[TomHudson]

Originally Posted by BOOF-M3

Ouch Tom. Not my fight here but, that's probably a little harsh to think that another member would feel that way. I don't see where it gets the conversation to a place that people can see each other's views.

True, but I've been around enough to see that nothing changes and people love to roll out statistics to demonstrate that it's not that big of a problem compared to something else completely unrelated?

I would agree that it's just bad parenting and inadequate consequences for the mishandling and storage of firearms.

I'm not against control or removing firearms, but I am for punishment that serves as deterrent and an example to which others may learn from this tragedy.

[Lups]

I don't like even the idea of guns and kids in the same building, when i was a kid i regularly ran away to go fishing on my own. My parents weren't bad parents per say, but kids are too slippery if they so wish.

[cliverman]

Always the laws? No. Darwin. It doesn't matter how many laws you have, the stupid, the criminal, and the irresponsible will break laws.

It's against the law (a common sense) to have a loaded gun at the daycare. People break laws.

[cliverman]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

Um no. I think the terrorists in Paris used, wait for it, AK47s? Multiple times? How about the 2 million crimes foiled annually by legal gun owners. How many innocent lives did those instances save. Confiscating guns in Austrailia, what happened? More gun violence. Number one murder weapon in England is now kitchen knives. The Brits contemplated confiscating those too. What's next, hammers? Typical ignorant argument.

Amen brother. It's the people not the instrument. Thinking must change.

[Kev312]

So what do we suggest as ramification? Throw the husband in jail since it was his firearm since the wife had no knowledge of it? Throw both of them in jail? How can we curb this from happening in the future, while holding those responsible accountable?

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by Flyingscotsman

Unfortunately you can't regulate against stupidity.

If the guns weren't there in the first place, the kids couldn't accidentally shoot themselves or someone else, no matter how stupid the parents.

True, but then 2mm more people would be robbed, raped and murdered instead. And I'm speaking frim personal experience thwarting 2 crimes with my firearm myself. Would have stopped at least 6 more but probably dozens when my wife wouldn't let me confront burglars breaking in my neighbors home and said call the cops instead. I Would have had them on the ground waiting for cops to arrive. Instead, they burglarized 6 more homes in my neighborhood and who knows how many more as they were never caught and cops took 55 minutes to arrive.

[TomHudson]

Who's name is on the ownership is irrelevant.

Ignorance and stupid isn't a defence.

Woman goes to jail because her negligence caused 2 counts of death, but I'm not against sending them both.

I don't think society benefits from people that are so ignorant and self absorbed that others die from their actions.

[Kev312]

Originally Posted by TomHudson

Who's name is on the ownership is irrelevant.

Ignorance and stupid isn't a defence.

Woman goes to jail because her negligence caused 2 counts of death, but I'm not against sending them both.

I don't think society benefits from people that are so ignorant and self absorbed that others die from their actions.

If the sisters claims are true that the woman told her husband no firearms and was unaware of one being in the house, it wouldn't be under her negligence. It would be the husbands. So he should be at fault, if the statement is in fact true, and should be sentenced accordingly.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by TomHudson

True, but I've been around enough to see that nothing changes and people love to roll out statistics to demonstrate that it's not that big of a problem compared to something else completely unrelated?

I would agree that it's just bad parenting and inadequate consequences for the mishandling and storage of firearms.

I'm not against control or removing firearms, but I am for punishment that serves as deterrent and an example to which others may learn from this tragedy.

There should be a penalty for the parents in this case. No excuse for letting a toddler access a firearm. Should it be murder or even negligent homicide? No. Definitely a felony.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by kscarrol

So I expect you'll be turning in your guns to the local police department tomorrow?

When I get pulled over with my carry gun, I notify police I have it. They ask to take it from me for the stop as they should, hold it during the stop, unload it, and return it to me unloaded after the stop by putting it unloaded in my trunk.

They have every time asked me how I like it, admire it, and 3 out of 4 have voluntarily said to me I wish everyone carried, it would stop a lot of crime and make their jobs easier. This is law enforcement saying this. The ones who know.

[Fundguy1]

Want to stop many gun deaths, pass some common sense laws. If you're a felon with a gun, automatic 10 yrs. If youre a repeat gun crime offender with a gun, 20 yrs. If you're determined mentally unstable, no guns allowed until you can prove you aren't in court. Any household with the above residing in them, no guns allowed by even other legal residents. This would curb gun violence dramatically. 90% of gun crime is committed by repeat gun crime felons but liberal laws and judges let them off with light or no sentences to commit these crimes again. Take out terrorism and mass shootings are almost always committed by mentally unstable people with or with access to guns. Liberals have been preventing laws to report these individuals from getting guns. Legal carry permit holders are the lowest measurable group of people for gun crime, less than 0.1% of gun crime, lower even than police, yet nobody has a problem with police carrying guns. Liberals strive to take guns away from these people.

[stooker]

Originally Posted by Flyingscotsman

Sadly it's too many, I haven't looked it up, but probably similar figures for drunk driving deaths as to what you have there, but.. people NEED CARS to get to work, you don't need a gun for that

And yet, drunk driving is illegal... so how can there possibly be drunk driving?

[Fundguy1]

Banning guns does nothing to stop the murder rate. Having guns doesnt reduce or amplify it. Having guns however does reduce crime and give the weak and defenseless a chance against the strong. It's as simple as that.
http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-fac...ontrol/207152/

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by stooker

And yet, drunk driving is illegal... so how can there possibly be drunk driving?

And people with 3-4 DUIs none the less.

People are stupid and break laws. The only thing banning guns would do at this point is increase crime as only the law abiding citizens would comply. Easier to rape, rob and murder when you know you won't meet any opposition.

If you don't live in the US... news flash... we don't give a shit what you think we should do.

[TomHudson]

I agree.

We tend to want to peel back American culture to something that it isn't. There are many facets to society and just a blanket ideological change to what works in Canada or England is just ridiculous.

Start with ownership and responsibility. Words we don't hear too much in today's Liberal society.

We need to weed out the idiots that hide under the blanket that responsible gun owners provide and make them criminally responsible.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by TomHudson

I agree.

We tend to want to peel back American culture to something that it isn't. There are many facets to society and just a blanket ideological change to what works in Canada or England is just ridiculous.

Start with ownership and responsibility. Words we don't hear too much in today's Liberal society.

We need to weed out the idiots that hide under the blanket that responsible gun owners provide and make them criminally responsible.

Yes, and it isn't "working" in gun free societies. The murder rates don't drop when guns are outlawed. People just find other methods. Hmm I can't shoot someone I want to kill so I guess I'll just sit here calmly. No. Lol

[CTinline-six]

Who keeps loaded guns where toddlers can access them?

Idiots do.

Make these idiots responsible for their actions. Stupidity should be a crime.

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by TomHudson

I agree.

We tend to want to peel back American culture to something that it isn't. There are many facets to society and just a blanket ideological change to what works in Canada or England is just ridiculous.

Start with ownership and responsibility. Words we don't hear too much in today's Liberal society.

We need to weed out the idiots that hide under the blanket that responsible gun owners provide and make them criminally responsible.

So much this. You want to own a gun, great. You want to let a kid shoot someone with it, own it while you're a felon, commit a crime with it? Mandatory jail time. Actual penalties that will either deter others from repeating or at least keep repeat offenders off the streets. For some reason it is always someone else's fault. I say take everyone at fault (in this case the father AND mother... no way you just don't notice multiple guns laying around in places that kids have access to while running a daycare) and lock them up.

[TomHudson]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

Yes, and it isn't "working" in gun free societies. The murder rates don't drop when guns are outlawed. People just find other methods. Hmm I can't shoot someone I want to kill so I guess I'll just sit here calmly. No. Lol

It's working well enough. The laws are much more prohibitive, but the right own firearms isn't completely restricted.

Again, the society is different, so it doesn't even register as an issue. We have enough other crap to worry about!

[Alfisti]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

True, but then 2mm more people would be robbed, raped and murdered instead. And I'm speaking frim personal experience thwarting 2 crimes with my firearm myself. Would have stopped at least 6 more but probably dozens when my wife wouldn't let me confront burglars breaking in my neighbors home and said call the cops instead. I Would have had them on the ground waiting for cops to arrive. Instead, they burglarized 6 more homes in my neighborhood and who knows how many more as they were never caught and cops took 55 minutes to arrive.

So how does the rest of the civilised world manage it then? If anything your crimes rates in the US are relatively high compared to comparable democracies in Canada, Australia, NZ, UK etc.

I admit that there's SO MANY guns in the US you likely need one but the entire premise in and of itself is absolutely stupid.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by Alfisti

So how does the rest of the civilised world manage it then? If anything your crimes rates in the US are relatively high compared to comparable democracies in Canada, Australia, NZ, UK etc.

I admit that there's SO MANY guns in the US you likely need one but the entire premise in and of itself is absolutely stupid.

That's a culture thing. Crime rates are high but not because of guns. They are lower than they would be because of guns. Look at states with carry rates vs other states. Chicago has some of the highest crime rates, gin crime rates, murder rates, but extremely strict gun laws. It's not guns that cause crime. It's economic condition. Get people in the crime ridden neighborhoods jobs instead of welfare and crime will drop. Get the legal non felons in those neighborhoods find to protect themselves and it will too.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by TomHudson

It's working well enough. The laws are much more prohibitive, but the right own firearms isn't completely restricted.

Again, the society is different, so it doesn't even register as an issue. We have enough other crap to worry about!

Yup. You sure do.