OT: Just Another Reason Children and Guns Don't Mix!

[Enigma869]

If you want I can keep looking for more recent stats. The newspaper article was from '05. There probably is a lag in gathering stats so '06 is probably the best I could do. I agree don't believe what read and see on TV on the news.

The site I referenced is credible though.

I know your liberal indoctrination tells you otherwise and that actual stats don't back up your argument.

Ban swimming pools and then we can talk about guns. Don't worry about someone else kids just worry about yourself and your kids. Quit telling people what to do. It's not your problem.

You're too fucking stupid to even argue with. This isn't about stats, or how many children die in swimming pools versus how many die because of a firearm. You're missing the fucking point, altogether! The point is that NO 8 year old little boy should be playing with a fucking UZI! I'm not sure why that concept is so damn difficult for you to comprehend! You really sound like a bigger dope, than even I thought you were (which is really saying something, because I think you're a fucking 'tard) when you actually try to make it sound like it's not that big of a deal that this little boy died. You sound as stupid as the kid's dopey daddy!


John from Boston

[Tito]

If you want I can keep looking for more recent stats. The newspaper article was from '05. There probably is a lag in gathering stats so '06 is probably the best I could do. I agree don't believe what read and see on TV on the news.

The site I referenced is credible though.

I know your liberal indoctrination tells you otherwise and that actual stats don't back up your argument.

Ban swimming pools and then we can talk about guns. Don't worry about someone else kids just worry about yourself and your kids. Quit telling people what to do. It's not your problem.

You're too fucking stupid to even argue with. This isn't about stats, or how many children die in swimming pools versus how many die because of a firearm. You're missing the fucking point, altogether! The point is that NO 8 year old little boy should be playing with a fucking UZI! I'm not sure why that concept is so damn difficult for you to comprehend! You really sound like a bigger dope, than even I thought you were (which is really saying something, because I think you're a fucking 'tard) when you actually try to make it sound like it's not that big of a deal that this little boy died. You sound as stupid as the kid's dopey daddy!


John from Boston

I never said it was ok that he was using the gun. My point is there should be no law against that. Still, guns are only a small percentage of accidental deaths for kids. Down the list. Why pick on guns when there are many other precautions one could take on other issues that would save more lives. Our drowning victims not as important than the kid who die by the firearm? Or is not as important due to a political agenda i.e. gun control.

[bluejeangirl76]

This isn't about stats, or how many children die in swimming pools versus how many die because of a firearm.

As I said, a child falling in a pool can't take out bystanders. A child with a gun CAN.
Stats schmats. Children should not be handling guns of any type, period.

[Tito]

This isn't about stats, or how many children die in swimming pools versus how many die because of a firearm.

As I said, a child falling in a pool can't take out bystanders. A child with a gun CAN.
Stats schmats. Children should not be handling guns of any type, period.

What if he grabs another kid while falling in or one flips over the innertube or raft in a pool or lake?

[Enigma869]

What if he grabs another kid while falling?

Are you seriously this fucking stupid? Man, I hope this is just an act, because you shouldn't be allowed to leave your fucking house, with what you're packing, in between your ears!


John from Boston

[Tito]

What if he grabs another kid while falling?

Are you seriously this fucking stupid? Man, I hope this is just an act, because you shouldn't be allowed to leave your fucking house, with what you're packing, in between your ears!


John from Boston

Is it not possible to react and grab someone/thing if your falling. What if they flip the raft or innertube over with other kids on?

[Tito]

This isn't about stats, or how many children die in swimming pools versus how many die because of a firearm.

As I said, a child falling in a pool can't take out bystanders. A child with a gun CAN.
Stats schmats. Children should not be handling guns of any type, period.

Also, usually it's a self inflicted wound and they are not shooting others. Not saying it hasn't happened but that is even a smaller percentage.

[Enigma869]

I never said it was ok that he was using the gun. My point is there should be no law against that. Still, guns are only a small percentage of accidental deaths for kids. Down the list. Why pick on guns when there are many other precautions one could take on other issues that would save more lives. Our drowning victims not as important than the kid who die by the firearm? Or is not as important due to a political agenda i.e. gun control.

