If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   Today's gun sadness features a 3 year-old boy killed playing with a small pink handgun he mistook for a toy   (rawstory.com) divider line 687
    More: Sad, South Carolina, handguns  
•       •       •

14311 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Feb 2013 at 3:41 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



687 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-02-05 02:26:50 PM  
More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!
 
2013-02-05 02:30:35 PM  
i48.tinypic.com
the handgun
 
2013-02-05 02:31:07 PM  

Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!


Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?
 
2013-02-05 02:31:27 PM  

encyclopediaplushuman: [i48.tinypic.com image 615x345]
the handgun


yeah, that looks like a toy, alright.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-02-05 02:31:32 PM  
In 2011, Arizona state Sen. Lori Klein (R) was criticized after she pointed her loaded raspberry-pink handgun at a reporter.
"Oh, it's so cute," Klein told the reporter as she aimed the gun's laser pointer at the reporter's chest, adding that the firearm's lack of a trigger safety should not be a reason to worry.


Sounds like a responsible gun owner to me.
 
2013-02-05 02:32:54 PM  
If you have guns, if you own guns mostly we would prefer you have them in a lock box," Greenville Police Media Relations Officer Jonathan Bragg told WYFF. "At least have them out of the reach of children.

"we would PREFER?"

the owner of this weapon should be arrested for manslaughter.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-02-05 02:34:14 PM  

FlashHarry: encyclopediaplushuman: [i48.tinypic.com image 615x345]
the handgun

yeah, that looks like a toy, alright.


I know a guy who had one just like that.

He was a lumberjack and he was OK.
 
2013-02-05 02:34:41 PM  
Regardless, even my gun nut father agrees that people should be made to go through safety classes and firearms training before being allowed to own a firearm.

Human negligence and ignorance will generally outweigh human malice.
 
2013-02-05 02:37:15 PM  

TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?


When were toasters designed to kill?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-02-05 02:37:55 PM  

FlashHarry: If you have guns, if you own guns mostly we would prefer you have them in a lock box," Greenville Police Media Relations Officer Jonathan Bragg told WYFF. "At least have them out of the reach of children.

"we would PREFER?"

the owner of this weapon should be arrested for manslaughter.


It used to be that that would happen in some places, but the Supremes have decided that requiring trigger locks or gun safes violates the constitution.
 
2013-02-05 02:38:40 PM  

TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?


No, but if more than 500 kids a year were killed every year from toasters, you can be damned sure that there would be an outcry.

But by all means, keep shooting each other.  You're doing more damage to yourselves than your enemies could ever hope to.
 
2013-02-05 02:39:20 PM  
He was a three year old, male tyranny.  The gun did its job in protecting us from this menace, and our freedom is once again safe.

Pink is an excellent lure for the young tyrannies in our society.  We should be thanking this responsible gun owner for having the wherewithal to choose such an effective color and manner by which to draw in and execute the tyranny.

Thank you for protecting America, Patriot Pink handgun.
 
2013-02-05 02:39:33 PM  

vpb: the Supremes have decided that requiring trigger locks or gun safes violates the constitution.


wait, what now?

how the fark do locks and safes violate the constitution?
 
2013-02-05 02:42:11 PM  
It's the gun's fault, not the parents. This is why the anti-gun lobby will never win.
 
2013-02-05 02:43:10 PM  

FlashHarry: the owner of this weapon should be arrested for manslaughter.


I'm ok with this. It's not really a gun issue if you ask me, it could be any dangerous item.
 
2013-02-05 02:43:41 PM  

Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!


This is stupid parenting. It is a gun issue, but this could happen with anything else in your house that looks attractive to a kid.  If you put Drano in a pink sippy cup and leave it out, you're probably going to end up with a similar result.  If you have kids in the house, you keep guns under lock and key out of reach of little hands.  And for the life if me, I don't know why anyone would own a pink gun if they have kids.
 
2013-02-05 02:43:58 PM  

WTF Indeed: It's the gun's fault, not the parents. This is why the anti-gun lobby will never win.


Until the gun rights lobby can embrace logical regulation like training classes, gun locks, and gun safes, both sides won't settle themselves.
 
2013-02-05 02:45:49 PM  

R.A.Danny: FlashHarry: the owner of this weapon should be arrested for manslaughter.

I'm ok with this. It's not really a gun issue if you ask me, it could be any dangerous item.


i agree. i'm not opposed to owning handguns for home defense. but a pink gun? in a house with children? that's like giving them a lighter in a room full of oily rags. you are negligent and should be held liable.
 
2013-02-05 02:45:55 PM  

encyclopediaplushuman: Until the gun rights lobby can embrace logical regulation like training classes, gun locks, and gun safes, both sides won't settle themselves.


They do. The issue is gun owners and personal responsibility.
 
2013-02-05 02:46:28 PM  
Responsible gun owners keep their guns away from children and people not lawfully allowed to posses handguns. Failing to do so in most jurisdictions can and should result in criminal charges for the irresponsible gun owners.

I am in favor of responsible gun ownership, people who can't be responsible don't deserve to own guns.

The fact that is was pink and a child might be more likely to mistake it for a toy, as it apparently was in this case, is all the more reason to secure your guns when not in your immediate control.
 
2013-02-05 02:48:03 PM  

TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?


A toaster actually does something useful. A gun simply endagers your entire family.
 
2013-02-05 02:48:41 PM  

feckingmorons: Responsible gun owners keep their guns away from children and people not lawfully allowed to posses handguns. Failing to do so in most jurisdictions can and should result in criminal charges for the irresponsible gun owners.

I am in favor of responsible gun ownership, people who can't be responsible don't deserve to own guns.

The fact that is was pink and a child might be more likely to mistake it for a toy, as it apparently was in this case, is all the more reason to secure your guns when not in your immediate control.


I have a feeling Greenville County Social Services is about to be up this lady's ass with a microscope since she apparently has one other child in the house.
 
2013-02-05 02:48:53 PM  

Nabb1: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

This is stupid parenting. It is a gun issue, but this could happen with anything else in your house that looks attractive to a kid.  If you put Drano in a pink sippy cup and leave it out, you're probably going to end up with a similar result.  If you have kids in the house, you keep guns under lock and key out of reach of little hands.  And for the life if me, I don't know why anyone would own a pink gun if they have kids.


With the GOP crying that more guns need to be on the street for our own protection... I think my initial post still rings true.
More guns in the world = more chances for this to occur. I am sure parents are not going to get better at their parenting job, anytime soon.

That is all I am saying...
 
2013-02-05 02:49:15 PM  

FlashHarry: R.A.Danny: FlashHarry: the owner of this weapon should be arrested for manslaughter.

I'm ok with this. It's not really a gun issue if you ask me, it could be any dangerous item.

i agree. i'm not opposed to owning handguns for home defense. but a pink gun? in a house with children? that's like giving them a lighter in a room full of oily rags. you are negligent and should be held liable.


Wouldn't any parent want to keep their kids safe? I'm finding this story to be particularly upsetting for some reason. I almost feel like the parents set the kids up to kill themselves.
You already know I'm a total gun nut, totally a Second Amendment goofball.
But I'm also a parent. I lock my firearms up. I don't own firearms that look like toys. I keep medicine well out of reach. I keep the draino.. Well I use it if need be and get it out of the house. There has to be something terribly wrong with these parents and it's pissing me off.
 
2013-02-05 02:51:21 PM  

R.A.Danny: FlashHarry: R.A.Danny: FlashHarry: the owner of this weapon should be arrested for manslaughter.

I'm ok with this. It's not really a gun issue if you ask me, it could be any dangerous item.

i agree. i'm not opposed to owning handguns for home defense. but a pink gun? in a house with children? that's like giving them a lighter in a room full of oily rags. you are negligent and should be held liable.

Wouldn't any parent want to keep their kids safe? I'm finding this story to be particularly upsetting for some reason. I almost feel like the parents set the kids up to kill themselves.
You already know I'm a total gun nut, totally a Second Amendment goofball.
But I'm also a parent. I lock my firearms up. I don't own firearms that look like toys. I keep medicine well out of reach. I keep the draino.. Well I use it if need be and get it out of the house. There has to be something terribly wrong with these parents and it's pissing me off.


The kid's name was "Tmorej."  I doubt Ma is the keynote speaker at any Mensa meetings.
 
2013-02-05 02:52:03 PM  
Since "Pink Pistols" is a LGBT gun owners group whose mission is to stop bullying with fire arms, I'm getting a kick out of all the wacko liberals in this thread.
 
2013-02-05 02:52:04 PM  

R.A.Danny: I lock my firearms up. I don't own firearms that look like toys. I keep medicine well out of reach. I keep the draino.. Well I use it if need be and get it out of the house. There has to be something terribly wrong with these parents and it's pissing me off.


no farking shiat.
 
2013-02-05 02:53:58 PM  

WTF Indeed: Since "Pink Pistols" is a LGBT gun owners group whose mission is to stop bullying with fire arms, I'm getting a kick out of all the wacko liberals in this thread.


While there are lesbians with kids, I kinda doubt there's a shiatload of lesbians with kids.
 
2013-02-05 02:58:15 PM  

Dixon Cider: When were toasters designed to kill?


Oh goody, this hackneyed argument again that completely misses the point -- in this case, that the parent was negligent. LOCK UP YOUR DANGEROUS CRAP, ASSBAG. That's the point. But go ahead and tremble at guns, because they're certainly the cause of F*CKING NEGLIGENCE.

vartian: A toaster actually does something useful. A gun simply endagers your entire family.


And hey, how about quoting the oft-debunked Kellerman study too? That'll help!

unyon: No, but if more than 500 kids a year were killed every year from toasters, you can be damned sure that there would be an outcry.


You're right. I think we should assign primacy to causes of preventable child death and ban the offending products/acts in order of danger. Swimming pools, cigarettes, and improperly installed car seats, I'm looking at you!
 
2013-02-05 03:08:31 PM  

FlashHarry: but a pink gun? in a house with children? that's like giving them a lighter in a room full of oily rags. you are negligent and should be held liable.


Hell, I'm 45 and I as I look at the picture of the pink gun upthread, I'm having trouble banishing the thought, "I wonder if it tastes like candy..."
 
2013-02-05 03:10:17 PM  

TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: When were toasters designed to kill?

Oh goody, this hackneyed argument again that completely misses the point -- in this case, that the parent was negligent. LOCK UP YOUR DANGEROUS CRAP, ASSBAG. That's the point. But go ahead and tremble at guns, because they're certainly the cause of F*CKING NEGLIGENCE.

vartian: A toaster actually does something useful. A gun simply endagers your entire family.

And hey, how about quoting the oft-debunked Kellerman study too? That'll help!

unyon: No, but if more than 500 kids a year were killed every year from toasters, you can be damned sure that there would be an outcry.

You're right. I think we should assign primacy to causes of preventable child death and ban the offending products/acts in order of danger. Swimming pools, cigarettes, and improperly installed car seats, I'm looking at you!


Don't get your panties in a bunch, son...
No one is talking about taking away the only thing that shows the world that you really are a man!!

And since what I am discussing is well over your head, let us leave it there.

I think we found John Rambo's fark handle...
 
2013-02-05 03:10:20 PM  

feckingmorons: I am in favor of responsible gun ownership, people who can't be responsible don't deserve to own guns.


So you are for gun control.

Excellent.
 
2013-02-05 03:14:04 PM  

Dixon Cider: Don't get your panties in a bunch, son...
No one is talking about taking away the only thing that shows the world that you really are a man!!

And since what I am discussing is well over your head, let us leave it there.

I think we found John Rambo's fark handle...


Yep, that's absolutely it. I especially love that instead of responding to my criticism of your argument -- namely, that I was assigning blame to the negligent parent, not the tool -- you respond with ad hominem. That certainly shows your intellectual superiority.
 
2013-02-05 03:14:21 PM  
So I need to pay the price every time somebody does something stupid or allows something terrible to happen?  Or is this just pertaining to guns?

Maybe we should take the internet away from everyone since a small minority of people use it to exploit children.  If ONE CHILD IS SAVED!
 
2013-02-05 03:14:29 PM  
Pink guns are so lame.  Carrying a pink handgun is the equivalent of this.

1.bp.blogspot.com

You don't look tough yet feminine, you just look stupid.  Get a regular goddamn gun.
 
2013-02-05 03:16:28 PM  

bradkanus: So I need to pay the price every time somebody does something stupid or allows something terrible to happen?  Or is this just pertaining to guns?

Maybe we should take the internet away from everyone since a small minority of people use it to exploit children.  If ONE CHILD IS SAVED!


This!  There are only two options in every situation.  It's what logicians call a True Dichotomy.

/it's so hard to tell anymore
 
2013-02-05 03:17:02 PM  

TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: Don't get your panties in a bunch, son...
No one is talking about taking away the only thing that shows the world that you really are a man!!

And since what I am discussing is well over your head, let us leave it there.

I think we found John Rambo's fark handle...

Yep, that's absolutely it. I especially love that instead of responding to my criticism of your argument -- namely, that I was assigning blame to the negligent parent, not the tool -- you respond with ad hominem. That certainly shows your intellectual superiority.


I am in no way better then you... I am just able to have an adult conversation.
Since you were too busy feverishly touching yourself, trying to reply.. I did not expect anything else for you.

Now, finish the bathroom floors and the such. The adults are talking!!
 
2013-02-05 03:19:25 PM  
uh... the link to the hello kitty assualt rifle is a fake site... great reporting.
 
2013-02-05 03:20:14 PM  

Rapmaster2000: Pink guns are so lame.  Carrying a pink handgun is the equivalent of this.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 250x295]

You don't look tough yet feminine, you just look stupid.  Get a regular goddamn gun.


Actually she looks pretty farkable.
 
2013-02-05 03:20:19 PM  
the link - http://www.glamguns.com/hk47.html">http://www.glamguns.com/hk47.html
 
2013-02-05 03:21:33 PM  

bradkanus: uh... the link to the hello kitty assualt rifle is a fake site... great reporting.


Hey, to be fair, not everyone would read the disclaimer at the bottom of a pretty obviously fake website about a totally ridiculous idea for a firearm before linking it to a very serious story about a tragic gun death.
 
2013-02-05 03:24:05 PM  
Daddy would have gotten us Uzis.
 
2013-02-05 03:24:26 PM  

Nabb1: bradkanus: uh... the link to the hello kitty assualt rifle is a fake site... great reporting.

Hey, to be fair, not everyone would read the disclaimer at the bottom of a pretty obviously fake website about a totally ridiculous idea for a firearm before linking it to a very serious story about a tragic gun death.


truth... it took me a couple of clicks to figure it out.  I was like WTF?  Then it made sense.  I guess I'm just going to have to put the Hello Kitty stickers on my self.
 
2013-02-05 03:25:14 PM  

Dixon Cider: I am in no way better then you... I am just able to have an adult conversation.
Since you were too busy feverishly touching yourself, trying to reply.. I did not expect anything else for you.

Now, finish the bathroom floors and the such. The adults are talking!!


Show me. Show me where you were trying to have an "adult conversation." Show me where you were trying to have a rational discourse; I'll participate in that.

All I've seen is that you opened up the thread with a tired one-liner that doesn't at all address the issue, and then you've followed up with ad hominem fallacies and insults.

I'm all for having an actual dialogue. Until you're ready to engage in such, however, I'll leave you to your own fantasies and images of me as some Ted Nugent-revering, gun-waving redneck.
 
2013-02-05 03:25:34 PM  
I will agree with the gun faction in this thread.

This is a negligence issue, not a gun control issue.
 
2013-02-05 03:26:25 PM  

Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!


Troll. 0/10. Notified mods, emailed Drew, called the cops. Reported to the FBI, TSA, EPA, CIA, and IRS. Forwarded to NORAD, NATO high command and UN Security Counsel. Please do not leave your internet device, Wayne LaPierre has been dispatched to your location.
 
2013-02-05 03:26:32 PM  
It's assholes like this that make the two or three dozen responsible gun owners in this country look bad.
 
2013-02-05 03:26:32 PM  
Shall we try that again?
i.imgur.com
Daddy would have gotten us Uzis.
/Of course, the MAC-10 submachine gun was basically designed for the suburban housewife
 
2013-02-05 03:26:38 PM  
I will agree with the anti-gun faction in this thread.

This is a gun control issue, not a negligence issue.

/bases covered
 
2013-02-05 03:27:06 PM  

Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer...


An armed society is a polite society. That kid had manners.
 
2013-02-05 03:30:23 PM  

Rev.K: This is a negligence issue, not a gun control issue.


Part of gun control is personal gun control. The section of radical gun nut 'mericans that fights against basic regulation utilizing negligence-minimizing legislation.
There needs to be a respectable middle ground and gun control advocates generally don't want "Take Away All The Guns!" they want regulation to place reasonable limits on gun ownership, storage, and use. The other side on the other hand is led by those who think any regulation at all is evidence of a quasi-orwellian state coming to kill them.
 
2013-02-05 03:30:24 PM  
 
2013-02-05 03:30:38 PM  
encyclopediaplushuman: www.rawstory.com 
the handgun

Next up: EZ Bake Crematorium
 
2013-02-05 03:31:09 PM  
i162.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-05 03:31:28 PM  
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-02-05 03:31:55 PM  

dahmers love zombie: Real Hello Kitty AR-15.


That's a custom job.  It's not like they are marketing the thing.
 
2013-02-05 03:32:30 PM  
I won't be surprised when the gun nuts go out later and buy every pink gun they can get their hands on because Obama might take them away.
 
2013-02-05 03:32:38 PM  

Frank N Stein: [24.media.tumblr.com image 500x379]


Is that Costanza?  Holy crap.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-02-05 03:33:14 PM  

Vodka Zombie: He was a three year old, male tyranny.  The gun did its job in protecting us from this menace, and our freedom is once again safe.

Pink is an excellent lure for the young tyrannies in our society.  We should be thanking this responsible gun owner for having the wherewithal to choose such an effective color and manner by which to draw in and execute the tyranny.

Thank you for protecting America, Patriot Pink handgun.


See, I told you they were after trannys.
 
2013-02-05 03:33:18 PM  

Nabb1: Frank N Stein: [24.media.tumblr.com image 500x379]

Is that Costanza?  Holy crap.


Some 4channer had it custom made.

/yes, an armed 4channer
 
2013-02-05 03:33:19 PM  

CruiserTwelve: [i162.photobucket.com image 593x382]


pinkie.mylittlefacewhen.com
/just had to
 
2013-02-05 03:33:39 PM  
Secure your f*cking firearms!
 
2013-02-05 03:34:54 PM  

encyclopediaplushuman: CruiserTwelve: [i162.photobucket.com image 593x382]

[pinkie.mylittlefacewhen.com image 650x367]
/just had to


I truly feel bad for the poor mauser

www.geekosystem.com
 
2013-02-05 03:35:25 PM  

TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: I am in no way better then you... I am just able to have an adult conversation.
Since you were too busy feverishly touching yourself, trying to reply.. I did not expect anything else for you.

Now, finish the bathroom floors and the such. The adults are talking!!

Show me. Show me where you were trying to have an "adult conversation." Show me where you were trying to have a rational discourse; I'll participate in that.

All I've seen is that you opened up the thread with a tired one-liner that doesn't at all address the issue, and then you've followed up with ad hominem fallacies and insults.

I'm all for having an actual dialogue. Until you're ready to engage in such, however, I'll leave you to your own fantasies and images of me as some Ted Nugent-revering, gun-waving redneck.


I don't think you are that... just an everyday asshole!

My point was, and I think it bears repeating, that we DO NOT NEED MORE GUNS LAYING AROUND!!
Yes yes yes... responsible gun owners would lock it up. How many are responsible?

Is adding guns to the system going to make things better.. no.
THAT was my point, till you went high and right, much like the Nuge has done the last few years.
Thinking about it... yeah, you do seem to remind me of Ted!!
 
2013-02-05 03:35:46 PM  
Nabb1:

The kid's name was "Tmorej."  I doubt Ma is the keynote speaker at any Mensa meetings.

So because their parents named them a weird name that makes them stupid?  I mean I had no say on what my name is and neither did you.   Or should I get out the "that's racist" gif for you.
 
2013-02-05 03:36:14 PM  

Frank N Stein: I truly feel bad for the poor mauser


Yeah so do I, Rainbow Dash sports car or airplane, cool. Rainbow Dash cutie mark on Mauser, not so much.
 
2013-02-05 03:38:55 PM  

TNel: Nabb1:

The kid's name was "Tmorej."  I doubt Ma is the keynote speaker at any Mensa meetings.

So because their parents named them a weird name that makes them stupid?  I mean I had no say on what my name is and neither did you.   Or should I get out the "that's racist" gif for you.


Something, something, read "Freakanomics," etc. There's "weird names" and "names that appear to have been picked by grabbing some random Scrabble tiles out of the bag."  I'm going with the totality of the evidence, here: a kid named "Tmorej," a pink semi-automatic handgun, a pink semi-automatic handgun that is stored loaded and unsecured in a house with small children.  I fell pretty confident this woman is probably not a person of hefty intellect.  I feel terrible for that child, but the mother is totally to blame for this tragedy.
 
2013-02-05 03:39:21 PM  
God Bless an America where this not only happens but is defended by gun owners.
 
2013-02-05 03:39:31 PM  

Rev.K: feckingmorons: I am in favor of responsible gun ownership, people who can't be responsible don't deserve to own guns.

So you are for gun control.

Excellent.


Of course I am. We can't have four year olds with guns, we can't have felons with guns, we can't have perpetrators of domestic violence with guns, and we shouldn't have people who have proven to be irresponsible with guns. The first three are already illegal, adding persons convicted of 'failure to secure firearms out of the reach of children' (if it is a misdemeanor) to the list of people prohibited. Of course if it is a felony they are already prohibited. Upon conviction they must divest themselves of the firearms.

If you're too stupid to own a gun you should most certainly give it to someone responsible or turn it in to be destroyed.
 
2013-02-05 03:42:48 PM  

TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?


Kids are still being killed that way?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-02-05 03:43:11 PM  

FlashHarry: vpb: the Supremes have decided that requiring trigger locks or gun safes violates the constitution.

wait, what now?

how the fark do locks and safes violate the constitution?


"This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."
  -Heller V Dist of Columbia
 
2013-02-05 03:43:21 PM  

Nabb1: TNel: Nabb1:

The kid's name was "Tmorej."  I doubt Ma is the keynote speaker at any Mensa meetings.

So because their parents named them a weird name that makes them stupid?  I mean I had no say on what my name is and neither did you.   Or should I get out the "that's racist" gif for you.

Something, something, read "Freakanomics," etc. There's "weird names" and "names that appear to have been picked by grabbing some random Scrabble tiles out of the bag."  I'm going with the totality of the evidence, here: a kid named "Tmorej," a pink semi-automatic handgun, a pink semi-automatic handgun that is stored loaded and unsecured in a house with small children.  I fell pretty confident this woman is probably not a person of hefty intellect.  I feel terrible for that child, but the mother is totally to blame for this tragedy.


I don't need to read anything.  You said you can judge someone's mental ability just by their name as per my quote of you.  Again just because someone has a "names that appear to have been picked by grabbing some random Scrabble tiles out of the bag."means NOTHING.
 
2013-02-05 03:43:48 PM  

GAT_00: God Bless an America where this not only happens but is defended by gun owners.


I don't see any gun owners or anyone else defending leaving dangerous things around with which children might injure themselves. Do you read the same words as the rest of us?

I know you live in your own fantasy world, but I had hoped you weren't that far out in left field.
 
2013-02-05 03:44:28 PM  
Queer guns? Whats a republican to do!?
 
2013-02-05 03:45:19 PM  
guns
i1151.photobucket.com
guns
i1151.photobucket.com
GUNS!
i1151.photobucket.com
GUNS!!
i1151.photobucket.com
GUUUUNSSS!!!
i1151.photobucket.com
Now in a rainbow pastel choice of colours! Who said homicide has to be monochrome?
 
2013-02-05 03:45:33 PM  

GAT_00: God Bless an America where this not only happens but is defended by gun owners.


For someone who spends all day talking about politics and public policy, you have zero idea about how either of them work.
 
2013-02-05 03:45:36 PM  

TNel: Nabb1: TNel: Nabb1:

The kid's name was "Tmorej."  I doubt Ma is the keynote speaker at any Mensa meetings.

So because their parents named them a weird name that makes them stupid?  I mean I had no say on what my name is and neither did you.   Or should I get out the "that's racist" gif for you.

Something, something, read "Freakanomics," etc. There's "weird names" and "names that appear to have been picked by grabbing some random Scrabble tiles out of the bag."  I'm going with the totality of the evidence, here: a kid named "Tmorej," a pink semi-automatic handgun, a pink semi-automatic handgun that is stored loaded and unsecured in a house with small children.  I fell pretty confident this woman is probably not a person of hefty intellect.  I feel terrible for that child, but the mother is totally to blame for this tragedy.

I don't need to read anything.  You said you can judge someone's mental ability just by their name as per my quote of you.  Again just because someone has a "names that appear to have been picked by grabbing some random Scrabble tiles out of the bag."means NOTHING.


No, I was judging Mom's intelligence in part based upon the name she picked for her kid.  I wasn't judging the three-year-old.
 
2013-02-05 03:46:12 PM  
Are they sold like this from the manufacturer, or was it a custom job?
 
2013-02-05 03:46:13 PM  

TNel: Nabb1: TNel: Nabb1:

The kid's name was "Tmorej."  I doubt Ma is the keynote speaker at any Mensa meetings.

So because their parents named them a weird name that makes them stupid?  I mean I had no say on what my name is and neither did you.   Or should I get out the "that's racist" gif for you.

Something, something, read "Freakanomics," etc. There's "weird names" and "names that appear to have been picked by grabbing some random Scrabble tiles out of the bag."  I'm going with the totality of the evidence, here: a kid named "Tmorej," a pink semi-automatic handgun, a pink semi-automatic handgun that is stored loaded and unsecured in a house with small children.  I fell pretty confident this woman is probably not a person of hefty intellect.  I feel terrible for that child, but the mother is totally to blame for this tragedy.

I don't need to read anything.  You said you can judge someone's mental ability just by their name as per my quote of you.  Again just because someone has a "names that appear to have been picked by grabbing some random Scrabble tiles out of the bag."means NOTHING.


The name implies race, and that's enough for him.
 
2013-02-05 03:47:14 PM  

TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?


Electricity is pretty standard issue in most modern households these days due to the necessity of it being the source of power for heating, cooling and all sorts of other household functions.  Toasters are necessary for making toast, another common household function although not as important as electricity.

Pink Hello Kitty handguns?  Despite the distracting coloring and design still only designed to shoot and kill.
 
2013-02-05 03:47:37 PM  
Darwin awards come in many forms.  This is the saddest of them.
 
2013-02-05 03:48:07 PM  
Tragic, but the number of kids who accidently kill themselves playing with guns is tiny compared to the number who die in swimming pools every year.
 
2013-02-05 03:48:13 PM  
I'm not against guns

/I'm against morons, nutters and moron nutters to have guns
//seriously, what is with retards with guns
 
2013-02-05 03:48:19 PM  

Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!


Except that stories like this used to happen back in the days when people kept a loaded musket by the door.  Nice try, troll.
 
2013-02-05 03:48:20 PM  

Frank N Stein:
I truly feel bad for the poor mauser

[www.geekosystem.com image 500x334]


Surely that's a Lee-Enfield?
 
2013-02-05 03:48:55 PM  

TNel: You said you can judge someone's mental ability just by their name as per my quote of you.


To be fair, he said he could judge someone's mental ability based on what they decided to name their kid, not by their own name.
 
2013-02-05 03:49:02 PM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Tragic, but the number of kids who accidently kill themselves playing with guns is tiny compared to the number who die in swimming pools every year.


And?
 
2013-02-05 03:49:38 PM  

WTF Indeed: GAT_00: God Bless an America where this not only happens but is defended by gun owners.

For someone who spends all day talking about politics and public policy, you have zero idea about how either of them work.


Oh yes, I forgot. The right to firearms trumps everything else, including the right to live.
 
2013-02-05 03:49:39 PM  
BUT IT'S SO CUTE!!! It Woudn't Hurt ANYTHING!!!
/owner nigligence.
 
2013-02-05 03:50:14 PM  
As a female, this "gotta have everything in pink" bullshiat is getting ridiculous.  Pink tool belts, hammers, hand tools, GUNS?!? WTF?

Come on; if you're going to carry/own a gun have it look like a gun and not a toy.  And be responsible with it.
 
2013-02-05 03:50:39 PM  

Rev.K: I will agree with the gun faction in this thread.

This is a negligence issue, not a gun control issue.


I've got a few questions.

First, the TFA says this:
A 3-year-old boy in Greenville, South Carolina was shot in the head and killed on Friday after he started playing with a pink handgun because he thought it was a toy.

Then later on it says this:
Police had not yet revealed who fired the weapon.

Sloppy reporting at best.
 
2013-02-05 03:50:43 PM  
More than a gun issue this is a stupid parents/adult issue. People should have to pass strict tests before becoming parents or guardians. Children are precious and we let any and every moran bump uglies and reproduce at will. The rich and powerful that make the laws don't care how many die, they've used violence, death and suffering as a tool for as long as history is written.
 
2013-02-05 03:51:04 PM  

vpb: In 2011, Arizona state Sen. Lori Klein (R) was criticized after she pointed her loaded raspberry-pink handgun at a reporter.
"Oh, it's so cute," Klein told the reporter as she aimed the gun's laser pointer at the reporter's chest, adding that the firearm's lack of a trigger safety should not be a reason to worry.

Sounds like a responsible gun owner to me.


The fark!?  That's assault with a deadly weapon!  The reporter would have been within rights to kill the biatch.
 
