Responsible Gun Owner's 3-Year-Old Fatally Shoots Her In The Head

[eridani]

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/11/responsible-gun-owners-3-year-old-fatally?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

he Tulsa Police Department on Tuesday identified a U.S. Army Reserve specialist as the woman who was fatally shot by her 3-year-old son in their east Tulsa home Monday afternoon.

Christa Engles, 26, was in a residence in the 100 block of South 168th East Avenue with the toddler and her 10-month-old daughter about 4:30 p.m. Monday when, according to Tulsa Police Homicide Sgt. Dave Walker, the boy shot her in the head while she appeared to be changing her daughter’s diaper in their living room.

“There was a holster on a table right (by) where she would have been changing the diaper,” Walker said Tuesday.

Detectives believe the boy picked up a loaded 9mm semiautomatic handgun from the low-lying table near the couch while his mother was distracted and accidentally fired at her.

[shenmue]

1. Awful

[SoCalMusicLover]

3. Darwin At Work

Awful would have been if the infant or the 3 yr. old had been shot.

This was very responsible parenting.

[shenmue]

4. Shame

Not funny.

[samsingh]

5. i think it's more than darwin

it's the bloodsucking people profiting from the gun industry that have convinced so many people that they need to be awass in guns and to show their patriotism through guns. So many seem to think that loving their guns means loving their country.

what a wet dream for any marketer.

[Fred Sanders]

22. Love me, love my gun, love my country...or else.., but true patriotism has nothing to do with guns.

They will never get that.

[Eleanors38]

19. God, SoCal, you'll turn off your "peaceful" allies.

[CBGLuthier]

66. Your pathetic attempt at a joke would have more validity if she was not killed

by her child. you do realize that completely invalidates any point, humorous or otherwise you might have had and instead makes me wonder if perhaps you should not drop out of the gene pool yourself considering your limited ability to understand basic concepts.

[Fred Sanders]

70. She was killed by a 3 year old with a loaded gun she negligently left on a table...a gun, not a fork

not a bicycle, not even a knife...a loaded gun....nothing is more deadly, little could be so negligent...it is all about the gun.

[pablo_marmol]

131. LOL! So that's justification for a filthy remark?

Thanks for showing your true (ugly) colors!

[Fred Sanders]

133. What?

[pablo_marmol]

134. Don't feign confusion please.

Your defense of an indefensible post is telling.

[GGJohn]

164. It still isn't fucking humorous in the least and the snipe was in poor taste

no matter where you land on the issue of firearms.

[Chemisse]

77. Actually that is not true.

She already had children, so her genes have been passed on.

That said, this comment was unkind. Even if you despise gun owners enough to wish them dead by their own guns, there are two tiny children who no longer have a mom. And that is sad.

[pablo_marmol]

91. What an absolutely sickening remark.

And I have little doubt that you're quite capable of calling out the RW for comments like this!

[Eleanors38]

118. There's a lot of death celebration over this issue lately...

Phoning in OC demonstrations in the hopes someone gets killed is the other stuff which increasingly passes muster in DU. I recall some folks getting MIRTED for this kind of thing. Guess dead mothers are OK, now.

[pablo_marmol]

130. But the poster will get a pass because his/her remark

is directed against a "gun humper".

Nothing like double standards.

[unblock]

202. much as i enjoy a good darwin award, they're more appropriate when they happen before breeding.

[Fred Sanders]

2. Again proving the deadly nature of a gun, a child can kill an adult with this inanimate object.

Such weapons must be better controlled and not given to citizens with no need and no responsibility and no training or respect.

[kioa]

6. More people are killed in bicycle accidents than from firearm accidents.

Also from stairs (falls), pools, tubs (drowning), matches, electricity (fires), cars, medicine & household cleaning supplies (poisoning).
It seems that you have a lot of controlling ahead of you.

I don't think that your assessment of 'need' should eliminate anyone currently able to legally own any of those objects.

Authoritarian answers for anecdotal problems just isn't that impressive to me.

[Fred Sanders]

8. More gun lovers are killed by their own guns than by criminals. Stupid gun lovers.....

[kioa]

12. Then don't own one.

Just let everyone else make that same choice for themselves.

Freedom sure is neat, innit?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

82. Lots of non-gun owners are killed by gun owners, though.

Me not owning one doesn't keep me from being shot by some idiot who does own one. Who will be a 'responsible gun owner' right up until the moment they aren't.

[kioa]

84. Lots of gun owners are killed by non-gun owners.

Perhaps we should focus on the people doing the killing and not inanimate objects or the people who aren't doing the killing.

Life in the USA isn't scary.
Get out more.

[daleanime]

105. Don't worry, even if "life in the USA isn't scary"......

we know your doing your best to change that.

[kioa]

110. How so?

[pablo_marmol]

92. "Who will be a 'responsible gun owner' right up until the moment they aren't."

Crime stats demonstrate that this is rarely the case.

The vast majority of gun violence is committed by persons with lengthy criminal records.

But you keep your lies rollin' along. The NRA could always use more $$!

[acalix]

186. And a lot of drunkards kill others.

By drinking and driving.

Why haven't we installed breathalyzers in all cars?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

187. Good question.

But we already DO license all drivers, require them to pass knowledge and use tests, and require cars that will be used anywhere in public to be registered.

So let's start by adding those requirements to gun use, then we can start talking about car breathalyzers and 'smart gun' technology.

[acalix]

191. False comparison.

None of those requirements apply towards operating a vehicle on private property. You already need a license and training to carry your gun in public in most states.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

192. True comparison.

I don't know of any gun equipped with technology to prevent bullets fired from it from leaving private property and hitting things on public property if they miss things aimed at on private property. Come up with that tech, and then you can talk about how guns are only used on private property.

[Straw Man]

193. False comparison.

I don't know of any gun equipped with technology to prevent bullets fired from it from leaving private property and hitting things on public property if they miss things aimed at on private property. Come up with that tech, and then you can talk about how guns are only used on private property.

Such a technology exists. If fact, it is one of the oldest technologies known to man, and pre-dates firearms by several millennia. It is extrinsic to the firearm, but is nevertheless extremely effective. It is called a berm, known to the layman as "a pile of dirt." One fires the bullet into it, but the bullet does not emerge from the other side. A berm that is high enough and wide enough allows people to shoot on their property with no danger to anyone off the property.

If you're going to come back with some nonsense about firing into the air or some other reckless activity, I will ask you what technology exists in automobiles to prevent people from steering them into crowds with fatal results. I assume you'll say something about cars not being "designed to kill," at which point I will ask you if a person is any less dead for having been killed by a machine that was not "designed to kill." Public safety is public safety, after all.

[acalix]

201. How many times as something like that happened?

A bullet being fired from one's home and striking somebody outsode the residence accidentally? I'm going to assume a dozen or so cases every year.

What's stopping me from me from driving my car through my wooden fences in the backyard and running over my neighbors having an outdoor barbecque?

[beevul]

200. More to the point...

"None of those requirements apply towards operating a vehicle on private property."

More to the point, none of the above is required to own a vehicle.

Ask a single of the antis if these licensing schemes they bring up will be subject to national reciprocity and allow carry, like a drivers license , and the tune changes drastically.

They mean to see enacted a license to own a firearm, but most of them wont just come out and admit it. So they come up with these bullshit comparisons thinking they're actually fooling people.

[hack89]

206. I have no problem with a license that is good in every state - just like a drivers license. nt

[GGJohn]

27. You're free not to own one, you're not free to deny others of owning one.

[samsingh]

40. you are right

[Fred Sanders]

42. I know, the gun loving folk do not get it that a gun is a......gun...go figure.

[samsingh]

47. the absolute lack of facts and logic is astounding

as is their attempt to pretend the opposite.