You really are CLUELESS! This thread had nothing to do with any gun laws! I only mentioned the law, several days after this thread was started, when it was mentioned on the news. I realize that a law isn't going to prevent a parent from allowing his child to play with a gun, but it would at least hold the parent responsible! In my opinion, this is really no different than a parent buying alcohol for their minor child. They are both reckless child endangerment. The only difference is that the child consuming alcohol under age is still alive! Contrary to your accusation, my mission in life isn't to rid the world of firearms. I do think most of the world is too stupid to own a gun, and you, and the idiotic father in this case continue to prove my thought to be a valid one! I'm happy to say that you are the only moron I've encountered, since this tragedy happened, that seems to be trying to justify it!


John from Boston

[bluejeangirl76]

This isn't about stats, or how many children die in swimming pools versus how many die because of a firearm.

As I said, a child falling in a pool can't take out bystanders. A child with a gun CAN.
Stats schmats. Children should not be handling guns of any type, period.

Also, usually it's a self inflicted wound and they are not shooting others. Not saying it hasn't happened but that is even a smaller percentage.

Alright then. Picture this. 30 x 60 pool.... 3 year old horsing around at one end by himself, no rafts, people or other children near him and nothing to grab on to. 8 year old horsing around at the opposite end waving a gun he found in daddy's nightstand (or that daddy let him hold). 3 year old falls on the edge and goes in. Kid with gun accidentally fires it. You are up on the high dive getting ready to pretend you're Mark Spitz. WHICH of these two kids is the bigger threat to you? The 3 year old is in the water, the other one has a gun. Its not a hard equation.

It doesn't matter that usually its a self inflicted wound ... I spent years living in AZ where there are two stories like that on the news every week and I've never heard of a falling child taking anyone else out in the process... children that fall into the water do so because they aren't being watched, in other words they're alone (no one to grab on to).... but if I'm 10 feet from either of these kids, I know which one is more likely to take me or others out in his shenannigans.

[Tito]

I never said it was ok that he was using the gun. My point is there should be no law against that. Still, guns are only a small percentage of accidental deaths for kids. Down the list. Why pick on guns when there are many other precautions one could take on other issues that would save more lives. Our drowning victims not as important than the kid who die by the firearm? Or is not as important due to a political agenda i.e. gun control.

The only difference is that the child consuming alcohol under age is still alive!


John from Boston

What if he gets in a car though?


P.S.
Well, I think it's for the parent to decide when a child should handle a gun.

[Enigma869]

Alright then. Picture this. 30 x 60 pool.... 3 year old horsing around at one end by himself, no rafts, people or other children near him and nothing to grab on to. 8 year old horsing around at the opposite end waving a gun he found in daddy's nightstand (or that daddy let him hold). 3 year old falls on the edge and goes in. Kid with gun accidentally fires it. You are up on the high dive getting ready to pretend you're Mark Spitz. WHICH of these two kids is the bigger threat to you? The 3 year old is in the water, the other one has a gun. Its not a hard equation.

It doesn't matter that usually its a self inflicted wound ... I spent years living in AZ where there are two stories like that on the news every week and I've never heard of a falling child taking anyone else out in the process... children that fall into the water do so because they aren't being watched, in other words they're alone (no one to grab on to).... but if I'm 10 feet from either of these kids, I know which one is more likely to take me or others out in his shenannigans.

There is no reasoning with Frito, BJ Girl! He obviously believes that guns pose no danger to anyone, because far more children drown in swimming pools. Far more children under the age of two drown in bathtubs, so perhaps we should start a nationwide movement to remove all bathtubs


John from Boston

[Tito]

This isn't about stats, or how many children die in swimming pools versus how many die because of a firearm.

As I said, a child falling in a pool can't take out bystanders. A child with a gun CAN.
Stats schmats. Children should not be handling guns of any type, period.

Also, usually it's a self inflicted wound and they are not shooting others. Not saying it hasn't happened but that is even a smaller percentage.

Alright then. Picture this. 30 x 60 pool.... 3 year old horsing around at one end by himself, no rafts, people or other children near him and nothing to grab on to. 8 year old horsing around at the opposite end waving a gun he found in daddy's nightstand (or that daddy let him hold). 3 year old falls on the edge and goes in. Kid with gun accidentally fires it. You are up on the high dive getting ready to pretend you're Mark Spitz. WHICH of these two kids is the bigger threat to you? The 3 year old is in the water, the other one has a gun. Its not a hard equation.