2013-02-05 03:51:41 PM  
As much as i am a proponent of the 2nd, i think the latest fashionable thing of painting weapons bright colors to make them less scary so that children and women will wan to use them is a bad idea. they are weapons, tools of death, they should be scary so that they are treated with respect.
 
2013-02-05 03:51:45 PM  

TNel: Nabb1: TNel: Nabb1:

The kid's name was "Tmorej."  I doubt Ma is the keynote speaker at any Mensa meetings.

So because their parents named them a weird name that makes them stupid?  I mean I had no say on what my name is and neither did you.   Or should I get out the "that's racist" gif for you.

Something, something, read "Freakanomics," etc. There's "weird names" and "names that appear to have been picked by grabbing some random Scrabble tiles out of the bag."  I'm going with the totality of the evidence, here: a kid named "Tmorej," a pink semi-automatic handgun, a pink semi-automatic handgun that is stored loaded and unsecured in a house with small children.  I fell pretty confident this woman is probably not a person of hefty intellect.  I feel terrible for that child, but the mother is totally to blame for this tragedy.

I don't need to read anything.  You said you can judge someone's mental ability just by their name as per my quote of you.  Again just because someone has a "names that appear to have been picked by grabbing some random Scrabble tiles out of the bag."means NOTHING.


Means something.  There's a ton of factors that go into why a parent names a kid what they named them. Socio-economic factors are at the top.  I'm not saying in this case there's a definitive link to something, but saying what a kid is named has nothing to do with what kind of parent they have is just wrong.  What kind of parent names a kid "Hitler" in this day and age.  Exactly.
 
2013-02-05 03:51:52 PM  

Cyno01: Queer guns? Whats a republican to do!?


I dunno, support Pink Pistols.
 
2013-02-05 03:51:58 PM  
It shouldn't matter if a gun looks like a toy. If a kid is able to gain access to it, something has already gone very wrong.
 
2013-02-05 03:52:00 PM  

dittybopper: Sloppy reporting at best.


It's "Raw Story" for a reason.
 
2013-02-05 03:52:12 PM  

ChipNASA: BUT IT'S SO CUTE!!! It Woudn't Hurt ANYTHING!!!
/owner nigligence.


Now THAT'S racist.

/love typos
//love love love
 
2013-02-05 03:52:26 PM  

Nabb1: R.A.Danny: FlashHarry: R.A.Danny: FlashHarry: the owner of this weapon should be arrested for manslaughter.

I'm ok with this. It's not really a gun issue if you ask me, it could be any dangerous item.

i agree. i'm not opposed to owning handguns for home defense. but a pink gun? in a house with children? that's like giving them a lighter in a room full of oily rags. you are negligent and should be held liable.

Wouldn't any parent want to keep their kids safe? I'm finding this story to be particularly upsetting for some reason. I almost feel like the parents set the kids up to kill themselves.
You already know I'm a total gun nut, totally a Second Amendment goofball.
But I'm also a parent. I lock my firearms up. I don't own firearms that look like toys. I keep medicine well out of reach. I keep the draino.. Well I use it if need be and get it out of the house. There has to be something terribly wrong with these parents and it's pissing me off.

The kid's name was "Tmorej."  I doubt Ma is the keynote speaker at any Mensa meetings.


Sure she is named Tmeinstein....
 
2013-02-05 03:52:39 PM  

unyon: TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?

No, but if more than 500 kids a year were killed every year from toasters, you can be damned sure that there would be an outcry.


More the 500 kids a year are killed in car accidents. I'm not hearing an outcry.

Gun owners: Secure your damn weapons.
 
2013-02-05 03:53:04 PM  
cdn.media.discovermagazine.com
 
2013-02-05 03:53:13 PM  
He died doing what he loved - enjoying his Freedom™!
 
2013-02-05 03:53:32 PM  

blahpers: TNel: You said you can judge someone's mental ability just by their name as per my quote of you.

To be fair, he said he could judge someone's mental ability based on what they decided to name their kid, not by their own name.


Yeah I did realize that afterwards but tomatoe tomato it's still the same. But the name screams non-white so that's good enough for him.
 
2013-02-05 03:53:46 PM  

dittybopper: Rev.K: I will agree with the gun faction in this thread.

This is a negligence issue, not a gun control issue.

I've got a few questions.

First, the TFA says this:
A 3-year-old boy in Greenville, South Carolina was shot in the head and killed on Friday after he started playing with a pink handgun because he thought it was a toy.

Then later on it says this:
Police had not yet revealed who fired the weapon.

Sloppy reporting at best.


I'm guessing the seven year old.  Probably still an accident, but I think the older child likely fired the gun.
 
2013-02-05 03:53:56 PM  

KrispyKritter: More than a gun issue this is a stupid parents/adult issue. People should have to pass strict tests before becoming parents or guardians. Children are precious and we let any and every moran bump uglies and reproduce at will. The rich and powerful that make the laws don't care how many die, they've used violence, death and suffering as a tool for as long as history is written.


Meh.  I want the government out of my bedroom, and out of my gun safe.
 
2013-02-05 03:53:56 PM  

LesterB: ChipNASA: BUT IT'S SO CUTE!!! It Woudn't Hurt ANYTHING!!!
/owner nigligence.

Now THAT'S racist.

/love typos
//love love love

What typo??
/runs.
 
2013-02-05 03:53:59 PM  
Are the constant gun threads sponsored links or does some modmin have a hardon for them?
 
2013-02-05 03:54:30 PM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Tragic, but the number of kids who accidently kill themselves playing with guns is tiny compared to the number who die in swimming pools every year.


So this means do don't pay attention things that kill people unless they are statistically the largest?  So only heart disease counts, got it.
 
2013-02-05 03:54:30 PM  

TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?


"It's not the gun, it's the negligent parents."

Take equation, remove gun. Child lives. Or wait no... child then finds a fork and stick it in a toaster, because... reasons.
 
2013-02-05 03:54:34 PM  
 
2013-02-05 03:54:46 PM  

TwistedIvory: You're right. I think we should assign primacy to causes of preventable child death and ban the offending products/acts in order of danger.


The stupid is deep with this one. Newsflash: That is exactly the right thing to do. Address risks in order of the most common. Of course bans are not the only solution (and at the moment very few are proposing a handgun ban), but you sound like a moran to huffily suggest that looking at the most common causes of preventable death before the least common is somehow a bad idea.

"If you have guns, if you own guns mostly we would prefer you have them in a lock box," Greenville Police Media Relations Officer Jonathan Bragg. "At least have them out of the reach of children."
When you're dealing with morans responsible gun owners, stating the obvious is apparently necessary.
 
2013-02-05 03:55:12 PM  

TNel: blahpers: TNel: You said you can judge someone's mental ability just by their name as per my quote of you.

To be fair, he said he could judge someone's mental ability based on what they decided to name their kid, not by their own name.

Yeah I did realize that afterwards but tomatoe tomato it's still the same. But the name screams non-white so that's good enough for him.


Oh, bless your heart.
 
2013-02-05 03:55:24 PM  

Dixon Cider: TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?

When were toasters designed to kill?


www.bbc.co.uk
 
2013-02-05 03:56:05 PM  
I thought that guns WERE toys.  Even the president is seen playing with one.   They are NOT meant for anything serious like defending yourself.
 
2013-02-05 03:56:11 PM  

dahmers love zombie: Daddy would have gotten us Uzis.


...OK for date night in the barrio, but we need more firepower.
 
2013-02-05 03:56:40 PM  
TwistedIvory
"All I've seen is that you opened up the thread with a tired one-liner that doesn't at all address the issue, and then you've followed up with ad hominem fallacies and insults. I'm all for having an actual dialogue. Until you're ready to engage in such, however, I'll leave you to your own fantasies and images of me as some Ted Nugent-revering, gun-waving redneck.


This
 
2013-02-05 03:56:41 PM  

GAT_00: God Bless an America where this not only happens but is defended by gun owners.


Just the cost of doing business, apparently.
 
2013-02-05 03:57:18 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Tragic, but the number of kids who accidently kill themselves playing with guns is tiny compared to the number who die in swimming pools every year.

And?


In the context of the overall gun debate incidents like this shouldn't carry great weight. As a society we have a tolerance for acceptable risk for tragic accidents - hence why residential properties are allowed to have swimming pools, the risk of kids shooting themselves thinking a gun is a toy is well below the risk associated with a large number of other items or activities.
 
2013-02-05 03:57:20 PM  

justtray: TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?

"It's not the gun, it's the negligent parents."

Take equation, remove gun. Child lives.


Remove negligent parent, child lives.
 
2013-02-05 03:57:42 PM  

GAT_00: WTF Indeed: GAT_00: God Bless an America where this not only happens but is defended by gun owners.

For someone who spends all day talking about politics and public policy, you have zero idea about how either of them work.

Oh yes, I forgot. The right to firearms trumps everything else, including the right to live.


Right to vote?  Or the right to participate in an election?  I'd like to see where you have the "right to vote."  I mean if you have a right to vote, you'd get a vote for the president, right?  Nope.

"The "right to vote" is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution except in the above referenced amendments, and only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. In other words, the "right to vote" is perhaps better understood, in layman's terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage. States may deny the "right to vote" for other reasons."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States">htt p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States
 
2013-02-05 03:57:43 PM  

hdhale: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Except that stories like this used to happen back in the days when people kept a loaded musket by the door.  Nice try, troll.


Oh yeah... death by musket was all the rage!! That is why is so predominate in our history...
Wait, you have a citation for this, correct?
 
2013-02-05 03:57:58 PM  
Here's my idea. You kept to keep your guns as the law was written and intended....I'm pretty sure your law was never designed to keep fully automatic rifles and large caliber multishot handguns.

t0.gstatic.com
 
2013-02-05 03:58:17 PM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: HotWingConspiracy: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Tragic, but the number of kids who accidently kill themselves playing with guns is tiny compared to the number who die in swimming pools every year.

And?

In the context of the overall gun debate incidents like this shouldn't carry great weight. As a society we have a tolerance for acceptable risk for tragic accidents - hence why residential properties are allowed to have swimming pools, the risk of kids shooting themselves thinking a gun is a toy is well below the risk associated with a large number of other items or activities.


This assumes the only consideration is body count. It's not.
 
2013-02-05 03:58:29 PM  
I think that we, unlike this kid, really dodged a bullet here. I mean that kid was the next Hitler, or maybe just republican.

/I'd like the kosher meal stewardess.
 
2013-02-05 03:59:07 PM  
I'd like to see the mishandling of a firearm become a federal felony, with mishandling defined as allowing anyone beside the individual owner to retrieve the weapon.
 
2013-02-05 03:59:11 PM  

GAT_00: Oh yes, I forgot. The right to firearms trumps everything else, including the right to live.


It's almost like if that gun had been properly locked up the kid would not have died. So a person caused that death, not the gun.
 
2013-02-05 03:59:11 PM  

bradkanus: GAT_00: WTF Indeed: GAT_00: God Bless an America where this not only happens but is defended by gun owners.

For someone who spends all day talking about politics and public policy, you have zero idea about how either of them work.

Oh yes, I forgot. The right to firearms trumps everything else, including the right to live.

Right to vote?  Or the right to participate in an election?  I'd like to see where you have the "right to vote."  I mean if you have a right to vote, you'd get a vote for the president, right?  Nope.

"The "right to vote" is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution except in the above referenced amendments, and only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. In other words, the "right to vote" is perhaps better understood, in layman's terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage. States may deny the "right to vote" for other reasons."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States">htt p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States


Nevermind - my bad you wrote "live" note "vote."  Regard, but disregard here.
 
2013-02-05 03:59:14 PM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: More the 500 kids a year are killed in car accidents. I'm not hearing an outcry.


What? Are you deaf? I couldn't even take my kid home from the hospital without having the child seat inspected. If a celebrity is caught driving with their kid in their lap it's headline news. There are safety fairs with police and firemen to talk about children and vehicle safety. MADD built the foundation of their righteous anger machine on the documented death of children.

Your statement is so stupid I'm starting to suspect this reply is going to earn a 'That's the Joke' prize...
 
2013-02-05 03:59:36 PM  
Guns are like band saws, not toasters.

Band saws have a yellow line around them, big red on/off switches. Only one person in the circle at a time. But guns - the cavalier attitude many people have about them is really astounding. And they're a lot more dangerous than band saws.
 
2013-02-05 04:00:11 PM  
OK, I'm feeling safe now.  Thanks, everyone.
 
2013-02-05 04:00:27 PM  

indarwinsshadow: Here's my idea. You kept to keep your guns as the law was written and intended....I'm pretty sure your law was never designed to keep fully automatic rifles and large caliber multishot handguns.

[t0.gstatic.com image 309x163]


Pretty much they intended for the citizens to be armed with weapons comparable to the opposition (or if you are comparing long rifles to standard issue muskets, superior weapons).  And I'm sure they didn't think of telephones, radios, television, the internet, smart phones and so on when they wrote the First Amendment, either.  But, here we are.
 
2013-02-05 04:00:37 PM  

Frank N Stein: [24.media.tumblr.com image 500x379]


Yeah, that guy's a /k/ommando for sure.
 
2013-02-05 04:00:41 PM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: justtray: TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?

"It's not the gun, it's the negligent parents."

Take equation, remove gun. Child lives.

Remove negligent parent, child lives.


Removing the parents would still remove the weapon... yes?
 
2013-02-05 04:00:42 PM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: unyon: TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?

No, but if more than 500 kids a year were killed every year from toasters, you can be damned sure that there would be an outcry.

More the 500 kids a year are killed in car accidents. I'm not hearing an outcry.

Gun owners: Secure your damn weapons.


Actually, the number of kids under 12* who were killed in gun accidents in 2010 (last year of records for CDC) was 41.

Yes, it was only 41.

I chose 12 as the cut-off because that's a common age a youngster might get a hunting license, and I wanted to exclude hunting accidents, but even if I ran the number all the way up to 17 (18 being adults), the number is still only 98.

Yep.  Less than 100 per year.

For comparison, roughly the same number die in bicycle accidents (94).

Source:   CDC  WISQARS Fatal Injury Reports, National and Regional, 1999-2010
 
2013-02-05 04:00:48 PM  
Only new gun control law we need is this....

Commit a crime with a gun? Death Penalty.
 
2013-02-05 04:01:11 PM  
"In 2011, Arizona state Sen. Lori Klein (R) was criticized after she pointed her loaded raspberry-pink handgun at a reporter. "Oh, it's so cute," Klein told the reporter as she aimed the gun's laser pointer at the reporter's chest, adding that the firearm's lack of a trigger safety should not be a reason to worry. "I just didn't have my hand on the trigger," she said. "

dumb biatch.

dublinopinion.com
 
2013-02-05 04:02:26 PM  

generallyso: Are the constant gun threads sponsored links or does some modmin have a hardon for them?


Its because they still pull traffic.

Pretty much everyone I have favorites in worthy opponent blue is in them so if I want a decent argument, here I have to come.

I can only assume everyone else has the same problem. Its like an oversized prisoned delimma and we've all squealed.
 
2013-02-05 04:02:45 PM  

vartian: TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?

A toaster actually does something useful. A gun simply endagers your entire family.


Yeah, but you are just quoting statistics - and this is Fark.com, where anecdotal stories, fantasy scenarios and flawed Aristotelian reasoning trump mere statical fact.
 
2013-02-05 04:03:59 PM  
Man, i don't even have in it me to wild-pig-troll this thread. Got nothin'. I sure hope SOMEbody tried to drum it into grandma's head that a firearm is a lethal tool and not a farkin fashion accessory, but I doubt it. Maybe we should add advertising and marketing bans to the list, like they do with tobacco. Just reinforces my deeply, hateful prejudice against morons with weapons they do not respect or understand, like AR clones. This is the inside out version of tacticool and it cost a baby his life. fark this gay earth and fark you, morons with guns.
 
2013-02-05 04:04:17 PM  
The only thing that stops an innocent child with a gun he or she mistakes for a toy is a good old fashioned spanking. Unless, of course, that kid shoots and kills him/herself... then well, they won't do that again.
 
2013-02-05 04:04:48 PM  

JungleBoogie: Guns are like band saws, not toasters.

Band saws have a yellow line around them, big red on/off switches. Only one person in the circle at a time. But guns - the cavalier attitude many people have about them is really astounding. And they're a lot more dangerous than band saws.


When was the last time a band saw was used to kill someone at 1000 yards?
 
2013-02-05 04:04:57 PM  
Get a manly weapon.

img826.imageshack.us
 
2013-02-05 04:04:57 PM  
Guns aren't supposed to be "cute."

Stop farking around. If you need a gun in a certain color, you don't nee a gun.

Also:

i48.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-05 04:05:32 PM  
Sad?

No.

Preventable tragedy perpetuated solely because four million borderline psychopaths with god complexes want to continue living their paranoid Mad Max fantasies without any regard for the consequences or any responsibility for preventing them stops being sad after about the 200,000th victim.

Now it's just boring.
 
2013-02-05 04:05:35 PM  
I am in favor of responsible gun ownership, people who can't be responsible don't deserve to own guns.

As all the gun nuts here will tell you ad-nauseum, the Supreme Court has ruled that the "well regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment is referring only to the hypothetical/potential militia and not to the regulation of the guns themselves or those who wish to own them.

Sorry, gun grabber.  A true patriot would know that dead 3 year olds are the price of freedom.
 
2013-02-05 04:06:17 PM  

justtray: GAT_00: God Bless an America where this not only happens but is defended by gun owners.

Just the cost of doing business, apparently.


Pretty small cost.  The odds of it happening are almost a million to 1:  the actual rate of kids age 0 through 17 who die in gun accidents is 1.3 per million.  (98 out of a population of 78,181,467).  (Source:   http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html )

That's a remarkably low number for a nation with nearly as many guns as people.  We must be doing something right, the rare tragedy notwithstanding.
 
2013-02-05 04:06:18 PM  

dittybopper: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: unyon: TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?

No, but if more than 500 kids a year were killed every year from toasters, you can be damned sure that there would be an outcry.

More the 500 kids a year are killed in car accidents. I'm not hearing an outcry.

Gun owners: Secure your damn weapons.

Actually, the number of kids under 12* who were killed in gun accidents in 2010 (last year of records for CDC) was 41.

Yes, it was only 41.

I chose 12 as the cut-off because that's a common age a youngster might get a hunting license, and I wanted to exclude hunting accidents, but even if I ran the number all the way up to 17 (18 being adults), the number is still only 98.

Yep.  Less than 100 per year.


How many of those were EASILY preventable by having the gun where the child couldn't get to it (on owner's person, or in a gun safe)?
 
2013-02-05 04:06:22 PM  

dittybopper: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: unyon: TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?

No, but if more than 500 kids a year were killed every year from toasters, you can be damned sure that there would be an outcry.

More the 500 kids a year are killed in car accidents. I'm not hearing an outcry.

Gun owners: Secure your damn weapons.

Actually, the number of kids under 12* who were killed in gun accidents in 2010 (last year of records for CDC) was 41.

Yes, it was only 41.

I chose 12 as the cut-off because that's a common age a youngster might get a hunting license, and I wanted to exclude hunting accidents, but even if I ran the number all the way up to 17 (18 being adults), the number is still only 98.

Yep.  Less than 100 per year.

For comparison, roughly the same number die in bicycle accidents (94).

Source:   CDC  WISQARS Fatal Injury Reports, National and Regional, 1999-2010


And far more suffer non-fatal injuries due to bicycle accidents, than firearms accidents.
 
2013-02-05 04:06:40 PM  

FlashHarry: vpb: the Supremes have decided that requiring trigger locks or gun safes violates the constitution.

wait, what now?

how the fark do locks and safes violate the constitution?


Locks and gun safes prevent you from being able to get quick access if needed, that's why they are not required.
 
2013-02-05 04:07:51 PM  

HotWingConspiracy:  

This assumes the only consideration is body count. It's not.


If the very low incidence of self inflicted fatalities due to kids playing with guns is remotely a reason to ban or further control their use then there is a whole catalog of objects and activities that should be headed for the chopping block first.
 
2013-02-05 04:07:59 PM  

Glancing Blow: Get a manly weapon.

[img826.imageshack.us image 640x480]


That pussy doesn't even have a bayonet/spork lug on the barrel.

And where is the cup-holder?!
 
2013-02-05 04:08:19 PM  
This thread needs to get serious.

www.gizmodiva.com
 
2013-02-05 04:08:28 PM  

ferretman: FlashHarry: vpb: the Supremes have decided that requiring trigger locks or gun safes violates the constitution.

wait, what now?

how the fark do locks and safes violate the constitution?

Locks and gun safes prevent you from being able to get quick access if needed, that's why they are not required.


shall not be infringed.... what does it mean?
 
2013-02-05 04:08:28 PM  

ferretman: FlashHarry: vpb: the Supremes have decided that requiring trigger locks or gun safes violates the constitution.

wait, what now?

how the fark do locks and safes violate the constitution?

Locks and gun safes prevent you from being able to get quick access if needed, that's why they are not required.


Yet allows children to blow their own brains out!!
 
2013-02-05 04:08:37 PM  

WTF Indeed: GAT_00: Oh yes, I forgot. The right to firearms trumps everything else, including the right to live.

It's almost like if that gun had been properly locked up the kid would not have died. So a person caused that death, not the gun.


And the reason it looked like a toy is...

I guess that's what Responsible Gun Owners do, buy guns that look like toys.

bradkanus: Nevermind - my bad you wrote "live" note "vote." Regard, but disregard here.


Funny, because I assumed you read it correctly and were just making up a tangent to try and drag the conversation off topic.
 
2013-02-05 04:09:08 PM  
This is why I've taught my son to abide by the four rules of gun safety even when handling toys. Safe gun handling has to be deeply ingrained to be effective.

Most of the safety conscious gun owners I know won't even put their finger on the trigger of a spray bottle or electric drill until they're ready to use it. They usually aren't even aware of it until it's pointed out.
 
2013-02-05 04:09:24 PM  

TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?


I just want to point out why this type of argument is a bad argument.

While it's true that more people are killed by things other than guns, the fact remains that the primary purpose of a car is to safely transport people from one place to another. The primary purpose of a toaster is to safely toast bread. The primary purpose of electricity in the home is to provide power to operate appliances which have passed safety inspections and certifications to minimize the risk of injury or death.

The purpose of a gun (especially a handgun) is to do harm.

So aside from anything else that people want to argue about regarding gun control laws and assault weapons, please just stop bringing up the arguement that people get injured and killed through the misuse of items that are part of everyday life.

But to get back to your point, yes, I agree that this is totally the result of negligence on the part of the parents.

The idea of having kids and owning guns, but taking no precautions to keep the guns out of the kids hands when they are not supervised, is absolutely mind-bogglingly stupid.
 
2013-02-05 04:10:09 PM  
What if we put a little sticker on all guns: "This thing is dangerous."
Do you think that would fix it all?
 
2013-02-05 04:11:06 PM  

Zasteva: How many of those were EASILY preventable by having the gun where the child couldn't get to it (on owner's person, or in a gun safe)?


Probably a small fraction of those.

Why?

Because some significant number of those accidents have to be from the adult farking up.  So, maybe half.

In a nation with as many guns and gun owners as we have,  that's a remarkably small number.
 
2013-02-05 04:11:17 PM  

bradkanus: So I need to pay the price every time somebody does something stupid or allows something terrible to happen?  Or is this just pertaining to guns?

Maybe we should take the internet away from everyone since a small minority of people use it to exploit children.  If ONE CHILD IS SAVED!


Sadly, we *all* pay the price when something like this happens and you respond.

Believe me - if there comes a point when we are allowed to "take the Internet away" from people, you're already on the short-list. You've already shown you can't handle the responsibility.

\one of the walking wounded
 
2013-02-05 04:11:47 PM  

stonicus: What if we put a little sticker on all guns: "This thing is dangerous."
Do you think that would fix it all?


Well, it would violate the constitutional rights of of Responsible Gun Owners, so I don't see why you're even bringing it up.
 
2013-02-05 04:11:58 PM  

feckingmorons: The fact that is was pink and a child might be more likely to mistake it for a toy, as it apparently was in this case, is all the more reason to secure your guns when not in your immediate control.


When I was growing up I was taught that guns were not toys, so therefore we would not be allowed to play with toy guns.  Sure, whenever I could get a stick that would suffice but as an adult it's more poignant; it's not a toy....it's a tool, and it should be treated with the same sort of care and respect as any tool that can and will cause an incredible amount of harm if you're not careful with it.

So, now that were seeing actual guns looking like a toy, well, I have to wonder exactly what the fark are people thinking?  If we put Drano in containers that looked like Go-Gurt the general public would go batshiat crazy.  If rat poison came in Pez Dispenser format it would be billed as irresponsible.

Yet.....gunmakers can manufacture a weapon that would stylistically look at home next to Hello Kitty or Barbie?

What the fark is wrong with these people?  I'm talking about BOTH the gun makers AND the idiots that would willingly plunk down money for a gun in bubble-gum color?  Is there absolutely NO concept of the ramification or potential for a situation with confusion as to it's actual nature, especially when the odds are so astoundingly high with a firearm?
 
2013-02-05 04:12:49 PM  
Whatever, my house has no guns so it can't happen to me,  I can laugh and laugh loud at this stuff.  It isn't going to happen in my home.
 
2013-02-05 04:13:07 PM  
Guns aren't fashion accessories so don't treat them as such.
 
2013-02-05 04:13:40 PM  

bradkanus: So I need to pay the price every time somebody does something stupid or allows something terrible to happen?


I wouldn't worry too much about it. If you had to pay a price for stupidity you'd have a life sentence in debtor's prison ten times over by now.
 
2013-02-05 04:13:57 PM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: unyon: TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?

No, but if more than 500 kids a year were killed every year from toasters, you can be damned sure that there would be an outcry.

More the 500 kids a year are killed in car accidents. I'm not hearing an outcry.

Gun owners: Secure your damn weapons.


Now I see why your reply to me was so stupid.

As to this Weeners, citation please. Not that I don't believe you, I just want to know if you're making things up to present a false equivilence (a gun nut favorite). Secondly, assuming your numbers are correct, which is why we don't have any regulations on cars amirite? I might have to get the well polished response to this false equivilency from a few days ago, since you guys seem to break it out like its all fresh and new every thread.
 
2013-02-05 04:13:59 PM  
Well if the kid didn't have that gun he could have been taken hostage by a bad guy with a gun, and then he would be dead by now.
 
2013-02-05 04:14:39 PM  

Joe Blowme: ferretman: FlashHarry: vpb: the Supremes have decided that requiring trigger locks or gun safes violates the constitution.

wait, what now?

how the fark do locks and safes violate the constitution?

Locks and gun safes prevent you from being able to get quick access if needed, that's why they are not required.

shall not be infringed.... what does it mean?


It means whatever the courts say it means at any given point in time - and nothing else.
 
2013-02-05 04:15:07 PM  

lostcat: The purpose of a gun (especially a handgun) is to do harm.


That isn't necessarily wrong.  Unless, of course, you think that violence is always wrong.  In that case, you are a naive Pollyanna.

I teach my son that violence is very rarely the answer, but that sometimes, again very rarely, it's the only appropriate answer.   Then I give the spiel about not initiating it.
 
2013-02-05 04:15:20 PM  

stonicus: What if we put a little sticker on all guns: "This thing is dangerous."
Do you think that would fix it all?


We could require that there be some sort of easily recognizable symbol or color to let people know it's dangerous.
Hunters wear bright orange to be easly seen. How about we make gun manufacturers paint the last half-inch of a gun's barrel bright orange to act as an easily seen warning?
It would also let the police regognize that someone is pointing a gun at them, so they can more easily shoot the aggressor.
 
2013-02-05 04:15:24 PM  

Joe Blowme: shall not be infringed.... what does it mean?


"You'll take my hobby from my cold, dead hands!"

www.davidhedison.net
 
2013-02-05 04:15:44 PM  
You should be required to buy a gun safe or lock box or lockable gun cabinet with the purchase of your first gun. The cheap ones are only around $150. Won't keep burglars out, but it will keep kids out.
 
2013-02-05 04:15:50 PM  
"Deputy Coroner Jeff Fowler ruled the shooting an accidental homicide."

We need to hold folks who allow children access to unlocked/loaded guns responsible, the same way we treat drunk drivers. I didn't mean to just doesn't cut it anymore.  HOW was this pretty pink gun accessible to a 3 and 7 year old?

THIS was not an "accident!"

/Yes, I realize locking you gun in a safe unloaded renders it pretty much useless in a home invasion scenario, but when you have a 3 and a 7 year old in the house maybe that is not a house that need to be protected by a homeowner with a gun and might better be served with an escape plan,  Yeah, the bad guy would still be alive, but then, so would your kids.
 
2013-02-05 04:16:14 PM  

vpb: "This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."
  -Heller V Dist of Columbia


actually, i went back and read heller after i posted that. i'm astounded that they asserted that "self-defense" is the "core lawful purpose" of the 2nd amendment, when its introductory clause specifically talks about "the people" as a collective whole defending "the state" as part of a "well-regulated militia."
 
2013-02-05 04:16:28 PM  

CruiserTwelve: [i162.photobucket.com image 593x382]


At first glance, that really does look like a toy.

Back when I was a kid we had toy guns that looked real.  Then there was a big fuss about making sure that toy guns had red tips on the end so a kid wouldn't be shot by a cop who mistook it for a real gun.

When a real gun that looks like a toy actually kills someone....oh, that's what this article is about.

Some states ban "novelty lighters" because they look like toys.  Will there be a push to ban "novelty guns"?
 
2013-02-05 04:16:56 PM  

Joe Blowme: ferretman: FlashHarry: vpb: the Supremes have decided that requiring trigger locks or gun safes violates the constitution.

wait, what now?

how the fark do locks and safes violate the constitution?