And their constant chastisement of people who are emotionally affected by gun deaths of innocent people can be contrasted with their own emotional outbursts and outage when they are asked 'can anything be done to reduce the number of people being killed by guns?'.

someone with like 50 posts is clearly trying to stir stuff up.

[GGJohn]

165. Hmmmm, didn't you at one time have only like 50 posts?

What does someone's post count have to do with anything?

[samsingh]

169. maybe 10 years ago

a lot of right wingers join the board, make a couple of comments, and then start bullshit arguments and then get banned. They think they're being clever. Maybe some of the intelligent thinking on this board will get into their subconscious and make them better people someday. Who knows.

Rightwingers, who love to profile others are so easy to profile themselves.

[pablo_marmol]

188. "a lot of right wingers join the board.........."

And of course they're easy to detect. They're the ones that take exception to willfully ignorant emotion-based arguments relating to gun violence. Which is to say they disagree with you!

[samsingh]

189. want to see emotion and ignorance - talk to a gun lover about gun control

their fantasies immediately strength to a complete ban. They make facts up and call names.

and they exhibit emotion about a ridiculous outcome.

[pablo_marmol]

194. Quite the contrary.

It's "progressives" like yourself who display your contempt for facts by ignoring what highly credentialed liberal criminologists - with no agenda to push - have to say. (James Wright, Peter Rossi, (RIP) David Bordua and Gary Kleck - to name just four)

You'd rather listen to willfully ignorant ideology-driven bloviators like MSNBC hosts -- who allow their otherwise sharp minds to go soft on the subject of gun violence.

[samsingh]

196. what facts do you refer to? studies around the world show that increased gun ownership

results in more gun based deaths.

seems logical too.

[pablo_marmol]

204. "what facts do you refer to?"

What's the matter - can't be bothered to simply google some of the names I mentioned?

As far back as 1983, James Wright and Peter Rossi informed Jimmy Carter that there was zero evidence that the Gun Control Act of 1968 had accomplished anything. And it's only gotten worse for your team since then.

Wright & Rossi started their research assuming a relationship between the raw number of guns and gun violence, only to change their opinion as the results of their study indicated otherwise. Same with Kleck, and possibly Bordua.

Not that you have the ability to challenge your own biases, but the Wright/Rossi book is titled 'Under the Gun'. They were given a grant of 67 K to study gun violence and brought back news that Jimmy didn't want to hear.

The "studies" that you refer to without any specificity whatsoever are bogus. Again, not that you'd challenge yourself to read an entire book by a highly credentialed liberal scholar, but Gary Kleck's book 'Targeting Guns' takes apart all of these "studies" thoroughly and systematically.

[samsingh]

208. your google search is very lazy and your hypocracy at bias is glaring

how arrogant to assume that every other country in the world that enacts gun control has it wrong. Australia passed gun control measures after a massacre (even their conservatives were on side) and they haven't had one since.

but looking for biased studies paid for by gun lobbyists is your idea of 'rational discussion'.

i know you are emotional about the thought of having all your guns taken away. i know the thought the more guns mean more gun deaths must as more cars would mean more car accidents. duh - fairly logical.

give your guns a nice loving embrace

[Straw Man]

213. Lazy searches.

how arrogant to assume that every other country in the world that enacts gun control has it wrong. Australia passed gun control measures after a massacre (even their conservatives were on side) and they haven't had one since.

Actually, they have had several massacres since then. Most of them were arson attacks, with death tolls in double digits. Most of the spree killings before the Port Arthur massacre were shootings with fewer than ten casualties.

It would appear that while Australia's legislation may have reduced shooting deaths, it hasn't reduced the frequency or body count of mass murder.

[samsingh]

214. interesting point

your posts admists that shooting deaths are reduced.

two questions come to mind:

1. althought other methods of killing can be used (stabbing the ex-partner and then yourself for example) is the total number of dead lower, highter, or the same.

2. without a gun, i think some people would lose the nerve to kill (e.g. may cool down), so in some cases the question is who lives or dies depending on the weapons available.

[gejohnston]

227. Actually, the shootings were a string in the 1980s

none before and none after. New Zealand had a similar string of events, did nothing, and got the same result as Australia.
At least one was a "mass shooting" because of the number of casualties in a gang battle. Although Australia did not, and still does not, have federal gun laws, each state had fairly strict gun laws, including Tasmania, where the killer was able to obtain two rifles without the required license (given his low IQ and history of violent behavior, he wouldn't have qualified for one even in Tasmania).

2. without a gun, i think some people would lose the nerve to kill (e.g. may cool down), so in some cases the question is who lives or dies depending on the weapons available.

no, that isn't how it works. That may be true of you if you were so inclined, but there is no evidence to support the idea.

[pablo_marmol]

226. "Your google search is very lazy......."

What "google search" are you referring to? My post contained the names of credentialed LIBERAL authors, and books that I have read in their entirety.

.......and your hypocracy at bias is glaring

I guess that was supposed to read "and your hypocrisy and bias is glaring."

Is your research on gun violence as lazy as your typing? At any rate, I take your silly invective as a compliment considering your dishonorable approach to the social problem of gun violence.

Australia passed gun control measures after a massacre (even their conservatives were on side) and they haven't had one since.

See post above......your facts are incorrect. Also - we haven't had a terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 since 9/11. Does that mean that Shrub kept us safe?

but looking for biased studies paid for by gun lobbyists is your idea of 'rational discussion'.

This is just a bald-faced lie. The only criminologists I have studied are liberal ones.......who have accepted no money from "the gun lobby" and who started their careers believing in gun restriction only to change their minds once empirical evidence proved their original beliefs lacking.

i know you are emotional about the thought of having all your guns taken away.

Filthy assumption - and incorrect, because the way your team is flailing and failing I am very confident that I'll never see prohibition in my lifetime.

give your guns a nice loving embrace

Closing with a cute little smear. Thanks for showing your true (filthy) colors!

[samsingh]

228. Happy New Year

[pablo_marmol]

229. Back at you.

Maybe as a New Year's resolution you can resolve not to make assumptions and lie about other people.

[samsingh]

230. you won't quit

make a resolution and get some intelligence yourself

people start commenting on spelling when they have no argument to make

[pablo_marmol]

231. Right. My post #226 focused only on your spelling. LOL.

You're right. I won't quit pointing out your lies.

[samsingh]

232. no i meant you won't quit saying lies

i guess you have nothing better to do with your time.

truly sad.

[pablo_marmol]

234. Here is YOUR LIE:

.......but looking for biased studies paid for by gun lobbyists is your idea of 'rational discussion'.

All of the books I've read on the subject of violence have been by LIBERAL criminologists who haven't taken a dime from "the gun lobby". Proving that you are a bald-faced liar.

Now show me where I have lied. (Or something that "I haven't understood". LOL! As if any of your "complex" arguments have slipped past me!!

[samsingh]

238. it only proves something in your biased mind

ha ha ha

you understand nothing. and your attempts to paint others as liars when you make shit up yourself only proves that the gun lobby must work harder to keep guns away from demented fools.

[pablo_marmol]

240. Wow -- you're really beyond all help.

1) Falsely claim that I make my claims on biased studies.

2) Accuse me of lying, and refuse to clearly articulate where I have lied, or "made shit up".

Clearly you are one very dishonorable individual. Should have known I was wasting my time by asking you to back up your assertions.

Bye bye!

[samsingh]

233. and of course anything you don't understand must be a lie

much as the car would have been mysterious to cavemen.