It doesn't matter that usually its a self inflicted wound ... I spent years living in AZ where there are two stories like that on the news every week and I've never heard of a falling child taking anyone else out in the process... children that fall into the water do so because they aren't being watched, in other words they're alone (no one to grab on to).... but if I'm 10 feet from either of these kids, I know which one is more likely to take me or others out in his shenannigans.

Actually in 88% of the cases there was some supervision.

I wouldn't put myself or my kid in the position to be waving around a gun let alone a loaded one. Fortunately that scenario doesn't play out as often as you think. All things being equal, the kid drowning is MORE LIKELY to happen than shoot himself or others. Again, is their life less important that the one who dies by a firearm?

[Tito]

Alright then. Picture this. 30 x 60 pool.... 3 year old horsing around at one end by himself, no rafts, people or other children near him and nothing to grab on to. 8 year old horsing around at the opposite end waving a gun he found in daddy's nightstand (or that daddy let him hold). 3 year old falls on the edge and goes in. Kid with gun accidentally fires it. You are up on the high dive getting ready to pretend you're Mark Spitz. WHICH of these two kids is the bigger threat to you? The 3 year old is in the water, the other one has a gun. Its not a hard equation.

It doesn't matter that usually its a self inflicted wound ... I spent years living in AZ where there are two stories like that on the news every week and I've never heard of a falling child taking anyone else out in the process... children that fall into the water do so because they aren't being watched, in other words they're alone (no one to grab on to).... but if I'm 10 feet from either of these kids, I know which one is more likely to take me or others out in his shenannigans.

There is no reasoning with Frito, BJ Girl! He obviously believes that guns pose no danger to anyone, because far more children drown in swimming pools. Far more children under the age of two drown in bathtubs, so perhaps we should start a nationwide movement to remove all bathtubs


John from Boston

If you are interested in saving the most lives, then yes.

[Ehwmatt]

I never said it was ok that he was using the gun. My point is there should be no law against that. Still, guns are only a small percentage of accidental deaths for kids. Down the list. Why pick on guns when there are many other precautions one could take on other issues that would save more lives. Our drowning victims not as important than the kid who die by the firearm? Or is not as important due to a political agenda i.e. gun control.

You really are CLUELESS! This thread had nothing to do with any gun laws! I only mentioned the law, several days after this thread was started, when it was mentioned on the news. I realize that a law isn't going to prevent a parent from allowing his child to play with a gun, but it would at least hold the parent responsible! In my opinion, this is really no different than a parent buying alcohol for their minor child. They are both reckless child endangerment. The only difference is that the child consuming alcohol under age is still alive! Contrary to your accusation, my mission in life isn't to rid the world of firearms. I do think most of the world is too stupid to own a gun, and you, and the idiotic father in this case continue to prove my thought to be a valid one! I'm happy to say that you are the only moron I've encountered, since this tragedy happened, that seems to be trying to justify it!


John from Boston

John, I respect aspects of both yours and Tito's arguments, but your vitriol post in and post out is doing you no favors...

With all of these laws, it's a difference of degree to me, not a difference of kind. And the present judicial/legal system seems loathe to accept that.

Who is worse, a father purchasing a case of beer for his 19-year-old son or a mother purchasing a keg for her 14-year-old HS freshman daughter to throw a party with 14-15 year olds?

And again, who is worse, a father taking his 16-year-old son out on a father-son hunting trip or a father who irresponsibly leaves his loaded firearm in plain access of his children under 12 or so?

It's a difference of degree, and if under this law that father taking his son on a hunting trip is just as culpable as the guy leaving guns in reach of little kids, then that's garbage.

I know what the law OBJECTIVELY says, but it shouldn't be that way.

If this tentative gun legislation in MA would seek to make it a crime to let a "minor" (I'm reading U18 there... correct me if I'm wrong) handle a gun, then that' s just as stupid and arbitrary as the current legal drinking age in most states. And that's where I'm with Tito calling it bad law. Laws shouldn't sweep so broadly or arbitrarily when dealing with these kinds of matters.

[Skylorde]

Tito does have a point to some extent.

There's an intrinsic shock value to a child getting killed by a gun, much more so than an accidental drowning. A typical knee jerk reaction is to BAN THE GUNS! with the goal being to save lives. Statistically speaking, we should look at the things that are killing children in far larger numbers if the goal is to save lives. The death of this kid was absolutely senseless and as I stated earlier, I do question at what point some gun laws are appropriate.