Locks and gun safes prevent you from being able to get quick access if needed, that's why they are not required.

shall not be infringed.... what does it mean?


Where does requiring a lock or safe "infringe" on your right to keep and bear arms?

I say charge the parents with negligent homicide, just like Adam Lanza's mother (had he not killed her with the very weapons she bought "for protection).
 
2013-02-05 04:16:59 PM  

GAT_00: And the reason it looked like a toy is...

I guess that's what Responsible Gun Owners do, buy guns that look like toys.


It looked like a pink gun, not a toy.  Pink handguns are sold all the time to women and even many in the LGBT community whom are members of "Pink Pistols".  The owner of this weapon was not responsible, but you can't see that because you think gun looking like a toy is to blame for this death when it is really the owner of gun.
 
2013-02-05 04:17:09 PM  

stonicus: What if we put a little sticker on all guns: "This thing is dangerous."
Do you think that would fix it all?


Sounds like the first step toward tyranny, black helicopters and Hitler.
 
2013-02-05 04:17:46 PM  
Dixon Cider:

"It's not the gun, it's the negligent parents."

Take equation, remove gun. Child lives.

Remove negligent parent, child lives.


Removing the parents would still remove the weapon... yes?Not necessarily. I think the point was that if you  replaced idiot parents with parents who have the full use of common sense, the gun could still be in the house and the child not dead.
 
2013-02-05 04:18:09 PM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: More the 500 kids a year are killed in car accidents. I'm not hearing an outcry.

Gun owners: Secure your damn weapons.


Why does this keep getting parroted?  Every year there is pressure from government and consumer groups to ratchet up the safety of cars in every conceivable situation, resulting in vast layers of regulation and specifications for any new car sold in this country.  Cars are the most regulated consumer product other than probably prescription drugs.

And you know what?  The motor vehicle fatality rate has dropped from a high around 5.4/100MVMT to 1.1/100MVMT since safety equipment became a focus of manufacturers.  Vehicle fatalities will be eclipsed by firearms deaths this year or next because of it.

Furthermore, just about every child interacts with a vehicle every day, just like every person in this country.  The same cannot be remotely said about firearms.
 
2013-02-05 04:20:06 PM  

bradkanus: GAT_00: WTF Indeed: GAT_00: God Bless an America where this not only happens but is defended by gun owners.

For someone who spends all day talking about politics and public policy, you have zero idea about how either of them work.

Oh yes, I forgot. The right to firearms trumps everything else, including the right to live.

Right to vote?  Or the right to participate in an election?  I'd like to see where you have the "right to vote."  I mean if you have a right to vote, you'd get a vote for the president, right?  Nope.

"The "right to vote" is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution except in the above referenced amendments, and only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. In other words, the "right to vote" is perhaps better understood, in layman's terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage. States may deny the "right to vote" for other reasons."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States">htt p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States


The state can also deny a person the right to bear arms. Felons are not allowed to vote or own guns in my state. Heck if you parse the 2nd Amendment the way it is to imply it guarentees the induvidual's right to own guns, then the 2nd Amendment also gives the government the constitutional right to regulate those arms. They can't infringe on the right of ownership but they can regulate the terms of said ownership.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If those two statements were mutually exclusive, the word "and" would have ben used.
 
2013-02-05 04:20:09 PM  

Surpheon: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: More the 500 kids a year are killed in car accidents. I'm not hearing an outcry.

What? Are you deaf? I couldn't even take my kid home from the hospital without having the child seat inspected. If a celebrity is caught driving with their kid in their lap it's headline news. There are safety fairs with police and firemen to talk about children and vehicle safety. MADD built the foundation of their righteous anger machine on the documented death of children.

Your statement is so stupid I'm starting to suspect this reply is going to earn a 'That's the Joke' prize...



So why do we not see stories on Fark every time a kid gets killed in a car accident?

Sure there are laws and organizations that are devoted to safer driving. Just as there are even stiffer laws, and organizations for safer firearms.

But the media outcry is focused on guns. Hysteria sells, and you're buying.
 
2013-02-05 04:21:42 PM  
"In 2011, Arizona state Sen. Lori Klein (R) was criticized after she pointed her loaded raspberry-pink handgun at a reporter. "Oh, it's so cute," Klein told the reporter as she aimed the gun's laser pointer at the reporter's chest, adding that the firearm's lack of a trigger safety should not be a reason to worry."

Wholly shiat, what a freaking idiot.
 
2013-02-05 04:21:48 PM  

FlashHarry: vpb: "This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."
  -Heller V Dist of Columbia

actually, i went back and read heller after i posted that. i'm astounded that they asserted that "self-defense" is the "core lawful purpose" of the 2nd amendment, when its introductory clause specifically talks about "the people" as a collective whole defending "the state" as part of a "well-regulated militia."


same basic reasoning behind Roe v Wade. the implicit right to privacy is found in the explicit right to be free in our persons. the implicit right to self defense is found in the explicit right to keep and bear(among others).  But you just try and tell Scalia that....
 
2013-02-05 04:22:38 PM  
FTA: "Pink handguns and Hello Kitty assault rifles have been part of an effort to get firearms in the hands of women and younger groups in recent years."

Well...it worked.
 
2013-02-05 04:23:13 PM  

dittybopper: lostcat: The purpose of a gun (especially a handgun) is to do harm.

That isn't necessarily wrong.  Unless, of course, you think that violence is always wrong.  In that case, you are a naive Pollyanna.

I teach my son that violence is very rarely the answer, but that sometimes, again very rarely, it's the only appropriate answer.   Then I give the spiel about not initiating it.


Didn't assign a moral value to causing harm. Just said that causing harm is the primary purpose of a handgun.
 
2013-02-05 04:23:33 PM  

WTF Indeed: It looked like a pink gun, not a toy.


You should tell the kid that.  He's going to be so embarrassed.
 
2013-02-05 04:24:10 PM  
Abe Vigoda's Ghost: More the 500 kids a year are killed in car accidents. I'm not hearing an outcry.

Surpheon: What? Are you deaf? I couldn't even take my kid home from the hospital without having the child seat inspected. If a celebrity is caught driving with their kid in their lap it's headline news. There are safety fairs with police and firemen to talk about children and vehicle safety. MADD built the foundation of their righteous anger machine on the documented death of children.

Your statement is so stupid I'm starting to suspect this reply is going to earn a 'That's the Joke' prize...


But he's right. The automotive yearly slaughter, about 30,000 people a year, is a fact.

But here's the problem with guns. The NRA looks at the Chris Kyle incident, or Newtown and shrugs and says, "This is unavoidable." And that answer is not acceptable to many of us. That's the wrong answer, one we refuse to accept.

There were about 8500 firearm murders in 2011.

So - both issues are worth addressing seriously. Car safety is being addressed, albeit in a haphazard fashion. But there have been tremendous advances in the past 40 years. Gun safety is not being addressed at all.

There are 8760 hours in a year (365 days x 24 hours / day). One person dies every 17 minutes in a car wreck.1 One person dies about every 60 minutes from a firearms-related incident.2 Both issues are worth addressing. Both issues are important.

==================
1 Car deaths per hour: 30196 deaths per year / 8760 hours per year = 3.44 deaths per hour.
2 Firearms deaths per hour: 8583 deaths per year / 8760 hours per year = .98 deaths per hour.
 
2013-02-05 04:24:13 PM  

FlashHarry: vpb: "This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."
  -Heller V Dist of Columbia

actually, i went back and read heller after i posted that. i'm astounded that they asserted that "self-defense" is the "core lawful purpose" of the 2nd amendment, when its introductory clause specifically talks about "the people" as a collective whole defending "the state" as part of a "well-regulated militia."


And now you've come to realize why legal scolars mock the activist SCOTUS and historically Heller will be considered one of the biggest travesties of logic ever uttered.

I'm not sure what the record is, but it's going to be pushing it for "quickest ruling ever overturned" when Scalia, Alito, or Thomas croak.
 
2013-02-05 04:24:39 PM  

Pride of Cucamonga: Dixon Cider:

"It's not the gun, it's the negligent parents."

Take equation, remove gun. Child lives.

Remove negligent parent, child lives.

Removing the parents would still remove the weapon... yes?Not necessarily. I think the point was that if you  replaced idiot parents with parents who have the full use of common sense, the gun could still be in the house and the child not dead.


Remove the weapon and get the same result?
Kids need parents... parents do not need guns.

But agreed.. a little common sense and this is a non-story!
 
2013-02-05 04:24:50 PM  

justtray: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: unyon: TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?

No, but if more than 500 kids a year were killed every year from toasters, you can be damned sure that there would be an outcry.

More the 500 kids a year are killed in car accidents. I'm not hearing an outcry.

Gun owners: Secure your damn weapons.

Now I see why your reply to me was so stupid.

As to this Weeners, citation please. Not that I don't believe you, I just want to know if you're making things up to present a false equivilence (a gun nut favorite). Secondly, assuming your numbers are correct, which is why we don't have any regulations on cars amirite? I might have to get the well polished response to this false equivilency from a few days ago, since you guys seem to break it out like its all fresh and new every thread.


Anyway, that number is meaningless by itself. For it to be meaningful, we would have to know how many children dwell in homes with guns versus how many dwell in homes with cars (or swimming pools or whatever), as well as how much time they spend in the presence of those things.
As of 2011, only 37% of U.S. households had guns in them (as opposed to 51% in 1970) - and we don't know how many of this dwindling number also have children in them. We do know that the probability of death by misadventure is statistically higher when a gun is in the home.
None of this suggests that there is anything to be gained by outlawing guns, or forbidding them to the sane and competent. But I do think it might be prudent to apply some of the same measures we take to keep madmen, drunks, and incompetents out from behind the wheel of a car to gun ownership. Just sayin', is all.
I support the 2nd amendment - but I don't buy the slippery slope arguments against licensing and registration.
 
2013-02-05 04:24:59 PM  
how many cars killed kids today?


/wonders when we're going to ban peanuts.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-02-05 04:25:36 PM  

Snowflake Tubbybottom: I think that we, unlike this kid, really dodged a bullet here. I mean that kid was the next Hitler, or maybe just republican.

/I'd like the kosher meal stewardess.


Betcha it really blew his mind

/stewardess! Oi! drinks a and chips for me n my mate 'ere.
 
2013-02-05 04:25:59 PM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: justtray: TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?

"It's not the gun, it's the negligent parents."

Take equation, remove gun. Child lives.

Remove negligent parent, child lives.


Are you endorsing gov't inspection of gun owners' homes? Because there was no cause for negligence until the kid was already dead.
 
2013-02-05 04:26:08 PM  
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-02-05 04:26:32 PM  

lostcat: TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?

I just want to point out why this type of argument is a bad argument.

While it's true that more people are killed by things other than guns, the fact remains that the primary purpose of a car is to safely transport people from one place to another. The primary purpose of a toaster is to safely toast bread. The primary purpose of electricity in the home is to provide power to operate appliances which have passed safety inspections and certifications to minimize the risk of injury or death.

The purpose of a gun (especially a handgun) is to do harm.

So aside from anything else that people want to argue about regarding gun control laws and assault weapons, please just stop bringing up the arguement that people get injured and killed through the misuse of items that are part of everyday life.

But to get back to your point, yes, I agree that this is totally the result of negligence on the part of the parents.

The idea of having kids and owning guns, but taking no precautions to keep the guns out of the kids hands when they are not supervised, is absolutely mind-bogglingly stupid.


Actually this is a particularly bad argument. The "guns are designed to kill" argument is totally irrational and has no value. Design has little to do with how we should regard something. The overwhelming majority of gun use is either sitting in safes or putting holes in paper. They are not killing or harming anything. There are plenty of things we use without regard for their design. Viagra was designed to treat heart disease. WD-40 was designed to prevent rusting. The Slinky was designed for use on naval ships.

So the design, or intent if you're into anthropomorphism, of an object has little bearing on how we actually use it and it is senseless to treat it based on that rather than the real world way they are used.
 
2013-02-05 04:26:44 PM  
Weapons that look like toys must carry an enhanced penalty for misuse.
 
2013-02-05 04:26:50 PM  

justtray: I'm not sure what the record is, but it's going to be pushing it for "quickest ruling ever overturned" when Scalia, Alito, or Thomas croak.


let's hope. scalia first, please.
 
2013-02-05 04:26:56 PM  

GAT_00: WTF Indeed: It looked like a pink gun, not a toy.

You should tell the kid that.  He's going to be so embarrassed.


Because we all know toy guns NEVER look like real guns!
I bet he is laughing his ass off at his mistake... or was that brain pan?
 
2013-02-05 04:27:04 PM  
Just for clarification, was he a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun?
 
2013-02-05 04:27:27 PM  
My girlfriends 11 yeard old daughter went back in my room to use the restroom and came back into the living room toting my sawed off 12-gauge - I knew it wasn't loaded but my gf about shiat a brick!


/kids are drawn to guns - they are all kept in a gun safe now
 
2013-02-05 04:27:29 PM  

Surpheon: but you sound like a moran to huffily suggest that looking at the most common causes of preventable death before the least common is somehow a bad idea.


There is a disproportionate amount of time spent vilifying firearms and their owners versus other forms of homicidal negligence. That is my point.

I strongly believe that parents who own firearms must exercise tremendous amounts of caution with regards to how guns are stored (and how children are educated about firearms). However, I think this extends to many other facets that don't receive nearly as much hysteria/attention.

To be clear, we're not engaging in a perfect-solution fallacy here. Steps must be taken, and I very much support holding negligent parents criminally accountable for failure to secure firearms. However, I'm also not chiming in with the "ALL GUNS ARE BAD AND CLEARLY NRA SAYS WE NEED MORE GUNS IN THE HANDS OF THREE-YEAR-OLDS" BS rhetoric I also see floating around in this toilet bowl of a thread.
 
2013-02-05 04:28:01 PM  

JungleBoogie: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: More the 500 kids a year are killed in car accidents. I'm not hearing an outcry.

Surpheon: What? Are you deaf? I couldn't even take my kid home from the hospital without having the child seat inspected. If a celebrity is caught driving with their kid in their lap it's headline news. There are safety fairs with police and firemen to talk about children and vehicle safety. MADD built the foundation of their righteous anger machine on the documented death of children.

Your statement is so stupid I'm starting to suspect this reply is going to earn a 'That's the Joke' prize...

But he's right. The automotive yearly slaughter, about 30,000 people a year, is a fact.

But here's the problem with guns. The NRA looks at the Chris Kyle incident, or Newtown and shrugs and says, "This is unavoidable." And that answer is not acceptable to many of us. That's the wrong answer, one we refuse to accept.

There were about 8500 firearm murders in 2011.

So - both issues are worth addressing seriously. Car safety is being addressed, albeit in a haphazard fashion. But there have been tremendous advances in the past 40 years. Gun safety is not being addressed at all.

There are 8760 hours in a year (365 days x 24 hours / day). One person dies every 17 minutes in a car wreck.1 One person dies about every 60 minutes from a firearms-related incident.2 Both issues are worth addressing. Both issues are important.

==================
1 Car deaths per hour: 30196 deaths per year / 8760 hours per year = 3.44 deaths per hour.
2 Firearms deaths per hour: 8583 deaths per year / 8760 hours per year = .98 deaths per hour.


Now compare how often they're used. If you want to make an accurate comparison of risk, I mean.
 
2013-02-05 04:28:32 PM  

Frank N Stein: I truly feel bad for the poor mauser


I wouldn't.  Someone went and upgraded it to a SMLE...
 
2013-02-05 04:28:59 PM  

stonelotus: how many cars killed kids today?


So, you think guns should be regulated at the same level as cars?

Safety standards, licensing (after written and proficiency tests), annual registration,regular inspections, liability insurance...
 
2013-02-05 04:29:26 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: "In 2011, Arizona state Sen. Lori Klein (R) was criticized after she pointed her loaded raspberry-pink handgun at a reporter. "Oh, it's so cute," Klein told the reporter as she aimed the gun's laser pointer at the reporter's chest, adding that the firearm's lack of a trigger safety should not be a reason to worry."

Wholly shiat, what a freaking idiot.



See, this is the kind of behavior that bothers me.

You may be the most responsible, conscientious gun owner in the world, but how can I know that?

All I see is a person holding a gun that could kill me. I don't know you. I don't know your mental state. I don't know if you've mistaken me for someone else, or mistaken my intentions. I don't know if you are drunk or high or suffering PTSD.

I actually don't have a problem with private gun ownership in principle, but I never...NEVER want to see you with your gun drawn in my presence unless we are at a gun range.
 
2013-02-05 04:30:09 PM  
Precision Boobery:Fowler ruled the death accidental

Good news, everyone.  Since guns don't kill people, people do, and since no person killed anyone, the kid must still be alive.


Schrödinger's gun.

Mind = Blown.
 
2013-02-05 04:30:10 PM  

JungleBoogie: 1 Car deaths per hour: 30196 deaths per year / 8760 hours per year = 3.44 deaths per hour.
2 Firearms deaths per hour: 8583 deaths per year / 8760 hours per year = .98 deaths per hour.


I'm amazed that a ubiquitous machine that transports hundreds of millions of Americans each day is so safe and that guns, which are far less commonly owned and used than cars, kill so many by comparison.
 
2013-02-05 04:30:27 PM  

odinsposse: Design has little to do with how we should regard something.


WTF?? Huh?

How would your statement relate to a M1A3 Main Battle Tank or a Weapons hot  Drone, a M220E4?
I'm guessing design has a LOT to do with how it is regarded! Mainly by the little guy 2000 yrds out about to be blasted by a 120mm smooth bore projectile, I would guess!
 
2013-02-05 04:30:38 PM  

GAT_00: God Bless an America where this not only happens but is defended by gun owners.


I have attempted to locate a posting in which the reckless and negligent storage of a firearm in a location accessible to a small child was defended, but I have found none. Are you lying again?
 
2013-02-05 04:30:53 PM  

odinsposse: lostcat: TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?

I just want to point out why this type of argument is a bad argument.

While it's true that more people are killed by things other than guns, the fact remains that the primary purpose of a car is to safely transport people from one place to another. The primary purpose of a toaster is to safely toast bread. The primary purpose of electricity in the home is to provide power to operate appliances which have passed safety inspections and certifications to minimize the risk of injury or death.

The purpose of a gun (especially a handgun) is to do harm.

So aside from anything else that people want to argue about regarding gun control laws and assault weapons, please just stop bringing up the arguement that people get injured and killed through the misuse of items that are part of everyday life.

But to get back to your point, yes, I agree that this is totally the result of negligence on the part of the parents.

The idea of having kids and owning guns, but taking no precautions to keep the guns out of the kids hands when they are not supervised, is absolutely mind-bogglingly stupid.

Actually this is a particularly bad argument. The "guns are designed to kill" argument is totally irrational and has no value. Design has little to do with how we should regard something. The overwhelming majority of gun use is either sitting in safes or putting holes in paper. They are not killing or harming anything. There are plenty of things we use without regard for their design. Viagra was designed to treat heart disease. WD-40 was designed to prevent rusting. The Slinky was designed for use on naval ships.

So the design, or intent if you're into anthropomorphism, of an object h ...


So your argument is that guns were designed to sit in gun safes or to be used for target practice...(Practice implying what? Practice for putting more holes in paper?)
 
2013-02-05 04:30:54 PM  
pnkgtr

Just for clarification, was he a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun?


1/10
 
2013-02-05 04:31:51 PM  

FlashHarry: justtray: I'm not sure what the record is, but it's going to be pushing it for "quickest ruling ever overturned" when Scalia, Alito, or Thomas croak.

let's hope. scalia first, please.


Agreed. He's pusing 80, or at least he will be before Obama's term is up. Republicans are going to keep him alive and serving on a respirator though if they have to.
 
2013-02-05 04:32:32 PM  

JungleBoogie: So - both issues are worth addressing seriously. Car safety is being addressed, albeit in a haphazard fashion. But there have been tremendous advances in the past 40 years. Gun safety is not being addressed at all.

There are 8760 hours in a year (365 days x 24 hours / day). One person dies every 17 minutes in a car wreck.1 One person dies about every 60 minutes from a firearms-related incident.2 Both issues are worth addressing. Both issues are important.


I disagree with the statement that gun safety is not being addressed at all. I believe that it IS being addressed, and sometimes even the NRA does good work (for instance, they publish a number of kid- and young adult-friendly booklets that attempt to dispel gun myths at the same time teaching respect for firearms). Note here that I'm not defending the NRA in total, because I think by and large they are not a positive force -- but they do some good things.

It's my opinion that gun safety does need to be taught, and gun safety does need to be addressed in a more coherent way. Like it or not, guns in the US are here to stay. We should do everything possible to educate people about them; this would, I believe, take away some of the fear and hysteria surrounding firearms and also create more diligence around same.

You're right: Both issues ARE worth addressing. Gun safety is being addressed, but because it is in many places a more touchy subject, it does not receive the attention it deserves.
 
2013-02-05 04:32:35 PM  

WalMartian: As a female, this "gotta have everything in pink" bullshiat is getting ridiculous.  Pink tool belts, hammers, hand tools, GUNS?!? WTF?

Come on; if you're going to carry/own a gun have it look like a gun and not a toy.  And be responsible with it.


Since a gun is being carried/used for self protection another reasonable question is "Would a murderer/rapist/robber think this thing was a real gun?"

Because, if not, then the pink gun causes more problems than it solves.
 
2013-02-05 04:33:01 PM  

vartian: TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?

A toaster actually does something useful. A gun simply endagers your entire family.


A gun can protect your entire family too. A toaster can't.
 
2013-02-05 04:33:41 PM  
No it's because guns are designed to toast bread. Geez, get with the program.
 
2013-02-05 04:33:55 PM  

Rapmaster2000: Pink guns are so lame.  Carrying a pink handgun is the equivalent of this.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 250x295]

You don't look tough yet feminine, you just look stupid.  Get a regular goddamn gun.


We don't need gun control laws - we need a law which restricts all guns to being big, black and scary.  Then, tragedies like this one will never occur.
 
2013-02-05 04:34:00 PM  

lostcat: So your argument is that guns were designed to sit in gun safes or to be used for target practice...(Practice implying what? Practice for putting more holes in paper?)


No. It's that saying "Guns were designed to kill" is a meaningless phrase and not an argument of any kind.
 
2013-02-05 04:34:11 PM  

Dimensio: GAT_00: God Bless an America where this not only happens but is defended by gun owners.

I have attempted to locate a posting in which the reckless and negligent storage of a firearm in a location accessible to a small child was defended, but I have found none. Are you lying again?


So then, a law that would require safety measures (gun locks, gun safes) be applied under penalty of negligence would be OK then?  How about a national advertising campaign federally funded by the CDC, ATF, Health Depts encouraging gun locks and safes in addition to highlighting the dangers of guns in the home too?  Would that be ok?
 
2013-02-05 04:34:17 PM  

Mija: vartian: TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?

A toaster actually does something useful. A gun simply endagers your entire family.

A gun can protect your entire family too. A toaster can't.


You've obviously never watched MacGuyver.
 
2013-02-05 04:34:29 PM  

stonelotus: how many cars killed kids today?


/wonders when we're going to ban peanuts.


Well, cars are dangerous. that's why we regulate them for safe design and construction, register them, insure them for liability, and license those who operate them and refuse to license those who are insane, incompetent, or otherwise incapable of safely and reliably operating one.
Maybe we should try that with guns. Because, if statical trends continue, in a couple of years, more kids will be dying from guns than cars, even though far fewer are exposed to them.
That which is well regulated is not infringed.
 
2013-02-05 04:34:37 PM  
If only the guns had guns to protect themselves from the children.
 
2013-02-05 04:35:38 PM  

odinsposse: lostcat: So your argument is that guns were designed to sit in gun safes or to be used for target practice...(Practice implying what? Practice for putting more holes in paper?)

No. It's that saying "Guns were designed to kill" is a meaningless phrase and not an argument of any kind.


Just the truth...
 
2013-02-05 04:36:05 PM  

WTF Indeed: GAT_00: And the reason it looked like a toy is...

I guess that's what Responsible Gun Owners do, buy guns that look like toys.

It looked like a pink gun, not a toy.  Pink handguns are sold all the time to women and even many in the LGBT community whom are members of "Pink Pistols".  The owner of this weapon was not responsible, but you can't see that because you think gun looking like a toy is to blame for this death when it is really the owner of gun.


So what I hear you saying is: GUNS don't kill people, GUN OWNERS kill people.

/alrighty then, I think I have a solution . . . .
 
2013-02-05 04:36:18 PM  

JungleBoogie: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: More the 500 kids a year are killed in car accidents. I'm not hearing an outcry.

Surpheon: What? Are you deaf? I couldn't even take my kid home from the hospital without having the child seat inspected. If a celebrity is caught driving with their kid in their lap it's headline news. There are safety fairs with police and firemen to talk about children and vehicle safety. MADD built the foundation of their righteous anger machine on the documented death of children.

Your statement is so stupid I'm starting to suspect this reply is going to earn a 'That's the Joke' prize...

But he's right. The automotive yearly slaughter, about 30,000 people a year, is a fact.

But here's the problem with guns. The NRA looks at the Chris Kyle incident, or Newtown and shrugs and says, "This is unavoidable." And that answer is not acceptable to many of us. That's the wrong answer, one we refuse to accept.

There were about 8500 firearm murders in 2011.

So - both issues are worth addressing seriously. Car safety is being addressed, albeit in a haphazard fashion. But there have been tremendous advances in the past 40 years. Gun safety is not being addressed at all.

There are 8760 hours in a year (365 days x 24 hours / day). One person dies every 17 minutes in a car wreck.1 One person dies about every 60 minutes from a firearms-related incident.2 Both issues are worth addressing. Both issues are important.

==================
1 Car deaths per hour: 30196 deaths per year / 8760 hours per year = 3.44 deaths per hour.
2 Firearms deaths per hour: 8583 deaths per year / 8760 hours per year = .98 deaths per hour.


Ok... would love to see the stats on "how man people drive to their destination per hour" vs "how many people defended themselves per hour".  Utility matters.
 
2013-02-05 04:36:57 PM  

Dixon Cider: odinsposse: lostcat: So your argument is that guns were designed to sit in gun safes or to be used for target practice...(Practice implying what? Practice for putting more holes in paper?)

No. It's that saying "Guns were designed to kill" is a meaningless phrase and not an argument of any kind.

Just the truth...


An irrelevant one.
 
2013-02-05 04:37:34 PM  

indarwinsshadow: Here's my idea. You kept to keep your guns as the law was written and intended....I'm pretty sure your law was never designed to keep fully automatic rifles and large caliber multishot handguns.

[t0.gstatic.com image 309x163]


You have clearly conceived of a unique notion; absolutely no other gun control advocate has ever suggested that the protection of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is applicable only to firearm technology available at the time of the authorship of the Amendment. Clearly, you have deduced the true intent of the authors, just as the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects only speech that is written with quill pen, printed with manual press or spoken without any electronic amplification or recording. Similarly, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not protect from warrantless searches of email or motor vehicles, as neither existed at the time of the authorship of the Amendment.

Additionally, your reference to fully automatic firearms, which are restricted by the National Firearms Act and which are already not commonly available to civilians, in no way demonstrates you to lack any understanding of existing firearm regulation.
 
2013-02-05 04:37:47 PM  

Pride of Cucamonga: pnkgtr

Just for clarification, was he a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun?

1/10


Not trolling. I'm pointing out the stupidity of the statement that 'the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun'. As though the world is made of only good guys and bad guys. No suicidal people, no children, no one suffering from ptsd, no depressives, no angry drunks or psychos.
 
2013-02-05 04:38:17 PM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: unyon: TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?

No, but if more than 500 kids a year were killed every year from toasters, you can be damned sure that there would be an outcry.

More the 500 kids a year are killed in car accidents. I'm not hearing an outcry.


You mean other than regulations around car safety, child safety restraints, licensing and insurance requirements, and liability for failing to properly secure your kid in a car?

And in the last 30 years, there have been substantial changes to building codes around new construction requiring tamper-proof wall plugs, a response to kids sticking shiat in them.

My point is that other industries make changes all the time in the name of safety.  Industries that don't have the horrible record that the gun industry does with their products.
 
2013-02-05 04:38:24 PM  

Okieboy: My girlfriends 11 yeard old daughter went back in my room to use the restroom and came back into the living room toting my sawed off 12-gauge - I knew it wasn't loaded but my gf about shiat a brick!


/kids are drawn to guns - they are all kept in a gun safe now


And this is exactly why there should be laws mandating gun safety training for anyone interested in obtaining a gun permit.

/not interesting grabbing anyone's guns
//interested in making sure anyone who has one is properly educated on the subject of gun safety
 
2013-02-05 04:39:42 PM  

Mija: vartian: TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?

A toaster actually does something useful. A gun simply endagers your entire family.

A gun can protect your entire family too. A toaster can't.


If you were interested in protecting your family, you wouldn't have a gun in your house, factually and statistically speaking. Emotionally and paranoidically speaking though, you might.
 
2013-02-05 04:39:51 PM  

RedT: WalMartian: As a female, this "gotta have everything in pink" bullshiat is getting ridiculous.  Pink tool belts, hammers, hand tools, GUNS?!? WTF?

Come on; if you're going to carry/own a gun have it look like a gun and not a toy.  And be responsible with it.

Since a gun is being carried/used for self protection another reasonable question is "Would a murderer/rapist/robber think this thing was a real gun?"

Because, if not, then the pink gun causes more problems than it solves.


Regardless of their initial thoughts, they'll wise up once the trigger is pulled.

