children wil encounter sex so we educate them to prepare them for when the day comes.
Why not do the same with guns. Add safe gun handling courses to schools. I am not talking a Jr. Rambo class, just the most basic gun safety.

I think we would all even agree on pushing abstinence only.

Please do not use tinyurl. It obfuscates the links so you can't tell what you are clicking on and what site you will be taken to.

DU automatically truncates long links.

Thanks.

I'm always leery of clicking on blind links.

FAIRHOPE, Alabama --
A 17-year-old boy will be charged as an adult, with manslaughter, in the shooting death of a 6 year old girl.

Fairhope police say Christopher Tyler Smith fired one shot from a high powered rifle Thursday night. The bullet hit two children.

The kids were playing behind their mobile home on Hwy 181 and Mosley Road around 6:15 when they were shot. Smith lives in another trailer about 100 yards away.

http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2012/apr/20/6-year-old-girl-killed-3-year-old-boy-critical-con-ar-3642783/

the family needs help with funeral expenses. The little boy is still in critical condition as far as I know.

Donations are being accepted for Teela Murphy's family.
The family of a Fairhope Kindergartener will need help with funeral and hospital expenses. 5 year old Teela Murphy was shot to death last night. Teela's baby brother, 3 year old Jayden is critically injured. An account has been set up in Teela Murphy's name. Donations are being accepted at any BBVA Compass Bank in Mobile and Baldwin Counties.

or way to give by plastic? Don't live in the area, and I don't think I have a Compass bank near me.

Click on the link and type in Fairhope Alabama in the space and it will show you BBVA Compass Bank branches in Baldwin County, the area where the shooting occurred. The article said you could donate to any of those branches. Might have to wait until Monday though. I would call the Fairhope branch, because it's nearest the location where it happened, and explain what you want to do and they'l help. It's the best I could do.

http://www.bbvacompass.com/locations/