Death by suicide, car accident and drowning all take more lives than accidental gun incidents however things like swimming are far more socially acceptable and thus there's no rush to ban swimming pools.

[Enigma869]

I completely give up. I'm not sure where anyone (including the law being proposed in Massachusetts) says to "ban all guns". If people aren't bright enough to figure out that an 8 year old little boy handling a fucking UZI is an accident waiting to happen, then it is pointless to discuss any further. As I said, this thread was NEVER about the law. The law was proposed, in reaction to this tragedy. As I've said in another thread, I think every politician on the planet is a waste of oxygen, so the laws being proposed by said politicians aren't the issue for me. Whether or not it's a "kneejerk reaction" or not, I think a parent who behaves in a manner that willfully endangers the safety and welfare of their child should be held accountable! The bottom line is that if the dopey father had enough common sense to not allow his 8 year old to play with an UZI then the little boy would be alive!


John from Boston

[Enigma869]

John, I respect aspects of both yours and Tito's arguments, but your vitriol post in and post out is doing you no favors...

What's your point? I can assure you that I'm not here looking for "favors". If "vitriol" isn't your thing, I'd suggest skipping any thread that I'm a participant in. It will save your poor eyes the trauma! Tito is a fucking moron, and I'll take him and his racist and homophobic attitudes on all day, every day! I have never respected people like that and never will. He and all his dopey "appreciation" threads can pound sand


John from Boston

[Skylorde]

Whether or not it's a "kneejerk reaction" or not, I think a parent who behaves in a manner that willfully endangers the safety and welfare of their child should be held accountable! The bottom line is that if the dopey father had enough common sense to not allow his 8 year old to play with an UZI then the little boy would be alive!


John from Boston

John, the reaction to this kids death isn't knee jerk per se, but what usually evolves out of these situations is a knee jerk reaction to ban guns. I'm not disagreeing the father is an idiot. Who would? Living in the South West, I see the news reports every year about kids dying from hyperthermia (being left in a hot vehicle). The parents are always distraught (who wouldn't be?) and although I'm certain they didn't mean to do it, reality is they did and now we have a dead child or baby. One father was so distraught at the scene, he tried to un-holster a cops gun so he could shoot himself.

There are a lot of stupid ways parents are negligent, most are not as sensational as a gunshot victim. That's all I'm trying to say.

[Ehwmatt]

John, I respect aspects of both yours and Tito's arguments, but your vitriol post in and post out is doing you no favors...

What's your point? I can assure you that I'm not here looking for "favors". If "vitriol" isn't your thing, I'd suggest skipping any thread that I'm a participant in. It will save your poor eyes the trauma! Tito is a fucking moron, and I'll take him and his racist and homophobic attitudes on all day, every day! I have never respected people like that and never will. He and all his dopey "appreciation" threads can pound sand


John from Boston

I'm terrified

[Tito]

John, I respect aspects of both yours and Tito's arguments, but your vitriol post in and post out is doing you no favors...

What's your point? I can assure you that I'm not here looking for "favors". If "vitriol" isn't your thing, I'd suggest skipping any thread that I'm a participant in. It will save your poor eyes the trauma! Tito is a fucking moron, and I'll take him and his racist and homophobic attitudes on all day, every day! I have never respected people like that and never will. He and all his dopey "appreciation" threads can pound sand


John from Boston

I'm not a moron (I beat your ass in this thread) or a racist (I've had jungle fever once before). I'm can't do appreciation threads no more because I was censored (which you as a liberal love to do).

[Skylorde]

Ugh.

Police: Shooter feared trick-or-treater was robber

SUMTER, S.C. (AP) — An ex-convict who thought he was being robbed gunned down a 12-year-old trick-or-treater, spraying nearly 30 rounds with an assault rifle from inside his home after hearing a knock on the door, police said Saturday.

Quentin Patrick, 22, is accused of killing 12-year-old T.J. Darrisaw on Friday night. T.J.'s 9-year-old brother, Ahmadre Darrisaw, and their father, Freddie Grinnell, were injured but were released after being treated at a hospital.

The family attended a Halloween celebration in downtown Sumter, 45 miles east of Columbia, then stopped at Patrick's house because the porch light was on, police said. Another sibling was with them, but wasn't hurt.

Police said at least two of the boys were wearing ghoulish masks when they knocked on the door. The boys' mother and a toddler stayed in the car nearby.