\thinks pink guns are beyond silly
 
2013-02-05 04:39:51 PM  

odinsposse: lostcat: So your argument is that guns were designed to sit in gun safes or to be used for target practice...(Practice implying what? Practice for putting more holes in paper?)

No. It's that saying "Guns were designed to kill" is a meaningless phrase and not an argument of any kind.


Exactly. Cars were not designed to kill, yet we license, register, and insure them, and license their operators.
Why should guns not be treated the same? Like cars, they are dangerous tools, and capable of killing - whatever their intended use.
 
2013-02-05 04:40:26 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: So, you think guns should be regulated at the same level as cars?

Safety standards, licensing (after written and proficiency tests), annual registration,regular inspections, liability insurance...


Once, and only after, you apply those same standards to voting.
 
2013-02-05 04:41:01 PM  
So, who's going to defend this mother as a "responsible gun owner".

Come on, step up to the plate, folks.
 
2013-02-05 04:41:02 PM  
I found the comment that ends all false analogies -


http://www.fark.com/comments/7565295/82224599#c82224599" target=_blank>Vegan Meat Popsicle: clowncar on fire: Seeing how more people die in auto related deaths, how would you feel about having a background check everytime you rented or purchased a car.

Yea, it's not like you have to pass a test and maintain a license to own a car. Or meet certain basic safety standards by maintaining it on a regular basis. Or register it. Or that there are any rules or laws governing when, where and how the vehicle can be used. And god knows if you break those rules often enough it's not like anybody confiscates your license or - god forbid - even the car itself. And, of course, there are no rules about how cars must be manufactured to meet safety standards to protect both the operators and the general public around the vehicle as it's being used. And, unlike guns, cars are totally unnecessary and have no real daily legitimate use.

Perfect analogy. You're so smart.
 
2013-02-05 04:41:45 PM  

odinsposse: lostcat: So your argument is that guns were designed to sit in gun safes or to be used for target practice...(Practice implying what? Practice for putting more holes in paper?)

No. It's that saying "Guns were designed to kill" is a meaningless phrase and not an argument of any kind.


So there is no purpose to a gun?

You mentioned Viagra, WD-40 and the Slinky, pointing out that all of them are products with selling points that differ from their original intended purpose. But the marketing around Viagra, and the reason it is produced and sold as Viagra has to do with erectile dysfunction. The Slinky is manufactured, marketed and sold as a toy, regardless of where the original Slinky prototype came from.

The gun was designed to fire projectiles with consistent velocity. The companies that manufacture, market and sell guns do so because the value of their gun is its ability to harm living creatures, for whatever reason.

So, I can see what you are trying to get at, but it's a faulty argument.

No other consumer product, aside from insecticides and pesticides, are produced, marketed and sold with the primary function of harming life.

It doesn't matter that people may not use their guns, or when they do it's only to put holes in paper targets. The gun industry does not market their products as "a great way to put holes in paper," or "a fun object to keep in a locked box."
 
2013-02-05 04:42:13 PM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: If the very low incidence of self inflicted fatalities due to kids playing with guns is remotely a reason to ban or further control their use then there is a whole catalog of objects and activities that should be headed for the chopping block first.


Depends on the state of course, but swimming pools are highly regulated.

Brief Summary of Requirements Swimming Pool and Spa Alarm:
Every swimming pool that is installed, constructed or substantially modified after December 14, 2006, must be equipped with an approved pool alarm which:

* is capable of detecting a person entering the water at any point on the surface of the pool and giving an audible alarm
to provide detection capability at every point on the surface of a swimming pool, it may be necessary to install more than one pool alarm
* is audible poolside and at another location on the premises where the swimming pool is located
* is not an alarm device which is located on a person, or which is dependent on a device located on a person for its proper operation
* meets ASTM F2208

Brief Summary of Barrier Requirements for Outdoor Residential Swimming Pools:
* The barrier must completely surround the swimming pool and must obstruct access to the swimming pool.
* The barrier must be at least 4 feet (48 inches) high.
* In the case of an above-ground pool, the barrier may be at ground level or mounted on top of the pool structure; however, if the barrier is mounted on top of the pool structure, the space between the top of the pool structure and the bottom of the barrier cannot exceed 4 inches.
* A building wall can form part of the required barrier. However, where a wall of a dwelling serves as part of the barrier, at least one of the following requirements must be satisfied:
   * the pool must be equipped with a powered safety cover
   * all doors with direct access to the pool through that wall must be equipped with an alarm or other means of protection, such as self-closing doors with self-latching devices, which are approved by the governing body
* In the case of an above-ground pool, the pool structure itself can serve as a part of the required barrier, provided that the pool structure is sufficiently rigid to obstruct access to the pool. However, where an above-ground pool structure is used as a barrier or where the barrier is mounted on top of the pool structure, and the means of access is a ladder or steps, then:
   * the ladder or steps shall be capable of being secured, locked or removed to prevent access, or the ladder or steps shall be surrounded by a barrier
   *  when the ladder or steps are secured, locked or removed, any opening created shall not allow the passage of a 4-inch-diameter sphere.
   * Barriers shall be located so as to prohibit permanent structures, equipment or similar objects from being used to climb the barriers.
 
2013-02-05 04:42:19 PM  

Click Click D'oh: rufus-t-firefly: So, you think guns should be regulated at the same level as cars?

Safety standards, licensing (after written and proficiency tests), annual registration,regular inspections, liability insurance...

Once, and only after, you apply those same standards to voting.


Why?
 
2013-02-05 04:42:53 PM  

vpb: In 2011, Arizona state Sen. Lori Klein (R) was criticized after she pointed her loaded raspberry-pink handgun at a reporter.
"Oh, it's so cute," Klein told the reporter as she aimed the gun's laser pointer at the reporter's chest, adding that the firearm's lack of a trigger safety should not be a reason to worry.

Sounds like a responsible gun owner to me.


Just the opposite.

Additionally, someone who thinks anyone actually feels this was a "responsible gun owner" is a complete idiot.

But don't let that stop you or any of the others from trotting out the little sarcastic "oh look, another responsible gun owner" line.  It helps people to easily spot the morons in these threads.
 
2013-02-05 04:43:00 PM  

Click Click D'oh: rufus-t-firefly: So, you think guns should be regulated at the same level as cars?

Safety standards, licensing (after written and proficiency tests), annual registration,regular inspections, liability insurance...

Once, and only after, you apply those same standards to voting.


Allow me to retort this stupid argument further - we already do register to vote.
 
2013-02-05 04:43:11 PM  

FlashHarry: vpb: the Supremes have decided that requiring trigger locks or gun safes violates the constitution.

wait, what now?

how the fark do locks and safes violate the constitution?


More importantly, when did Diana Ross become Chief Justice and Lead Singer of the SCOTUS?
 
2013-02-05 04:45:03 PM  
I got an idea; let's stop making toys that look like guns, and guns that look like toys.
www.leaderpost.com
www.bidorbuy.co.za


encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-02-05 04:45:05 PM  

justtray: I found the comment that ends all false analogies -


http://www.fark.com/comments/7565295/82224599#c82224599" target=_blank>Vegan Meat Popsicle: clowncar on fire: Seeing how more people die in auto related deaths, how would you feel about having a background check everytime you rented or purchased a car.

Yea, it's not like you have to pass a test and maintain a license to own a car. Or meet certain basic safety standards by maintaining it on a regular basis. Or register it. Or that there are any rules or laws governing when, where and how the vehicle can be used. And god knows if you break those rules often enough it's not like anybody confiscates your license or - god forbid - even the car itself. And, of course, there are no rules about how cars must be manufactured to meet safety standards to protect both the operators and the general public around the vehicle as it's being used. And, unlike guns, cars are totally unnecessary and have no real daily legitimate use.

Perfect analogy. You're so smart.


Yeah, thanks for the find. I like it.
 
2013-02-05 04:45:24 PM  

lostcat: The gun industry does not market their products as "a great way to put holes in paper," or "a fun object to keep in a locked box."


I love my Happy Fun Thing-in-a-Box Time!!!!
 
2013-02-05 04:45:26 PM  

lostcat: odinsposse: lostcat: So your argument is that guns were designed to sit in gun safes or to be used for target practice...(Practice implying what? Practice for putting more holes in paper?)

No. It's that saying "Guns were designed to kill" is a meaningless phrase and not an argument of any kind.

So there is no purpose to a gun?

You mentioned Viagra, WD-40 and the Slinky, pointing out that all of them are products with selling points that differ from their original intended purpose. But the marketing around Viagra, and the reason it is produced and sold as Viagra has to do with erectile dysfunction. The Slinky is manufactured, marketed and sold as a toy, regardless of where the original Slinky prototype came from.

The gun was designed to fire projectiles with consistent velocity. The companies that manufacture, market and sell guns do so because the value of their gun is its ability to harm living creatures, for whatever reason.

So, I can see what you are trying to get at, but it's a faulty argument.

No other consumer product, aside from insecticides and pesticides, are produced, marketed and sold with the primary function of harming life.

It doesn't matter that people may not use their guns, or when they do it's only to put holes in paper targets. The gun industry does not market their products as "a great way to put holes in paper," or "a fun object to keep in a locked box."


Anyway - assume, for the sake of argument, that the intended purpose of an object IS irrelevant. Guns, like cars, are still potentially very dangerous things - and we regulate cars and their drivers, just as we do planes and their pilots, motorcycles and their riders, etc. Why should guns get a pass?
 
2013-02-05 04:45:59 PM  

TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?


who keeps their toaster on the floor?
 
2013-02-05 04:46:02 PM  

justtray: Click Click D'oh: rufus-t-firefly: So, you think guns should be regulated at the same level as cars?

Safety standards, licensing (after written and proficiency tests), annual registration,regular inspections, liability insurance...

Once, and only after, you apply those same standards to voting.

Why?


Why not?
 
2013-02-05 04:46:27 PM  
Outlaw stupid
 
2013-02-05 04:46:58 PM  

indarwinsshadow: Here's my idea. You kept to keep your guns as the law was written and intended....I'm pretty sure your law was never designed to keep fully automatic rifles and large caliber multishot handguns.


You get to keep your 1st amendment rights via movable type and word of mouth. The rest of the crap you say on the Internet I get to come over and punch you in the mouth and burn your house down.
 
2013-02-05 04:47:37 PM  

odinsposse: lostcat: So your argument is that guns were designed to sit in gun safes or to be used for target practice...(Practice implying what? Practice for putting more holes in paper?)

No. It's that saying "Guns were designed to kill" is a meaningless phrase and not an argument of any kind.


Calling that phrase "irrational" is also intellectually lazy.

And as for the hobby angle...

1.bp.blogspot.com

Nope, can't see any connection to the "killing" thing there.
 
2013-02-05 04:47:40 PM  
This is exactly why you don't get a pink gun! Girls have already ruined sports by demanding pink jerseys, and they're going to ruin guns now.
 
2013-02-05 04:47:40 PM  

asmodeus224: So then, a law that would require safety measures (gun locks, gun safes) be applied under penalty of negligence would be OK then?


You may be a little behind the times, but SCOTUS told you that wasn't going to happen.

 

asmodeus224: How about a national advertising campaign federally funded by the CDC, ATF, Health Depts encouraging gun locks and safes in addition to highlighting the dangers of guns in the home too? Would that be ok?


There already is one.  Buy a gun, get the pamphlet and mandatory lock.... throw them in the trash
 
2013-02-05 04:47:52 PM  

stonicus: JungleBoogie: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: More the 500 kids a year are killed in car accidents. I'm not hearing an outcry.

Surpheon: What? Are you deaf? I couldn't even take my kid home from the hospital without having the child seat inspected. If a celebrity is caught driving with their kid in their lap it's headline news. There are safety fairs with police and firemen to talk about children and vehicle safety. MADD built the foundation of their righteous anger machine on the documented death of children.

Your statement is so stupid I'm starting to suspect this reply is going to earn a 'That's the Joke' prize...

But he's right. The automotive yearly slaughter, about 30,000 people a year, is a fact.

But here's the problem with guns. The NRA looks at the Chris Kyle incident, or Newtown and shrugs and says, "This is unavoidable." And that answer is not acceptable to many of us. That's the wrong answer, one we refuse to accept.

There were about 8500 firearm murders in 2011.

So - both issues are worth addressing seriously. Car safety is being addressed, albeit in a haphazard fashion. But there have been tremendous advances in the past 40 years. Gun safety is not being addressed at all.

There are 8760 hours in a year (365 days x 24 hours / day). One person dies every 17 minutes in a car wreck.1 One person dies about every 60 minutes from a firearms-related incident.2 Both issues are worth addressing. Both issues are important.

==================
1 Car deaths per hour: 30196 deaths per year / 8760 hours per year = 3.44 deaths per hour.
2 Firearms deaths per hour: 8583 deaths per year / 8760 hours per year = .98 deaths per hour.

Ok... would love to see the stats on "how man people drive to their destination per hour" vs "how many people defended themselves per hour".  Utility matters.


Might be relevant:
Justifiable homicides by firearms by private citizens (2010): 232.
Total homicides by firearm that same year: 8775
38 firearm homicides for each justifiable firearm homicide by a private citizen.

/There's no justice like vigilante justice!
 
2013-02-05 04:48:05 PM  

odinsposse: Dixon Cider: odinsposse: lostcat: So your argument is that guns were designed to sit in gun safes or to be used for target practice...(Practice implying what? Practice for putting more holes in paper?)

No. It's that saying "Guns were designed to kill" is a meaningless phrase and not an argument of any kind.

Just the truth...

An irrelevant one.


Only if you are obtuse and afraid to face facts..
Does this hold true for other weapons? Or just ones in stories like this?

Do you look at a B52 and think of a lazy ride across the ocean?
Do you look at a M249 and think.. "I could use this to get someones attention a mile away!"
 
2013-02-05 04:48:27 PM  
You can purchase a perfectly serviceable lockbox for a handgun that costs less than $30.

This tragedy is easily avoidable.

/owns firearms and has children in the house.
 
2013-02-05 04:48:46 PM  

justtray: Click Click D'oh: rufus-t-firefly: So, you think guns should be regulated at the same level as cars?

Safety standards, licensing (after written and proficiency tests), annual registration,regular inspections, liability insurance...

Once, and only after, you apply those same standards to voting.

Allow me to retort this stupid argument further - we already do register to vote.


Anyway - we are talking about society's regulation of dangerous tools - voting is a civil act. Sounds like somebody's in a corner, and trying to change the subject.
 
2013-02-05 04:48:53 PM  

justtray: If you were interested in protecting your family, you wouldn't have a gun in your house, factually and statistically speaking. Emotionally and paranoidically speaking though, you might.


http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

I've not seen any published work that breaks down how guns in the home are more of a liability or danger other than those that cite the Kellerman findings. As noted above, the Kellerman studies were deeply flawed with regards to control, methodology, and reporting.

I would be very interested in reading actual information or reviews on studies that would demonstrate the "guns are dangerous to those who keep them for protection" point.
 
2013-02-05 04:49:01 PM  
Dixon Cider:
More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

clane:
you keep seeing stories like this because Liberals want to keep pushing that button to scare everyone.  89 people died today in car accidents lets see how many articles make it into Fark or the New York Times about that.

United States of America
CURRENT DEATH TOLL - REAL TIME
from Jan 1, 2013 - Feb 5, 2013 (3:46:19 PM)


Abortion: 118440
Heart Disease: 63899
Cancer: 53756
Tobacco: 34192
Obesity: 29991
Medical Errors: 19050
Stroke: 14668
Lower Respiratory Disease: 12102
Accident (unintentional): 10618
Hospital Associated Infection: 9671
Alcohol: 9769
Diabetes: 7113
Alzheimer's Disease: 6431
Influenza/Pneumonia: 6005
Kidney Failure: 4177
Blood Infection: 3269
Suicide: 3606
Drunk Driving: 3303
Unintentional Poisoning: 3102
All Drug Abuse: 2443
Homicide: 1641
Prescription Drug Overdose: 1465
Murder by gun: 1123
Texting while Driving: 585
Pedestrian: 488
Drowning: 382
Fire Related: 342
Malnutrition: 271
Domestic Violence: 143
Smoking in Bed: 76
Killed by Falling Tree: 14
Struck by Lightning: 8
 
2013-02-05 04:49:02 PM  

moothemagiccow: TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?

who keeps their toaster on the floor?


Yeah, right? I mean I keep mine in my toaster safe.
 
2013-02-05 04:50:14 PM  

FlashHarry: justtray: I'm not sure what the record is, but it's going to be pushing it for "quickest ruling ever overturned" when Scalia, Alito, or Thomas croak.

let's hope. scalia first, please.


It took two Constitutional Amendments to overturn Dred Scott. Marbury v. Madison  is still a valid precedent 210 years later. It took 58 years to overturn Plessy v Ferguson.

Maybe Heller will go the way of Chisholm v. Georgia , but i wouldn't count on it.
 
2013-02-05 04:50:25 PM  

justtray: Allow me to retort this stupid argument further - we already do register to vote.


So then you have absolutely zero objection to making people take a voter education class and getting a state issued ID (that they have to pay for) before being allowed to vote?

Just making sure that you want to apply unconstitutional infringements of rights equally...
 
2013-02-05 04:50:43 PM  

jso2897: Exactly. Cars were not designed to kill, yet we license, register, and insure them, and license their operators.
Why should guns not be treated the same? Like cars, they are dangerous tools, and capable of killing - whatever their intended use.


Because they aren't cars? Cars are only brought up because if you go by deaths per year cars need more regulation than guns.

lostcat: odinsposse: lostcat: So your argument is that guns were designed to sit in gun safes or to be used for target practice...(Practice implying what? Practice for putting more holes in paper?)

No. It's that saying "Guns were designed to kill" is a meaningless phrase and not an argument of any kind.

So there is no purpose to a gun?


There's no inherent purpose to any inanimate object. It's magical thinking to assign some archetypal purpose to one.

It doesn't matter that people may not use their guns, or when they do it's only to put holes in paper targets. The gun industry does not market their products as "a great way to put holes in paper," or "a fun object to keep in a locked box."

I would argue it matters a great deal. Why shouldn't we deal with the reality of how guns are used rather than base it on the made-up motivations we assign to them?
 
2013-02-05 04:51:06 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: stonelotus: how many cars killed kids today?

So, you think guns should be regulated at the same level as cars?

Safety standards, licensing (after written and proficiency tests), annual registration,regular inspections, liability insurance...


At the state level? Because then you've got a deal!
 
2013-02-05 04:51:09 PM  

meintx2001: justtray: Click Click D'oh: rufus-t-firefly: So, you think guns should be regulated at the same level as cars?

Safety standards, licensing (after written and proficiency tests), annual registration,regular inspections, liability insurance...

Once, and only after, you apply those same standards to voting.

Why?

Why not?


Because not all things (rights) are equal, and should be regulated according to their merits.
 
2013-02-05 04:52:15 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Nope, can't see any connection to the "killing" thing there.


Yes, because the only paper target available for use are law enforcement qualification targets.....
 
2013-02-05 04:53:01 PM  

jso2897: lostcat: odinsposse: lostcat: So your argument is that guns were designed to sit in gun safes or to be used for target practice...(Practice implying what? Practice for putting more holes in paper?)

No. It's that saying "Guns were designed to kill" is a meaningless phrase and not an argument of any kind.

So there is no purpose to a gun?

You mentioned Viagra, WD-40 and the Slinky, pointing out that all of them are products with selling points that differ from their original intended purpose. But the marketing around Viagra, and the reason it is produced and sold as Viagra has to do with erectile dysfunction. The Slinky is manufactured, marketed and sold as a toy, regardless of where the original Slinky prototype came from.

The gun was designed to fire projectiles with consistent velocity. The companies that manufacture, market and sell guns do so because the value of their gun is its ability to harm living creatures, for whatever reason.

So, I can see what you are trying to get at, but it's a faulty argument.

No other consumer product, aside from insecticides and pesticides, are produced, marketed and sold with the primary function of harming life.

It doesn't matter that people may not use their guns, or when they do it's only to put holes in paper targets. The gun industry does not market their products as "a great way to put holes in paper," or "a fun object to keep in a locked box."

Anyway - assume, for the sake of argument, that the intended purpose of an object IS irrelevant. Guns, like cars, are still potentially very dangerous things - and we regulate cars and their drivers, just as we do planes and their pilots, motorcycles and their riders, etc. Why should guns get a pass?


Just wanted to point out that I was responding to the early comment that kids die from sticking forks into toasters, so shouldn't toasters be banned.

The idea being that ultimately someone may design a safer toaster that fulfills its function with little-or-no risk of injury, because its function is not to cause injury. While a gun will never...ever be designed so that it is safer, because the purpose of a gun is to perform an action that is unsafe to the person at the end of the barrel.
 
2013-02-05 04:53:03 PM  

clane: Abortion: 118440


Horseshiat.
 
2013-02-05 04:53:20 PM  

Dixon Cider: odinsposse: Dixon Cider: odinsposse: lostcat: So your argument is that guns were designed to sit in gun safes or to be used for target practice...(Practice implying what? Practice for putting more holes in paper?)

No. It's that saying "Guns were designed to kill" is a meaningless phrase and not an argument of any kind.

Just the truth...

An irrelevant one.

Only if you are obtuse and afraid to face facts..
Does this hold true for other weapons? Or just ones in stories like this?

Do you look at a B52 and think of a lazy ride across the ocean?
Do you look at a M249 and think.. "I could use this to get someones attention a mile away!"


I'm saying we should look at reality rather than imagine that guns are plotting to kill us.
 
2013-02-05 04:53:22 PM  

Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!


No, you blithering idiot-troll, the answer is NOT more guns.  The answer is for people who own guns to be responsible with their guns.  Whoever owns the gun that killed this kid should be looked up for criminal negligence.

Oh yeah, your old, worn out, tired "more guns" response is, well, old, worn out, and tired.  Give it a rest already.
 
2013-02-05 04:54:30 PM  

Click Click D'oh: rufus-t-firefly: So, you think guns should be regulated at the same level as cars?

Safety standards, licensing (after written and proficiency tests), annual registration,regular inspections, liability insurance...

Once, and only after, you apply those same standards to voting.


Voting kills people on a regular basis, just like cars and guns?

But since we require registration for all voting, let's start there.

Wait, that's giving your vapid, intellectually ignorant response more respect than it deserves.

Insurance required to vote? Safety standards?

Christ, what a kneejerk, stupid comment you made.
 
2013-02-05 04:55:04 PM  

Surpheon: The stupid is deep with this one. Newsflash: That is exactly the right thing to do. Address risks in order of the most common.


So first we ban:

www.poolandspa.com

Then:
www.chicagomag.com
?
 
2013-02-05 04:55:14 PM  

meintx2001: moothemagiccow: TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?

who keeps their toaster on the floor?

Yeah, right? I mean I keep mine in my toaster safe.


Really?  I keep mine bolted to the ceiling.  The damned bread keeps falling out every time I try to make toast, but no child has ever stuck a fork in it!
 
2013-02-05 04:56:12 PM  

TwistedIvory: justtray: If you were interested in protecting your family, you wouldn't have a gun in your house, factually and statistically speaking. Emotionally and paranoidically speaking though, you might.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

I've not seen any published work that breaks down how guns in the home are more of a liability or danger other than those that cite the Kellerman findings. As noted above, the Kellerman studies were deeply flawed with regards to control, methodology, and reporting.

I would be very interested in reading actual information or reviews on studies that would demonstrate the "guns are dangerous to those who keep them for protection" point.


If you were interested in it, you would have seen the thread that showed that you're 40x more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. You would see the many links that get tossed around showing correlation between guns and gun homicide even considering similar locations. You would see the stat a few posts up that show that for 8500 gun homicides, there were only 230 justified gun homicides.

Since you are this far into a gun thread, and are total fark, and are linking a guy whose same 'methodology' used on alien abductions would mean that there are roughly 50,000 actual abductions per year, I can only assume you are not actually interested in actual information.
 
2013-02-05 04:56:24 PM  
Has the mother filed a lawsuit against the gun manufacturer yet?
 
2013-02-05 04:56:47 PM  

Click Click D'oh: asmodeus224: So then, a law that would require safety measures (gun locks, gun safes) be applied under penalty of negligence would be OK then?

You may be a little behind the times, but SCOTUS told you that wasn't going to happen.

 asmodeus224: How about a national advertising campaign federally funded by the CDC, ATF, Health Depts encouraging gun locks and safes in addition to highlighting the dangers of guns in the home too? Would that be ok?

There already is one.  Buy a gun, get the pamphlet and mandatory lock.... throw them in the trash


I love these threads.  It shows just how much the liberal OMG I'm afraid of the guns crowd has no clue about what they are talking about.

I used my free cable gun lock to lock my shed.  I don't want someone stealing my mower. lol
 
2013-02-05 04:57:02 PM  

lostcat: justtray: I found the comment that ends all false analogies -


http://www.fark.com/comments/7565295/82224599#c82224599" target=_blank>Vegan Meat Popsicle: clowncar on fire: Seeing how more people die in auto related deaths, how would you feel about having a background check everytime you rented or purchased a car.

Yea, it's not like you have to pass a test and maintain a license to own a car. Or meet certain basic safety standards by maintaining it on a regular basis. Or register it. Or that there are any rules or laws governing when, where and how the vehicle can be used. And god knows if you break those rules often enough it's not like anybody confiscates your license or - god forbid - even the car itself. And, of course, there are no rules about how cars must be manufactured to meet safety standards to protect both the operators and the general public around the vehicle as it's being used. And, unlike guns, cars are totally unnecessary and have no real daily legitimate use.

Perfect analogy. You're so smart.

Yeah, thanks for the find. I like it.


No, you don't. All you need is the money to buy it with.
Operating it on public roads is another matter.
 
2013-02-05 04:57:26 PM  

FlashHarry: vpb: the Supremes have decided that requiring trigger locks or gun safes violates the constitution.

wait, what now?

how the fark do locks and safes violate the constitution?


By hampering quick access to guns for the purpose of self defense. The obvious solution to my mind is secure storage laws with an exemption for a single firearm explicitly for the purpose of self defense.

A gun license is probably a good idea too.


/also I notice there are no more people in here claiming that it should be mandatory that guns be pink. In fact the same group seems mad this gun was pink. Weird.
 
2013-02-05 04:57:41 PM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: So why do we not see stories on Fark every time a kid gets killed in a car accident?

Sure there are laws and organizations that are devoted to safer driving. Just as there are even stiffer laws, and organizations for safer firearms.

But the media outcry is focused on guns. Hysteria sells, and you're buying.


Media runs in cycles. We had a bunch of "OMG child safety!!!" stories when Brittney Spear's was spotted driving her kid without a seatbelt.
http://www.fark.com/comments/1898259/Britney-Spears-drives-around-ho ld ing-son-on-lap-rather-than-in-carseat 

Ignoring the facts just because the media happens to be reporting them is stupid. Sure, when they're banging on about shark attacks you look at the numbers, chuckle, and move on. But in this case you should look at the numbers and more wonder why they usually don't report on gun deaths.

There have been over 1,600 gun deaths since Newtown. If the media really was reporting every one like in shark attack season, it'd be non-stop coverage. As it is, they are only picking the 0.1% of gun deaths that are novel - the kid shot by a pink gun, sniper shot at a gun range, shooting injuries at a gun show, etc - to report. And still butthurt right wingers and too-hipster-to-believe-what-I-read types are sniffing about it.

BTW, you are aware that there can be an outcry that doesn't result in continuous fark coverage, right?
 
2013-02-05 04:57:46 PM  

vpb: FlashHarry: If you have guns, if you own guns mostly we would prefer you have them in a lock box," Greenville Police Media Relations Officer Jonathan Bragg told WYFF. "At least have them out of the reach of children.

"we would PREFER?"

the owner of this weapon should be arrested for manslaughter.

It used to be that that would happen in some places, but the Supremes have decided that requiring trigger locks or gun safes violates the constitution.


making them a legal requirement is not the same as deciding that keeping a loaded gun around children WITHOUT them reaches the legal standard of "recklessness" sufficent to charge a person with reckless mansalughter BTW
 
2013-02-05 04:57:58 PM  

vartian: TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?

A toaster actually does something useful. A gun simply endagers your entire family.


To be fair, I support mandatory trigger locks and lockups/safes, but that study is bs, it absolutely does matter what kind of gun it is. Long-guns account for less than 1% of accidental gun deaths, whereas handguns account for the rest. To be so dismissive and glib about the numbers shows a level of... disingenuous writing... we can all have different opinions, different goals, and different methods, but I'm tired of everyone starting with different facts.
 
2013-02-05 04:57:58 PM  

meintx2001: justtray: Click Click D'oh: rufus-t-firefly: So, you think guns should be regulated at the same level as cars?

Safety standards, licensing (after written and proficiency tests), annual registration,regular inspections, liability insurance...

Once, and only after, you apply those same standards to voting.

Why?

Why not?


Mostly because voting is not inherently physically dangerous to oneself or others.
 
2013-02-05 04:58:11 PM  

Click Click D'oh: justtray: Allow me to retort this stupid argument further - we already do register to vote.

So then you have absolutely zero objection to making people take a voter education class and getting a state issued ID (that they have to pay for) before being allowed to vote?

Just making sure that you want to apply unconstitutional infringements of rights equally...


Stop digging. Your hole is deep enough.
 
2013-02-05 04:58:27 PM  
FTFA: Investigators determined that Tmorej and his 7-year-old sister had been playing with a pink handgun when the incident occurred.

If only his seven year old sister had been armed.
 
2013-02-05 04:58:28 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: Voting kills people on a regular basis, just like cars and guns?

But since we require registration for all voting, let's start there.

Wait, that's giving your vapid, intellectually ignorant response more respect than it deserves.

Insurance required to vote? Safety standards?

