Ex-Convict With Assault Rifle Guns down 12yo Trick or Treater

[tokenuser]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/01/halloween.slaying.ap/index.html

Yeah ... because somehow exconvicts in urban areas need assualt rifles.

Stories like this really piss me off. The idiots that say tighter gun laws are a violation of civil liberties will be the same fucking morons calling for the death penalty.

[ariastar]

Tighter gun control won't take the guns out of the hands of people who do this, only out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. That is the problem. You can tighten laws and outlaw guns, but only those who follow the law will turn in their guns. Someone who is planning to kill someone next week isn't going to stop and think, "Well, I guess I can't, my gun's illegal, so I may as well turn it in." But it might embolden that person knowing that his victims are less likely to have a gun for self-defense.

[tokenuser]

Tighter gun laws != banning all gunsSome people just dont see the difference.

My point is that the same people who oppose gun control (once again, note I didn't say banning) will be the same people who push for the death penalty on this issue.

Same thing for abortion rights ... with the number of people who push to outlaw abortions being in favour of the death penalty.

Its all about hypocrisy.

[bigshotprof]

Tighter gun control won't take the guns out of the hands of people who do this, only out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. That is the problem. You can tighten laws and outlaw guns, but only those who follow the law will turn in their guns. Someone who is planning to kill someone next week isn't going to stop and think, "Well, I guess I can't, my gun's illegal, so I may as well turn it in." But it might embolden that person knowing that his victims are less likely to have a gun for self-defense.

The huge majority of people who kill other people with guns (probably including this whack-a-mole) aren't "planning" to do it. The gun provides a boost in damage when the spontaneous action arises.

[isamurai]

What she's trying to get across is that tighter gun laws of any kind (3 day waiting periods or w/e, banning of certain guns) only make it harder on the law-abiding citizen to purchase a gun, having to jump through multiple hoops and whatnot. The criminals, as they do today, will continue to purchase their guns at hidden, illegal, gun shops and people off the street (AKA black market), and the tighter gun laws only ENCOURAGE criminals, because they know just as well how many hoops a law abiding citizen would have to go through, and thus expects most americans not to exercise their right to bear arms and carry a gun (which they don't).

[tokenuser]

Right ... because the ability to purchase an AK47 in the US is a necessity.
Bullshit. If you want to say it for hunting ... great. Give the fucking deer a chance. Put the sport back into sport shooting/hunting.

OK, they are already out there. Cool. This one was used in a crime and is now seized and destroyed. One less on the street.

Should the ex-convict be allowed to have a gun in his house?
Should he get the death penalty for killing the trick or treater who knocked at his door? (because all break and enters start by someone knocking on the door).

[ariastar]

My point is that the same people who oppose gun control (once again, note I didn't say banning) will be the same people who push for the death penalty on this issue.

Same thing for abortion rights ... with the number of people who push to outlaw abortions being in favour of the death penalty.

Good thing to know that, because I am pro-life and against any further gun control that I am also pro-death penalty. Why, oh why, did I argue against the death penalty in high school debate? Or am I instead against the death penalty and for abortions and more gun laws? Hell if I know. All I know is that, by what you say, the same people can't be against all of it.

[ariastar]

What she's trying to get across is that tighter gun laws of any kind (3 day waiting periods or w/e, banning of certain guns) only make it harder on the law-abiding citizen to purchase a gun, having to jump through multiple hoops and whatnot. The criminals, as they do today, will continue to purchase their guns at hidden, illegal, gun shops and people off the street (AKA black market), and the tighter gun laws only ENCOURAGE criminals, because they know just as well how many hoops a law abiding citizen would have to go through, and thus expects most americans not to exercise their right to bear arms and carry a gun (which they don't).

Exactly. The only people these tougher gun laws will affect are the law-abiding citizens. I'm concerned at the idea of more gun laws. The criminals will not be deterred by these laws the way law-abiders will.

[therage800]

I know quite a few "law abiding" citizens that purchased their guns through legal ways that simply SHOULD NOT have a gun.

Exactly, I suspect that many people like that though would not get a gun if they couldn't legally... Not even just because they're morally opposed but because they wouldn't even know where to look, paranoid they'd get caught, etc.

A gun free world (From civilians anyway) would be an ideal world. But, as Aria has pointed out banning guns would not prevent the criminals from having them, but I agree with Token, don't ban them but make tougher laws. Who needs an assault rifle?

[ariastar]

Again, any laws that are toughened would only affect the law-abiders. A would-be murdered isn't going to turn in his Uzi just because the government says he can't have it anymore. I don't know where the hell someone came up with most murders being spur-of-the-moment, because, when it comes to guns, that's not true.

Guns should never be out of civilians' hands completely. I fear a government that is allowed to have what it takes to kill me from afar, but I can have nothing. Not to mention, there are many mountain-livers in this country whose primary meat source is what they can hunt and kill, and who needs guns to protect themselves from wild animals on their property. Or should they give up their home and go live in a city and start buying meat at a grocery store? An if they can't afford it, does that mean they should go hungry?

There are already laws in place preventing certain people from owning guns, and that doesn't stop them. There is no way to remove every gun from this country aside from what cops have. As long as that remains impossible (and impractical), there will be guns out there that criminals can access, and laws will only deter the good people from owning them. A world where the criminals know only they and cops have guns is a very, very dangerous world.

You don't have to like guns to see I'm right, and trying to dispute it is not intelligent. You may wish there were no guns, but look at it logically. Just wanting no guns in civilian hands isn't going to make it possible. What's possible if to tighten laws and accept that the people who shouldn't have guns aren't going to abide, basically defeating the purpose.

[therage800]

You still don't seem to get it... Everyone else in this thread seems to agree that guns should not be banned but instead restricted. Guns for hunting would still be legal.

You may wish there were no guns, but look at it logically.

Did you even read my post? Here, I'll quote myself. A gun free world (From civilians anyway) would be an ideal world. But, as Aria has pointed out banning guns would not prevent the criminals from having them, but I agree with Token, don't ban them but make tougher laws.

Do you really need an assault rifle to hunt? Do you even need one to protect yourself? By imposing restrictions and banning certain guns will reduce the number of guns out there and prevent spontaneous murders. I don't know the statistics on spontaneous murders, but I know that it does happen.