Patrick emptied his AK-47, shooting at least 29 times through his front door, walls and windows after hearing the knock, Police Chief Patty Patterson said.

He told police he had been robbed and shot in the past year.

"He wasn't going to be robbed again, and he wasn't going to be shot again," Patterson said Saturday at a news conference.

She said T.J., a bright young man, suffered multiple wounds, including a fatal shot to his head. No one answered the door at the family's home Saturday.

"This is by far one of the worst tragedies that I have had to personally experience," Patterson said. "It happened basically because kids were out doing what they would normally do on Halloween."

Patrick has been charged with murder, three counts of assault and battery with intent to kill, and one count of assault with intent to kill.

Police said they also charged a 19-year-old in his home, Ericka Patrice Pee, with obstruction of justice when she was caught trying to run away after the shooting with $7,500 in cash. Patterson did not give an explanation for the money.

Pee's 2-year-old daughter was inside during the shooting and is now being cared for by family members.

Patterson said Patrick had multiple drug convictions but police do not believe he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol during the shooting. Authorities did not know if Patrick or Pee had attorneys. Both are being held without bond.

A man who identified himself as Patrick's brother but declined to give his name said in a call to The Associated Press that he believed Patrick was suffering from post-traumatic stress after a break-in last December. The man's account matched the information police provided.

"We want to let his family know that this is a total tragic accident," he said. "He was trying to protect his family."

Patrick's home is off a busy, two-lane road in Sumter, a city of about 40,000 people. On Saturday, shattered glass still covered the front stoop and about 20 bullet holes peppered the front door and a front-window casement. A firefighter used a hose to wash bloodstains away.

The shooting shocked residents of a neighborhood where most people know each other well.

"I just hate it that that little kid got killed. It used to be the quietest place. I knew everybody and everybody knew me," said Vivian Johnson, 81, who lives two doors from Patrick and Pee but said she did not know them.

County Councilman Charles Edens said he lives just a few blocks away and passed the crime scene on his way back from trick-or-treating with his 13-year-old daughter, who was upset by the news.

"It's going to put a dampening on Halloween," Eden said. "I would think twice about going to a door that we don't know who lives behind."

Associated Press Writer Katrina A. Goggins in Columbia contributed to this report.

[Rick]

Ugh.

Police: Shooter feared trick-or-treater was robber

What a tragic event.

Pretty soon parents aren't going to let their kids trick or treat anymore.

[Panther]

Why?

Because he's a complete JACKASS! Frito apparently thinks it's not a bad idea to allow an 8 year old little boy to blow his head off, with parental supervision! You really know all you need to know about anyone who even attempts to justify something like this happening!


John from Boston

I will support the law if they also make swimming pools illegal for 8 years old too.

John - politely - please butt out; I really am interested to know Tito's reasoning. Why do you think this is a bad law?

Saying making swiming pools illegal for 8 years olds is disengenous - I could respond 'do you support allowing 8 years old to drive?'
I really would like to know - what is your reasoning behind thinking this will be a bad law?

I'm not sure you ever really received an answer to your query here Arianddu. I also, though most likely for completely differing reasons, think this would be bad law.

While on its face value, it might sound like it would do the job, it totally ignores the ingrained mindset here in the states in regard to weapon ownership. The amendment covering this particular "right" covers all. Meaning, that precious two year old toddlin around getting into anything and everything - and most likely sticking it right in his/her mouth, also has basis under the supreme law to own a weapon. That said, to pass a law so broad encompassing as to take away a perceived "right" to teach ones child what has been handed down from generation to generation... well, while it would be law, it would be widely ignored to the effect of telling the children, "the law says I can't do this, but I know better than the law and our family has never hurt a soul." In other words, willful disregard for the law would ensue - thus teaching yet another generation that it is perfectly cool to thumb your nose at the law simply because you don't agree with the idea behind the law.

Until such time this nation as a collective whole pulls its head out of its ass and realizes that with each and every single right provided for by whatever level of law they choose to quote comes an equal responsibility, this is the way things will be. I don't see that on the horizon, but one never knows.

BTW... Tito may have been better served had he used vehicular deaths of children under the age of ten (10) as his comparison track. Not only are they a broad spectrum venue for child death, they are THE leading cause. More often than not, the death is directly contributed to lack of parental thinking by not ensuring they are buckled safely in an approved child restraint (there's the law already in effect and the sheer lack of parental common sense all wrapped up nicely in one overwhelmingly sad statistic).