Christ, what a kneejerk, stupid comment you made.


It's okay, don't cry.

Just tell me, do you support making people take a voters education class and getting a state issued identification card before voting?

We just want to know if you recognize unconstitutional infringements when you see them... or if you only apply them to certain rights you don't agree with.
 
2013-02-05 04:59:03 PM  
Dumb kid. Dumb parents.

I agree with a gun ban as long as you get all the criminals to give theirs up too. It worked with drugs right!
 
2013-02-05 04:59:35 PM  

stonelotus: how many cars killed kids today?


/wonders when we're going to ban peanuts.


Holy balls, how many times is this going to be repeated? Take 10 seconds and think about how cars and guns aren't anywhere near comparable.
 
2013-02-05 04:59:36 PM  

odinsposse: jso2897: Exactly. Cars were not designed to kill, yet we license, register, and insure them, and license their operators.
Why should guns not be treated the same? Like cars, they are dangerous tools, and capable of killing - whatever their intended use.

Because they aren't cars? Cars are only brought up because if you go by deaths per year cars need more regulation than guns.

lostcat: odinsposse: lostcat: So your argument is that guns were designed to sit in gun safes or to be used for target practice...(Practice implying what? Practice for putting more holes in paper?)

No. It's that saying "Guns were designed to kill" is a meaningless phrase and not an argument of any kind.

So there is no purpose to a gun?

There's no inherent purpose to any inanimate object. It's magical thinking to assign some archetypal purpose to one.

It doesn't matter that people may not use their guns, or when they do it's only to put holes in paper targets. The gun industry does not market their products as "a great way to put holes in paper," or "a fun object to keep in a locked box."

I would argue it matters a great deal. Why shouldn't we deal with the reality of how guns are used rather than base it on the made-up motivations we assign to them?


Ah. So because airplanes kill fewer people than guns every year, they should be regulated less than guns are?
I'm not sure that's a logical standard. Things are either dangerous enough to require regulation, or they are not.
The fact that one dangerous thing is slightly less dangerous (of course, the raw numbers you submitted don't establish this - they are not per-capita numbers). The fact remains that guns are unique among dangerous tools for the lack of regulation they are subject to. And this is probably going to change in the foreseeable future - deal with it.
 
2013-02-05 04:59:37 PM  

TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?


That's because electricity has a useful function.
 
2013-02-05 04:59:38 PM  

Click Click D'oh: rufus-t-firefly: Nope, can't see any connection to the "killing" thing there.

Yes, because the only paper target available for use are law enforcement qualification targets.....


And target shooting isn't the only use for firearms - or even their primary purpose. Now you're catching on.

I know you're flailing around, trying to equate gun purchases with voting, but at least that comment didn't make everyone dumber for having read it.

So what other hobbies should be protected from regulation the way guns are?
 
2013-02-05 04:59:45 PM  

Click Click D'oh: Frank N Stein: I truly feel bad for the poor mauser

I wouldn't.  Someone went and upgraded it to a SMLE...


Hold your horses (no pun intended) Let's take this from an anti-gunner's perspective (not saying Frank N Stein is an anti-gunner, but (s)he needs to read up on their classic military rifles).

So, if it has a pistol grip, or a bayo-lug or a detachable box mag, or a collapsible stock or a flash hider, it's an assault rifle right?

So if it's got a wooden stock, or has a bolt action, or locking lugs, or a bent bolt handle, it's a Mauser!

Also, yes, sad kid died. Bad parenting is bad parenting whether it involves not using a child's car seat, leaving forks close to exposed electrical outlets, not immunizing your children, or leaving a loaded weapon within reach of children. When it's just me and the wife, there's a loaded pistol at the ready in my house, but when anyone else is around, everything is unloaded and locked in a safe bolted to the he wall studs and floor joists. Negligence is negligence is negligence.
 
2013-02-05 04:59:49 PM  
What we learned in this thread. Young Tmorej demonstrated poor trigger discipline. We need precogs to determine who will be a responsible gun owner and allowed to own a firearm. Pools are relentless killing machines that can not, will not be stopped!
 
2013-02-05 05:00:02 PM  

clane: United States of America
CURRENT DEATH TOLL - REAL TIME
from Jan 1, 2013 - Feb 5, 2013 (3:46:19 PM)

Abortion: 118440


OK, so you efficiently put yourself in the "wingnut" category by including non-people in your list of deaths. But, if you're going to go that far, why not include miscarriages as well?
 
2013-02-05 05:00:13 PM  
More children die from pools than accidental gun discharge.

Ban pools if you are serious.
 
2013-02-05 05:00:20 PM  

Dixon Cider: Oh yeah... death by musket was all the rage!! That is why is so predominate in our history...
Wait, you have a citation for this, correct?


You mean like the Revolution and the Civil War?  Are those predominant events in our history?
 
2013-02-05 05:01:12 PM  

TwistedIvory: There is a disproportionate amount of time spent vilifying firearms and their owners versus other forms of homicidal negligence. That is my point.


I do not believe you and you offer no support for your opinion. In NY State, I had to watch a horrific video about babies injured by shaking before I left the hospital - state law (I could sign a waiver to skip it). There was nothing - nothing at all - vilifying firearm negligence.

Pregnant women drinking alcohol is vehemently condemned. Not a breath about them being careless with storing their firearms.

I find your claim that firearms are disproportionately vilified extraordinary  and far from offering extraordinary evidence you offer none at all beyond, I assume, the recent habit of the media on reporting about 0.1% of the firearm deaths that occur in the US.
 
2013-02-05 05:01:26 PM  
CheekyMonkey Mostly because voting is not inherently physically dangerous to oneself or others.

Nor is my ownership of a firearm inherently physically dangerous to myself or others.
 
2013-02-05 05:01:31 PM  

orbister: FTFA: Investigators determined that Tmorej and his 7-year-old sister had been playing with a pink handgun when the incident occurred.

If only his seven year old sister had been armed.



That's probably how Jumble got shot.
 
2013-02-05 05:01:58 PM  

odinsposse: jso2897: Exactly. Cars were not designed to kill, yet we license, register, and insure them, and license their operators.
Why should guns not be treated the same? Like cars, they are dangerous tools, and capable of killing - whatever their intended use.

Because they aren't cars? Cars are only brought up because if you go by deaths per year cars need more regulation than guns.

lostcat: odinsposse: lostcat: So your argument is that guns were designed to sit in gun safes or to be used for target practice...(Practice implying what? Practice for putting more holes in paper?)

No. It's that saying "Guns were designed to kill" is a meaningless phrase and not an argument of any kind.

So there is no purpose to a gun?

There's no inherent purpose to any inanimate object. It's magical thinking to assign some archetypal purpose to one.

It doesn't matter that people may not use their guns, or when they do it's only to put holes in paper targets. The gun industry does not market their products as "a great way to put holes in paper," or "a fun object to keep in a locked box."

I would argue it matters a great deal. Why shouldn't we deal with the reality of how guns are used rather than base it on the made-up motivations we assign to them?


And yet, any reasonable and responsible gun owner will tell you that you should never point a gun at anything that you don't  want to destroy, and that ignoring that "made-up motivation" as you're doing is the height of irresponsibility.
 
2013-02-05 05:02:43 PM  
My sister took me shooting for the first time when I was six. Before I ever touched the weapon, I was instructed on basic safety, how these were not toys or anything to ever be played with, etc. My family kept a gun rack loaded with rifles in an unlocked room. It was OK because even as a youngster I had a clear idea that these were not toys and playing with them could easily result in someone dying.

I can understand people, even parents, keeping a defensive weapon in a quickly accessible place... the middle of the night when burglars are at your door is a really poor time to be fumbling around with your combination safe. I can't understand keeping a gun and not removing the taboo mystery of it from your child post-haste, doing whatever you can to be sure that they're not going to play around with them, etc.
 
2013-02-05 05:02:44 PM  

clane: Dixon Cider:
More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

clane:
you keep seeing stories like this because Liberals want to keep pushing that button to scare everyone.  89 people died today in car accidents lets see how many articles make it into Fark or the New York Times about that.

United States of America
CURRENT DEATH TOLL - REAL TIME
from Jan 1, 2013 - Feb 5, 2013 (3:46:19 PM)

Abortion: 118440
Heart Disease: 63899
Cancer: 53756
Tobacco: 34192
Obesity: 29991
Medical Errors: 19050
Stroke: 14668
Lower Respiratory Disease: 12102
Accident (unintentional): 10618
Hospital Associated Infection: 9671
Alcohol: 9769
Diabetes: 7113
Alzheimer's Disease: 6431
Influenza/Pneumonia: 6005
Kidney Failure: 4177
Blood Infection: 3269
Suicide: 3606
Drunk Driving: 3303
Unintentional Poisoning: 3102
All Drug Abuse: 2443
Homicide: 1641
Prescription Drug Overdose: 1465
Murder by gun: 1123
Texting while Driving: 585
Pedestrian: 488
Drowning: 382
Fire Related: 342
Malnutrition: 271
Domestic Violence: 143
Smoking in Bed: 76
Killed by Falling Tree: 14
Struck by Lightning: 8


The important detail that isn't in this list is that the majority of these deaths occurred because of some behavior on the part of the deceased, or through natural causes. Peope tend to get a little more upset about death that is caused by someone else, intentionally.
 
2013-02-05 05:03:07 PM  

MyRandomName: More children die from pools than accidental gun discharge.

Ban pools if you are serious.


Stop softballing it. What we need to do is ban children.
 
2013-02-05 05:03:51 PM  

tricycleracer: clane: Abortion: 118440

Horseshiat.



According to the CDC there were reported * 784,507 abortions in 2009.

* States, counties, and cities are not required to report abortions to the CDC, so this number may be lower than the actual number.  So, based on the 2009 CDC numbers the number of abortions for the first 36 days of the year would be closer to 78,000.  But, if you follow the other poster's provided link, the number from that site is based on accumulated date from various years of CDC data as well as other data.  While it is wrong, it is not that far wrong (relatively speaking, of course).
 
2013-02-05 05:03:56 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: So what other hobbies should be protected from regulation the way guns are?


The tongue in cheek answer is, any of them that just happen to be Constitutionally protect rights.

The "Lol, idiot liberal" answer is:  WTF, you think firearms are unregulated?  There are 20,000 firearms laws in this nation.  How is something that has 20K laws applied to it "protected from regulation"?
 
2013-02-05 05:04:02 PM  
Well at least the boy doesn't have to live a life facing discrimination against gay people.
 
2013-02-05 05:04:07 PM  

give me doughnuts: lostcat: justtray: I found the comment that ends all false analogies -


http://www.fark.com/comments/7565295/82224599#c82224599" target=_blank>Vegan Meat Popsicle: clowncar on fire: Seeing how more people die in auto related deaths, how would you feel about having a background check everytime you rented or purchased a car.

Yea, it's not like you have to pass a test and maintain a license to own a car. Or meet certain basic safety standards by maintaining it on a regular basis. Or register it. Or that there are any rules or laws governing when, where and how the vehicle can be used. And god knows if you break those rules often enough it's not like anybody confiscates your license or - god forbid - even the car itself. And, of course, there are no rules about how cars must be manufactured to meet safety standards to protect both the operators and the general public around the vehicle as it's being used. And, unlike guns, cars are totally unnecessary and have no real daily legitimate use.

Perfect analogy. You're so smart.

Yeah, thanks for the find. I like it.

No, you don't. All you need is the money to buy it with.
Operating it on public roads is another matter.


Agreed, and it would be unconstitutional to pass a law interfering with one's right to keep or bear arms...
...  fire them, however? That'd be fine.
 
2013-02-05 05:04:22 PM  

stonicus: Ok... would love to see the stats on "how man people drive to their destination per hour" vs "how many people defended themselves per hour".


Funny thing - they don't have much in the way of data on these sorts of issues.  Why? The farking NRA has managed to get laws passed that have been interpreted as banning even collecting such information. That is the real meat of Obama's recent executive orders - he's told them to fark off, we're FINALLY going to actually start collecting data on what's really going on.

You gotta wonder WHY the gun rights folks actually pushed laws banning the mere collection of data - reality. Then you remember they are standing arm in arm with creationists and wonder a bit less.
 
2013-02-05 05:04:24 PM  
Regarding guns vs. toasters vs. cars.  Over the years a lot has been done to make toasters and cars safer.  With regard to toasters, not only do we have grounded plugs, but if they're near a sink we have GFDI outlets to prevent electrocutions, better plugs and cords less likely to be frayed. 
With regard to cars we have, collapsable steering wheels, rear-view and side view mirrors, windshield wipers, rear windshield wipers, lap belts then three point belts and automatic belts, driver side air bags then passenger side airbags then side airbags, tempered glass, head lights, tail lights, brake lights, anti lock brakes, mufflers, catalytic converters, crumple zones, backup radar/cameras, emergency/parking brakes, safety interlocks to prevent the car from being started with it in drive and/or without a foot on the brake, ALL states require proficiency tests for driving and require periodic renewal of licenses, periodic safety inspections, car registration, radial tires, snow chains, studded tires, tinted windows, rear and front defoggers, ability to unlock just the drivers side door, panic alarms, cruise control that's interrupted by stepping on the brake, roll cages, baby car seats, rear facing baby car seats, latch system for installing baby car seats, unleaded gasoline, lines on the road, green/red go and stop lights then green/yellow/red go/caution/stop lights, street lights, rumble strips, various travel directional signs such as "keep right", hands free cell phones, sun visors, hazard lights, fog lights, daytime running lights, run flat tires, windshield washer fluid, and they're working on various collision avoidance technologies.

So, when you have to hold a button down before you can start your gun by pulling the trigger, or when you have a gun AND infrastructure that is designed to minimize accidents, or a gun that disables itself from being able to fire when someone ACCIDENTALLY pulls the trigger, then maybe you can start comparing them to toasters and cars.
 
2013-02-05 05:04:33 PM  

justtray: Click Click D'oh: rufus-t-firefly: So, you think guns should be regulated at the same level as cars?

Safety standards, licensing (after written and proficiency tests), annual registration,regular inspections, liability insurance...

Once, and only after, you apply those same standards to voting.

Why?


Still waiting for the answer to this, now that I've already answered the deflection accurately and without rebuttal.
 
2013-02-05 05:04:36 PM  

lostcat: The important detail that isn't in this list is that the majority of these deaths occurred because of some behavior on the part of the deceased, or through natural causes. Peope tend to get a little more upset about death that is caused by someone else, intentionally.


Uh, most kids killed by guns aren't intentional, right? Like this story?
 
2013-02-05 05:05:32 PM  

give me doughnuts: lostcat: justtray: I found the comment that ends all false analogies -


http://www.fark.com/comments/7565295/82224599#c82224599" target=_blank>Vegan Meat Popsicle: clowncar on fire: Seeing how more people die in auto related deaths, how would you feel about having a background check everytime you rented or purchased a car.

Yea, it's not like you have to pass a test and maintain a license to own a car. Or meet certain basic safety standards by maintaining it on a regular basis. Or register it. Or that there are any rules or laws governing when, where and how the vehicle can be used. And god knows if you break those rules often enough it's not like anybody confiscates your license or - god forbid - even the car itself. And, of course, there are no rules about how cars must be manufactured to meet safety standards to protect both the operators and the general public around the vehicle as it's being used. And, unlike guns, cars are totally unnecessary and have no real daily legitimate use.

Perfect analogy. You're so smart.

Yeah, thanks for the find. I like it.

No, you don't. All you need is the money to buy it with.
Operating it on public roads is another matter.


This is the definition for not seeing the forest through all the trees.
 
2013-02-05 05:05:44 PM  

moothemagiccow: TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?

who keeps their toaster on the floor?


Because, you know, little kids have never moved a chair over to someplace they want to climb to....... ever....
 
2013-02-05 05:06:15 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Stop softballing it. What we need to do is ban children.


We have a winner.  Where can I sign a petition for this?

The money we'd save in schools alone is worth it.
 
2013-02-05 05:06:30 PM  
If you have a pink gun, you're a failure as an adult. If your small child can access your gun, you're a failure as a parent.
 
2013-02-05 05:06:42 PM  

mrexcess: I can understand people, even parents, keeping a defensive weapon in a quickly accessible place... the middle of the night when burglars are at your door is a really poor time to be fumbling around with your combination safe

www.safetysafeguards.com
 
2013-02-05 05:06:56 PM  

Jay Bundy: Dumb kid. Dumb parents.

I agree with a gun ban as long as you get all the criminals to give theirs up too. It worked with drugs right!


You may "agree" with a "gun ban" - but I don't see anyone here proposing one - anymore than they are proposing a "car ban". Reasonable regulation is not confiscation. Straw man is made of straw.
 
2013-02-05 05:07:01 PM  
browntimmy: cars and guns aren't anywhere near comparable

 www.fiddlersgreen.net

www.fiddlersgreen.net
/living the dream
 
2013-02-05 05:07:11 PM  

ProfessorOhki: lostcat: The important detail that isn't in this list is that the majority of these deaths occurred because of some behavior on the part of the deceased, or through natural causes. Peope tend to get a little more upset about death that is caused by someone else, intentionally.

Uh, most kids killed by guns aren't intentional, right? Like this story?


I give up. People just walk in in the middle of a discussion, missing the bulk of the debate, and make some comment that completely misses the point. Too annoying.
 
2013-02-05 05:07:12 PM  

MyRandomName: More children die from pools than accidental gun discharge.

Ban pools if you are serious.


nobody's seriously talking about banning handguns. they're talking about background checks, trigger locks, and possibly banning high-capacity magazines.
 
2013-02-05 05:07:29 PM  

jst3p: So first we ban:


It's almost like jst3p really is so stupid that he can't even comprehend of regulation short of a full ban. I think he's a liberal troll trying to make the gun right camp look like idiots with the critical thinking facilities of 5 year olds.

Most adults are after regulation. Say, regulate gun ownership perhaps half as much as we regulate bulk purchases of fertilizer.
 
2013-02-05 05:07:50 PM  
A pink gun???  Kindof dumb NOW that we all think about it.

How about prescription bottles that look like M&M candy dispensers or package Everclear in baby bottle replicas
 
2013-02-05 05:08:17 PM  

Theaetetus: mrexcess: I can understand people, even parents, keeping a defensive weapon in a quickly accessible place... the middle of the night when burglars are at your door is a really poor time to be fumbling around with your combination safe
[www.safetysafeguards.com image 400x382]


Looks complicated and prone to failure.

Do what I do:  Keep a gun in your night stand with which to shoot the lock off of your gun safe so you can get to your gun in a hurry.
 
2013-02-05 05:08:17 PM  

Click Click D'oh: rufus-t-firefly: Voting kills people on a regular basis, just like cars and guns?

But since we require registration for all voting, let's start there.

Wait, that's giving your vapid, intellectually ignorant response more respect than it deserves.

Insurance required to vote? Safety standards?

Christ, what a kneejerk, stupid comment you made.

It's okay, don't cry.</i>


Tears come from laughter too. And 

Just tell me, do you support making people take a voters education class and getting a state issued identification card before voting?

When we see thousands and thousands of cases of voter fraud occurring throughout the country, or when a couple dozen kindergartners are illegally registered to vote? Sure, we can examine voting requirements at that time.

We just want to know if you recognize unconstitutional infringements when you see them... or if you only apply them to certain rights you don't agree with.

And nice job trying to make you sound like you're in the majority.

Never said I don't agree with the right to own a gun. I just think that it's not an infringement of those rights to add some regulations to keep certain weapons out of general circulation and keep felons and the mentally ill from being able to purchase them without delay.

Are you OK with fully automatic weapons being banned? That's a pretty big infringement.
 
2013-02-05 05:08:23 PM  
If you wanna have a farking arsenal in your house, that's your business. But leaving a handgun where a 3 year old can get to it and shoot himself? The parents should be charged for negligence. This makes me sick.
 
2013-02-05 05:08:25 PM  

spawn73: TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?

That's because electricity has a useful function.


My Mini-30 is really useful at keeping coyotes and foxes away from my chickens and groundhogs from tearing up my crops. My .308 is fantastic for putting venison on the dinner table and my 12ga is fantastic for putting turkey, pheasant, and grouse there too.
 
2013-02-05 05:08:29 PM  

MyRandomName: More children die from pools than accidental gun discharge.

Ban pools if you are serious.


yep, they're drowning pools for little angels
death by design
 
2013-02-05 05:08:33 PM  

MyRandomName: More children die from pools than accidental gun discharge.

Ban pools if you are serious.


We already do regulate swimming pools, and nobody here is talking about "banning" anything.
 
2013-02-05 05:10:28 PM  
If you squeeze me, I make bad people go away!
Hold me...

images2.wikia.nocookie.net


\aisle seat, plz
 
2013-02-05 05:10:40 PM  

CheekyMonkey: Okieboy: My girlfriends 11 yeard old daughter went back in my room to use the restroom and came back into the living room toting my sawed off 12-gauge - I knew it wasn't loaded but my gf about shiat a brick!


/kids are drawn to guns - they are all kept in a gun safe now

And this is exactly why there should be laws mandating gun safety training for anyone interested in obtaining a gun permit.

/not interesting grabbing anyone's guns
//interested in making sure anyone who has one is properly educated on the subject of gun safety


Because an 11 year-old girl hasn't figured out that she shouldn't be going through other people's things and grabbing shiat that isn't hers?
 
2013-02-05 05:10:51 PM  

Vodka Zombie: He was a three year old, male tyranny.



I find it funny that i read this as "three year old, male tranny"  :)
 
2013-02-05 05:11:24 PM  

Click Click D'oh: There are 20,000 firearms laws in this nation.  How is something that has 20K laws applied to it "protected from regulation"?


Is every one of those "20K laws" an unconstitutional infringement of your Second Amendment rights?
 
2013-02-05 05:11:25 PM  

mrexcess: My sist


I remember growing up in the 70's and my dad had a 30-30 .. just lying around.  I remember playing with it...FWIW, he was/is a lousy dad.
 
2013-02-05 05:11:31 PM  

Click Click D'oh: rufus-t-firefly: So what other hobbies should be protected from regulation the way guns are?

The tongue in cheek answer is, any of them that just happen to be Constitutionally protect rights.

The "Lol, idiot liberal" answer is:  WTF, you think firearms are unregulated?  There are 20,000 firearms laws in this nation.  How is something that has 20K laws applied to it "protected from regulation"?


We found the "Area man passionate defender of what he imagines his rights to be."

Bolding the important parts for you.

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54-56.
 
2013-02-05 05:11:38 PM  

lostcat: ProfessorOhki: lostcat: The important detail that isn't in this list is that the majority of these deaths occurred because of some behavior on the part of the deceased, or through natural causes. Peope tend to get a little more upset about death that is caused by someone else, intentionally.

Uh, most kids killed by guns aren't intentional, right? Like this story?

I give up. People just walk in in the middle of a discussion, missing the bulk of the debate, and make some comment that completely misses the point. Too annoying.


You mean like drawing a line between intentional increasing the emotional response in the context of an article about an unintentional death? Yeah, those people should probably just sit quietly.
 
2013-02-05 05:11:41 PM  
jso2897: Ah. So because airplanes kill fewer people than guns every year, they should be regulated less than guns are?
I'm not sure that's a logical standard. Things are either dangerous enough to require regulation, or they are not.

Fine. Then we should dispense with the idea that guns need to be treated differently because they were designed to kill. That's not the argument to make when advocating gun regulation.

The fact that one dangerous thing is slightly less dangerous (of course, the raw numbers you submitted don't establish this - they are not per-capita numbers). The fact remains that guns are unique among dangerous tools for the lack of regulation they are subject to. And this is probably going to change in the foreseeable future - deal with it.

Are they? Because there are quite a lot of gun regulations. On manufacture for safe operation, background checks for buyers, regulations and licensing for sellers, restricted types, even restrictions for personal use and modification. Most every modern handgun is also shipped with a gun lock for storage. I don't think they are uniquely unregulated, or really unregulated at all.
 
2013-02-05 05:12:59 PM  

tricycleracer: clane: Abortion: 118440

Horseshiat.


Considering there are only around 800 thousand abortions performed in the US each year, if we're at almost 120 thousand in a month, then we're well on our way to a banner year!
 
2013-02-05 05:13:04 PM  

tkosh: darwin


Sensitive issue. I get it. But. 1) If you came to my house I'd knock you on your ass and I'd step on your head, and you probably wouldn't like that very much. and 2) Your country is in deep shiat. It needs to fix the problem. Einstein said doing the same thing over and over is the definition of crazy. So. You've got a country full of crazy people. You need to fix that problem.
 
2013-02-05 05:13:43 PM  

indarwinsshadow: Here's my idea. You kept to keep your guns as the law was written and intended....I'm pretty sure your law was never designed to keep fully automatic rifles and large caliber multishot handguns.

[t0.gstatic.com image 309x163]


I'm pretty sure it didn't cover computers and the internet either, so STFU. You can print out some pamphlets on a press and pass them around if you want to speak to us.
 
2013-02-05 05:13:59 PM  

justtray: Click Click D'oh: justtray: Allow me to retort this stupid argument further - we already do register to vote.

So then you have absolutely zero objection to making people take a voter education class and getting a state issued ID (that they have to pay for) before being allowed to vote?

Just making sure that you want to apply unconstitutional infringements of rights equally...

Stop digging. Your hole is deep enough.


Sorry, Ray. He has a point. The "stop digging" defense is an admission that you don't have a retort.
 
2013-02-05 05:14:11 PM  

dkimball: I remember growing up in the 70's and my dad had a 30-30 .. just lying around.  I remember playing with it...FWIW, he was/is a lousy dad.


A few of my father's weapons were stored in my freaking bedroom. No ammo, but still... That's why they weren't touched when burglars broke in - they opened my door and apparently moved on because it was obviously a messy kid's room.

I was taught not to fark with them because they would kill. And I didn't.
 
2013-02-05 05:14:11 PM  

justtray: justtray: Click Click D'oh: rufus-t-firefly: So, you think guns should be regulated at the same level as cars?

Safety standards, licensing (after written and proficiency tests), annual registration,regular inspections, liability insurance...

Once, and only after, you apply those same standards to voting.

Why?

Still waiting for the answer to this, now that I've already answered the deflection accurately and without rebuttal.


Well, voting does has a much much higher bodycount than private gun ownership.
 
2013-02-05 05:14:25 PM  
Colored guns should be illegal (Brown, Black or Gray only).

Fake guns with real gun colors should be illegal.

My 0.02$
 
2013-02-05 05:14:27 PM  

Theaetetus: tricycleracer: clane: Abortion: 118440

Horseshiat.

Considering there are only around 800 thousand abortions performed in the US each year, if we're at almost 120 thousand in a month, then we're well on our way to a banner year!


Are we discussing human deaths or all deaths anyway? If you want to go the latter, I'm pretty sure antibiotics are the leading cause of death.

/Well, that or being eaten
 
2013-02-05 05:14:30 PM  

MyRandomName: More children die from pools than accidental gun discharge.


Ironically, more children are born from pools of accidental discharge.
 
2013-02-05 05:14:46 PM  

tricycleracer: Theaetetus: mrexcess: I can understand people, even parents, keeping a defensive weapon in a quickly accessible place... the middle of the night when burglars are at your door is a really poor time to be fumbling around with your combination safe
[www.safetysafeguards.com image 400x382]

Looks complicated and prone to failure.

Do what I do:  Keep a gun in your night stand with which to shoot the lock off of your gun safe so you can get to your gun in a hurry.


Or, just throw your child at the intruder while you access the safe.
 
2013-02-05 05:14:51 PM  

Surpheon: jst3p: So first we ban:

It's almost like jst3p really is so stupid that he can't even comprehend of regulation short of a full ban. I think he's a liberal troll trying to make the gun right camp look like idiots with the critical thinking facilities of 5 year olds.

Most adults are after regulation. Say, regulate gun ownership perhaps half as much as we regulate bulk purchases of fertilizer.


Tell me which of the regulations being discussed by the White House would have prevented this death.
 
2013-02-05 05:14:53 PM  
Theaetetus
[www.safetysafeguards.com image 400x382]

The bottom line is that biometric safes are either very expensive or not very reliable, and quite often both. It looks like that one combines biometric and combination features, which would make it a very bad choice for a panicky 3AM situation.
 
2013-02-05 05:15:30 PM  

vpb: I know a guy who had one just like that.

He was a lumberjack and he was OK.


Did he put on women's clothing and hang around in bars?
 
2013-02-05 05:16:29 PM  
Gosh who would have ever thought there would be terrible consequences for making guns LOOK LIKE TOYS!
 
2013-02-05 05:16:30 PM  

indarwinsshadow: tkosh: darwin

Sensitive issue. I get it. But. 1) If you came to my house I'd knock you on your ass and I'd step on your head, and you probably wouldn't like that very much. and 2) Your country is in deep shiat. It needs to fix the problem. Einstein said doing the same thing over and over is the definition of crazy. So. You've got a country full of crazy people. You need to fix that problem.


actually i think it's the definition of insanity - "doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result"
 
2013-02-05 05:16:35 PM  

Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!


People are essentially stupid, more of anything means more people will use it as an instrument to empower their stupidity. More cars, means more people will die of cars crashes than places without cars.  I bet places with electricity have more electrocutions than places with electricity.  Places with indoor plumbing probably have more drownings in tubs than places without indoor plumbing.
 
2013-02-05 05:16:44 PM  
It has to do with freedom.  You see, that gun liberated that kid's soul from his body.
 
2013-02-05 05:17:17 PM  
Okay, so the Supremes decided that the well regulated militia and the right to bear arms are two different things.

That being said, as Congress is the body that makes laws, they can certainly define what "arms" are.  And if they decide that arms are swords, or muzzle loading muskets, then you're welcome to bear those.