[sarisataka]

195. The maturity level is appalling

just look at some things they come up with-

gun nut, gun pushers, gunaholic, gun freak, Cowards, so insecure about their winkie size, pens substitute, gunnopotamus, gundamentalists, gunhumpers, wee and wrinkled winkie syndrome, rangegasm, ammosexual, fetishist, gun religonists, Delicate Flowers, Hidden Criminal, pre-murderer, gun stroker, Small Penis Brigade...

the immaturity and name calling by gun lovers is..... oh

[samsingh]

197. nothing compared to when gun lovers tell gun control advocates

you want to take all our guns away (blatant lie and emotionalism here)

don't be emotional because of the latest massacre using guns

[sarisataka]

199. You stated that gun owners are

emotional and engage in name calling. I've shown a small sample of name calling from the control side; "gun lovers" don't even come close.

Emotional? That is exactly what gun control is based on. It is even in the published talking points to use emotional appeal to get others to agree.

Facts? GC groups are legendary for making things up and padding statistics. MAIG has been caught lying about membership so often they don't even list member mayors by name anymore.

At least you acknowledge the meme about not taking all guns away is a blatant lie:

"I'll be pretty clear on this Mike Bloomberg and I want guns gone. Period. It doesn't matter what it takes." - Shannon Watts

[samsingh]

207. scour the internet and this board to see what gun lovers call gun supporters

and you're not addressing my point of the emotionalism and irrational fear that gun lovers have that any sort of control means all their guns will be taken away.

do you have an example where the gun lobby willingly looked the situation and gave up anything in order to protect innocent victims?

[sarisataka]

211. No need

I have seen what "gun lovers" call gun (control?) supporters. They get extremely offended at very mild epithets e.g. "grabber"
I still see far more name calling coming from the control side.

Is a fear irrational if there is proof or are you paranoid if people really are out to get you? The leading gun control proponents clearly state a zero gun society is the ultimate goal. Do I really need to repost all of the historical statements supporting this?

Now I really would not be opposed to a zero gun society if it removed all violence; that would be a very fair trade. As we all know, that will not happen.
Now you may say other countries, blah blah blah , low gun deaths. yet other countries do have gun deaths, they have violent crime and as our violent crime rate, sans pistolets, is still much higher than the typically compared nations, it is logical to conclude we would still have a violent crime problem.
I cannot support a single path approach that IMO would likely increase overall violent crime rates, albeit reducing gun crime. To put a finer point on it, increasing the incident of rape is too high of a cost to reduce my chances of being a victim of gun related crime.

Lastly, the gun lobby side has historically often supported gun control. Each time that has happened it was determined that it wasn't enough, a little more gun control was needed. We still see it happening, Washington being the latest example. Votes were still being counted for I 594 (which overall I have little objection to) and GC proponents were discussion adding more controls.
It is this incrementalism that allowed a faction to seize control of the NRA in the 70's, transforming it from a hunting/educational organization to one that has an extremely effective lobbying arm. The modern, no compromise, NRA is a direct result of steadily increasing gun control initiatives.

[samsingh]

212. the 'control' side doesn't shoot guns at least. Are you more concerned with words or actual bullets

being fired at innocent people who are killed by stray bullets or deliberate targeting. Just last week an imbecile shot and killed his ex-girlfriend and then himself at a department store.

[sarisataka]

215. You might want to fact check

Some names-
Carl Rowan
R.C. Soles
Borris Miles
Barbara Graham
Leland Yee- OK so he didn't actually shoot a gun, that I am aware of. He just was just selling full automatic weapons and rocket launchers.

The big difference I see is so many want gun control to reduce gun violence. They couldn't care less about other violence.
-kid gets stabbed to death in school-at least it wasn't a gun
-man beaten to death with hammers-meh
-child bullied until he shoots himself- thank the universe he didn't shoot up the school

I care about all forms of violence and recognize that death by means other than a gun is still dead.

Gun control can help reduce some of the overall violence. I fully support UBC, training requirements, safe storage laws, stricter accountability for gun owners whose guns end up causing harm while in other's hands.
Yet these are still only focusing on the effect, not the cause. Treating the root causes of violence will have a much greater effect than gun control and, as a bonus, will reduce gun violence.

[samsingh]

219. btw - have you seen the names i've been called in this thread?

mr. integrity
dishonest
lying


we may not be in agreement but I'm certainly not being dishonest or lying.

[sarisataka]

220. Yet you have repeatedly

used the term "gun lover"...

I never have said you are lying. I did point out the statement about no one wanting to take all guns away is patently false. I see you did point out it is logistically impossible, which is true, but that does not change the fact that there are more than a few who wish to do so.

[samsingh]

221. okay thanks for the explanation

there are responsible gun owners and there are gun lovers. You seem to be one of the responsible gun owners.

[pablo_marmol]

235. You're not guilty of lying? Really?! Here's what you said about me:

.......but looking for biased studies paid for by gun lobbyists is your idea of 'rational discussion'

Can't wait to see you try to tap-dance out of this one.

[samsingh]

237. it's the truth. how is that lying?

[pablo_marmol]

241. It's not the truth. It's a complete lie.

Do I need to repeat what I've already CLEARLY stated?

The only books on gun violence I have read are by LIBERAL authors* with no "NRA ideology" to push. Clear enough for you now? Of course not.



*exception: Don Kates is probably better described as a left-leaning libertarian

[pablo_marmol]

205. Actually, evidence demonstrates that you are the one blatantly lying.

Many of the DU members responding to this poll want a "gun free" society.......however the hell that's going to be accomplished!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4662934

Beyond this, long lists of quotes by pro-restriction supporters calling for prohibition have been posted over and over again in this forum, so you're either not paying attention - or prevaricating.

[samsingh]

209. to you 175 respondents scrares you that all your guns will be taken away

realistically, all guns cannot be taken away. it is an irrational fear based on your emotional love for guns.

calling me a liar and citing one fing poll shows how immature and untrustworthy you are.

[pablo_marmol]

216. No - I am not afraid of having my guns taken away, Mr. Integrity.

I was confronting your foolish and dishonest suggestion that nobody on your side of the issue has demonstrated prohibitionist intent. The two are not the same.

Like I said - there is a very long list of individuals who have demonstrated prohibitionist intent......and all of your silly and dishonorable tap dancing doesn't change that.

ETA: Here is just one example that exemplifies what has been said by many on DU

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022010415

[samsingh]

218. that's like saying no one with guns kills - your side

[pablo_marmol]

224. Only the reading comprehension impaired could come to that conclusion. NT

[pablo_marmol]

217. Rachel Maddow believes in an unarmed society.

I like making liberals shoot guns - I just don't think we should be allowed to take them home.

This was her statement to Jimmy Fallon during their interview in the following link. Completely unambiguous.

Conversation about guns starts at 2:53. At 3:18, Fallon rides to her rescue when she gags on his question "You're not anti-gun, are you?" At 4:11 she talks about "unsettling" interns by taking them to the shooting range. The quote above takes place at around 4:29, and she insanely compares guns to carnival amusements at 4:36.

News flash, Rachel - if you don't believe citizens have the right to defend themselves in their homes it's NOT complicated. You're anti-gun. Period.

And people like you can't figure out why the NRA is rolling in money!

http://crooksandliars.com/heather/rachel-maddow-late-night-jimmy-fallon

Here's another one of your buddies sounding off a couple of years ago:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022010415

Finally, it's interesting that a liberal criminologist exposes the "Nobody wants to take your guns" lie more effectively than anyone:

https://saf.org/journal/13/AbsolutistPoliticsinaModeratePackage.pdf

[samsingh]

236. Good for her. She's a smart person.

[pablo_marmol]

242. So you think banning guns is a good idea, or even feasible? LOL!

She is generally a smart person, but like many smart liberals turns to stupid ideologue on the gun violence issue.

[samsingh]

239. your posts have convinced me that i'm being too moderate in my thinking

[pablo_marmol]

243. Right -- because quoting award-winning liberal criminologists is such a horrible thing.

Your dishonest posts, and cowardly refusal to articulate where I have "lied" or "made things up" tells me that perhaps I should put you on 'ignore'.