Me, personally, I work more from the end of adding actual teeth to the prosecution of these parents when they are so willfully negligent. Misdemeanor charges in these cases are laughable at best. Persons who injure animals will serve more time in most states.

[Arianddu]

Why?

Because he's a complete JACKASS! Frito apparently thinks it's not a bad idea to allow an 8 year old little boy to blow his head off, with parental supervision! You really know all you need to know about anyone who even attempts to justify something like this happening!


John from Boston

I will support the law if they also make swimming pools illegal for 8 years old too.

John - politely - please butt out; I really am interested to know Tito's reasoning. Why do you think this is a bad law?

Saying making swiming pools illegal for 8 years olds is disengenous - I could respond 'do you support allowing 8 years old to drive?'
I really would like to know - what is your reasoning behind thinking this will be a bad law?

I'm not sure you ever really received an answer to your query here Arianddu. I also, though most likely for completely differing reasons, think this would be bad law.

While on its face value, it might sound like it would do the job, it totally ignores the ingrained mindset here in the states in regard to weapon ownership. The amendment covering this particular "right" covers all. Meaning, that precious two year old toddlin around getting into anything and everything - and most likely sticking it right in his/her mouth, also has basis under the supreme law to own a weapon. That said, to pass a law so broad encompassing as to take away a perceived "right" to teach ones child what has been handed down from generation to generation... well, while it would be law, it would be widely ignored to the effect of telling the children, "the law says I can't do this, but I know better than the law and our family has never hurt a soul." In other words, willful disregard for the law would ensue - thus teaching yet another generation that it is perfectly cool to thumb your nose at the law simply because you don't agree with the idea behind the law.

Until such time this nation as a collective whole pulls its head out of its ass and realizes that with each and every single right provided for by whatever level of law they choose to quote comes an equal responsibility, this is the way things will be. I don't see that on the horizon, but one never knows.

BTW... Tito may have been better served had he used vehicular deaths of children under the age of ten (10) as his comparison track. Not only are they a broad spectrum venue for child death, they are THE leading cause. More often than not, the death is directly contributed to lack of parental thinking by not ensuring they are buckled safely in an approved child restraint (there's the law already in effect and the sheer lack of parental common sense all wrapped up nicely in one overwhelmingly sad statistic).

Me, personally, I work more from the end of adding actual teeth to the prosecution of these parents when they are so willfully negligent. Misdemeanor charges in these cases are laughable at best. Persons who injure animals will serve more time in most states.

Thank you for that well thought-out reasoning; it's given me a great deal to think about. I've never been able to understand why (some) Americans equate gun control with an attempt to deny them the right to own guns. I've also never been able to understand why the right to own a gun translates to the right to own any gun. And I've never understood why the NRA doesn't support legislation to ensure safe and responsible gun ownership instead of what appears to be a free-for-all. Your explanation makes that mind set a bit clearer, and does go some way to explaning why gun control legislation in the USA is such a contentious issue. I still think it's a totally screwed up mind set to have, mind you

And I still prefer Australia's version - yes, you can own a gun: you can have a rifle/shotgun, in your home, provided you have approved security for it (i.e. it's out of sight and locked up at all times except when in actual use) and a relevent licence issued by the police. You can own a pistol, provided it is kept at the gun club and not in a private home, and, again, you have the relevent licence. Is it perfect? No. Are their gun deaths in Australia? Yes. But every gun death in Australia is major news, which gives you an indication of how infrequent they are. But then, Australians also don't see owning a gun as a right, we see it as a choice and a responsibility. We save our 'rights' for things like voting and affordable health care

Now there's something I'm curious about - how is it that Americans don't raise the same kind of hullaballoo about legislation that disenfranchises voters? Because I can't understand how a democracy can take away a citizens right to vote and still call itself a democracy (oo, contentious! Waiting for the exploisions )

[Tito]

Thank you for that well thought-out reasoning; it's given me a great deal to think about. I've never been able to understand why (some) Americans equate gun control with an attempt to deny them the right to own guns. I've also never been able to understand why the right to own a gun translates to the right to own any gun. And I've never understood why the NRA doesn't support legislation to ensure safe and responsible gun ownership instead of what appears to be a free-for-all. Your explanation makes that mind set a bit clearer, and does go some way to explaning why gun control legislation in the USA is such a contentious issue. I still think it's a totally screwed up mind set to have, mind you