Unfortunately I don't ever see them actually defining what "arms" are, although they have made laws strictly regulating automatic weapons, hand grenades, and the like.
 
2013-02-05 05:17:17 PM  
Raise your hand if you're a gun owner.

Now raise your hand if you're a responsible, law-abiding gun owner who would never let something like this happen.

Did anyone raise their hand for the first question but not the second? No? Oh, well, never mind then. I guess it's all under control.
 
2013-02-05 05:17:24 PM  

TwistedIvory: justtray: If you were interested in protecting your family, you wouldn't have a gun in your house, factually and statistically speaking. Emotionally and paranoidically speaking though, you might.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

I've not seen any published work that breaks down how guns in the home are more of a liability or danger other than those that cite the Kellerman findings. As noted above, the Kellerman studies were deeply flawed with regards to control, methodology, and reporting.

I would be very interested in reading actual information or reviews on studies that would demonstrate the "guns are dangerous to those who keep them for protection" point.


In 2010, 606 people were accidentally killed by firearms in America.  In 2011, it was 851, according to the CDC
In 2010 there were 232 justifiable homicides by firearm in America, according to the FBI

Unless you believe the centers for disease control and the federal bureau of investigation are part of some anti-gun conspiracy, it statistically appears that yes, you are around 3x as likely to kill someone accidentally with your gun than to kill legally someone who is committing a felony.   This is not to mention the 20,000 firearm suicides and 11,000 firearm homicides that the CDC recorded 2011.
 
2013-02-05 05:17:40 PM  
dkimball
I remember growing up in the 70's and my dad had a 30-30 .. just lying around. I remember playing with it...FWIW, he was/is a lousy dad.

Did he ever instruct you on gun safety, or give you a "this is why you don't play with these" lecture that ended with your getting to fire the weapon and having a sore shoulder and an exploded can of soda or hairspray? If not, then I agree. Highly irresponsible to have a gun around kids who might be tempted to play with them.
 
2013-02-05 05:18:01 PM  

TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?


Toasters, outlets, falls in bathtub, falling out windows, walking into the street, falling into a well, drowning in a pool, etc....At that age they're mobile but not yet cognizant of many of the dangers in the world - you have to watch them like a hawk.

In this case, I doubt the boy mistook it for a toy because of it's color - more like *everything* can be considered something to play with at that age.

indarwinsshadow: /Yes, I realize locking you gun in a safe unloaded renders it pretty much useless in a home invasion scenario, but when you have a 3 and a 7 year old in the house maybe that is not a house that need to be protected by a homeowner with a gun and might better be served with an escape plan,  Yeah, the bad guy would still be alive, but then, so would your kids.


There are small gun safes that are activated by a combination of finger presses, kind of like those 5 button door locks you see in some offices.  There is then an electric motor that unlatches the door, which is spring loaded to pop open.  Takes about 3 seconds to key in the combo and pull out the gun.

factoryconnection: And you know what? The motor vehicle fatality rate has dropped from a high around 5.4/100MVMT to 1.1/100MVMT since safety equipment became a focus of manufacturers. Vehicle fatalities will be eclipsed by firearms deaths this year or next because of it.


Unlike cars, most gun deaths involve the firearm operating exactly as intended.  The vast majority of car injuries and deaths come from the failure of the material structure of the vehicle - IE an accident.  To make it closer to most gun deaths you'd have to look at injury to those outside of the vehicle from aspects of the vehicle's intended operation, which has probably remained pretty much unaltered over the past 50+ years.  IE being hit with a car is probably as dangerous as ever.

Guns also used to explode a lot more often than they do today.

JungleBoogie: So - both issues are worth addressing seriously. Car safety is being addressed, albeit in a haphazard fashion. But there have been tremendous advances in the past 40 years. Gun safety is not being addressed at all.


Incorrect.  The NRA runs a lot of safety program.  40 years ago there was no hunter's education.  There was no "Eddie Eagle" gun safety program for kids.  Trigger locks weren't even an option, and you had glass fronted gun cabinets instead of gun safes or lockers.
 Accidental gun deaths have been dropping over that time as well.  Going by statistics, lack of guns won't prevent suicides(the majority of gun deaths).  It's open to debate as to how bad the substitution effect would be if you managed to keep firearms out of potential murderer's hands.  In any case, I'd prefer something that addresses people responding violently over simply taking the gun away.
 
2013-02-05 05:18:22 PM  

vpb: but the Supremes have decided that requiring trigger locks or gun safes violates the constitution.


No they didn't.  Reading the Heller decision they specifically say that their statement should not be interpreted that way.
 
2013-02-05 05:18:52 PM  

Theaetetus: tricycleracer: clane: Abortion: 118440

Horseshiat.

Considering there are only around 800 thousand abortions performed in the US each year, if we're at almost 120 thousand in a month, then we're well on our way to a banner year!


It was all those people ringing barebacking in the new year
 
2013-02-05 05:19:10 PM  
Zelron:

So, when you have to hold a button down before you can start your gun by pulling the trigger, or when you have a gun AND infrastructure that is designed to minimize accidents, or a gun that disables itself from being able to fire when someone ACCIDENTALLY pulls the trigger, then maybe you can start comparing them to toasters and cars.
Well, you obviously don't know jack about modern firearms if you've never heard of ILS or Grip Safeties. Now shut your uninformed mouth jackass....
 
2013-02-05 05:19:15 PM  

Theaetetus: tricycleracer: clane: Abortion: 118440

Horseshiat.

Considering there are only around 800 thousand abortions performed in the US each year, if we're at almost 120 thousand in a month, then we're well on our way to a banner year!


I seriously doubt abortions are evenly distributed around the year.

Its cold outside, po folk don't have a heater or a crappy heater, PO folk keep warm the old fashioned way, BOOM winter months are abortion heavy.

/not that it makes those abortions killings.
 
2013-02-05 05:19:29 PM  

TerminalEchoes: justtray: Click Click D'oh: justtray: Allow me to retort this stupid argument further - we already do register to vote.

So then you have absolutely zero objection to making people take a voter education class and getting a state issued ID (that they have to pay for) before being allowed to vote?

Just making sure that you want to apply unconstitutional infringements of rights equally...

Stop digging. Your hole is deep enough.

Sorry, Ray. He has a point. The "stop digging" defense is an admission that you don't have a retort.


No he doesn't. Its already been refuted multiple times in the last 50-100 posts, including by me before he even posted this. Not all rights are equal, and therefore we don't apply regulations equally. Pretty simple if you're not a simpleton.
 
2013-02-05 05:19:50 PM  

jst3p: Tell me which of the regulations being discussed by the White House would have prevented this death.


The answer to that question has no bearing on the discussion.  We can't change things that have happened in the past.

Idiot.  Really.  I don't like resorting to name calling but I think in this case it's appropriate.
 
2013-02-05 05:20:00 PM  
OrangeSnapper
In 2010 there were 232 justifiable homicides by firearm in America, according to the FBI

The problem with this statistic is that it doesn't tally all the instances where someone used a gun to defend themselves without causing a justifiable homicide, either because the gun was never fired, or only warning shots were fired, or only wounded the criminal.
 
2013-02-05 05:21:08 PM  

tallen702: Zelron:

So, when you have to hold a button down before you can start your gun by pulling the trigger, or when you have a gun AND infrastructure that is designed to minimize accidents, or a gun that disables itself from being able to fire when someone ACCIDENTALLY pulls the trigger, then maybe you can start comparing them to toasters and cars.
Well, you obviously don't know jack about modern firearms if you've never heard of ILS or Grip Safeties. Now shut your uninformed mouth jackass....


Yes, and they ALL have them.  Yup.  fark off.
 
2013-02-05 05:23:04 PM  

Ned Stark: justtray: justtray: Click Click D'oh: rufus-t-firefly: So, you think guns should be regulated at the same level as cars?

Safety standards, licensing (after written and proficiency tests), annual registration,regular inspections, liability insurance...

Once, and only after, you apply those same standards to voting.

Why?

Still waiting for the answer to this, now that I've already answered the deflection accurately and without rebuttal.

Well, voting does has a much much higher bodycount than private gun ownership.


Already to pedantry?
 
2013-02-05 05:23:13 PM  

justtray: TerminalEchoes: justtray: Click Click D'oh: justtray: Allow me to retort this stupid argument further - we already do register to vote.

So then you have absolutely zero objection to making people take a voter education class and getting a state issued ID (that they have to pay for) before being allowed to vote?

Just making sure that you want to apply unconstitutional infringements of rights equally...

Stop digging. Your hole is deep enough.

Sorry, Ray. He has a point. The "stop digging" defense is an admission that you don't have a retort.

No he doesn't. Its already been refuted multiple times in the last 50-100 posts, including by me before he even posted this. Not all rights are equal, and therefore we don't apply regulations equally. Pretty simple if you're not a simpleton.


Not all rights are equal? Wow. Just...wow. Is there a citation for that?
 
2013-02-05 05:23:21 PM  

Zelron: jst3p: Tell me which of the regulations being discussed by the White House would have prevented this death.

The answer to that question has no bearing on the discussion.  We can't change things that have happened in the past.


You misspelled "none of them".
 
2013-02-05 05:23:27 PM  

Zelron: Okay, so the Supremes decided that the well regulated militia and the right to bear arms are two different things.

That being said, as Congress is the body that makes laws, they can certainly define what "arms" are.  And if they decide that arms are swords, or muzzle loading muskets, then you're welcome to bear those.

Unfortunately I don't ever see them actually defining what "arms" are, although they have made laws strictly regulating automatic weapons, hand grenades, and the like.


Actually, the supremes handed us down a standard for that too. Things in common use are protected. Kinda squishy for my tastes but hardly the squishiest law we've got.
 
2013-02-05 05:23:32 PM  

GAT_00: The name implies race, and that's enough for him.


Wait, what race does "Tmorej" imply? Vulcan??
 
2013-02-05 05:24:52 PM  

mrexcess: Theaetetus
[www.safetysafeguards.com image 400x382]

The bottom line is that biometric safes are either very expensive or not very reliable, and quite often both. It looks like that one combines biometric and combination features, which would make it a very bad choice for a panicky 3AM situation.


Frankly, I'd rather not have a panicky person waving a gun around their family. Maybe the combination feature is an advantage, like a DUI ignition lock, that says "you must be at least this calm to access your gun."
 
2013-02-05 05:25:07 PM  

mrexcess: OrangeSnapper
In 2010 there were 232 justifiable homicides by firearm in America, according to the FBI

The problem with this statistic is that it doesn't tally all the instances where someone used a gun to defend themselves without causing a justifiable homicide, either because the gun was never fired, or only warning shots were fired, or only wounded the criminal.


And it also doesn't include all the times guns were used and the gun was never fired or it only wounded the victim. Because we're making valid comparisons.

Next.
 
2013-02-05 05:25:19 PM  
indarwinsshadow: Here's my idea. You kept to keep your guns as the law was written and intended....I'm pretty sure your law was never designed to keep fully automatic rifles and large caliber multishot handguns.

[t0.gstatic.com image 309x163]


Well when the first amendment was written there was no TV,Radio, internets or any other high capacity fully automatic media. We should go back to how the law was written and you should have to use the manual printing press if you want to spread your derp.
 
2013-02-05 05:25:52 PM  

RobSeace: GAT_00: The name implies race, and that's enough for him.

Wait, what race does "Tmorej" imply? Vulcan??


Tmorej was a young Viking, obviously. And since Tmorej died at the hands of a weapons, presto! Instant Valhalla. God speed, young Viking.
 
2013-02-05 05:25:53 PM  
we need to ban pink, sadness, 3 year old boys, toys, today, mistakes

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-02-05 05:26:17 PM  
Stupid parents, plain and simple and they paid the ultimate price for their irresponsible storage of a firearm.  It's tragic no doubt, but there is no one but the parents to blame for this totally preventable death.  It's not the guns' fault, it's the parents.  I have no patience for stories like this, if you are going to own a firearm, be responsible.  If you can't be responsible, then don't own a firearm, nobody forced them to own a firearm.
 
2013-02-05 05:26:17 PM  
Maybe if all the stupid gun owners shoot their own offspring, or vice versa, and then kill themselves, the problem will sort itself out.

We just have to protect the innocent bystanders.
 
2013-02-05 05:26:28 PM  

Oldiron_79: Well when the first amendment was written there was no TV,Radio, internets or any other high capacity fully automatic media. We should go back to how the law was written and you should have to use the manual printing press if you want to spread your derp.


Let's start with you.
 
2013-02-05 05:27:25 PM  

Zelron: tallen702: Zelron:

So, when you have to hold a button down before you can start your gun by pulling the trigger, or when you have a gun AND infrastructure that is designed to minimize accidents, or a gun that disables itself from being able to fire when someone ACCIDENTALLY pulls the trigger, then maybe you can start comparing them to toasters and cars.
Well, you obviously don't know jack about modern firearms if you've never heard of ILS or Grip Safeties. Now shut your uninformed mouth jackass....

Yes, and they ALL have them.  Yup.  fark off.


And I'm pretty sure you don't need a key to start all cars on the road either. You can still start quite a few by rolling them and popping the clutch. So yup, you're wrong and uninformed yet again, so go DIAF farktard.
 
2013-02-05 05:27:54 PM  

Zelron: Okay, so the Supremes decided that the well regulated militia and the right to bear arms are two different things.

That being said, as Congress is the body that makes laws, they can certainly define what "arms" are.  And if they decide that arms are swords, or muzzle loading muskets, then you're welcome to bear those.


No, it wouldn't work that way, and such a narrow definition would be unconstitutional. Consider if Congress decided to define "speech" as "selections from a pre-approved Federal Dialog Option Form, including box (a) "Hello"; box (b) "I love the President!"; box (c) "Of course you can search my papers and possessions!"; etc." Would you think that other speech wouldn't be protected under the first amendment and that such a definition would be constitutional?
 
2013-02-05 05:28:35 PM  

TerminalEchoes: justtray: TerminalEchoes: justtray: Click Click D'oh: justtray: Allow me to retort this stupid argument further - we already do register to vote.

So then you have absolutely zero objection to making people take a voter education class and getting a state issued ID (that they have to pay for) before being allowed to vote?

Just making sure that you want to apply unconstitutional infringements of rights equally...

Stop digging. Your hole is deep enough.

Sorry, Ray. He has a point. The "stop digging" defense is an admission that you don't have a retort.

No he doesn't. Its already been refuted multiple times in the last 50-100 posts, including by me before he even posted this. Not all rights are equal, and therefore we don't apply regulations equally. Pretty simple if you're not a simpleton.

Not all rights are equal? Wow. Just...wow. Is there a citation for that?


Do you have a citation that they aren't? It's common sense.

The third prohibits the forced quartering of solders during peacetime.

The 16th allows the government to collect income tax.

The 18th creates prohibition of alcohol.

Like I said to the other guy, stop digging.
 
2013-02-05 05:28:40 PM  
Well, at least the kid now knows what guns are used for.

In all seriousness however, the gun owner should be charged with murder and put in the electric chair.
 
2013-02-05 05:29:09 PM  

odinsposse: jso2897: Ah. So because airplanes kill fewer people than guns every year, they should be regulated less than guns are?
I'm not sure that's a logical standard. Things are either dangerous enough to require regulation, or they are not.

Fine. Then we should dispense with the idea that guns need to be treated differently because they were designed to kill. That's not the argument to make when advocating gun regulation.

The fact that one dangerous thing is slightly less dangerous (of course, the raw numbers you submitted don't establish this - they are not per-capita numbers). The fact remains that guns are unique among dangerous tools for the lack of regulation they are subject to. And this is probably going to change in the foreseeable future - deal with it.

Are they? Because there are quite a lot of gun regulations. On manufacture for safe operation, background checks for buyers, regulations and licensing for sellers, restricted types, even restrictions for personal use and modification. Most every modern handgun is also shipped with a gun lock for storage. I don't think they are uniquely unregulated, or really unregulated at all.


The first time I addressed you, it was to agree with you that the "intent" argument was irrelevant. We agree on that.
And yes, guns are not unregulated. But they are far less regulated than many things that are less dangerous - particularly insofar as to who is allowed to own them, and the enforcement of those laws. And that is far more of a problem than the guns themselves. I know people I would trust with an M16, and other people I wouldn't trust with a .22 derringer - and that is the weak point in gun regulation. The problem is that, unlike cars, guns are not "well regulated" , as the Constitution suggests they ought to be (remember what the word "militia" meant when it was written). in some respects, they are over regulated. It is too difficult for the competent gun owner to get a CCW in many places. In others, demonstrable idiots and lunatics get them easily. Indeed - why not make a gun license that covers both ownership and the right to carry? Should a person who can't be trusted to bear arms be allowed to own them? And we already know that the purchase of firearms is not effectively regulated, whatever laws may be on the books . We may need better funding and policy changes just to enforce our existing laws.
These are all ideas that we could be discussing - but we can't if any attempt to raise these issues is taken as a step toward confiscation, or if we take the position that guns are somehow special or sacred among dangerous tools.
 
2013-02-05 05:30:18 PM  

mrexcess: dkimball
I remember growing up in the 70's and my dad had a 30-30 .. just lying around. I remember playing with it...FWIW, he was/is a lousy dad.

Did he ever instruct you on gun safety, or give you a "this is why you don't play with these" lecture that ended with your getting to fire the weapon and having a sore shoulder and an exploded can of soda or hairspray? If not, then I agree. Highly irresponsible to have a gun around kids who might be tempted to play with them.


No, he never did ... and he played football/baseball with me the same amount of times you did.
Some people just have self-absorbed parents.

I don't have a gun in my house.  I go with the odds that it's less likely where I live to be injured by a gun by someone else than having one in the house.
 
2013-02-05 05:30:56 PM  
This is an example of bad gun ownership. People that have them just farking laying around for kids who they KNOW are there to pick them up and fire them. I have guns, they are here and there in my house, but I have 0 children, my wife knows how to get to them if needed, and how to shoot them. If friends come over with their kids, they get locked up in a safe for the duration of the friends visit. Don't blame an object for a idiots failure to properly secure it when kids are around. It's laziness that killed this child. The owner of the gun should go to jail for negligent homicide.
 
2013-02-05 05:31:02 PM  

Alphakronik: Well, at least the kid now knows what guns are used for.

In all seriousness however, the gun owner should be charged with murder and put in the electric chair.


The charge would be criminal negligence resulting in the death of a minor. It'd probably carry a stiff sentence, but it's not murder by legal definition as the mother didn't commit the act, but by negligent inaction, allowed it to happen.
 
2013-02-05 05:31:18 PM  
Y'know, since everyone's always saying that guns are necessary to protect one's home and that a gun safe or trigger lock is outrageous because of the need to immediately destroy what ever made a loud crash in your living room, be it a burglar or your puppy, then how about having unlocked gun storage boxes that, when opened, immediately fire off a cellular call to 911 and start a 125 dB siren? After all, if it's an emergency, then you better get some help quick from your neighbors and the authorities.

And of course, if it's a domestic violence situation or a kid accessing the gun, then all the better that people be notified to come help.

Discuss amongst yourselves.
 
2013-02-05 05:32:12 PM  

heili skrimsli: CheekyMonkey: Okieboy: My girlfriends 11 yeard old daughter went back in my room to use the restroom and came back into the living room toting my sawed off 12-gauge - I knew it wasn't loaded but my gf about shiat a brick!


/kids are drawn to guns - they are all kept in a gun safe now

And this is exactly why there should be laws mandating gun safety training for anyone interested in obtaining a gun permit.

/not interesting grabbing anyone's guns
//interested in making sure anyone who has one is properly educated on the subject of gun safety

Because an 11 year-old girl hasn't figured out that she shouldn't be going through other people's things and grabbing shiat that isn't hers?


Yes.  Kids are farking stupid, and they don't listen.  And unsecured guns are farking dangerous.  You want your kid "learning a lesson" by shooting itself in the head?
 
2013-02-05 05:32:15 PM  

Oldiron_79: indarwinsshadow: Here's my idea. You kept to keep your guns as the law was written and intended....I'm pretty sure your law was never designed to keep fully automatic rifles and large caliber multishot handguns.

[t0.gstatic.com image 309x163]

Well when the first amendment was written there was no TV,Radio, internets or any other high capacity fully automatic media. We should go back to how the law was written and you should have to use the manual printing press if you want to spread your derp.


Sounds good, I agree with you. Then we'll pass laws specifically expanding rights to those things, and we'll not pass the laws specifically expanding rights to things other than 1 shot manual reload rifles.

Oh you mean you weren't presenting an honest or well-thought out argument?
 
2013-02-05 05:32:43 PM  

ProfessorOhki: lostcat: ProfessorOhki: lostcat: The important detail that isn't in this list is that the majority of these deaths occurred because of some behavior on the part of the deceased, or through natural causes. Peope tend to get a little more upset about death that is caused by someone else, intentionally.

Uh, most kids killed by guns aren't intentional, right? Like this story?

I give up. People just walk in in the middle of a discussion, missing the bulk of the debate, and make some comment that completely misses the point. Too annoying.

You mean like drawing a line between intentional increasing the emotional response in the context of an article about an unintentional death? Yeah, those people should probably just sit quietly.


Can you see that there would be a different public reaction to the following news stories:

1. Person kills self with gun

2. Person killed by stranger with gun

3. Child killed while playing with gun

4. Person shot to death in argument that escalated to gunfight

My assumption would be that the biggest public outcry would come from story 2, followed by story 3.

People tend to be upset by the notion of someone murdering someone else for no apparent reason. It upsets our desire for a world in which things happen for a reason.

Using death statistics to show that gun deaths make up a small number of murders, and that murders are just a small percentage of total deaths does not take into account our desire to live lives in which we don't die at the hands of strangers.

Most of us can accept that we my die in an accident, where there was no intent (although carelessness is almost as bad). Most of us can accept that we will die of a disease, especially if we do not take particularly good care of ourselves.

But people react to the idea of another person killing them intentionaly, and will little or no provocation.

Don't believe me? Look at the plots of action/suspense films where revenge is a motivating factor for the protagonist.

You don't get a very good revenge story when the vengence is against some cancer cells, or the guy who had a seizure while driving and accidentally killed the family member.
 
2013-02-05 05:33:01 PM  

justtray: TerminalEchoes: justtray: TerminalEchoes: justtray: Click Click D'oh: justtray: Allow me to retort this stupid argument further - we already do register to vote.

So then you have absolutely zero objection to making people take a voter education class and getting a state issued ID (that they have to pay for) before being allowed to vote?

Just making sure that you want to apply unconstitutional infringements of rights equally...

Stop digging. Your hole is deep enough.

Sorry, Ray. He has a point. The "stop digging" defense is an admission that you don't have a retort.

No he doesn't. Its already been refuted multiple times in the last 50-100 posts, including by me before he even posted this. Not all rights are equal, and therefore we don't apply regulations equally. Pretty simple if you're not a simpleton.

Not all rights are equal? Wow. Just...wow. Is there a citation for that?

Do you have a citation that they aren't? It's common sense.

The third prohibits the forced quartering of solders during peacetime.

The 16th allows the government to collect income tax.

The 18th creates prohibition of alcohol.

Like I said to the other guy, stop digging.


Wait, so you're saying it's "common sense" rather than a well-established fact. If I'm reading that correctly, I'm guessing you're saying "if it's a right I'm ok with, it's more important than a right I'm not ok with." Do I have that correct?

All rights are equal. How often we exercise certain rights (like the ones you listed) has nothing to do with it. If a photo ID is required for purchasing a firearm, I don't see a problem with requiring a photo ID to vote. Rights are rights and they're all equal whether you like it or not.
 
2013-02-05 05:34:12 PM  

DesertMP: Stupid parents, plain and simple and they paid the ultimate price for their irresponsible storage of a firearm


Well, actually, young Tmorej paid the ultimate price.

DesertMP: I have no patience for stories like this, if you are going to own a firearm, be responsible. If you can't be responsible, then don't own a firearm, nobody forced them to own a firearm.


Maybe we should have a question on the 4473 asking if the buyer promises to be responsible.
 
2013-02-05 05:36:29 PM  

Theaetetus: Y'know, since everyone's always saying that guns are necessary to protect one's home and that a gun safe or trigger lock is outrageous because of the need to immediately destroy what ever made a loud crash in your living room, be it a burglar or your puppy, then how about having unlocked gun storage boxes that, when opened, immediately fire off a cellular call to 911 and start a 125 dB siren? After all, if it's an emergency, then you better get some help quick from your neighbors and the authorities.

And of course, if it's a domestic violence situation or a kid accessing the gun, then all the better that people be notified to come help.

Discuss amongst yourselves.


No way, dude.  Gotta get them before they get you, and speed is your only ally.  I used to sleep with a loaded gun under my pillow (round chambered, safety off; seconds count), but I realized I would lose precious seconds trying to find it if it got shifted.  Now, I tape one hand to the pump of my shotgun, and superglue my finger to the trigger.  That way--CRASH--and I'm pumping out rounds in the dark within seconds.

/The puppy was asking for it, anyways.
 
2013-02-05 05:36:55 PM  
The Hot-Cold "Empathy" Gap at work.

Wait until it's your kid.
 
2013-02-05 05:36:58 PM  
Theaetetus
Frankly, I'd rather not have a panicky person waving a gun around their family.

You'd better take away all the guns from police and the military, too, then, because nobody is immune to the effects of adrenaline. We aren't talking about Johnny Jitters spazzing out, this is something anyone in a stressful situation experiences. It's why police shooting incidents are usually along the lines of "30-50 shots were fired, 4 rounds striking the suspect". The reality is that fine motor control dissipates as adrenaline kicks in. I get the sense that you'd rather not have anyone be armed, but your preference there is not pragmatic.

Maybe the combination feature is an advantage, like a DUI ignition lock, that says "you must be at least this calm to access your gun."

So you're OK with people not being able to defend themselves against home invasions?

How would it make you feel to know that I, personally, might very well have been killed as a 10 year old had it not been for my brother answering the door that was being pried open by two dangerous criminals while we slept with a loaded pistol pointed at their faces? Are you really OK with taking the gun away in that situation? Because I'm not.

justtray
And it also doesn't include all the times guns were used and the gun was never fired or it only wounded the victim. Because we're making valid comparisons.

You might be comparing apples to apples, but the scope of your comparison renders it invalid, even to support the original claim about being X times more likely to have an accidental shooting than to successfully use a gun in self defense.
 
2013-02-05 05:37:14 PM  

justtray: TerminalEchoes: justtray: TerminalEchoes: justtray: Click Click D'oh: justtray: Allow me to retort this stupid argument further - we already do register to vote.

So then you have absolutely zero objection to making people take a voter education class and getting a state issued ID (that they have to pay for) before being allowed to vote?

Just making sure that you want to apply unconstitutional infringements of rights equally...

Stop digging. Your hole is deep enough.

Sorry, Ray. He has a point. The "stop digging" defense is an admission that you don't have a retort.

No he doesn't. Its already been refuted multiple times in the last 50-100 posts, including by me before he even posted this. Not all rights are equal, and therefore we don't apply regulations equally. Pretty simple if you're not a simpleton.

Not all rights are equal? Wow. Just...wow. Is there a citation for that?

Do you have a citation that they aren't? It's common sense.

The third prohibits the forced quartering of solders during peacetime.

The 16th allows the government to collect income tax.

The 18th creates prohibition of alcohol.

Like I said to the other guy, stop digging.


So... does the 21st override the 18th or not?
 
2013-02-05 05:38:45 PM  
A friend linked this to me the other day. It's a pretty good read that tries to cover everything (even though you can never actually cover everything): http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun/   Then, this guy did a follow-up article that covers a few more things (Yes, I know it's on Richard Dawkins' site, but whatever):  http://www.richarddawkins.net/foundation_articles/2013/1/4/sam-harris - neglects-the-most-important-evidence-about-guns#.UPGxh6XB594
 
2013-02-05 05:39:11 PM  

TerminalEchoes: justtray: TerminalEchoes: justtray: TerminalEchoes: justtray: Click Click D'oh: justtray: Allow me to retort this stupid argument further - we already do register to vote.

So then you have absolutely zero objection to making people take a voter education class and getting a state issued ID (that they have to pay for) before being allowed to vote?

Just making sure that you want to apply unconstitutional infringements of rights equally...

Stop digging. Your hole is deep enough.

Sorry, Ray. He has a point. The "stop digging" defense is an admission that you don't have a retort.

No he doesn't. Its already been refuted multiple times in the last 50-100 posts, including by me before he even posted this. Not all rights are equal, and therefore we don't apply regulations equally. Pretty simple if you're not a simpleton.

Not all rights are equal? Wow. Just...wow. Is there a citation for that?

Do you have a citation that they aren't? It's common sense.

The third prohibits the forced quartering of solders during peacetime.

The 16th allows the government to collect income tax.

The 18th creates prohibition of alcohol.

Like I said to the other guy, stop digging.

Wait, so you're saying it's "common sense" rather than a well-established fact. If I'm reading that correctly, I'm guessing you're saying "if it's a right I'm ok with, it's more important than a right I'm not ok with." Do I have that correct?

All rights are equal. How often we exercise certain rights (like the ones you listed) has nothing to do with it. If a photo ID is required for purchasing a firearm, I don't see a problem with requiring a photo ID to vote. Rights are rights and they're all equal whether you like it or not.


Dumbass tagged. Please reread the post if you need further rebuttals to your very stupid argument.
 
2013-02-05 05:40:11 PM  

ProfessorOhki: justtray: TerminalEchoes: justtray: TerminalEchoes: justtray: Click Click D'oh: justtray: Allow me to retort this stupid argument further - we already do register to vote.

So then you have absolutely zero objection to making people take a voter education class and getting a state issued ID (that they have to pay for) before being allowed to vote?