[ariastar]

My previous post was aimed at several people, not just you.

However you did say, "A gun free world (From civilians anyway) would be an ideal world."

So you would favor a world of civilians having no guns.

How many assault rifles do you think are in the hands of people who don't plan to gun people down? Not nearly as many as are in the hands of gang members and criminals.

Any laws tightened on guns may as well come with an exception aimed at criminals who won't abide by them anyway. That's what you don't seem to understand. The only people who will abide by tighter gun laws are those we don't have to worry about, while those who would break the law are going to ignore the laws.

Why are so many people so stupidly blind to this? You may wish that tighter gun laws would make the world safer, but it will NOT take the guns away from those who are going to break the law and hurt people. Stop mixing up what you'd like to have happen with what is probable. Yeah, you might like to see no guns in the hands of civilians (you didn't make exception for people who hunt for their food), but law-abiding citizens are the very ones who will lose their guns by following the law while the criminals will keep them. Do you really want the scales to be tipped so very far in favor of criminals?

Tighter gun laws will only work if every single person in the county would follow them, and people can't even agree on when to turn on their headlights. No way you're going to get every single person to abide by what guns are legal and which aren't, and to turn them in when the government decides this kind or that is next to go. Law-abiders, yes, criminals, no.

I am not a criminal, you are not a criminal. We shouldn't lose our rights in a poor attempt to keep Johnny B. Gangbanger from having a gun. We turn ours in or go through a bunch of screening and maybe get turned down for a parking ticket ten years ago, but Johnny just circumnavigates that and buys out of the trunk of an old Cadillac. We don't have our guns anymore, but Johnny does. Are we really safer now when he knocks on the door knowing there's no legal way we have to defend ourselves and our families? The streets don't abide by our laws. The ones affected are us.

When I was a kid, under California's ban on assault rifles, not a single law-abiding person I knew had an assault rifle. But I knew people affiliated with gangs who had them. I saw them. I held a machine gun when they were banned - my neighbor, who we found out later was affiliated with the Bloods, showed me his. A fuckwad I knew told me he could turn a gun on me and I wouldn't have one to shoot back. Guess what. He did that. I hid behind a car, at 10 years old, being shot at by a goddamned 9-year-old, Viesna Vong. I'll never forget that, one of the most terrifying times in my life. Ironically it was his older brother, who went by Peter (Americanized version of his Vietnamese name), who killed in a drive-by against the Bloods on our street the week after we moved from the state. The people who had the very things outright banned were the people who kill people, and they knew, KNEW, that law-abiding people can't protect themselves.

Criminals are not going to abide by the gun laws. Why do you think they will? How do you think gun laws will make us safer when those who are going to hurt people are the very ones who will ignore the laws?

The Constitution really is no more than a piece of paper I may as well use to wipe my ass. It means NOTHING anymore. So many parts of it are bent or chopped up or out to suit the individual preferences of what should be. That piece of paper guaranteeing freedoms means nothing anymore as more and more freedoms are being taken away.

[ariastar]

Even if guns are purchased illegally by criminals they were more then likely purchased through legal means at one point in time. Tighter gun laws would at the very least trickle down to those illegal purchases. Purchasing an illegal gun would become more difficult.

NOTHING is going to completely solve gun violence. That's not the goal. The goal in my opinion is to reduce such violence and tighter gun laws is the way.

Something else which wasn't mentioned yet:

Look at all the deaths which occur each year as a result of the FAMILY gun going on (kids getting a hold of a firearm for example). I believe tighter could lower this number.

At one point. The time has passed, there are already plenty of guns out there circulating. The black-market trade of guns would remain strong. Not many, if any, law-abiding citizens would go selling their guns to a gang member. They have enough already.

Trying to take guns away from families is a band-aid. Education is the answer. Mandating basic gun safety for families, including children in families, would go a lot further. My brother and I were exposed to guns from the time we were toddlers, ALWAYS with my dad supervising, NEVER with bullets. We learned from a very early age absolutely never ever to point a gun at ourselves or others, even if empty, because what if there was a bullet in the chamber after all? They weren't taboo, and when we saw them other places, we weren't so eager to get our hands on them the way our friends were. When our friend Jesse wanted found his mom's handgun and wanted to go shoot it in the backyard, David and I took it from him and put it back. We knew what they could do. Jesse, in his ignorance, didn't quite get it. When the neighbor, also named David, handed me the machine gun before I realized it (when someone thrusts something at you and you instinctively take it to keep it from dropping, before realizing what it is), I hand it right back. Common sense from being raised around guns was stronger than my sense of curiosity.

Trying to remove guns and letting the population remain ignorant is going to do a lot more harm than letting guns remain and mandating education. I think it's a good idea for everyone to learn gun safety. Even a kid from a gun-shunning family may come by a gun elsewhere. Kids are taught to look both ways before crossing the road, and what to do if you see drugs, but kids are not routinely taught anything about guns, and kids, naturally curious as they are, will play with what's new and taboo, and then someone's more likely to die.

[therage800]

My previous post was aimed at several people, not just you.

However you did say, "A gun free world (From civilians anyway) would be an ideal world."

So you would favor a world of civilians having no guns.





Of course!! You wouldn't?! You know criminals are citizens too. So if no citizen has a gun then no criminal would have a gun. That is an ideal world, but as I already said, I know that's not going to happen and that's why we can't ban guns.

Even if guns are purchased illegally by criminals they were more then likely purchased through legal means at one point in time. Tighter gun laws would at the very least trickle down to those illegal purchases. Purchasing an illegal gun would become more difficult.

NOTHING is going to completely solve gun violence. That's not the goal. The goal in my opinion is to reduce such violence and tighter gun laws is the way.

Something else which wasn't mentioned yet:

Look at all the deaths which occur each year as a result of the FAMILY gun going on (kids getting a hold of a firearm for example). I believe tighter could lower this number.

Well said.

[ariastar]

Something else which wasn't mentioned yet:

Look at all the deaths which occur each year as a result of the FAMILY gun going on (kids getting a hold of a firearm for example). I believe tighter could lower this number.

By the way, November 10th at 12:10 am marks the fifth year anniversary of my dad dying. My mom and I were there when he shot himself with a Colt .45 loaded with hollow-points. His last words to me were, "I'm going to shoot you, I'm going to shoot our mother." Gun aimed at me when he said it, hair-trigger, safety off.

In January of the same year, a friend left a party and was found four hours later by his mom, shot himself in the head.

My mom's cousin was shot and killed on her and my dad's 13th wedding anniversary. My mom practically raised the kid.

They'd have found other ways to commit suicide if the guns weren't available to law-abiding citizens. Maybe crash the car with others in it. Who knows. And the guy who shot Daryl wouldn't have been deterred by tighter gun laws. Killing someone is worse than illegally owning a gun.

I've been touched by violence involving guns. I've been shot at. I've been threatened. Yet I still stand by tightening gun laws won't do a damned bit of good.

[ariastar]

Of course!! You wouldn't?! You know criminals are citizens too. So if no citizen has a gun then no criminal would have a gun. That is an ideal world, but as I already said, I know that's not going to happen and that's why we can't ban guns.

In an ideal world, still the answer is no. You'd favor taking away the ability of some families to eat? You know, there ARE families in this country whose sole meat source is what they can hunt. In your ideal world, they'd either have to go hungry or somehow move somewhere where they can shop at a grocery store.

Ideally no CRIMINALS could have guns, but that's not going to happen, and taking guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens solves nothing.

[therage800]

In an ideal world, still the answer is no. You'd favor taking away the ability of some families to eat? You know, there ARE families in this country whose sole meat source is what they can hunt. In your ideal world, they'd either have to go hungry or somehow move somewhere where they can shop at a grocery store.

Ideally no CRIMINALS could have guns, but that's not going to happen, and taking guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens solves nothing.

I'll hand it to you on your point about hunting...

However taking away guns from law-abiding citizens solves plenty. It prevents the would be criminals. But I already know, you claim all murder is premeditated but statistics disagree.

[ariastar]

I'll hand it to you on your point about hunting...

However taking away guns from law-abiding citizens solves plenty. It prevents the would be criminals. But I already know, you claim all murder is premeditated but statistics disagree.

You clearly thing there aren't that many guns out there. There are far more than plenty already int he hands of criminals. If laws outlawing or severely restricting guns had been enacted back when Europeans first set foot in this county (disregarding that they did hunt for a lot of their food), then the problem of today may have been prevented. But that's not the case, and what we have to deal with is now, and what we have now is an active underground gun trade and gang activity. That may as well be an entirely different section of society that isn't bothered with our laws. Our laws will affect us, but they won't listen. Gun laws take the guns away from our side, not theirs. Many of them already aren't supposed to have guns (certain convictions and restraining orders already legally bar some people), and they do anyway.

You are lumping murder by gun with murder by other means. Strangling someone is more likely to be spur-of-the-moment. Gunning down kids at school is planned. Look at the different types of murder instead of lumping them all in together.

[therage800]

You clearly thing there aren't that many guns out there. There are far more than plenty already int he hands of criminals. If laws outlawing or severely restricting guns had been enacted back when Europeans first set foot in this county (disregarding that they did hunt for a lot of their food), then the problem of today may have been prevented. But that's not the case, and what we have to deal with is now, and what we have now is an active underground gun trade and gang activity. That may as well be an entirely different section of society that isn't bothered with our laws. Our laws will affect us, but they won't listen. Gun laws take the guns away from our side, not theirs. Many of them already aren't supposed to have guns (certain convictions and restraining orders already legally bar some people), and they do anyway.

You are lumping murder by gun with murder by other means. Strangling someone is more likely to be spur-of-the-moment. Gunning down kids at school is planned. Look at the different types of murder instead of lumping them all in together.

How is restricting guns taking guns away from law abiding citizens? So you end up with a pistol instead of an assault rifle. So you can only own 1 gun. Maybe you have to wait longer. Possibly a more comprehensive background check. So what? In the end every law abiding citizen still has access to a gun for hunting and/or protection.

[ariastar]

How is restricting guns taking guns away from law abiding citizens? So you end up with a pistol instead of an assault rifle. So you can only own 1 gun. Maybe you have to wait longer. Possibly a more comprehensive background check. So what? In the end every law abiding citizen still has access to a gun for hunting and/or protection.

The assault rifles I've seen in my life, in person, were in the possession of the very people who shouldn't have them, people with criminal records, the very people who won't exchange a machine gun for a pistol because the law says so. Law-abiding citizens will be the ones going through the hoops, owning a single gun, waiting for even that one gun. The criminals will go pay a few hundred and have his pick from what's in the trunk. You are basically suggesting making it harder on law-abiders. More restrictions will NOT deter the black-market sale of guns.

[bigshotprof]

The "law abiding citizen" claim inevitable gets sucked into a vortex of circular logic. A person is a "law abiding citizen" from one or both of two perspectives. First, if that person breaks no law on the books, second, if there is no law on the books that bans what they should not be doing. The fewer laws there are regulating weapon ownership, the easier it is for a "law abiding citizen" to own one. If we outlaw assault rifles, and some one wants one, he will have a harder time being a L.A.C. The problem with that is that the principle applies to any dangerous or anti-social behavior. Defining a speed limit just makes it harder for law abiding citizens to drive really fast; criminals will do it anyway. If you pass a law against kidnapping (to make an extreme case for the sake of discussion) only criminals will pluck people off of the street and hold them captive. Extreme yes, but how many more people are killed by guns every year than by strangers plucking them off the streets?

Assuming that a consensus can be reached--again for the sake of discussion--that the unregulated possession of firearms is on balance enough of a bad thing for society that society has a right to impose structure on that practice (just like we impose structure on where we can build certain types of structures, where we can advertise cigarettes, what the price of municipal water will be), a "law-abiding citizen" will abide by those laws. It won't be a question of Making it harder to do something because a law abiding citizen will accept that he has been enjoined from doing that thing.

The underlying purpose of distinguishing a "law-abiding citizen" from a "criminal" is that it allows L.A.C.s the wiggle-room to break the law and still not consider themselves criminals. The speed limit is 60 but you can go 70ish. Fireworks are illegal but not so much on the fourth of July, etc. The difference then between a criminal and a L.A.C. is not what they do--all too often--but of what class, color, neighborhood, etc they are a part. Mayor Blowhard has a contraband unlicensed luger from the war, and that is a harmless affectation. The guy who dresses like the guy who pumps his gas has the same gun, but gets pulled over because he is driving a car that looks a little to "rich" for him will go to jail for possession of an unlicensed weapon.

If a law is duly arrived at it should not matter how much inconvenience it causes the Law Abiding Citizen. The Law Abiding Citizen won't break it.

[tokenuser]

2) Eating meat isn't a necessity for life. If you really want to get technical, humans are herbivores. (I'm not a vegetarian, I'm just making a point).Ummm ... omnivores. The pointy teeth at the front are for tearing flesh, the flat ones up the back are for grinding vegetation. The chisel shaped ones up front are for cutting - either vegetation or meat.

You'll notice we dont have teeth shaped like straws ... so Tofu should be forbidden.

[esophagus]

I think that gun laws should be restricted. One gun per household. Want to hunt? Then you don't get a handgun. Want a handgun? You don't get to hunt. Either way, there is absolutely no one that needs an assault rifle or any kind of semi-automatic/automatic weapon. There should also be an extensive background check, making sure that the people getting a hold of guns (legally) are people that should be getting a hold of them.

I'm well aware that criminals are still going to get their assault rifles and other guns. I don't really care. People can still have their one gun to protect themselves. Putting an AK-47 into everyone's house just in case they get attacked by a criminal who carries one will make the crime rate go up, not down.

Like it was said earlier, though, the best case scenario would be no guns at all (well, someone said civilians, I say no guns period). That would have required legislation hundreds of years ago, so no go there.

[esophagus]

Incorrect. All of our teeth are flat with the exception of our canines. Herbivores have canines to bite into certain foods. We also have the same jaw structures herbivores have. Herbivores also have a carbohydrate enzyme in their saliva which humans have as well.
We're omnivores. As a species we have adapted both plants and animals as primary sources of food. Regardless of what you think our teeth tell us, that makes us omnivores.

[masherscf]

I'm not speaking about how we came to eat meat. From a biological stand point we're herbivores.

Anyways, enough of that. This is a thread about guns. :D

From a biological standpoint, we're omnivores. We can eat meat. True herbivores like cattle and deer can eat plant material that would make us wretch.

Most great apes eat primarily plant material and early humans were probably no different. Hence, we evolved teeth for it. However, where humans differ from other great apes is that humans left Africa. We did so in pursuit of meat. Plants don't migrate, so if we were herbivores we'd still be sitting on the savanna with our collective dicks hanging out...like the apes.

There's evidence that suggests that humans evolved their formidable brains eating fish.

[tokenuser]

There's evidence that suggests that humans evolved their formidable brains eating fish.Yep. Opposable thumbs came in real handy as we started to use tools to hunt animals and expand our brains.

[speed]

There should be an outright ban on automatic weapons/assault rifles as there is no reason to own one. If you have a criminal record, you should be banned outright from owning guns. Will it stop most criminals from obtaining weapons? No. However, it would prevent accidental deaths and crimes of passion. It won't stop the professional hitman or someone who is determined to kill, but it will stop the husband who finds out his wife is cheating from shooting the bitch and it will prevent occurrences such as this.

And yes, criminals will get guns no matter what, but if cops find an illegal weapon on a person, there should be a massive crackdown and the person with the gun should spend a lot of time in prison. If a person commits a murder with an illegal gun, his sentence should be double.

[logant]

There should be an outright ban on automatic weapons/assault rifles as there is no reason to own one. If you have a criminal record, you should be banned outright from owning guns. Will it stop most criminals from obtaining weapons? No. However, it would prevent accidental deaths and crimes of passion. It won't stop the professional hitman or someone who is determined to kill, but it will stop the husband who finds out his wife is cheating from shooting the bitch and it will prevent occurrences such as this.

And yes, criminals will get guns no matter what, but if cops find an illegal weapon on a person, there should be a massive crackdown and the person with the gun should spend a lot of time in prison. If a person commits a murder with an illegal gun, his sentence should be double.

Would people still be allowed to have handguns?

[rabidbadger]

I've said this before, maybe, but the 2nd Ammendment is not about hunting or self defense, it's about a well regulated militia, and a militia needs the latest and greatest to fight off any enemy, foreign or domestic.

Where's my Mr. A-bomb? ;)

[speed]

Would people still be allowed to have handguns?

That I'm torn on. I can see how it'd be useful for self-defence, but I can also see the arguments against it. I'm kind of leaning towards no, but I don't see it being enforceable, and I can def. see people rioting over that more so than the banning of assault rifles.

[ariastar]

I'm not speaking about how we came to eat meat. From a biological stand point we're herbivores.

Anyways, enough of that. This is a thread about guns. :D

Cats and dogs have similar jaw structures. Dogs are omnivores, regardless of their teeth (they do need plant matter), whereas cats are carnivores and too much non-animal foods makes them very very sick. Technically dogs can live vegan lifestyles, but a vegan lifestyle has a high rate of killing cats. No just jaw structure doesn't tell us everything.

[therage800]

That I'm torn on. I can see how it'd be useful for self-defence, but I can also see the arguments against it. I'm kind of leaning towards no, but I don't see it being enforceable, and I can def. see people rioting over that more so than the banning of assault rifles.

Yep, one of the other issues is that even if we did decide to more strongly regulate or ban guns, the people that object would cause problems...

[alaskalonewolf]

Fact: Guns don't kill people

You'd be amazed how polite people are here on the frontier.
Everyone's packin' so people tend to be pretty nice, even helpful.

I have a problem with these video games that teach our kids
all about how beautifully destructive firearms can be, education
through violence, then put the real item out of reach, made forbidden.
What do expect is going to happen?

I like a polite society. One where you don't dare try to piss someone off.
Imagine that same kid, packin' a nice sidearm, right next to his cell phone.
Kid gets an education either way. I like thinking the kid will be responsible.
Bad guy jumps out from behind a bush, and the eighth-grader unloads on
his dumb ass. With enough practice, the kid might even make it to the olympics.

It's the same reason the Ron Paul, at the second amendment conference
was such as success. Those people get it.

http://www.shotgunnews.com/knox/

[esophagus]

I like a polite society. One where you don't dare try to piss someone off.
I like a polite society, too. One where you don't want to try to piss someone off. Just saying.

For most of my life I have lived in an area where no one locks there doors, there is never any crime, and everyone just generally gets along. Fear isn't the best way to have a polite society. Politeness is.

[alaskalonewolf]

Exactly. I live on the frontier.
People expect guests.

It gets down to -40F here, and
stays that way for weeks.

We look after each other.

In fact, we don't lock the door
because you might end up locking
yourself out. We care what happens
to each of our neighbors, and what
goes on in the neighborhood.

Out in the 'real world' I've noticed
that there's none of that.

People don't give a sh** what happens.
They walk right past the person dying.
'Cause it's not their problem.
They don't get involved.

I watched Angelia Jolie go all the way off to Africa,
trying to make a difference. Give me a break.
She walks right past the problems back at home.
Right along with the rest of them.

It's why I am glad I live in the woods.
Best alarm system in the world, is my
well-trained dog. It's a very simple solution.

[esophagus]

Yes, but I was disagreeing with your point that guns are a good thing for creating that sort of environment.

Polite, gun-free environment > Polite to the man with the gun environment

[alaskalonewolf]

But then you have to ask, why are there guns?
They are tools. Nothing more. No different than a fork.

In other countries, the only people that have a gun
are those that are in the military or law-enforcement.

I prefer our society better. And it can be as polite
as you make it. It's the responsibility of the parents
to provide the protection from harm, through education.

You're never going to get rid of crime. It's been around
since the first cave-man clubbed his neighbor over the head
for the piece of meat he wanted.

I suggest schools teach gun safety. Much like econ or
how to swim. Until the day comes, when we don't need
that tool anymore.

[speed]

Strange thing though: in Canada, most people don't have weapons (aside form hunting rifles), and the fact that someone may have a gun doesn't cross anyones mind, yet we're known as a very polite society (Canadian Bacon, among other stereotypes). Quite often, people will leave their doors unlocked (sometimes even if they leave the house for a while).

Also, I take issue with your idea of video games. I've played violent video games since I was little and not once have I had the desire to shoot a person. Hell, I don't know if I could shoot someone to save my own life. Video games are a symptom, not a cause.

[tokenuser]

Strange thing though: in Canada, most people don't have weapons (aside form hunting rifles), and the fact that someone may have a gun doesn't cross anyones mind, yet we're known as a very polite society (Canadian Bacon, among other stereotypes). Quite often, people will leave their doors unlocked (sometimes even if they leave the house for a while).Ditto Australia. Except for the polite part. We are a nation of arrogant bastards who would bend over backwards to help a mate out. Not exactly polite, but definately friendly, and unarmed.

[esophagus]

My point exactly.

[therage800]

I have a problem with these video games that teach our kids
all about how beautifully destructive firearms can be, education
through violence, then put the real item out of reach, made forbidden.
What do expect is going to happen?



If a kid is influenced enough to do something violent because of a video game (Or any type of media) then they already have a problem. It's the parents job to instill morals, parents have far more influence than TV and video games if they just do there job. Just like Speed, I've played violent video games since I was a child but never learned anything like you described.

[alaskalonewolf]

Not really directing that at you guys. More at the parents of these kids.
I mean, sheesh, there are a lot of weak minded people in this world.
Some that think, the kids will grow up jus' fine without any protection.
I wouldn't want my children to learn about sex and guns from their little
buddies, especially after school behind the gym when someone pulls out the
weed to go with their pack of cigarettes because that's 'what's cool',
or what they played in "Saints_Row (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saints_Row)". Don't get me wrong, I grew up on
things like Doom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_(video_game)) and Duke Nuke'em (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Nukem_Forever). Doesn't mean I'm gonna' saddle-up
with a BFG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BFG_9000)and start laying down suppression fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressive_fire) at the local strip-club.
I don't want my kids to learn about assault rifles from the bad-guy who
jumps out from behind the bushes either.

It's pretty simple. Parents should be the ones that broker the lessons
of safety when it comes to living in this world. Not the media, not the
police, or people they find at schools. Gun safety is just as important as
teaching them what a condom is when the time comes. Until then, it's
up to us as parents to make sure some are put out of reach from
them as well as those who'd do them harm. That's our job... Don't blame
the wolf for eating the sheep. That's what wolves sometimes do.

One thing has stuck in my side like a thorn for over a year now. It still
hurts when I talk about it. A prime example of why some laws need a change.
A prime example of why we need to be a part of each other's lives and
watch over each other:

School_shooting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting)
Virginia_Tech_massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre)
Columbine_High_School_massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12442731/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/23/national/main1534768.shtml
http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=6110911

The list goes on and on....

I've lost people. Smart, gifted, brilliant people who were going to make
a difference in this world. Had I been there... had I been there, they'd still
be here. But, I don't have a crystal ball. Who knows what happens next?
I wasn't being flippant. And I'm not saying that I have any more answers to
the problem than the next guy. But something has to be done, or else
as always, history will repeat itself...

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DBfLC3VQ9LQ

...sadly, one of my favorite songs.

[therage800]

Not really directing that at you guys. More at the parents of these kids.
I mean, sheesh, there are a lot of weak minded people in this world.
Some that think, the kids will grow up jus' fine without any protection.
I wouldn't want my children to learn about sex and guns from their little
buddies, especially after school behind the gym when someone pulls out the
weed to go with their pack of cigarettes because that's 'what's cool',
or what they played in "Saints_Row (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saints_Row)". Don't get me wrong, I grew up on
things like Doom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_(video_game)) and Duke Nuke'em (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Nukem_Forever). Doesn't mean I'm gonna' saddle-up
with a BFG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BFG_9000)and start laying down suppression fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressive_fire) at the local strip-club.
I don't want my kids to learn about assault rifles from the bad-guy who
jumps out from behind the bushes either.

It's pretty simple. Parents should be the ones that broker the lessons
of safety when it comes to living in this world. Not the media, not the
police, or people they find at schools. Gun safety is just as important as
teaching them what a condom is when the time comes. Until then, it's
up to us as parents to make sure some are put out of reach from
them as well as those who'd do them harm. That's our job... Don't blame
the wolf for eating the sheep. That's what wolves sometimes do.



I'm not sure if I agree with you or not. It depends on what you mean by "Gun safety". It's easy to take that too far and end up teaching a second lesson that it is OK to have a gun. Granted however, it would be better to teach a kid that it is OK to have a gun and know gun safety than to have a kid get a hold of a gun and not know gun safety.

[alaskalonewolf]

I learned how to fire a rifle when I was eight. A pistol at ten.
I knew what a gun was long before that, because my father
saw that it was very, very important for me to know WHY he
would worry about me. Gun safety goes beyond knowing the
mechanics of a firearm. It's about developing the attitude to
go with it. It is about respect. And, knowing that in this place
on Earth, in these United States, you have certain rights to the
choice of whether or not to maintain a weapon or a tool, and
to train your children, how you choose to have them view it.
Then you allow the child to grow into an adult, and to make
that choice for themself. I look forward to a world, at a time
when we won't need them anymore. But, that's up to my kids.

With a public safety officer, or with the military, it is defined
as a weapon. It's sole purpose for it, is the display of force,
and with it, to be used as a deterrent for defying an authority
in cause of action as offered by law or government.

For me, gun safety is the perception of what a 'gun' is. The
most important part is defining its function, and how to live
in a world with these things floating around... sometimes in the
hands of those who shouldn't have them. They are not toys.

It's the same manner, you'd encourage a child's behavior in
public. No use of profanity, vulgar displays of indecent conduct,
especially when attending places where you, as a parent,
could be embarrassed; these are earned from the child due
to your ability to command their respect.

A gun is no different. It can be used to command respect, or
demand it. It is a tool or weapon, defined by the person who
employs its use. That's what 'gun safety' is to me. Education.
How do you protect yourself from a gun without having one?
Gun safety. How do you store a gun in your home? Gun safety.
How do you know when to carry a gun? Gun safety. What are
the laws with using a gun? Gun safety. How can you tell when
someone shouldn't have a gun? Gun safety.

And, depending on who you are, where you are, a gun is just
as appropriate as wearing a pair of shoes, or having an ink pen
in your shirt pocket. Otherwise, it's dead weight, and belongs
proudly displayed as an expensive, little used possession, there
in the event that it's need, is made abundantly clear. It also
happens to be the counterbalance to our government, or in the
event that our country is attacked, as provided by the Constitution.

Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution )

[tokenuser]

I suggest schools teach gun safety. Much like econ or
how to swim. Until the day comes, when we don't need
that tool anymore.Yeah, education is the answer (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/08/child.charged.ap/index.html).

Or maybe responsible gun handling and storage is the key.

[therage800]

OK, two parts of what you said contradict.
I learned how to fire a rifle when I was eight. A pistol at ten.
I knew what a gun was long before that, because my father
saw that it was very, very important for me to know WHY he
would worry about me. Gun safety goes beyond knowing the
mechanics of a firearm. It's about developing the attitude to
go with it. It is about respect. And, knowing that in this place
on Earth, in these United States, you have certain rights to the
choice of whether or not to maintain a weapon or a tool, and
to train your children, how you choose to have them view it.
Then you allow the child to grow into an adult, and to make
that choice for themself.
&
look forward to a world, at a time
when we won't need them anymore.

If it wasn't for the fact that regulating a new gun ban would be near impossible, the second amendment shouldn't even exist today.

[bigshotprof]

Yeah, education is the answer (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/08/child.charged.ap/index.html).

Or maybe responsible gun handling and storage is the key.

Is it possible that in a wider range of cases "responsible gun ownership" would entail not owning one?

[kronos6948]

Yeah, education is the answer (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/08/child.charged.ap/index.html).

Or maybe responsible gun handling and storage is the key.

The worst part about that link is that it doesn't show how many other responsible gun carriers there really are.

My father, a retired police officer, made sure to show me how to properly operate a gun in case of a break in (which also entailed showing me where he kept it, and how to operate the safety). Also, he taught me to respect the weapon, and taught me the dangers. He also showed me that it wasn't a toy.

Being that I haven't killed anyone in my childhood from mishandling guns shows that you CAN teach proper respect for weapons and the damages they can do.

[tokenuser]

The worst part about that link is that it doesn't show how many other responsible gun carriers there really are.

My father, a retired police officer, made sure to show me how to properly operate a gun in case of a break in (which also entailed showing me where he kept it, and how to operate the safety). Also, he taught me to respect the weapon, and taught me the dangers. He also showed me that it wasn't a toy.

Being that I haven't killed anyone in my childhood from mishandling guns shows that you CAN teach proper respect for weapons and the damages they can do.All very true .... and teaching abstinance in a sex education class works as well.

If you own guns there are a lot of responsibilities. Education is one thing. The father did the right thing by teaching the son how to handle a gun correctly. The father failed at gun storage though. Was that lack of education on his part?

More to the point, if the kid could not have gotten hold of the weapon, there would have been no shooting.

Is the father to blame for educating the son on how to use a gun? Or is it his own fault for leaving a gun accessible in the house?

[kronos6948]

All very true .... and teaching abstinance in a sex education class works as well.

If you own guns there are a lot of responsibilities. Education is one thing. The father did the right thing by teaching the son how to handle a gun correctly. The father failed at gun storage though. Was that lack of education on his part?

More to the point, if the kid could not have gotten hold of the weapon, there would have been no shooting.

Is the father to blame for educating the son on how to use a gun? Or is it his own fault for leaving a gun accessible in the house?

I don't think the abstinence parallel works. Sex is natural and fun, and therefore will bring out curiosity in teens.

Guns on the other hand are dangerous tools with only one usage - causing harm.

I think the main point is whether or not the kid really understood how dangerous a gun is. That's my position on this.

Sure, if the father had a gun locker to keep his kid away from guns, this wouldn't have happened. You could also say that if the father didn't have a gun in the first place, this wouldn't have happened. But, the same idea applies to the child's understanding of weapons. There's something missing from the kid's understanding of what type of harm they cause. If the kid understood, he wouldn't have shot anyone.

[tokenuser]

I don't think the abstinence parallel works. Sex is natural and fun, and therefore will bring out curiosity in teens. I think the analogy is perfect. As a teen/pre-teen, if I saw a gun lying around I'd be curious.

My grandfather had a gun rack - literally just a rack, no security at all - in the family room of his house for many years. No AK47s, but there was an old Winchester .22 that was his pride and joy, plus a far more powerful weapon gun for hunting kangaroo. As kids, we were all taught gun safety - because my grandfather (a country school teacher/principal) knew we would be curious. The only security measure taken was that he would keep the ammo and the bolts (definately for the big rifle, not sure about the winchester ... dont recall it having a bolt) locked away.

Kids are curious.

Guns on the other hand are dangerous tools with only one usage - causing harm.

I think the main point is whether or not the kid really understood how dangerous a gun is. That's my position on this.

Sure, if the father had a gun locker to keep his kid away from guns, this wouldn't have happened. You could also say that if the father didn't have a gun in the first place, this wouldn't have happened. But, the same idea applies to the child's understanding of weapons. There's something missing from the kid's understanding of what type of harm they cause. If the kid understood, he wouldn't have shot anyone.The kid is definately at fault. He was probably too young to understand the repurcussions of his actions. Cartoon violence, video game violence, TV violence ... they all desensitise the impact of what the action of shooting someone/thing has. I felt sick the first time I shot a kangaroo and realised what I had done - it was all fun and games until that point (in fact, my shot wasn't a kill shot, it wounded the roo, my uncle finished it off - lesson learnt that day? shoot to kill). I have been shooting since ... but mainly target shooting, I didn't have the stomach for live game.

I am not someone out to ban guns.
But I would like to ensure that guns are stored safely - especially if there are minors present.
Gun control does not equal gun banning ... and gun education should not be limited to youth. The father had his right to own the weapons, but he was not responsible enough to do so - and paid the price.

[kronos6948]

I think the analogy is perfect. As a teen/pre-teen, if I saw a gun lying around I'd be curious.

My grandfather had a gun rack - literally just a rack, no security at all - in the family room of his house for many years. No AK47s, but there was an old Winchester .22 that was his pride and joy, plus a far more powerful weapon gun for hunting kangaroo. As kids, we were all taught gun safety - because my grandfather (a country school teacher/principal) knew we would be curious. The only security measure taken was that he would keep the ammo and the bolts (definately for the big rifle, not sure about the winchester ... dont recall it having a bolt) locked away.

Kids are curious.

The kid is definately at fault. He was probably too young to understand the repurcussions of his actions. Cartoon violence, video game violence, TV violence ... they all desensitise the impact of what the action of shooting someone/thing has. I felt sick the first time I shot a kangaroo and realised what I had done - it was all fun and games until that point (in fact, my shot wasn't a kill shot, it wounded the roo, my uncle finished it off - lesson learnt that day? shoot to kill). I have been shooting since ... but mainly target shooting, I didn't have the stomach for live game.

I am not someone out to ban guns.
But I would like to ensure that guns are stored safely - especially if there are minors present.
Gun control does not equal gun banning ... and gun education should not be limited to youth. The father had his right to own the weapons, but he was not responsible enough to do so - and paid the price.

You're right when it comes to proper storage.
A lot of people just would rather get rid of guns altogether, and it really gets me angry. I have a lot of liberal leanings, but when it comes to guns, I want the right to own one and keep it in my home.

[tokenuser]

You're right when it comes to proper storage.
A lot of people just would rather get rid of guns altogether, and it really gets me angry. I have a lot of liberal leanings, but when it comes to guns, I want the right to own one and keep it in my home.Thats part of the problem ... an immediate assumption that gun control means gun banning. Banning is the easiest method of control, but is unrealistic.
Unfortunately enforcing safe storage practices is just as hard ... perhaps a visit from a Deputy Sherrif to ensure the gun CAN be stored safely before a license will be renewed? It doesn't mean it will be stored safely, just that it can.

[therage800]

You're right when it comes to proper storage.
A lot of people just would rather get rid of guns altogether, and it really gets me angry. I have a lot of liberal leanings, but when it comes to guns, I want the right to own one and keep it in my home.

I would like to ban guns... If it could be enforced. Why should anyone need one if no one has one. But realistically it couldn't be enforced and so I agree that we should have the right to bear arms. However we need some form of stronger regulation.



Unfortunately enforcing safe storage practices is just as hard ... perhaps a visit from a Deputy Sherrif to ensure the gun CAN be stored safely before a license will be renewed? It doesn't mean it will be stored safely, just that it can.

That would require way more time and money than any police force has.

[tokenuser]

That would require way more time and money than any police force has.Any type of gun control enforcement is going to take additional resources, and to be honest while I suggested a Deputy Sherrif, it could be anyone certified. Indeed, it is the sort of measure that the NRA would probably get behind since they try to promote gun safety and responsibility.

Just a thought.

[alaskalonewolf]

There should be some sort of control at the ammunition level.
Any gun is no more dangerous than a hammer without its bullet.

BTW, it wasn't the eight year old kid's fault. I'd start asking the
'why' questions on that one... It wasn't the gun's fault either.
A gun just simplifies and otherwise complicated plan.

[kronos6948]

I would like to ban guns... If it could be enforced. Why should anyone need one if no one has one. But realistically it couldn't be enforced and so I agree that we should have the right to bear arms. However we need some form of stronger regulation.


Banning guns would only take guns away from legitimate gun owners, not the criminals. There's always the black market.

[therage800]

Banning guns would only take guns away from legitimate gun owners, not the criminals. There's always the black market.

Perhaps you didn't read my entire post? I'll restate the important part, "But realistically it couldn't be enforced "

[speed]

Banning guns would only take guns away from legitimate gun owners, not the criminals. There's always the black market.

Not exactly. It doesn't annihilate illegal guns, but it does still make them harder to get. Besides, I don't know that there really are legitimate reasons for owning a gun now. Self defence is even kinda wishy-washy to me. In order to legally have a gun, you need it to be locked up such that it would be impossible to get at quick enough if someone broke in to your home.

I just don't see the point anymore. In my town, almost nobody owns a gun and I don't know anyone who was ever randomly assaulted, had their home broken into or such. Hell, the only murder I remember was by a couple kids from Edmonton and was done with blunt weapons.

I realize bigger cities such as Edmonton are a different story, but the problems in Edmonton have more to do with the corrupt EPS not taking care of the gang problems.

[alaskalonewolf]

Y'know the more I read about the stories as they unfolded, the more sad,
more depressed, more angry I got. There were some seriously flawed,
seriously stupid people running around shaping the minds of these
children. They should make a law against that. Take some real
personal responsibility for the child's conduct... sheesh.

[p2a1x7]

I hate to bring up an old topic but it annoyed me.

Despite being a rather liberal state, Washington has very liberal gun laws. We were one of the first Shall-Issue state with regards to concealed weapons, allow open-carry, only have one class of firearms restricted beyond federal laws (full-automatic weapons), don't require firearms or operators to be licensed or registered, and have a strong preemption law (RCW 9.41.290 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.290)). In addition, we have no duty to retreat and the use of force is protected (RCW 9A.16.110 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.110))

Washington has less gun related deaths per capita when compared to Washington DC, California and Illinois (some of the most restrictive places to own a gun).

I have been shooting guns since I was barely old enough to hold one (I'm left handed but shoot right handed because my left arm could hold up my .22 easier). When I was growing up my dad always had a loaded pistol in the house that was easily accessible for defense. I never touched the pistol even though I knew where it was and how to use it. While I do no carry a pistol daily, I plan on doing so when I graduate from my university. I do not believe that everyone should own a gun, agree that there are people who LEGALLY own guns that shouldn't, and believe that guns are just a tool. A tool that can level the playing field when someone is in a disparity of force (wording is awkward :(). If I had the option of carrying a policeman in my pocket or a gun on my hip, I would choose the policeman. Unfortunately police are expensive and aren't compact, and until this changes I will choose to use the tools that the police use to protect themselves and others.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Preventable_causes_of_death.png
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_preventable_causes_of_death#Leading_causes _in_the_United_States)
Note: Firearms deaths include homocide, suicide, accidents, legal intervention. Accidents only would not warrant a bar on the graph (776 deaths)

I'd like to ask some questions for whoever reads this:
Have you ever shot a firearm?
Do you believe that a firearm needs to be discharged in order to be used in self-defense?
What is an appropriate level of gun control? (If you don't know where to start, consider "assault weapons", open-carry, concealed-carry, Title II weapons, use of force)
Would you be willing to give up your 4th amendment rights to enact your level of gun control?

Additionally I'd like to know if there is any proof that banning firearms has lowered violent crimes in the countries that have done so. I'm not talking about gun related violence, all violent crimes. I've never seen any data that shows it.

And for those people who like to say assault weapon this and assault weapon that... Which of these is an assault weapon?
http://www.ak-47.us/pic/CA-Legal/00-01-010-0003.jpg
http://www.davesguns.com/serverpics/FirearmsPage/Mossberg-500-Tactical-01.jpg
(Hint: It's not the AK-47)

[secret-steve-crumbles]

OMG, you have no idea where you are....

[gadget_nut]

I hate to bring up an old topic but it annoyed me.

Despite being a rather liberal state, Washington has very liberal gun laws. We were one of the first Shall-Issue state with regards to concealed weapons, allow open-carry, only have one class of firearms restricted beyond federal laws (full-automatic weapons), don't require firearms or operators to be licensed or registered, and have a strong preemption law (RCW 9.41.290 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.290)). In addition, we have no duty to retreat and the use of force is protected (RCW 9A.16.110 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.110))

Washington has less gun related deaths per capita when compared to Washington DC, California and Illinois (some of the most restrictive places to own a gun).

I have been shooting guns since I was barely old enough to hold one (I'm left handed but shoot right handed because my left arm could hold up my .22 easier). When I was growing up my dad always had a loaded pistol in the house that was easily accessible for defense. I never touched the pistol even though I knew where it was and how to use it. While I do no carry a pistol daily, I plan on doing so when I graduate from my university. I do not believe that everyone should own a gun, agree that there are people who LEGALLY own guns that shouldn't, and believe that guns are just a tool. A tool that can level the playing field when someone is in a disparity of force (wording is awkward :(). If I had the option of carrying a policeman in my pocket or a gun on my hip, I would choose the policeman. Unfortunately police are expensive and aren't compact, and until this changes I will choose to use the tools that the police use to protect themselves and others.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Preventable_causes_of_death.png
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_preventable_causes_of_death#Leading_causes _in_the_United_States)
Note: Firearms deaths include homocide, suicide, accidents, legal intervention. Accidents only would not warrant a bar on the graph (776 deaths)

I'd like to ask some questions for whoever reads this:
Have you ever shot a firearm?
Do you believe that a firearm needs to be discharged in order to be used in self-defense?
What is an appropriate level of gun control? (If you don't know where to start, consider "assault weapons", open-carry, concealed-carry, Title II weapons, use of force)
Would you be willing to give up your 4th amendment rights to enact your level of gun control?

Additionally I'd like to know if there is any proof that banning firearms has lowered violent crimes in the countries that have done so. I'm not talking about gun related violence, all violent crimes. I've never seen any data that shows it.

And for those people who like to say assault weapon this and assault weapon that... Which of these is an assault weapon?
http://www.ak-47.us/pic/CA-Legal/00-01-010-0003.jpg
http://www.davesguns.com/serverpics/FirearmsPage/Mossberg-500-Tactical-01.jpg
(Hint: It's not the AK-47)

Just an FYI. You're speaking to the deaf and showing flash cards to the blind.
More realistically, while you post facts, they clamp their eyes shut, stick their fingers in their ears and scream "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" at the top of their lungs.
They don't care about reality. They don't care that SCOTUS and several lower courts have ruled that the police have no obligation to protect. They don't care that the POS mentioned in the opening post broke 27 different laws to acquire the weapon he used to take the life of that poor child and that one, one hundred or one thousand more restrictive laws would not have saved her life. They don't care that the only people effected by restrictive gun laws are those who care about laws(i.e. law abiding citizens).

@token,
You were right. I'm a life member of the NRA and I say leave me and my guns alone and stick a needle in the arm of the SOB. It's far more humane treatment than he dealt to that child.

[p2a1x7]

Just an FYI. You're speaking to the deaf and showing flash cards to the blind.
More realistically, while you post facts, they clamp their eyes shut, stick their fingers in their ears and scream "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" at the top of their lungs.

Was just annoyed. Speaking to the deaf is better than preaching to the choir :)