And I still prefer Australia's version - yes, you can own a gun: you can have a rifle/shotgun, in your home, provided you have approved security for it (i.e. it's out of sight and locked up at all times except when in actual use) and a relevent licence issued by the police. You can own a pistol, provided it is kept at the gun club and not in a private home, and, again, you have the relevent licence. Is it perfect? No. Are their gun deaths in Australia? Yes. But every gun death in Australia is major news, which gives you an indication of how infrequent they are. But then, Australians also don't see owning a gun as a right, we see it as a choice and a responsibility. We save our 'rights' for things like voting and affordable health care

Now there's something I'm curious about - how is it that Americans don't raise the same kind of hullaballoo about legislation that disenfranchises voters? Because I can't understand how a democracy can take away a citizens right to vote and still call itself a democracy (oo, contentious! Waiting for the exploisions )

Too much government.

[Arianddu]

Thank you for that well thought-out reasoning; it's given me a great deal to think about. I've never been able to understand why (some) Americans equate gun control with an attempt to deny them the right to own guns. I've also never been able to understand why the right to own a gun translates to the right to own any gun. And I've never understood why the NRA doesn't support legislation to ensure safe and responsible gun ownership instead of what appears to be a free-for-all. Your explanation makes that mind set a bit clearer, and does go some way to explaning why gun control legislation in the USA is such a contentious issue. I still think it's a totally screwed up mind set to have, mind you

And I still prefer Australia's version - yes, you can own a gun: you can have a rifle/shotgun, in your home, provided you have approved security for it (i.e. it's out of sight and locked up at all times except when in actual use) and a relevent licence issued by the police. You can own a pistol, provided it is kept at the gun club and not in a private home, and, again, you have the relevent licence. Is it perfect? No. Are their gun deaths in Australia? Yes. But every gun death in Australia is major news, which gives you an indication of how infrequent they are. But then, Australians also don't see owning a gun as a right, we see it as a choice and a responsibility. We save our 'rights' for things like voting and affordable health care

Now there's something I'm curious about - how is it that Americans don't raise the same kind of hullaballoo about legislation that disenfranchises voters? Because I can't understand how a democracy can take away a citizens right to vote and still call itself a democracy (oo, contentious! Waiting for the exploisions )

Too much government.

Too much government what?

[bluejeangirl76]

And I still prefer Australia's version - yes, you can own a gun: you can have a rifle/shotgun, in your home, provided you have approved security for it (i.e. it's out of sight and locked up at all times except when in actual use) and a relevent licence issued by the police. You can own a pistol, provided it is kept at the gun club and not in a private home, and, again, you have the relevent licence. Is it perfect? No. Are their gun deaths in Australia? Yes. But every gun death in Australia is major news, which gives you an indication of how infrequent they are. But then, Australians also don't see owning a gun as a right, we see it as a choice and a responsibility. We save our 'rights' for things like voting and affordable health care

We 'Merkins might could learn a few things from you folks.

[Rick]

A lot of Americans have the attitude of "We like our freedoms and they are worth the price, whatever it is. If you don't like it that way, move to another country." I have a hefty respect for that attitude, but when a child is killed needlessly, it makes me stop and think. Is it worth that? That's very tough to rationalize.

[Tito]

A lot of Americans have the attitude of "We like our freedoms and they are worth the price, whatever it is. If you don't like it that way, move to another country." I have a hefty respect for that attitude, but when a child is killed needlessly, it makes me stop and think. Is it worth that? That's very tough to rationalize.

You've really turned into a b-tch lately.

[Tito]

And I still prefer Australia's version - yes, you can own a gun: you can have a rifle/shotgun, in your home, provided you have approved security for it (i.e. it's out of sight and locked up at all times except when in actual use) and a relevent licence issued by the police. You can own a pistol, provided it is kept at the gun club and not in a private home, and, again, you have the relevent licence. Is it perfect? No. Are their gun deaths in Australia? Yes. But every gun death in Australia is major news, which gives you an indication of how infrequent they are. But then, Australians also don't see owning a gun as a right, we see it as a choice and a responsibility. We save our 'rights' for things like voting and affordable health care

We 'Merkins might could learn a few things from you folks.

Bullshit.