Just making sure that you want to apply unconstitutional infringements of rights equally...

Stop digging. Your hole is deep enough.

Sorry, Ray. He has a point. The "stop digging" defense is an admission that you don't have a retort.

No he doesn't. Its already been refuted multiple times in the last 50-100 posts, including by me before he even posted this. Not all rights are equal, and therefore we don't apply regulations equally. Pretty simple if you're not a simpleton.

Not all rights are equal? Wow. Just...wow. Is there a citation for that?

Do you have a citation that they aren't? It's common sense.

The third prohibits the forced quartering of solders during peacetime.

The 16th allows the government to collect income tax.

The 18th creates prohibition of alcohol.

Like I said to the other guy, stop digging.

So... does the 21st override the 18th or not?


I don't know. They're all equal!
 
2013-02-05 05:42:28 PM  

mrexcess: justtray
And it also doesn't include all the times guns were used and the gun was never fired or it only wounded the victim. Because we're making valid comparisons.

You might be comparing apples to apples, but the scope of your comparison renders it invalid, even to support the original claim about being X times more likely to have an accidental shooting than to successfully use a gun in self defense


No, it works perfectly to argue the fact that you're 3 times more likely to have a loved one die from your gun than to kill someone in self defense. It is a perfect comparison for that argument.
 
2013-02-05 05:42:45 PM  
Darwin strikes again
 
2013-02-05 05:44:01 PM  

justtray: ProfessorOhki: justtray: TerminalEchoes: justtray: TerminalEchoes: justtray: Click Click D'oh: justtray: Allow me to retort this stupid argument further - we already do register to vote.

So then you have absolutely zero objection to making people take a voter education class and getting a state issued ID (that they have to pay for) before being allowed to vote?

Just making sure that you want to apply unconstitutional infringements of rights equally...

Stop digging. Your hole is deep enough.

Sorry, Ray. He has a point. The "stop digging" defense is an admission that you don't have a retort.

No he doesn't. Its already been refuted multiple times in the last 50-100 posts, including by me before he even posted this. Not all rights are equal, and therefore we don't apply regulations equally. Pretty simple if you're not a simpleton.

Not all rights are equal? Wow. Just...wow. Is there a citation for that?

Do you have a citation that they aren't? It's common sense.

The third prohibits the forced quartering of solders during peacetime.

The 16th allows the government to collect income tax.

The 18th creates prohibition of alcohol.

Like I said to the other guy, stop digging.

So... does the 21st override the 18th or not?

I don't know. They're all equal!


As opposed to your method of "lower numbers mean more better" which bans beer forever? If you're going to try to create priorities between them, you must go in reverse chronological order, which means that if they're not all equal, the 2nd is the least meaningful... right above that crappy free speech/religiony thing... right?
 
2013-02-05 05:44:37 PM  
As a 4-year old, I discharged a handgun at point black range at my 5-year old cousin, who attempted it at me first, but wasn't strong enough to pull the trigger.  The 'toy' missed the target, but disrupted the Thanksgiving dinner in the other room.

/Conservative(ish) guy
//Will never have a gun in the house
 
2013-02-05 05:44:37 PM  

TNel: Nabb1:

The kid's name was "Tmorej."  I doubt Ma is the keynote speaker at any Mensa meetings.

So because their parents named them a weird name that makes them stupid?  I mean I had no say on what my name is and neither did you.   Or should I get out the "that's racist" gif for you.


I think that they left a LOADED FIREARM WITHIN REACH OF A CHILD ought to be proof enough of their stupidity.

A gun lock is about $10.  A decent handgun safe will run you about $150 (probably less).  If you have enough $ for the firearm, you have enough $ to make sure it's properly secured.
 
2013-02-05 05:44:56 PM  

justtray: TerminalEchoes: justtray: TerminalEchoes: justtray: TerminalEchoes: justtray: Click Click D'oh: justtray: Allow me to retort this stupid argument further - we already do register to vote.

So then you have absolutely zero objection to making people take a voter education class and getting a state issued ID (that they have to pay for) before being allowed to vote?

Just making sure that you want to apply unconstitutional infringements of rights equally...

Stop digging. Your hole is deep enough.

Sorry, Ray. He has a point. The "stop digging" defense is an admission that you don't have a retort.

No he doesn't. Its already been refuted multiple times in the last 50-100 posts, including by me before he even posted this. Not all rights are equal, and therefore we don't apply regulations equally. Pretty simple if you're not a simpleton.

Not all rights are equal? Wow. Just...wow. Is there a citation for that?

Do you have a citation that they aren't? It's common sense.

The third prohibits the forced quartering of solders during peacetime.

The 16th allows the government to collect income tax.

The 18th creates prohibition of alcohol.

Like I said to the other guy, stop digging.

Wait, so you're saying it's "common sense" rather than a well-established fact. If I'm reading that correctly, I'm guessing you're saying "if it's a right I'm ok with, it's more important than a right I'm not ok with." Do I have that correct?

All rights are equal. How often we exercise certain rights (like the ones you listed) has nothing to do with it. If a photo ID is required for purchasing a firearm, I don't see a problem with requiring a photo ID to vote. Rights are rights and they're all equal whether you like it or not.

Dumbass tagged. Please reread the post if you need further rebuttals to your very stupid argument.


+1 for wrapping up your nonsensical stance with ad hominems. Thanks for playing.
 
2013-02-05 05:45:05 PM  
Sorry, kid. Wish your parents were more responsible and had looked after you better. So it goes.

In other news, at least 1000 children die every hour of preventable causes. What was that thing Stalin said?

Anyway, all the anti-gun ranting on here is hilarious. I think what we really need is a ban on death. Problem solved.
 
2013-02-05 05:45:46 PM  

MyRandomName: Ban pools


I don't know if this is true everywhere, but pools where I live are strictly regulated in almost the precise way most people are arguing for gun control.

No sane and sensible person is actually talking about gun bans, but they are talking about safety precautions like background checks, trigger locks, and the like.  And we already do that for pools.

If you install a pool where I live, it must be fully enclosed by wall or vertical-bar fence at least sixty inches in height with no gaps large enough to pass a four-inch sphere and at least twenty inches of separation from the water's edge.  All access gates or doors to the pool area must be self-closing and self-latching, with doorknobs and latches at least 54 inches above grade.  Windows that open into the pool's enclosed area must either be hard-limited to open no more than four inches, or be covered by a bolted-on screen.  Clearance beneath doors and gates must be no more than four inches.

So.... we've already regulated the crap out of pool safety because of the deaths it causes.  Similar precautions don't strike me as unreasonable for firearms.  Just as it ought to be nigh-impossible for a small child to gain access to your pool when it is unattended, it should be nigh-impossible for a small child to access or operate your gun when it's unattended.
 
2013-02-05 05:46:35 PM  
justtray
No, it works perfectly to argue the fact that you're 3 times more likely to have a loved one die from your gun than to kill someone in self defense. It is a perfect comparison for that argument.

That's only true because it's deceptively worded. Most uses of guns for self defense probably do not end in killing the person you're defending yourself against. In all likelihood, there are many times more unreported incidents where a brandished gun ends a confrontation. That matches my personal anecdotal experience as well as the general trend in policing.
 
2013-02-05 05:46:43 PM  

jst3p: Surpheon: jst3p: So first we ban:

It's almost like jst3p really is so stupid that he can't even comprehend of regulation short of a full ban. I think he's a liberal troll trying to make the gun right camp look like idiots with the critical thinking facilities of 5 year olds.

Most adults are after regulation. Say, regulate gun ownership perhaps half as much as we regulate bulk purchases of fertilizer.

Tell me which of the regulations being discussed by the White House would have prevented this death.


Is "be stupid" your entire argument strategy? Most adults live in the real world where regulations are proposed that balance risk reduction versus utility. Current actions taken by the White House may not have directly prevented this death but would be more likely to have done something than your childish "if it ain't perfect it's useless, USELESS" argument. I don't have time to go through everything out there, but just scanning the executive orders number 14 below will collect data to help identify any common factors (perhaps gun locks should be given free to welfare recipients, or maybe they cause more trouble than they save - we don't know since the NRA has blocked data collection). Number 15 may promote reasonable technologies, like a somewhat kid proof lock on all farking pink guns - maybe, again as an adult I look forward to having some data to evaluate ideas like that. And 16 makes sure that patients add "Remember to secure your guns now you're babysitting grandkids" to the list of questions for 70 year olds (up there with "Try to drive through the farmers market more slowly now your eyesight is going a bit").

Not smoking doesn't guarantee I'll never get cancer, but that isn't an argument for me to take up cigarettes to improve my health.
14. "Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."

15. "Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies."
16. "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes."
 
2013-02-05 05:50:54 PM  

lostcat: ThrobblefootSpectre: "In 2011, Arizona state Sen. Lori Klein (R) was criticized after she pointed her loaded raspberry-pink handgun at a reporter. "Oh, it's so cute," Klein told the reporter as she aimed the gun's laser pointer at the reporter's chest, adding that the firearm's lack of a trigger safety should not be a reason to worry."

Wholly shiat, what a freaking idiot.


See, this is the kind of behavior that bothers me.

You may be the most responsible, conscientious gun owner in the world, but how can I know that?


By definition, you are NOT a responsible gun owner if you point a gun at somebody.  Period.  End of story.

I live in AZ, and I never heard this story - I figure it would have seen more air time.
 
2013-02-05 05:52:08 PM  

justtray: Ned Stark: justtray: justtray: Click Click D'oh: rufus-t-firefly: So, you think guns should be regulated at the same level as cars?

Safety standards, licensing (after written and proficiency tests), annual registration,regular inspections, liability insurance...

Once, and only after, you apply those same standards to voting.

Why?

Still waiting for the answer to this, now that I've already answered the deflection accurately and without rebuttal.

Well, voting does has a much much higher bodycount than private gun ownership.

Already to pedantry?


No, it was a joke. I'm sure the actual answer is a bunch of mouth farts about the constitution(and coming back to the ole lappy, I see I was right).
 
2013-02-05 05:52:22 PM  

Surpheon: your childish "if it ain't perfect it's useless, USELESS" argument.


It is much easier to argue with what you pretend I said rather than what I actually said.

/I never said we should do nothing
 
2013-02-05 05:53:13 PM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: unyon: TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?

No, but if more than 500 kids a year were killed every year from toasters, you can be damned sure that there would be an outcry.

More the 500 kids a year are killed in car accidents. I'm not hearing an outcry.

Gun owners: Secure your damn weapons.


How many cars are driven each day in the US in an uncontrolled environment (i.e. not a race track)?

How many guns are fired each day in the US in an uncontrolled environment (i.e. not a firing range)?

Your comparison to cars is stupid or obtuse, take your pick.
 
2013-02-05 05:53:49 PM  

rufus-t-firefly:Are you OK with fully automatic weapons being banned? That's a pretty big infringement.

Automatic weapons aren't banned.

Just saying... might want to learn what the gun laws actually are before attempting to argue them...

rufus-t-firefly: Is every one of those "20K laws" an unconstitutional infringement of your Second Amendment rights?


You've gone to war against a straw man.

Since you have no higher cognitive functions, I'll spell it out for you.  The reason why I equate the suggested "new" gun control issue to voting rights is because recently many courts at all levels have ruled that requiring a person to pay fees, or to purchase items in order to exercise a right unfairly infringes upon the ability of certain person to exercise that right, namely the poor and certain racial groups.  Ergo, also applying those same decisions to another right, firearms ownership, you can't require a person to pay out of pocket extra fees, such as classes or ID cards since that would also unfairly infringe upon the exercise of that right by the same groups.

It's not racism when liberals do it though, is it?
 
2013-02-05 05:55:19 PM  

Surpheon: Is "be stupid" your entire argument strategy?


I think that was actually your entire argument strategy.

Surpheon:  Address risks in order of the most common. Of course bans are not the only solution (and at the moment very few are proposing a handgun ban), but you sound like a moran to huffily suggest that looking at the most common causes of preventable death before the least common is somehow a bad idea.

I bet you and I actually agree on all of the conclusions (gun regulations and whantot).  Hell I might even be to the left of you.  But man is your reasoning really farking stupid.  jst3p did his very best to clearly demonstrate to you why that was.  But you missed it in your derped up rage.
 
2013-02-05 05:56:37 PM  

Click Click D'oh: rufus-t-firefly:Are you OK with fully automatic weapons being banned? That's a pretty big infringement.

Automatic weapons aren't banned.

Just saying... might want to learn what the gun laws actually are before attempting to argue them...

rufus-t-firefly: Is every one of those "20K laws" an unconstitutional infringement of your Second Amendment rights?

You've gone to war against a straw man.

Since you have no higher cognitive functions, I'll spell it out for you.  The reason why I equate the suggested "new" gun control issue to voting rights is because recently many courts at all levels have ruled that requiring a person to pay fees, or to purchase items in order to exercise a right unfairly infringes upon the ability of certain person to exercise that right, namely the poor and certain racial groups.  Ergo, also applying those same decisions to another right, firearms ownership, you can't require a person to pay out of pocket extra fees, such as classes or ID cards since that would also unfairly infringe upon the exercise of that right by the same groups.

It's not racism when liberals do it though, is it?


We can make the license itself and the first two attempts at the test free. Bam done.
 
2013-02-05 05:58:05 PM  

ProfessorOhki: justtray: ProfessorOhki: justtray: TerminalEchoes: justtray: TerminalEchoes: justtray: Click Click D'oh: justtray: Allow me to retort this stupid argument further - we already do register to vote.

So then you have absolutely zero objection to making people take a voter education class and getting a state issued ID (that they have to pay for) before being allowed to vote?

Just making sure that you want to apply unconstitutional infringements of rights equally...

Stop digging. Your hole is deep enough.

Sorry, Ray. He has a point. The "stop digging" defense is an admission that you don't have a retort.

No he doesn't. Its already been refuted multiple times in the last 50-100 posts, including by me before he even posted this. Not all rights are equal, and therefore we don't apply regulations equally. Pretty simple if you're not a simpleton.

Not all rights are equal? Wow. Just...wow. Is there a citation for that?

Do you have a citation that they aren't? It's common sense.

The third prohibits the forced quartering of solders during peacetime.

The 16th allows the government to collect income tax.

The 18th creates prohibition of alcohol.

Like I said to the other guy, stop digging.

So... does the 21st override the 18th or not?

I don't know. They're all equal!

As opposed to your method of "lower numbers mean more better" which bans beer forever? If you're going to try to create priorities between them, you must go in reverse chronological order, which means that if they're not all equal, the 2nd is the least meaningful... right above that crappy free speech/religiony thing... right?


I CAN TYPING
 
2013-02-05 05:58:40 PM  

Click Click D'oh: Since you have no higher cognitive functions, I'll spell it out for you. The reason why I equate the suggested "new" gun control issue to voting rights is because recently many courts at all levels have ruled that requiring a person to pay fees, or to purchase items in order to exercise a right unfairly infringes upon the ability of certain person to exercise that right, namely the poor and certain racial groups. Ergo, also applying those same decisions to another right, firearms ownership, you can't require a person to pay out of pocket extra fees, such as classes or ID cards since that would also unfairly infringe upon the exercise of that right by the same groups.


You are making an argument for why the government should provide free guns to everyone.  I mean, in your conclusion you specified "extra fees" but your reasoning logically leads to "any fees."  Do you actually believe that?

I'd venture the answer is no.  So why are the current costs of purchasing a gun constitutional, yet any future cost unconstitutional?  What is different about them?  The difference for voting is zero versus non-zero.  What's the difference for guns?
 
2013-02-05 05:58:53 PM  

Click Click D'oh: rufus-t-firefly: Is every one of those "20K laws" an unconstitutional infringement of your Second Amendment rights?

You've gone to war against a straw man.

Since you have no higher cognitive functions, I'll spell it out for you. The reason why I equate the suggested "new" gun control issue to voting rights is because recently many courts at all levels have ruled that requiring a person to pay fees, or to purchase items in order to exercise a right unfairly infringes upon the ability of certain person to exercise that right, namely the poor and certain racial groups. Ergo, also applying those same decisions to another right, firearms ownership, you can't require a person to pay out of pocket extra fees, such as classes or ID cards since that would also unfairly infringe upon the exercise of that right by the same groups.

It's not racism when liberals do it though, is it?


Another divisive example: making people obtain permits and/or insurance to peaceably assemble and/or speak.
 
2013-02-05 05:58:58 PM  
I'm sure it's been addressed in the 400+ rantings above, but as someone who doesn't know much about guns, here's my concern: If you hear a prowler breaking into your home in the middle of the night, and the noise has just awakened you so you're a little foggy on exactly what is happening, how long does it take to unlock the gun case, load the gun, and be up and ready to fire (all done silently and in the dark) before the invader is on top of you, already ready with their own gun/knife/sword/axe/rope/anvil/weener? How long does it take if you're an untrained geriatric? How long does it take if you're ex- or active military? How long does it take if you are a female? How many home invasions have been successfully stopped by responsible gun owners vs. home invasions stopped by irresponsible ones? How many invasions haven't been stopped by either? What if the person came into your house unarmed, with just the advantage of the element of surprise and was able to wrestle away your own gun and harm and/or kill you with it? I demand citations and junk.
 
2013-02-05 06:02:15 PM  

magicgoo: I'm sure it's been addressed in the 400+ rantings above, but as someone who doesn't know much about guns, here's my concern: If you hear a prowler breaking into your home in the middle of the night, and the noise has just awakened you so you're a little foggy on exactly what is happening, how long does it take to unlock the gun case, load the gun, and be up and ready to fire (all done silently and in the dark) before the invader is on top of you, already ready with their own gun/knife/sword/axe/rope/anvil/weener? How long does it take if you're an untrained geriatric? How long does it take if you're ex- or active military? How long does it take if you are a female? How many home invasions have been successfully stopped by responsible gun owners vs. home invasions stopped by irresponsible ones? How many invasions haven't been stopped by either? What if the person came into your house unarmed, with just the advantage of the element of surprise and was able to wrestle away your own gun and harm and/or kill you with it? I demand citations and junk.


i hate when invaders attack me with an anvil

we need to ban anvils
 
2013-02-05 06:03:14 PM  

lennavan: Click Click D'oh: Since you have no higher cognitive functions, I'll spell it out for you. The reason why I equate the suggested "new" gun control issue to voting rights is because recently many courts at all levels have ruled that requiring a person to pay fees, or to purchase items in order to exercise a right unfairly infringes upon the ability of certain person to exercise that right, namely the poor and certain racial groups. Ergo, also applying those same decisions to another right, firearms ownership, you can't require a person to pay out of pocket extra fees, such as classes or ID cards since that would also unfairly infringe upon the exercise of that right by the same groups.

You are making an argument for why the government should provide free guns to everyone.  I mean, in your conclusion you specified "extra fees" but your reasoning logically leads to "any fees."  Do you actually believe that?

I'd venture the answer is no.  So why are the current costs of purchasing a gun constitutional, yet any future cost unconstitutional?  What is different about them?  The difference for voting is zero versus non-zero.  What's the difference for guns?


Easy to see the difference. Having to pay for the gun itself isn't the government infringing on the right. If the only place you could buy guns was from the government and they were free that would probably be fine. If the only place you could buy them from the government and you had to pay an arbitrary price... that one might not pass the smell test. Voting's not a great analogy because voting is fulfilled by the government itself.
 
2013-02-05 06:04:33 PM  

I drunk what: i hate when invaders attack me with an anvil


If you'd just leave that poor roadrunner alone, you wouldn't have any problems!
/And, find a better supply company than ACME!
 
2013-02-05 06:04:36 PM  
We need to ban assault weapons like this. There's no reason for them.
i.imgur.com
 
2013-02-05 06:04:36 PM  

Dixon Cider: TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?

When were toasters designed to kill?


When were toasters a protected right?
 
2013-02-05 06:05:08 PM  

magicgoo: I'm sure it's been addressed in the 400+ rantings above, but as someone who doesn't know much about guns, here's my concern: ... I demand citations and junk.


The difference you are getting at as I see it is active defense versus passive defense, which has better outcomes.  My first concern with that line of thinking is it might lead to a conclusion where people cannot actively defend themselves.  A person may have a higher percent chance of survival if they just sit there and take it but they gotta live with themselves the next day/week/month/year.  For some, it would be easier to know they didn't sit there and take it.

My second concern with your line of thinking is you're asking government to make decisions about myself, for myself.  If you're not hurting anyone else, why does the government care?  If I'm a 90 year old cripple and I know damn well owning a gun quadruples my chance of getting killed by an intruder, why does the government (or you for that matter) care?

I'm pro gun regulation, I just think you're making the wrong argument.
 
2013-02-05 06:05:25 PM  

feckingmorons: If you're too stupid to own a gun you should most certainly give it to someone responsible or turn it in to be destroyed.


You've never heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect?
 
2013-02-05 06:05:38 PM  

JRoo: Maybe if all the stupid gun owners shoot their own offspring, or vice versa, and then kill themselves, the problem will sort itself out.

We just have to protect the innocent bystanders.


Why be passive about it? Obviously you want us dead, so why not murder us yourself? Waiting for me to have some sort of fatal event with a gun is not very efficient, as I don't have a kid to shoot me. I'm also show no suicidal tendencies, and I exercise caution when operating a firearm. Why not do your own dirty work?
 
2013-02-05 06:08:10 PM  

lennavan: I'd venture the answer is no.  So why are the current costs of purchasing a gun constitutional, yet any future cost unconstitutional?  What is different about them?  The difference for voting is zero versus non-zero.  What's the difference for guns?


Because the Second Amendment restricts Congress from making laws infringing on the right.

The price of guns going up right now is the force of the market. Congress isn't passing any laws to do that. If Congress passes a law to infringe by requiring mandatory competency or other extra costs, *that's* an infringement and unconstitutional.
 
2013-02-05 06:08:23 PM  

jso2897: Why should guns not be treated the same? Like cars, they are dangerous tools, and capable of killing - whatever their intended use.


They pretty much are.  If you're not driving a car on public roads/property, you don't need a license, registration, or any of that.  In most states if you're carrying concealed you need a permit.

justtray: No, it works perfectly to argue the fact that you're 3 times more likely to have a loved one die from your gun than to kill someone in self defense. It is a perfect comparison for that argument.


Except that's not a good statistic.  It includes cases of self defense against your spouse, deliberate violence against your spouse, suicides, and illegal owners(those with felony convictions, for example), gang bangers, etc...
 
2013-02-05 06:08:28 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Voting's not a great analogy because voting is fulfilled by the government itself.


This is where I was going.  Voting is an absolutely terrible analogy.

ProfessorOhki: Having to pay for the gun itself isn't the government infringing on the right.


What I think he was getting at was if the government added or increased the tax on a gun or presumably anything related to "arms" that would be unconstitutional, pointing to voting as his reason.  I think you and I can get together and recognize that as stupid.
 
2013-02-05 06:09:26 PM  

lennavan:  So why are the current costs of purchasing a gun constitutional, yet any future cost unconstitutional?

The Constitution applies to the government, not a private businesses.  It's not unconstitutional for a private business to charge you for their products, or else internet subscription fees would be unconstitutional.

Although, that would be an interesting court challenge it internet voting ever got some steam behind it...

ProfessorOhki: Another divisive example: making people obtain permits and/or insurance to peaceably assemble and/or speak.


Ah, but you only pay for permitting fees if you choose to speak in a public place, not in your own home.  Which does bring up and interesting case for permitting for carry in a public place, but not for the ownership of a firearm in your own home.
 
2013-02-05 06:10:10 PM  

encyclopediaplushuman: WTF Indeed: It's the gun's fault, not the parents. This is why the anti-gun lobby will never win.

Until the gun rights lobby can embrace logical regulation like training classes, gun locks, and gun safes, both sides won't settle themselves.


You and I know that they won't be satisfied with that.

Just like all the Farmers declaring that Obama or the Dems had no interest in banning guns and that we 'won' the debate.

The only reason gun grabbers even suggest things like training is to raise the cost of ownership. Or when was the last time legislation proposed that included a statement that compliance cost would be covered by the government?
 
2013-02-05 06:10:11 PM  
Pink handguns? Because when I go gunfighting, I like to be reminded how feminine I am?
 
2013-02-05 06:10:38 PM  
Take away my freedom of speech?  Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
Take away my right against unreasonable search and seizure?  Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
Take away my right to a jury of my peers?  Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
Take away my freedom of religion?   Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
Take away the freedom of the press?  Help! Help! We're being repressed!
Take away the right of the people to keep and bear arms?  Ah, screw it.
 
2013-02-05 06:11:41 PM  

TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?


No, but we now build homes with the electrical system meeting code that would cause the breakers to kick on, thereby preventing the toaster with a fork in it from doing anything dangerous.  What the NRA wants to no code, no breakers, and a bright pink toaster with a fun-shaped fork for kids to play with.
 
2013-02-05 06:13:38 PM  

Ned Stark: We can make the license itself and the first two attempts at the test free. Bam done.


As much as I would love to see a guaranteed government income from my training classes, I for some reason don't see there being a government funded firearms training/licensing/testing program.

Last time the government did that they eventually privatized it.
 
2013-02-05 06:14:25 PM  

asmodeus224: Dimensio: GAT_00: God Bless an America where this not only happens but is defended by gun owners.

I have attempted to locate a posting in which the reckless and negligent storage of a firearm in a location accessible to a small child was defended, but I have found none. Are you lying again?

So then, a law that would require safety measures (gun locks, gun safes) be applied under penalty of negligence would be OK then?  How about a national advertising campaign federally funded by the CDC, ATF, Health Depts encouraging gun locks and safes in addition to highlighting the dangers of guns in the home too?  Would that be ok?


Umm wtf are you replying to? That has nothing to do with what he said. Ie . Quit trolling.
 
2013-02-05 06:14:29 PM  

Nabb1: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

This is stupid parenting. It is a gun issue, but this could happen with anything else in your house that looks attractive to a kid.  If you put Drano in a pink sippy cup and leave it out, you're probably going to end up with a similar result.  If you have kids in the house, you keep guns under lock and key out of reach of little hands.  And for the life if me, I don't know why anyone would own a pink gun if they have kids.


Should have owned an assault weapon, because it looks mean and nasty and would scare away grown up men, so definitely would scare away the little tots. So claims Gayle Trotter.
 
2013-02-05 06:14:54 PM  

odinsposse: Dixon Cider: odinsposse: Dixon Cider: odinsposse: lostcat: So your argument is that guns were designed to sit in gun safes or to be used for target practice...(Practice implying what? Practice for putting more holes in paper?)

No. It's that saying "Guns were designed to kill" is a meaningless phrase and not an argument of any kind.

Just the truth...

An irrelevant one.

Only if you are obtuse and afraid to face facts..
Does this hold true for other weapons? Or just ones in stories like this?

Do you look at a B52 and think of a lazy ride across the ocean?
Do you look at a M249 and think.. "I could use this to get someones attention a mile away!"

I'm saying we should look at reality rather than imagine that guns are plotting to kill us.


I have yet to hear that argument raised...

Care to expand on our future Gun Overlords? I for one, do not welcome them!
 
2013-02-05 06:14:55 PM  

I drunk what: i hate when invaders attack me with an anvil

we need to ban anvils


When anvils are outlawed only outlaws will have anvils.
 
2013-02-05 06:16:16 PM  

dericwater: What the NRA wants to no code, no breakers, and a bright pink toaster with a fun-shaped fork for kids to play with.



As long as people either willingly repeat these sorts of lies, or are too lazy to determine for themselves how fraudulent they are, the discussion about firearms can never be rational and productive
 
2013-02-05 06:16:26 PM  

mrexcess: justtray
No, it works perfectly to argue the fact that you're 3 times more likely to have a loved one die from your gun than to kill someone in self defense. It is a perfect comparison for that argument.

That's only true because it's deceptively worded. Most uses of guns for self defense probably do not end in killing the person you're defending yourself against. In all likelihood, there are many times more unreported incidents where a brandished gun ends a confrontation. That matches my personal anecdotal experience as well as the general trend in policing.


Actually, at least according to the CDC and FBI numbers cited, you are only 3x as likely to accidentally kill someone with a gun than to commit justifiable homicide with a firearm.  Intentional gun homicides by private citizens outnumber justifiable homicides by closer to 50 to 1, and suicides by about 100 to 1.  (Back of the envelope calculation, see links for stats)  I haven't found official stats specific to killing family members with guns, yet...

I'm curious about your "general trend" involving non-fatal use of firearms.  The only stats I can find involve 31,000 non-fatal gun injuries, 20,000 suicides and around 10,000 homicides for about 200 justifiable gun homicides by private citizens.
 
2013-02-05 06:17:46 PM  

sufferpuppet: Dixon Cider: Oh yeah... death by musket was all the rage!! That is why is so predominate in our history...
Wait, you have a citation for this, correct?

You mean like the Revolution and the Civil War?  Are those predominant events in our history?


Sure... but you care to tell me how this even remotely close to anything that resembles the context it was used in?


Subject matter! What does it even mean????
 
2013-02-05 06:18:00 PM  

mrexcess: Theaetetus
Frankly, I'd rather not have a panicky person waving a gun around their family.

You'd better take away all the guns from police and the military, too, then, because nobody is immune to the effects of adrenaline. We aren't talking about Johnny Jitters spazzing out, this is something anyone in a stressful situation experiences. It's why police shooting incidents are usually along the lines of "30-50 shots were fired, 4 rounds striking the suspect". The reality is that fine motor control dissipates as adrenaline kicks in. I get the sense that you'd rather not have anyone be armed, but your preference there is not pragmatic.

Maybe the combination feature is an advantage, like a DUI ignition lock, that says "you must be at least this calm to access your gun."

So you're OK with people not being able to defend themselves against home invasions?