EDITED TO ADD: Since you have brazenly and unapologetically lied about me, and falsely accused me of lying without evidence - you have the honor of being the only member on my ignore list.

[samsingh]

244. that's an honor - hopefully you won't be responding if you've

Last edited Mon Feb 2, 2015, 06:04 PM - Edit history (2)

told the truth and actually ignored me. I wonder how many people have you on ignore?

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

177. Most civilized societies have sensible laws when it comes to guns and healthcare, in these two areas

America is still quite immature and has a long ways to go.

[kioa]

184. Define "civilized society".

More to the point, which people do you find "uncivilized"?

Were Native American tribes "civilized"? Are Native American societies "civilized" now? What about African nations?
Are Mexicans "civilized"?

Do you think that Heads of State being chosen by heredity is "civilized" & "mature"?

[samsingh]

198. you are right

[samsingh]

210. very immature indeed

[angstlessk]

9. The things you mention actually have uses other than to kill.

Useful things, the only purpose of a gun is to kill...you can say to protect, the outcome of which may still be death, and not necessarily that of an intruder, but of a family member, or loved one.

[kioa]

10. Irrelevant.

Accidental deaths from guns are lower than accidental deaths from all those other objects mentioned.

Your estimations of utility is also irrelevant.

Your feelings do not supplant other's rights nor choices.

[samsingh]

44. we can all make stuff

if you were serious you would look at comparative statistics with other jurisdictions that have different gun laws - compare and contrast.

but I guess its easier to dismiss reality and stay in a gun inspired fantasy land. stay with your precious

[kioa]

55. I stated reality & used facts.

You have discussed nothing but your feelings.

Myself & my fellow citizens will keep our rights & continue to make our own choices despite your authoritarian & bizarre desires to take those away from others.

Rights and choice are precious to We the People.
We will keep them.

[samsingh]

101. where are your references to your 'facts'

the emotion in your statement about authoritarianism and taking away rights sounds emotional. too bad there's none for gun victims.

but as long as you're ok I guess you're fine.

[kioa]

108. It's basic English.

"au·thor·i·tar·i·an
əˌTHôrəˈterēən/
adjective
1.
favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom."

Gun Control, in particular gun (Assault Weapons BAN) and magazine bans, unquestionably fits that description.

Bans inherently take away rights and liberties.

I don't think the 'problem' with the USA is that we have too much rights & liberties.
Gun controllers disagree.


When the words that accurately & specifically describe your viewpoint disgust you, perhaps you should try changing your viewpoint instead of trying to change the English language.

[samsingh]

136. does access to weed count as a liberty?

[kioa]

145. In some states.

Supporting its continued criminalization & harsh controls is an authoritarian outlook.

Supporting its legalization is the pro-rights outlook.

The prohibition of weed illustrates the the folly of the prohibition of objects

I support the legalization of weed.
I am consistent.
Are you?

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

178. Why are so many civilized societies able to function just fine without guns?

Why do Americans, of all the groups of people, why do they so desperately needs guns?

[kioa]

183. Civilized societies are able to function without

many of the freedoms we have.
In Japan the police can hold a person without charge for a month.
In GB, Australia, Japan, Canada & many other nations people don't have the right to choose their own head of state.

Historically most 'civilized nations' didn't even get the right to vote (USSR) and some still don't (China).

(That's not even mentioning the inherent subjectiveness & ethnocentrism of the term 'civilized')

I prefer the freer society we have in the USA.
You should too.

[GGJohn]

28. Oh, ok, you're just not as dead because they are designed for other uses.

[samsingh]

41. you are right - it requires some level of critical thinking to grasp the difference

[ileus]

61. Not true.

Take my firearms for instance.

Some are made for protecting/saving lives.
Some are made for competition/family fun shooting.
Some are made for hunting.

None are for killing...The government isn't in the business of allowing citizens devices designed to kill.

[Thinkingabout]

31. Do you think there are more killed intentionally by bicycles than guns?

[kioa]

43. If only there was a law against intentionally killing people, amirite?

More seriously, I can only assume that you were/are opposed to the Assault Weapons ban, as all rifles combined (assault weapons are a mere subset of rifles) are used in six times less murders than knives & in half as many murder as committed with bare hands.

Unless of course you are in favor of knife bans & support the mandatory wearing of boxing gloves.

[Thinkingabout]

74. There are laws against intentionally killing people but it does not stop this

Senseless killings. Poster pointed out there are more deaths from bicycles than guns but normally a person with a bicycle kills fewer intentionally than those with a gun in their position. I would also say fewer deaths while cleaning bicycles than guns.

[samsingh]

45. very good question

I don't think anyone walks into a movie theatre and kills a lot of people with a bike.

[Thinkingabout]

75. Good Point.

[kioa]

89. Yet more accidental deaths from even bicycles than from firearms

There are also six times the number of murders committed by knives than by all rifles combined & over twice as many by bare hands than by all rifles combined.
"Assault Weapons" are a subset of rifles.


The worst mass murder in US history after 9/11 (no gun used) & OKC bombing (no gun used) was the Happy Land Fire--used a gallon of gasoline & a match. No gun.

That's a lot of banning.
You better get started.

[samsingh]

96. accidental is an important word - and how many in each incident

so because world war 1 had more deaths than word war 2 we should care about world war 2.

and as far as I know we would try to stop those events if we know they were going to happen.

be honest: you love guns and don't care who gets killed as long as you can have all the guns you want. You will twist the constitution and anything else to achieve this. That's the honest truth. No status or human misery will change.

[kioa]

113. WW2 had more deaths than WW1.

You are off by between 23,000,000 & 43,000,000.
Way to start strong.


I interpret the 2nd Amendment the same way that the Supreme Court, the President, the Democratic Party & the vast majority of the American people do; namely, that the 2nd Amendment protects individual rights.

Infringing on the rights of innocent people doesn't make anything safer.
Where I live almost certainly has more guns per capita than where you live & the murder rate is lower.
Guns aren't scary.
That's why the places with higher guns per capita are the same places that are the most opposed to gun control (in particular gun bans)

Your ignorance has made you fearful & your irrational fear has caused you to blindly hate.
Get out more.
I promise, life in the USA isn't scary.

[samsingh]

135. your words are full of hate and fear

guns are not the answer to happiness.

your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is just that. and the supreme court you follow allowed bush to steal the election from gore and calls corporations people. there's nothing to learn from them

[kioa]

143. How so? I'm not the one insisting on taking rights from innocent people, nor

saying such personal & inaccurate dreck as this:

but I guess its easier to dismiss reality and stay in a gun inspired fantasy land. stay with your precious

My interpretation that the 2nd protects individual rights is the same as President Obama's, the Democratic platform and essentially anyone who can manage to understand basic sentence structure.

Al Gore would have won if he had managed to win his home state....but he decided to promise that he would take rights away from the electorate.

Your authoritarian viewpoint is a political liability & an embarrassment to liberalism.

[samsingh]

147. no, you just don't want to do anything to stop innocent people from being killed by

idiots with guns

[kioa]

149. California, Chicago & DC show that gun bans has nothing to do with lowering

murder rates.

Your viewpoint is based in nothing but ignorance, fear & hatred.

How many other rights would you give up?
Freedom of religion? Or "no, you just don't want to do anything to stop innocent people from being killed by Muslims"?

Did you support the Patriot Act? Or "147. no, you just don't want to do anything to stop innocent people from being killed by terrorists"?

I've already heard this authoritarian nonsense. I didn't buy it then & I don't buy it now.
I am consistent.
Why aren't you?

[samsingh]

150. selective picking there. In fact, around the world stats show the opposite of your viewpoint

you're consistent in ignoring facts. They are on google.

Calling me names doesn't change anything.

i supported the patriot act btw.
I'm completely for separation of religion and state
i believe in helping the unfortunate
i'm pro healthcare for all
I support capital punishment
i was against the war in Iraq that bush caused by lying and letting bin laden get away (remember him)
i support the war in afganistan
i'm against the horror caused by isis

And i'm in the top of the 1%

sadly, you're sooo easy to profile

[kioa]

154. You do have the attitude of the 1%.

The 1% supports taking as many rights from the "dirty peasants" as they can.

However I think the 99% are good people & I will stand up for their rights.

[samsingh]

152. Al Gore did win btw - you're giving yourself away - the supreme court stoogers stopped

the ballots from being counted. Gore still got more votes than bush even with the scotus cheating for bush.

imagine what the repugs would have done if the situation was reversed and bush had gotten more votes in the US but had the vote counting stopped in florida?

[kioa]

153. Al Gore would have been President if he had won his home state.

Your viewpoint lost that election.
As it did in 1994 & 2014.

Your authoritarian outlook on rights is an embarrassment & a liability to the Democratic Party & a political dinosaur.

Gun Controllers are the best asset the GOP has.
Fortunately, after the last debacle, I believe the Party will be wise enough to deny the GOP this asset in the future.

[samsingh]

170. again, he won the election. it was stolen from him by the repugs

who are generally the biggest crybabies around when anything real or perceived happens to them.

[kioa]

173. Again. Gore would have been president if he had won his home state

He lost the Presidency thanks to your authoritarian viewpoint.

That same viewpoint caused the Republicsn Revolution of 1994 & the debacle of 2014.

Turns out those same 'peasants' that you distrust & loathe so much are a lot less willing to vote for people who promise to take their rights away.

Sorry, we aren't giving up our rights to authoritarian 1%ers.
Deal with it.

[samsingh]

174. i would thought anyone believing in democracy would be outraged

that Gore won without his home state, but in your view because he didn't support your love of guns regardless of how many people get slaughtered, it's not an outrage that the repugs and their cohorts on the supreme court purperted democracy. Incidently, preserving democracy is the one argument alot of gun lovers like to stick to in their quest to fill their houses with guns.

is the irony lost on you?

in fact where did all the patriots go when democracy was probably stolen?

[kioa]

175. You started your post accusing innocent people of causing slaughters.

You ended your post berating innocent people for not causing a slaughter.

Once again an authoritarian 1%er shows that gun control has nothing to do with safety & everything to do with taking away the rights of innocent people.

Sorry 1%er.
We the people aren't impressed by your authoritarian nonsense.
We will keep our rights despite your distrust of the 99%.

Deal with it.

[samsingh]

176. i really don't think you're reading my posts - seems like you have something to say

and like bush - regardless of the information you read - your opinion doesn't change.

how does an innocent person cause a slaughter? a person slaughtering is not innocent but a murderer.

Pretty arrogant of you to think you speak for the people. But the irony must be lost on you.

i think our conversation is done.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

179. Al Gore would have won if Katherine Harris hadnt iillegaly struck 90,000

African Americans from the voting rolls

[kioa]

181. Kathleen Harris & Florida would have been a non factor

if Gore has won his home state.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

182. oh boy

[eridani]

151. There are no accidental deaths from bicycles. Deaths of bike riders are typically caused--

--by people in cars running into them.

[samsingh]

171. i think that's true.

[samsingh]

33. and more people die from old age. what's your point?

[kioa]

37. My point was specifically stated in the post you responded to

"It seems that you have a lot of controlling ahead of you."

[samsingh]

38. your point makes no sense and would fail in logic 101

[kioa]

52. I disagree.

If the premise is "objects that can cause accidental death must be controlled more", then the practical lethality of objects must be ascertained.

All of those objects are demonstrably more lethal than guns.

Your counter-argument of "but I think they're scary" is based strictly on your feelings.
Logic, rights nor policy is dictated by your feelings.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

83. No, they're not.

Total number of people who die is (Edit: not) a one to one relationship in determining 'lethality'.

You also need to take into account usage time. People spend a hell of a lot more time using stairs, bicycles, etc, than they do guns. Cars? Many people probably spend an hour a day using cars, day in, day out, for years. Most gun owners don't actually use their guns for anywhere near that amount of time. Saying that a car is more 'lethal' than a gun because more people die from car accidents completely ignores the fact that cars are in use far more frequently than guns.

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

[kioa]

85. Regardless those objects irrefutably cause more deaths.

The fact you chose to ignore this strongly suggests that you are more concerned with controlling people by infringing on their rights than saving lives.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

87. No, it tells me you like misleading statistics.

If I have two people, one who uses an object for 100000 hours over the course of a lifetime, and another who uses a different object for maybe 100 hours over that same lifetime, and both are killed by those objects, you want to tell me both objects are equally 'lethal' even though one of them only kills someone every 100000 hours, while the second object kills someone ever 100 hours.

In reality, the more lethal object is the one that is barely used, but still kills people. Not the ones used day in and day out, that on a per usage basis, kill far fewer people.

[kioa]

88. Lethality causes death.

All those objects mentioned cause more deaths than firearms.

There is no misleading.

There are merely facts, presented by me in the support of rights & excuses, presented by you to justify your desire to infringe on rights.

Guns aren't 'scary'. Neither is life in the USA.
Get out more. Educate yourself. Stop being afraid.

[Eleanors38]

119. My SD revolver is in use nearly 1/3 of a year each year...

It is ready, loaded, and within easy access when I am at home, including when I am asleep. Yet, I have never fired it or even threatened someone with it in years.

It is Not being used when locked up and I am away.

You should re-visit your notion of "use."

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

120. If you're not touching it, with your finger on the trigger, it's not in 'use'.

Because you can't fire it without that condition being met.

Just as I'm not 'using' my car if I go and sit in it, without it running, to read a book or eat my lunch.

[Eleanors38]

122. That doesn't fly. A gun is in use when a cop or civilian

has it ready for protection, not just when they pop off a round. The question of use time is a significant one when statistical data is considered.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

123. Having something 'ready' is not the same as 'in use'.

Again, I'm not using my car, even if I turn it on and just sit in it. I'm never going to cause an accident simply by sitting in a parked car, even if it's running and 'ready'. Only when I start it moving can I start to endanger those around me.

Ditto a gun. You can have it 'ready' 24/7, but you'll never shoot anyone until you're doing something (ie, using it) to pull the trigger.

[sarisataka]

126. Would you agree that fear of OC

is therefore irrational?

As you say, carrying a gun in a holster is having it ready, it is not 'in use' until the carrier handles it, therefore there is no danger.

[Eleanors38]

127. When SD actions are calculated, shooting a gun...

(let alone hitting the threat) is Not the only action constituting use. Pointing the arm, displaying the arm, audibly running the a action -- even saying you "have" a gun -- can count as a SD use. Similarly, use of a gun for SD use is much more than shooting an attacker. The notion of "use" is an important component in calculating any activity's potential danger. Note also that repair, cleaning, adjusting a weapon to my mind does not constitute use; yet careless handling can indeed result in injuries.

[samsingh]

102. i don't think guns are scrary - stop putting words in other people's mouth

I think people who want to do mass harm are not being stopped from getting guns.

I would also stop those people from getting fertilizer to make bombs or if they were farmers, track the use of the fertilizer in some way.

[kioa]

106. Sure you are.

You specifically said "you're right" to this comment

"More gun lovers are killed by their own guns than by criminals. Stupid gun lovers....."

and this comment

9. "The things you mention actually have uses other than to kill".

Thus showing both your ignorance of guns and your false and irrationally fearful response to them & your disdain for those that support the right to keep and bear arms.

Your abject ignorance has led you to irrational fear.
Educate yourself. Stop being afraid.

[samsingh]

137. the fact that i think gun lovers are many times stupid

doesn't mean i'm scared of guns.

and many is not all.

copying definitions from the dictionary does not make them applicable.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

180. Most civilized societies dont have these silly arguments about bicycles and guns..

[ileus]

65. Yet I still own 2 bikes...knowing they're dangerous.

and they've both injured me more than all my years of gun ownership combined.

[SheilaT]

79. Let's see, according to the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center,

some 726 bicyclists were killed in 2012. What's the number of people killed with guns?

Yeah, just as I though. A whole lot more than 726. And even if you deliberately exclude the intentional murders, it's still more than the bicycle deaths. So maybe you should re-think exactly what's more dangerous.

[kioa]

80. Accidental shooting caused 606 deaths in 2010.

Is that what you "though"?

FYI: 726 > 606

As said in the CDC report
"“Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

Declining for a century. Less than 1%. Litterally any other accident is 100 times more likely to occur.

Educate yourself.
Stop allowing Bloomberg to take advantage of your abject ignorance.

[SheilaT]

90. The non accidental ones don't count, I take it.

What a great way to play with the numbers.

[kioa]

95. There is already a law against murder & lacking a firearm doesn't prevent suicides.

Just ask Japan, France, or any of the 30 other nations with higher suicide rates and lower gun ownership rates.

Robin Williams is testimate to that fact.


"Play with numbers" indeed.

[SheilaT]

125. But lacking a firearm tends to drastically reduce the suicide rate and other murder rates.

Not to mention, there's not very many cases of some deranged person going into a school or workplace and murdering several dozen people with a knife. Yes, it has happened a handful of times, but how many school shootings have occurred in this country just since Sandy Hook? And how many cyclists have driven into a crowd of people and killed a bunch?

The bicycles, yeah they're dangerous all right.

[kioa]

148. Not having a gun doesn't drastically reduce suicide rate.

Hence the examples I provided.

Knives are used in 6 times as many murders as all rifles combined.

The Happy Land Fire, committed with a gallon of gasoline is the worst mass murder in US history.

Texas (and 26 other states) has both more guns per capita and a lower murder rate than California.

Your irrational fears are based in ignorance.
Educate yourself.

[sarisataka]

11. You realize

She was a member of the Army Reserve...
Or is that still not sufficient to be a member of a well regulated militia?

[Fred Sanders]

16. I realize she was criminally negligent with a deadly weapon.

And if she was a single black mother of 5 on welfare and in a gang,mor a white male going to university, or you or me, what difference does it make! All would be equally criminally negligent.....you are a funny one.

[sarisataka]

24. Stay on task

Your tirade about citizens being given (where do you dign up? I have to buy them) guns, lack of traing all alluding to the bizarre notion a right of the people requires membership in a government controlled organization.

I do not question the negligence; it is negligent to ever leave a firearm within reach of a child. I'm sure she is very aware of her mistake now.

I'm asking if she was a militia member and do you believe Army Reservists have training in handling firearms?

[samsingh]

34. a kid was able to get a hold of her gun and kill her with it - you don't see anything wrong with

this picture?

[sarisataka]

53. See post #24

[Fred Sanders]

62. No, they do not, just an irresponsible gun owner, the gun is totally innocent. Breathtaking.

[sarisataka]

67. Who has stated

She was responsible? Quite the opposite.

You are being asked why must a dead gun owner be insulted and dehumanized? Did not her life have value?

Why will no one comment on pro-GC recommendations to "shoot on sight"? Is it acceptable to execute a gun owner who makes people around them nervous or scared? Isn't it ironic to suggest the way to reduce gun deaths is to shoot people?

[samsingh]

97. innocent implies sentience. the admission is that the gun is not an inanimate object

but something that influences actions (innocent or guilt doesn't matter here).

gun lovers defeat their own argument that people kill with guns not the guns.

[sarisataka]

111. It was not a "gun lover"

That claimed the gun was innocent.

A collection of metal and springs is not sentient. It is gun control proponents who suggest such an object has consciousness.

[Fred Sanders]

116. What?

[sarisataka]

13. A terrible tragedy

Involving a child who is clearly cognizant of having a role in his mother's death. I hope he is young enough to not be haunted his entire life and wish healing to the family.


Or as some have said about similar tragedies

-one less shithead
-another ammosexual we don't have to worry about
-a child 2nd amendments his mother
-stupid gun lover
and more

* in case this hurts the feelings of those who have made the comments and alert this- all of these have been posted on DU. I do not link to them as that could be considered a call out but interested parties could easily locate them.

[kioa]

14. Such attitudes are despicable, but they are intrinsic to their argument.

Taking rights away from innocent people is a difficult sell.
Dehumanization is a necessary step to justify & accomplish their goal.

[Fred Sanders]

15. NRA talking points...freedom to own deadly weapons and to die freely by them is death, not liberty.

I do not blame the mother, I blame thinking like yours, which she also must have had.

Sad, death by ignorance.

[Duckhunter935]

17. could you please link to these talking points?

Never seen them but you sure know them so you must have.

[kioa]

18. Ignorance is exactly what gun control feeds on.

That's why the states with higher guns per capita oppose gun control & gun bans the most.

Bloomberg uses fear-mongering to exploit ignorance.
Hence your fear-based authoritarian reaction.

Guns nor rights are scary.
Get out more.
Educate yourself.

[Eleanors38]

21. There you go: Using the "N" word again...

Please note "N" refers to "National" as in the National Rifle Association, and not to a vulgar racial term. Smear and broadbrushing a whole segment of DU members should be discouraged in favor of respectful and reasonable debate.

[ileus]

25. you of course meant life saving devices, not deadly weapons.

[sarisataka]

26. Death by ignorance

yet which side opposes any education?

[GGJohn]

29. You win the prize for being the first to utter the "NRA talking points" meme first.

[Straw Man]

93. "NRA talking points" is a VPC talking point.

NRA talking points...freedom to own deadly weapons and to die freely by them is death, not liberty.

Please explain the concept of "freedom ... to die freely." I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Are you claiming that the NRA advocates assisted suicide?

I do not blame the mother, I blame thinking like yours, which she also must have had.

Really? Really? You don't blame the mother for her reckless and ultimately fatal negligence? That's absolutely astounding. Would you extend the same tolerance to drunk drivers? After all, it's not their fault -- it's the fault of the liquor manufacturers and anyone who opposes prohibition, right?

You envision a world that is devoid of personal responsibility and pointy scissors: in other words, idiot-proof. I submit to you that idiots will always be able to damage themselves and others. That is no reason to circumscribe the freedoms of the rest of the populace.

[Fred Sanders]

117. Scissors are fine, not designed to kill and can not kill easily. Killing is child's play with guns,

as we can all clearly see...well, those that are not blinded by power lust.

[Straw Man]

140. I see that you are dodging the central issue ...

... of the mother's responsibility and culpability here. Yes, in a world without guns, no one would get shot. That's a meaningless truism. Plenty of people would still get beaten, stabbed, raped, abused, etc.

Power lust? That's your analysis of why a woman would want a gun? Hyperbole is not your friend.

[Fred Sanders]

156. Killing is child's play when the child has a gun, it is not complicated. Just twitch a finger. Dead.

[Straw Man]

157. The child's finger should never be on the gun.

Killing is child's play when the child has a gun, it is not complicated. Just twitch a finger. Dead.

That can't happen if the adult behaves responsibly. You would remove a right from all responsible adults because of the actions of a few irresponsible ones. Furthermore, you don't hold the irresponsible ones culpable for the fatal results of their stupidity and irresponsibility. That's astounding to me.

[Fred Sanders]

158. LOL, any other "inanimate object" that a child can use to kill so easily? Name one, there is nothing

even close as the deadly weapon known as a firearm. You are only astounded because you are blinded by your worship of this deadly object.

Name one object a 3 year old can kill you with using one little cute chubby finger?

[Straw Man]

159. WTF are you L-ing-OL about?

LOL, any other "inanimate object" that a child can use to kill so easily? Name one, there is nothing

even close as the deadly weapon known as a firearm. You are only astounded because you are blinded by your worship of this deadly object.

I didn't mention "inanimate objects." You must be responding to someone else.

I'm talking about personal responsibility. We don't take toddlers with us when we're shingling the roof. We don't throw them in our backpacks when we're downhill skiing. We don't put them in our laps and let them steer while we're tooling down the freeway. And we don't leave firearms unattended in their presence.

I'm astounded by your denial of any element of personal responsibility in all of this. You are blinded by your hatred of this particular object.

[Fred Sanders]

160. Everything you mention does not involve the use of a deadly weapon, get it?

Your false equivalency is a common illogical defence for those that wish not to understand that a deadly weapon is not equatable to any other thing.

[Straw Man]

163. Nevertheless, the situations described are potentially deadly.

Everything you mention does not involve the use of a deadly weapon, get it?

So what? Do you think that the responsibility for safe behavior only applies to the use of deadly weapons?

Your false equivalency is a common illogical defence for those that wish not to understand that a deadly weapon is not equatable to any other thing.

Yet you seem to be incapable of explaining how or why that is so. By decree? I'm afraid you're going to have to do better than that.

Do you believe that it is impossible for responsible adults to handle deadly weapons safely? If so, on what do you base this belief?

[samsingh]

190. well said

[samsingh]

35. hurt feelings on one hand - innocent people being massacred by people with guns on the other

which side to take?

[sarisataka]

56. Some deaths are tragic

Others humorous or cause for celebration. Depends if the person is a gun lover/humper/ammosexual/shithead. If a gun owner dies through accident or negligence they were obviously one of those.

Can you see the hypocrisy?

[samsingh]

99. death is not humorous and i see the hypocrisy

[sarisataka]

112. Credit for honesty nt

[sarisataka]

57. Speaking of innocent people...

From the side that wants to eliminate gun deaths

I have often wondered about that, it should be assumed that they are potential terrorists

Maybe if a few of these jackasses get taken down maybe some of the others stop being such assholes.

Takes mere seconds to un-sling and shoot.

I say shoot them on sight , just to be safe. No sane person would carry a rifle around a grocery store. Only the insane and the criminally motivated. So, again, I say shoot them on sight, let their bodies rot in the streets as a message to other hell-bent gunners.

Nothing but good could come of this.

[samsingh]

100. do you not see the frustration on the gun control side

these people walk around with guns without regard to how they can harm other people?

It's like watching a drunk driving and risking other lives, and you think either stop or hit a tree so that no one else gets hurt.

[sarisataka]

114. I see lots of frustration

I have much over drunk drivers, one of whom walks free after a token jail term. My 18 yo cousin is still dead; her boyfriend still a paraplegic.

Yet I do not wish death on all drivers, drinkers or even drunk drivers. I want the behavior to change. I don't want roadside sobriety checks that have anyone blowing .08+ shot on the spot. That is not a solution.

[samsingh]

132. i'm sorry to hear about your cousin - very tragic

It does sound like you want some controls on drunk drivers?

the answer would not be to drink more or educate them only? There should be inspections with penalties, no?

[sarisataka]

138. Yes and MADD has shown us

a successful path. They do not demonize those who drink, or those who drive. It is the irresponsible combination that they focus on.

The penalties focus on those who violate the law, not on those with the potential. They educate on the risks and costs to discourage irresponsible behavior. It is a focused effort.

By contrast, GC groups consider all to be potential law breakers and assign mass guilt. They seek to portray all gun owners as less than human (or at least lacking maturity) and push to regulate the objects, not change the behavior. It results in a broad, diluted effort.

I predict that until such time as the MADD model may be adopted, success in strengthening gun control will be limited and ironically largely due to gun owners seeking improved regulation.

[samsingh]

139. MADD in this area would be good.

[GGJohn]

166. So that makes those statements ok?

[ileus]

23. On your body or locked up....safety first.

If it's not on your body it can't save lives, and is a potential dangerous object.

[Fred Sanders]

30. Safety first, do not own a deadly weapon like a gun, no death by gun. Simple even for the simpletons

[ileus]

32. I don't, I own life saving devices, hunting instruments, and target firearms.

Anything can be a deadly weapon if misused, even a pool noodle. Don't misuse a firearm and they're as safe as baby powder, maybe even more so if you have COPD.

I feel my life and the lives of my children and wife are worth protecting, thus I own several personal safety devices. Being acutely aware they can be dangerous if misused I make sure to keep them safe, secure and at the ready should the need arise. Better safe than sorry I always say.

[samsingh]

36. the basic point is being missed

the firearms purpose is to shoot. It has the potential to do a lot of harm. People are not rational beings. letting people have access to firearms without control allows people to use guns to kill a lot of people. Sure, a pool noodle can be used to kill - but I don't recall reading massacres committed by someone having a pool noodle.

so yeah a gun properly stored by a sane rational person is not going to kill anyone - until that sane rational person has a problem, depression, is fatigued and careless.

[ileus]

46. neither will a pool noodle.

And when that rabid, depressed, fatigued, careless criminal snaps I don't want my psd stored (or banned) but ready by my side.

[samsingh]

48. unless you get shot at in the back

[Fred Sanders]

54. But, ileus, you posted you only have target and hunting guns...showing your paranoia now, at

last some honesty as to why there is so much irrational gun loving in America, the paranoia sown every day by the NRA and kin.

Paranoia much? Buy a gun!

[ileus]

59. When and where did I ever say I only owned two of the four types of firearms?

[Fred Sanders]

60. Post #32, dearee, so now you are going to add to your arsenal to justify your illogic?

Armies equipped with pool noodles, you would say that is the same as guns?

[ileus]

63. Life saving devices = personal protection/self defense firearms.

I am kind of up in the air on if I have any true collector firearms (the fourth category) sure I have some 60-80 year old firearms but I still shoot them from time to time. Still function great as hunting firearms, but true safe queens they're not.

[Fred Sanders]

64. My mistake, life saving devices to me means things like a life preserver or fire extinguishers...

in your world it is guns and firearms of any type....guess we own different dictionaries.

Then again I am not sleeping with the fear of crazed men breaking into my house to kill me as you are.

And you did add to your arsenal.....

[ileus]

68. Wouldn't it be hard? Sleeping in fear?

Wouldn't you be required to keep one eye open or something? Nope I sleep like a baby...but still like to stay prepared~safety first after all, being ready doesn't require living in fear.

As for adding to my firearm collection I only added 2 this year. P220 and P-09, I can highly recommend both. Loads of fun to shoot, accurate, reliable and not too spendy.

For the coming year I'd like to add a CZ 75 because I don't have an all steel 9mm. I also need a nice target 38 so I can load 38's for my DWs EDC, so much easier keeping up with brass with a revolver.






As for pfd's I'm looking for one (in between responses here) for my 10yo son for his new kayak I bought him for christmas. I picked out a red perception so it would be easy to spot on the river, and knowing he'll be taking several spills I want to be sure his jacket is also highly visible. Safety first...

[Fred Sanders]

69. Bully for you. Enjoy your hobby, stay safe.

[ileus]

72. Thanks...

As a family we dabble in several different hobbies.

Hunting, Fishing, Kayak Fishing, Dirt bikes, ATVs, Jeepin', general shooting, and biking. We only have the kids for a short period of time before they head off to college (10&12 now) I'm trying to make their childhood as memorable as possible. Life is good...

[samsingh]

104. as along as the gun lover is safe it doesn't matter that kids somewhere else are being slaughtered

by guns.

and there's no proposed answer, accept the nra talking points of more guns, more education - and ignore the deaths in the meantime and ignore the fact that the first two have not worked globally.

[Fred Sanders]

39. Firearms are as safe as baby powder..wow...armies are using the wrong weapons!

A regiment with pool noodles and another with baby powder...frightening stuff. Maybe they could upgrade to forks, guns are passé, just inanimate objects.

[samsingh]

49. what a great discovery - shower baby powder

from the planes - save money and still cause the same damage.

wow- complete detachment from reality (and they have guns)

[Fred Sanders]

50. And they could blast barrels of glitter over the battlefield...choking hazard....why do they choose

to have guns?

Puzzling.

[samsingh]

51. here's another interesting thing i found on the internet

polls continue to show that people with higher education vote progressive. Less educated tend to vote conservative repug. How stupid is that? They vote for the very party that further represses them.

[ileus]

58. That's why we have to promote a progressive stance on the 2A.

We don't want to become that which we hate.

[samsingh]

98. we are

whenever the gun control side wants any intelligent controls, gun lovers take the argument to the ridiculous extreme (talk about emotion in an argument. They can't stand when gun control advocates talk about kids being murdered with guns, but can cry about a thought that hasn't even happened) that this means all their guns will be taken away.

I have no problem with guns. In fact I find them interesting and like them. It's the way they are allowed to be used and that controls aren't working that I want to change.

No to banning guns. Yes to controls so that they are not easily used to commit murder.

[angstlessk]

76. If you are so paranoid, why not get bars

on your windows and doors? personal body armor is something to think about, bullet proof blankets?..maybe moving to a country that does not have as many killings as America?...one that has ACTUAL gun laws?

[ileus]

81. I do have one BAR....270 nice rifle

bit on the heavy side, but super accurate for a semi-auto. Great little deer rifle that's for sure.

As for any of the other stuff you're not making sense. Bars on my windows and doors? Where do you think I live? I'm not worried about anyone breaking in. I suppose you may be right, body armor would be nice in the case of events like Katrina, but personally I don't feel it necessary here in America.

As for moving, you of course realize you can be a victim in more than one way...right? Guns aren't the only game in town that one needs to prepare for.
Unless you can find a country without any risks, I don't see leaving America to make myself an easier potential victim than I already am....I'll pass. It's nice having the freedom to choose the level of personal safety we have here in America.

[sarisataka]

86. I recall a tale of a man

who studied the globe to find the safest place to live in the event war broke out between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. He arrived in his new home in the Falkland Islands in early 1982.

Likely this is an apocryphal story as there is a similar one of a man moving to Guadalcanal in 1940.

False or not, the moral is clear- there are risks no matter where you live.

[kioa]

109. Why don't you take your own advice instead of insisting that innocent people have to lose

their rights & liberties for your irrational fears?

Neither guns nor life in the USA is 'scary'.
Get out more.

[GGJohn]

167. You're more than free to not own one.

Simple, even for the ...........

[Straw Man]

168. Wow!

Safety first, do not own a deadly weapon like a gun, no death by gun. Simple even for the simpletons

So people who don't own guns can't be killed by guns? I never realized that. I must be one of those "simpletons."

It's a game-changer for sure. I can see armies and police departments all over the world disarming. Impervious to bullets! Unstoppable! Ruling the world through sheer self-righteousness! What a glorious future awaits!

[Fred Sanders]

172. To answer your question...yes...yes, you are. Obviously.

[Straw Man]

185. It's called "sarcasm."

Perhaps you've heard of it.

[Warpy]

71. Just another overconfident gun owner

who failed to realize that kids are stupid and the first thing she needed to do when she got home from work is lock that damned gun up, far away and beyond the ability of a 3 year old to access.

How hard is that, people? If you have kids in the house, LOCK THAT DAMNED THING UP.

The life you save will be very precious to you: your own or that of one of your kids.

[Eleanors38]

121. The use of safes & lockboxes is increasing, which may explain...

why the number of kids below age 15 killed in a gun accident is down to <65/yr. Many other things kill more kids accidentally.

[sarisataka]

124. Speaking of securing firearms

To prevent accidents, why does NSSF sponsor Project Childsafe, providing free locks but, none of the gun "safety" organizations do anything similar?

They could cosponsor or even do their own program. A small portion of $50 million could buy a lot of trigger locks.


For anyone who has need, this link will guide you to where to get a free gun lock. http://www.projectchildsafe.org/safety/find-a-safety-kit

[Warpy]

142. Guns are just a little different

They have only one purpose: to kill. Yes, there's target shooting but that's only rehearsal for the real thing: killing.

It's just especially tragic when gun owners don't recognize this and leave the damned things out when there are kids in the house. It's also tragic when they're not locked up when adults have been drinking.

People should never get that comfortable with guns. I hope you're correct about the sales of gun safes. I hope they are being used consistently by gun owners.

[hack89]

144. So target shooting is really practice for killing people?

You really believe that shit? If that was the case, why are there so few deaths due to rifles?

[sarisataka]

146. Hmmm

[Eleanors38]

155. I believe these on-going safety campaigns are behind

the big declines in childhood accidental shootings. Safety in this regard is becoming part of the culture.

I remember when kids would visit my place. Guns were not the problem. My time was spent squirreling Drano, Red Devil Lye, Sani-Flush, insecticides, etc. onto the top shelf of the utility room closet! Little rats are just too curious.

[NaturalHigh]

73. I knew this story would show up here.

The title of your OP sounds like gloating. Very tasteless.

[LiberalElite]

78. woops I wandered onto this thread by mistake bye-bye

[Eleanors38]

129. Usually, they are in GD!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

103. Hooray!

Another non-participating news dumper.

[chervilant]

107. Those poor children!

What a terrible tragedy! How can anyone make light of this?

(I just discovered that out of over a hundred responses to your OP, I can only see nineteen. I am SO glad my IL is weeding out the racists, the sexists, the heterosexists and the verbal bullies.)

[Eleanors38]

128. Interesting. The OP and the gloating was not a product of

pro-2A DU members.

[chervilant]

141. Well, now,

I did not get "gloating."

But, I guess it matters that I don't feel threatened by responsible gun ownership laws, including training, registration, and appropriate penalties for failure to keep firearms secured, especially around children.

[Eleanors38]

161. #3 and the reaction to it, even from controllers. nt

[chervilant]

162. Perhaps, then,

it's fortunate for me that I cannot see #3 or the reaction to it.

[ileus]

115. probably a "safe action" pistol.

As for me and my family we buy long DAO revolvers/pistols, DA/SA hammer fired, or Strikers with a manual safety.

Not that I mind a slab sided striker pistol, I just don't own one at this time. I do hope to get a G20 for woods carry before next fall rolls around, but I really need a nice all steel 9mm before the glock.

[avebury]

203. No sympathy here.

The blame has to fall with the mother for being stupid enough to leave a loaded gun where a child could get a hold of it. At least the little boy did not accidentally shoot himself or his little sister. The fact that the mother left the loaded gun laying around should be grounds for child endangerment.

Stories like this are a dime a dozen. Hardly a week goes by when there isn't at least one shooting injury and/or death reported. As long as the injury/death remains within the family that owns the gun it really is not a news item. Now if the person who is injured and/or killed is in innocent outsider - well then I am all in favor of criminal prosecution and civil law suits.

[blackribbonamerica]

222. I'm Not Sure most Gun Owners know what it is to be responsible

Living a loaded gun laying around is not responsible ,you shouldn't have to tell a gun owner that but some are not smart enough to know that.

Gun Safes , Trigger Locks ,keeping the bullets at least locked up and separate from your gun.Too many people treat guns like there toys .

To read about my stand on Responsible Gun Ownership check out my blog Black Ribbon America

Take the time to sign our latest Petition to the Governor of Michigan asking for a gun registration program that includes every gun sold.

[beevul]

223. Registration? The brady bunch?

I'll pass.