How would it make you feel to know that I, personally, might very well have been killed as a 10 year old had it not been for my brother answering the door that was being pried open by two dangerous criminals while we slept with a loaded pistol pointed at their faces? Are you really OK with taking the gun away in that situation? Because I'm not.


Ah, so you'd agree with my 125 dB alarm and instant 911 call idea, then, since that would have helped scare off and/or detain those two dangerous criminals, right? After all, if your brother had been just 15 seconds slower, or if they had had a gun too, then you very well could have been killed or worse, at a time when the police and your neighbors could have been speeding over to save you. Are you really OK with children dying in such situations without help, because I'm not.
 
2013-02-05 06:19:28 PM  
I'm coming late to the picnic, I know, but I find that whenever I ask one of these NRAphiles about "sensible legislation," they start telling me stories.

Wayne LaPierre is a REALLY good storyteller. There's probably nobody finer when it comes to ensuring that no sensible gun legislation is ever passed on the basis of something he just made up on the spot. "Women need assault rifles to defend themselves because what if they're alone in the house and they've called the police and there's eleven intruders and the clip in the handgun only holds ten rounds and the cops won't show up for twenty minutes OH MY GOD THEY FOUND HER THEY'RE OPENING THE CLOSET DOOR FIRE LADY FIRE!"

And the neat thing is that he can always add one to the number of intruders. Limit clips to fifteen rounds? Sixteen intruders. Limit clips to twenty rounds? Twenty-one intruders. They've used these stories to strip away requirements for gun safes, gun locks, background checks and waiting periods. They've used these stories to ensure that the mentally ill have easy access to military grade weapons and unlimited ammunition. They can ALWAYS whip up a hypothetical showing why nothing should ever change.

After some police officers got shot trying to rescue a woman from a domestic violence situation, someone suggested that maybe people who have restraining orders against them for domestic violence reasons should have their guns taken away for a while. You know, so police officers don't get shot from bedroom windows while trying to help domestic violence victims escape an abusive situation. Just a thought.

The local version of the NRA instantly crapped itself. Because what if it turns out the woman was lying about the abuse and in reality she was the abuser and now she has a domestic violence restraining order against her husband and he doesn't have any guns now so she can come in with a gun and shoot him any time she wants.

Seriously. THAT WAS THE RATIONALE.

The whole "disarm domestic abusers" thing lost momentum, though whether it was because of the NRA's flights of fancy, I don't know. Anyway, nothing got done. Nothing WILL get done.

Nothing's going to change, I'm going to shake my tiny fists in impotent anger next time something like this happens, and we'll all get on with life.
 
2013-02-05 06:20:24 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Congress passes a law to infringe by requiring mandatory competency or other extra costs, *that's* an infringement and unconstitutional.


Well, that's your opinion at least.  You know who disagrees with you?  Probably all 9 justices but certianly the majority opinion of the Supreme Court.  From DC v. Heller:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Lenny_da_Hog: The price of guns going up right now is the force of the market.


And in Chicago the price is also going up because of a new tax.  That would of course directly contradict your belief that extra costs is unconstitutional.
 
2013-02-05 06:21:42 PM  

vpb: FlashHarry: encyclopediaplushuman: [i48.tinypic.com image 615x345]
the handgun

yeah, that looks like a toy, alright.

I know a guy who had one just like that.

He was a lumberjack and he was OK.


A pink handgun is a great idea for men or women.  An adversary would have a "WTF?" moment which would be an advantage.
 
2013-02-05 06:22:14 PM  

Click Click D'oh: lennavan: So why are the current costs of purchasing a gun constitutional, yet any future cost unconstitutional?

The Constitution applies to the government, not a private businesses.


We are of course talking about taxes imposed by the government on top of the private business.  Or did you think gun purchases are tax free?
 
2013-02-05 06:22:37 PM  

Theaetetus: Ah, so you'd agree with my 125 dB alarm and instant 911 call idea,


Wouldn't be very helpful since most major police departments don't respond to alarm calls anymore.... and when is the last time someone came running to see what's up with the alarm going off?

The cops would probably show up a couple days later on a welfare call and wonder why there were two dead kids with cotton balls stuffed in their ears.
 
2013-02-05 06:22:44 PM  

lostcat: ProfessorOhki: lostcat: ProfessorOhki: lostcat: The important detail that isn't in this list is that the majority of these deaths occurred because of some behavior on the part of the deceased, or through natural causes. Peope tend to get a little more upset about death that is caused by someone else, intentionally.

Uh, most kids killed by guns aren't intentional, right? Like this story?

I give up. People just walk in in the middle of a discussion, missing the bulk of the debate, and make some comment that completely misses the point. Too annoying.

You mean like drawing a line between intentional increasing the emotional response in the context of an article about an unintentional death? Yeah, those people should probably just sit quietly.

Can you see that there would be a different public reaction to the following news stories:

1. Person kills self with gun

2. Person killed by stranger with gun

3. Child killed while playing with gun

4. Person shot to death in argument that escalated to gunfight

My assumption would be that the biggest public outcry would come from story 2, followed by story 3.

People tend to be upset by the notion of someone murdering someone else for no apparent reason. It upsets our desire for a world in which things happen for a reason.

Using death statistics to show that gun deaths make up a small number of murders, and that murders are just a small percentage of total deaths does not take into account our desire to live lives in which we don't die at the hands of strangers.

Most of us can accept that we my die in an accident, where there was no intent (although carelessness is almost as bad). Most of us can accept that we will die of a disease, especially if we do not take particularly good care of ourselves.

But people react to the idea of another person killing them intentionaly, and will little or no provocation.

Don't believe me? Look at the plots of action/suspense films where revenge is a motivating factor for the protagonist ...


What an excellent statement.

You're right.  When I lived in L.A. the biggest stories were always random drive by shooting.  The people interviewed were ANGRY. Even people who weren't in the neighborhood was ANGRY in the interviews. Gang member related drive bys? Drug related? Barely mentioned. But random? That's an entire 10 minute segment.
 
2013-02-05 06:23:19 PM  

Frank N Stein: Nabb1: Frank N Stein: [24.media.tumblr.com image 500x379]

Is that Costanza?  Holy crap.

Some 4channer had it custom made.

/yes, an armed 4channer


Okay, now I am staunchly in favor of gun control. Post of 4chan? Lose your 2nd Amendment rights.

/ not really
 
2013-02-05 06:23:39 PM  
How do we know he thought  it was a toy?
 
2013-02-05 06:24:33 PM  

Click Click D'oh: ProfessorOhki: Another divisive example: making people obtain permits and/or insurance to peaceably assemble and/or speak.

Ah, but you only pay for permitting fees if you choose to speak in a public place, not in your own home. Which does bring up and interesting case for permitting for carry in a public place, but not for the ownership of a firearm in your own home.


Yeah, some semblance of consistency would be nice. Making insurance part of the requirement to carry a weapon in a public place would be vaguely in line with what they can do for speech these days. Not saying I'm a fan, but it seems like it'd be within reach of legislation. I'd really prefer they strengthen the first rather than weaken the second though.
 
2013-02-05 06:24:50 PM  

Firethorn: jso2897: Why should guns not be treated the same? Like cars, they are dangerous tools, and capable of killing - whatever their intended use.

They pretty much are.  If you're not driving a car on public roads/property, you don't need a license, registration, or any of that.  In most states if you're carrying concealed you need a permit.

justtray: No, it works perfectly to argue the fact that you're 3 times more likely to have a loved one die from your gun than to kill someone in self defense. It is a perfect comparison for that argument.

Except that's not a good statistic.  It includes cases of self defense against your spouse, deliberate violence against your spouse, suicides, and illegal owners(those with felony convictions, for example), gang bangers, etc...


No, it's statistically valid, doesn't include suicides, can and should include violence against spouses (why wouldnt it?), and I don't even know what you're derping about with illegal owners and gang bangers.

Try again.
 
2013-02-05 06:26:06 PM  

peasandcarrots: After some police officers got shot trying to rescue a woman from a domestic violence situation, someone suggested that maybe people who have restraining orders against them for domestic violence reasons should have their guns taken away for a while. You know, so police officers don't get shot from bedroom windows while trying to help domestic violence victims escape an abusive situation. Just a thought.


Oh come on, at least learn the gun laws:

Title 15
§393. Possession of firearms prohibited for certain persons
D. Is subject to an order of a court of the United States or a state, territory, commonwealth or tribe that restrains that person from harassing, stalking or threatening an intimate partner, as defined in 18 United States Code, Section 921(a), of that person or a child of the intimate partner of that person, or from engaging in other conduct that would place the intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the intimate partner or the child, except that this paragraph applies only to a court order that was issued after a hearing for which that person received actual notice and at which that person had the opportunity to participate and that:(1) Includes a finding that the person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner or a child; or(2) By its terms, explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force against an intimate partner or a child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or [2007, c. 670, §5 (AMD).]


It's already in the law.
 
2013-02-05 06:26:13 PM  

tallen702: spawn73: TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?

That's because electricity has a useful function.

My Mini-30 is really useful at keeping coyotes and foxes away from my chickens and groundhogs from tearing up my crops. My .308 is fantastic for putting venison on the dinner table and my 12ga is fantastic for putting turkey, pheasant, and grouse there too.


Was that handgun for hunting?

No, it wasn't was it?
 
2013-02-05 06:26:26 PM  

odinsposse: Actually this is a particularly bad argument. The "guns are designed to kill" argument is totally irrational and has no value. Design has little to do with how we should regard something. The overwhelming majority of gun use is either sitting in safes or putting holes in paper. They are not killing or harming anything. There are plenty of things we use without regard for their design. Viagra was designed to treat heart disease. WD-40 was designed to prevent rusting. The Slinky was designed for use on naval ships.

So the design, or intent if you're into anthropomorphism, of an object has little bearing on how we actually use it and it is senseless to treat it based on that rather than the real world way they are used.


You are so wrong here. We all know what guns are designed and built for: they're for the use of killing other humans. Putting holes in paper is practice. Hunting animals is the secondary unintended consequence of the creation of a gun (your Viagra analogy, for example). We all know the history of guns, cannons, gun powder and how they were used in the 1300s or 1400s. When properly used, there should be a dead person or persons.  Sitting in a gun safe is not proper use of a gun. It's a safe and sane method of storing said gun when it's not in use.

People die of various things every day, from trips and falls to car accidents and so on.  In almost all those cases, it's unintentional and accidental (some may have been done on purpose, in which case it's manslaughter or murder). Dying from a gunshot is especially egregious because THAT'S WHAT A GUN DOES: kill people. I can't think of another device, object or what have you that designed with its primary purpose to kill people. Maybe the electric chair or the gas chamber. Luckily, we don't have those lolling around in our homes.
 
2013-02-05 06:26:30 PM  

2headedboy: Take away my freedom of speech?  Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
Take away my right against unreasonable search and seizure?  Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
Take away my right to a jury of my peers?  Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
Take away my freedom of religion?   Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
Take away the freedom of the press?  Help! Help! We're being repressed!
Take away the right of the people to keep and bear arms?  Ah, screw it.



Which are needed for a modern civilized society, and which are obsolete?
 
2013-02-05 06:27:23 PM  

Click Click D'oh: Theaetetus: Ah, so you'd agree with my 125 dB alarm and instant 911 call idea,

Wouldn't be very helpful since most major police departments don't respond to alarm calls anymore.... and when is the last time someone came running to see what's up with the alarm going off?

The cops would probably show up a couple days later on a welfare call and wonder why there were two dead kids with cotton balls stuffed in their ears.


This is true. Set off my alarm once and couldn't keep the stupid auto-call thing from happening. PD showed up 3.5 hours later, "stuff okay? cool. bye."
 
2013-02-05 06:27:44 PM  

feckingmorons: Responsible gun owners keep their guns away from children and people not lawfully allowed to posses handguns. Failing to do so in most jurisdictions can and should result in criminal charges for the irresponsible gun owners.

I am in favor of responsible gun ownership, people who can't be responsible don't deserve to own guns.

The fact that is was pink and a child might be more likely to mistake it for a toy, as it apparently was in this case, is all the more reason to secure your guns when not in your immediate control.


It's the parents' fault for not teaching this boy that pink is only for girls.
 
2013-02-05 06:28:36 PM  

ProfessorOhki: lennavan: Click Click D'oh: Since you have no higher cognitive functions, I'll spell it out for you. The reason why I equate the suggested "new" gun control issue to voting rights is because recently many courts at all levels have ruled that requiring a person to pay fees, or to purchase items in order to exercise a right unfairly infringes upon the ability of certain person to exercise that right, namely the poor and certain racial groups. Ergo, also applying those same decisions to another right, firearms ownership, you can't require a person to pay out of pocket extra fees, such as classes or ID cards since that would also unfairly infringe upon the exercise of that right by the same groups.

You are making an argument for why the government should provide free guns to everyone.  I mean, in your conclusion you specified "extra fees" but your reasoning logically leads to "any fees."  Do you actually believe that?

I'd venture the answer is no.  So why are the current costs of purchasing a gun constitutional, yet any future cost unconstitutional?  What is different about them?  The difference for voting is zero versus non-zero.  What's the difference for guns?

Easy to see the difference. Having to pay for the gun itself isn't the government infringing on the right. If the only place you could buy guns was from the government and they were free that would probably be fine. If the only place you could buy them from the government and you had to pay an arbitrary price... that one might not pass the smell test. Voting's not a great analogy because voting is fulfilled by the government itself.


So we should put a 100% tax on all guns, because by your definition it is not infringing on the right to own them. Agreed, and in fact there's prescedent too, in the NFA.
 
2013-02-05 06:29:57 PM  

ProfessorOhki: justtray: ProfessorOhki: justtray: TerminalEchoes: justtray: TerminalEchoes: justtray: Click Click D'oh: justtray: Allow me to retort this stupid argument further - we already do register to vote.

So then you have absolutely zero objection to making people take a voter education class and getting a state issued ID (that they have to pay for) before being allowed to vote?

Just making sure that you want to apply unconstitutional infringements of rights equally...

Stop digging. Your hole is deep enough.

Sorry, Ray. He has a point. The "stop digging" defense is an admission that you don't have a retort.

No he doesn't. Its already been refuted multiple times in the last 50-100 posts, including by me before he even posted this. Not all rights are equal, and therefore we don't apply regulations equally. Pretty simple if you're not a simpleton.

Not all rights are equal? Wow. Just...wow. Is there a citation for that?

Do you have a citation that they aren't? It's common sense.

The third prohibits the forced quartering of solders during peacetime.

The 16th allows the government to collect income tax.

The 18th creates prohibition of alcohol.

Like I said to the other guy, stop digging.

So... does the 21st override the 18th or not?

I don't know. They're all equal!

As opposed to your method of "lower numbers mean more better" which bans beer forever? If you're going to try to create priorities between them, you must go in reverse chronological order, which means that if they're not all equal, the 2nd is the least meaningful... right above that crappy free speech/religiony thing... right?


Strawman alert.

I said each should be judged based on it's merits, which is valid, accurate, practical, and logically sensible. "They're all equal!" is clearly not.
 
2013-02-05 06:30:53 PM  

R.A.Danny: FlashHarry: R.A.Danny: FlashHarry: the owner of this weapon should be arrested for manslaughter.

I'm ok with this. It's not really a gun issue if you ask me, it could be any dangerous item.

i agree. i'm not opposed to owning handguns for home defense. but a pink gun? in a house with children? that's like giving them a lighter in a room full of oily rags. you are negligent and should be held liable.

Wouldn't any parent want to keep their kids safe? I'm finding this story to be particularly upsetting for some reason. I almost feel like the parents set the kids up to kill themselves.
You already know I'm a total gun nut, totally a Second Amendment goofball.
But I'm also a parent. I lock my firearms up. I don't own firearms that look like toys. I keep medicine well out of reach. I keep the draino.. Well I use it if need be and get it out of the house. There has to be something terribly wrong with these parents and it's pissing me off.


WHY DO YOU HATE FREEDOM?!?

Seriously, we can't make toy guns look real, but we can make real guns look like toys? Thanks NRA.
 
2013-02-05 06:30:53 PM  

lennavan: We are of course talking about taxes imposed by the government on top of the private business.  Or did you think gun purchases are tax free?


The FAET is applied to the producer or importer of the firearm, not on the purchaser.... which we all know means it's passed on to the purchaser, but it remains constitutional by not being directly aimed at the person exercising the right.  You can of course, if you want, produce your own firearm and there are no taxes or registration fees applied to it at all.  Hence, there are a lot of people that buy unbent AK plates or 80% AR receivers and complete the build themselves.
 
2013-02-05 06:31:11 PM  

Ned Stark: justtray: Ned Stark: justtray: justtray: Click Click D'oh: rufus-t-firefly: So, you think guns should be regulated at the same level as cars?

Safety standards, licensing (after written and proficiency tests), annual registration,regular inspections, liability insurance...

Once, and only after, you apply those same standards to voting.

Why?

Still waiting for the answer to this, now that I've already answered the deflection accurately and without rebuttal.

Well, voting does has a much much higher bodycount than private gun ownership.

Already to pedantry?

No, it was a joke. I'm sure the actual answer is a bunch of mouth farts about the constitution(and coming back to the ole lappy, I see I was right).


I apologize. It's hard to tell the sarcasm when there's this many derps in the water.
 
2013-02-05 06:32:27 PM  

indarwinsshadow: Here's my idea. You kept to keep your guns as the law was written and intended....I'm pretty sure your law was never designed to keep fully automatic rifles and large caliber multishot handguns.


Yeah? How are "arms" defined in relation to the Second Amendment?
 
2013-02-05 06:33:38 PM  

Click Click D'oh: The FAET is applied to the producer or importer of the firearm, not on the purchaser


The purchaser pays sales tax.
 
2013-02-05 06:35:47 PM  

justtray: ProfessorOhki: lennavan: Click Click D'oh: Since you have no higher cognitive functions, I'll spell it out for you. The reason why I equate the suggested "new" gun control issue to voting rights is because recently many courts at all levels have ruled that requiring a person to pay fees, or to purchase items in order to exercise a right unfairly infringes upon the ability of certain person to exercise that right, namely the poor and certain racial groups. Ergo, also applying those same decisions to another right, firearms ownership, you can't require a person to pay out of pocket extra fees, such as classes or ID cards since that would also unfairly infringe upon the exercise of that right by the same groups.

You are making an argument for why the government should provide free guns to everyone.  I mean, in your conclusion you specified "extra fees" but your reasoning logically leads to "any fees."  Do you actually believe that?

I'd venture the answer is no.  So why are the current costs of purchasing a gun constitutional, yet any future cost unconstitutional?  What is different about them?  The difference for voting is zero versus non-zero.  What's the difference for guns?

Easy to see the difference. Having to pay for the gun itself isn't the government infringing on the right. If the only place you could buy guns was from the government and they were free that would probably be fine. If the only place you could buy them from the government and you had to pay an arbitrary price... that one might not pass the smell test. Voting's not a great analogy because voting is fulfilled by the government itself.

So we should put a 100% tax on all guns, because by your definition it is not infringing on the right to own them. Agreed, and in fact there's prescedent too, in the NFA.


No, by my definition, that IS infringing on the right to own them because the barrier is coming from the government. Please read more closely. That post was a example of why "well guns aren't free" is null because it's not the government erecting that barrier. If you really want to get into grey area, you tax the shops on some non-gun criteria that they can't avoid and then rely on them to pass the cost on to the customer, probably still run afoul of the 2nd.

If Steve's Guns charges you $500 for a gun and Bob's Guns charges you $1000 for the same gun, there's no constitutional issue. If They both charge you $250, but there's a tax of $250 then it IS. It's not the amount of the cost, it's who put that cost into place. If every gun manufacturer, with no push from the government increased the price of guns and ammunition 1000x (except for the obvious price-fixing), doesn't seem like it'd be an issue.
 
2013-02-05 06:36:07 PM  
Just a well-regulated militia member here, nothing to see. Stick the kid in the ground and let's move along and pretend everything is fine.
 
2013-02-05 06:36:11 PM  

bradkanus: TNel: Nabb1: TNel: Nabb1:

The kid's name was "Tmorej."  I doubt Ma is the keynote speaker at any Mensa meetings.

So because their parents named them a weird name that makes them stupid?  I mean I had no say on what my name is and neither did you.   Or should I get out the "that's racist" gif for you.

Something, something, read "Freakanomics," etc. There's "weird names" and "names that appear to have been picked by grabbing some random Scrabble tiles out of the bag."  I'm going with the totality of the evidence, here: a kid named "Tmorej," a pink semi-automatic handgun, a pink semi-automatic handgun that is stored loaded and unsecured in a house with small children.  I fell pretty confident this woman is probably not a person of hefty intellect.  I feel terrible for that child, but the mother is totally to blame for this tragedy.

I don't need to read anything.  You said you can judge someone's mental ability just by their name as per my quote of you.  Again just because someone has a "names that appear to have been picked by grabbing some random Scrabble tiles out of the bag."means NOTHING.

Means something.  There's a ton of factors that go into why a parent names a kid what they named them. Socio-economic factors are at the top.  I'm not saying in this case there's a definitive link to something, but saying what a kid is named has nothing to do with what kind of parent they have is just wrong.  What kind of parent names a kid "Hitler" in this day and age.  Exactly.


With a name like "Tmorej" he wouldn't have lasted much longer, anyhow.  Maybe it was a suicide.
 
2013-02-05 06:37:12 PM  

ProfessorOhki: If Steve's Guns charges you $500 for a gun and Bob's Guns charges you $1000 for the same gun, there's no constitutional issue. If They both charge you $250, but there's a tax of $250 then it IS.


Reality would like a word with you.
 
2013-02-05 06:37:57 PM  
Today's vehicle sadness......


dc.streetsblog.org


madisonfloridavoice.net

There were NO survivors.


BAN VEHICLES NOW!

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
 
2013-02-05 06:38:20 PM  

justtray: I said each should be judged based on it's merits, which is valid, accurate, practical, and logically sensible. "They're all equal!" is clearly not.


No you didn't, you said, "it's common sense" and then listed them in numerical order, skipping arbitrarily so that they matched in priority by common sense.
 
2013-02-05 06:41:47 PM  

dericwater: TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?

No, but we now build homes with the electrical system meeting code that would cause the breakers to kick on, thereby preventing the toaster with a fork in it from doing anything dangerous.  What the NRA wants to no code, no breakers, and a bright pink toaster with a fun-shaped fork for kids to play with.


Circuit breakers protect wires, not people. That's why the amps on a fuse or breaker are sized to the wire length and gauge, not the product on the end.
 
2013-02-05 06:41:55 PM  
So we need to ban guns that don't look scary enough. And we need to ban scary looking ones also. The ones somewhere in the middle are ok though?
 
2013-02-05 06:45:15 PM  

clane: Unintentional Poisoning: 3102


Come on unintentional poisoning, you're not far off of the lead!
 
2013-02-05 06:45:22 PM  

lennavan: ProfessorOhki: If Steve's Guns charges you $500 for a gun and Bob's Guns charges you $1000 for the same gun, there's no constitutional issue. If They both charge you $250, but there's a tax of $250 then it IS.

Reality would like a word with you.


Nope, pretty sure this is established stuff. Poll tax - unconstitutional. Government having to provide universal transportation to the polling places - not a thing (I don't think it's a thing anyway... feel free to correct me). It disallows the creation of barriers to exercising of rights. Doesn't say they have to do anything to facilitate those rights.

I mean, the wording is pretty clear:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging"
"... shall not be infringed."
"...shall not be required, nor ... imposed, nor ... inflicted."

It's a list of stuff the government can't do, not what they must do.
 
2013-02-05 06:46:31 PM  

justtray: No, it works perfectly to argue the fact that you're 3 times more likely to have a loved one die from your gun than to kill someone in self defense. It is a perfect comparison for that argument.


If we're going to throw out stats, wouldn't it be fair to couch this statement with the acknowledgement that the majority of murders (over 76%) in this country are committed by a person the victim knows, and that more than a third of all murders are committed by a loved one (though I wouldn't refer to them as a "loved one" at that point).

Regardless of the stats, you can't fix stupid, which in this case cost the poor kid his life.

/adult's stupidity, not the kid's
 
2013-02-05 06:46:31 PM  
Surpheon:

"If you have guns, if you own guns mostly we would prefer you have them in a lock box," Greenville Police Media Relations Officer Jonathan Bragg. "At least have them out of the reach of children."
When you're dealing with morans responsible gun owners, stating the obvious is apparently necessary.


Morality stories always end with the obvious moral.  Ric Romero = Aesop.

This kid was a hero.  A hero is simply the protagonist in a morality story.
 
2013-02-05 06:49:15 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Poll tax - unconstitutional.


We already agreed the comparison to voting is stupid:

lennavan: ProfessorOhki: Voting's not a great analogy because voting is fulfilled by the government itself.
This is where I was going. Voting is an absolutely terrible analogy.



ProfessorOhki: Nope, pretty sure this is established stuff.


It is.  Just not in the manner you think.  You have to pay sales tax when you buy a gun.
 
2013-02-05 06:49:23 PM  
Hey look!  More idiots comparing cars to guns!  Must be a dead kid somewhere they don't want to think about.
 
2013-02-05 06:50:35 PM  
Personally, I don't think kids should have toy guns, as guns should not be viewed as toys.  Especially if you own real guns.  This goes doubly-so for guns that are pink or purple, or otherwise look like toys.

For those wondering, several manufacturers produce pink handguns, some for breast cancer awareness and charity, and most gun shops can offer custom finish jobs.  It's mostly a marketing thing, a bunch of old white guys think the only way to sell to women is to make it pink.
 
2013-02-05 06:51:05 PM  

ferretman: FlashHarry: vpb: the Supremes have decided that requiring trigger locks or gun safes violates the constitution.

wait, what now?

how the fark do locks and safes violate the constitution?

Locks and gun safes prevent you from being able to get quick access if needed, that's why they are not required.


To elaborate:  the SCOTUS found that the lock/safe law unjustifiably limited the self-defense right which the 2nd Amendment protects.
 
2013-02-05 06:51:48 PM  

TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?


Electricity is a necessity. Machines whose sole purpose for existing is to make killing easier are not.
 
2013-02-05 06:53:16 PM  
But pink is a <i>girl</i> color!
There's more to this story.
 
2013-02-05 06:53:30 PM  

iron de havilland: feckingmorons: If you're too stupid to own a gun you should most certainly give it to someone responsible or turn it in to be destroyed.

You've never heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect?


I was posting it to fark a decade ago and citing it in research. One must hope that everyone in the house is not unaware of how stupid the gun owner is and can convince them otherwise.
 
2013-02-05 06:53:56 PM  

ProfessorOhki: I mean, the wording is pretty clear:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging"
"... shall not be infringed."
"...shall not be required, nor ... imposed, nor ... inflicted."

It's a list of stuff the government can't do, not what they must do.

 I would ask if your constitutional prowess indicates you are currently on the Supreme Court but as none of them agree with you, well clearly you aren't.  From DC v. Heller:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.


Care to retract your appeal to the constitution?  Or would you like to explain to me why all nine SCOTUS justices are wrong and you are right?
 
2013-02-05 06:54:12 PM  

kg2095: TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?

Electricity is a necessity. Machines whose sole purpose for existing is to make killing easier are not.


I'd like that to be true.
 
2013-02-05 06:54:27 PM  

lennavan: magicgoo: I'm sure it's been addressed in the 400+ rantings above, but as someone who doesn't know much about guns, here's my concern: ... I demand citations and junk.

The difference you are getting at as I see it is active defense versus passive defense, which has better outcomes.  My first concern with that line of thinking is it might lead to a conclusion where people cannot actively defend themselves.  A person may have a higher percent chance of survival if they just sit there and take it but they gotta live with themselves the next day/week/month/year.  For some, it would be easier to know they didn't sit there and take it.

My second concern with your line of thinking is you're asking government to make decisions about myself, for myself.  If you're not hurting anyone else, why does the government care?  If I'm a 90 year old cripple and I know damn well owning a gun quadruples my chance of getting killed by an intruder, why does the government (or you for that matter) care?

I'm pro gun regulation, I just think you're making the wrong argument.


I'm not even making an argument. I'm just asking for some numbers. I wouldn't use a 90-year-old to back up whatever it is that you're arguing, though. 90-year-olds can be dangerous enough with a spork.
 
2013-02-05 06:55:29 PM  
justtray: So we should put a 100% tax on all guns, because by your definition it is not infringing on the right to own them. Agreed, and in fact there's prescedent too, in the NFA.

I missed the part of the NFA that allows a 100% tax on firearms... you wouldn't mind citing it for us would you?
 
2013-02-05 06:55:51 PM  

lennavan: ProfessorOhki: Poll tax - unconstitutional.

We already agreed the comparison to voting is stupid:

lennavan: ProfessorOhki: Voting's not a great analogy because voting is fulfilled by the government itself.
This is where I was going. Voting is an absolutely terrible analogy.

ProfessorOhki: Nope, pretty sure this is established stuff.

It is.  Just not in the manner you think.  You have to pay sales tax when you buy a gun.


I know, I just can't think of a better one... closest I had was free speech vs. a tax on megaphones and that's just stupid. It's unique in that it's a right to a tangible object, the others are more abstract concepts. Actually, sales tax is an interesting point. Has that ever been challenged?
 
2013-02-05 06:56:48 PM  

lennavan: ProfessorOhki: I mean, the wording is pretty clear:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging"
"... shall not be infringed."
"...shall not be required, nor ... imposed, nor ... inflicted."

It's a list of stuff the government can't do, not what they must do.
 I would ask if your constitutional prowess indicates you are currently on the Supreme Court but as none of them agree with you, well clearly you aren't.  From DC v. Heller:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken t