Discussion for article #224048
One more time, folks… If a gun is unloaded and safely locked away, it’s of no use to repel the imaginary 3:00 am intruder. On the other hand, if it’s readily accessible, it’s many times more likely to end up putting a bullet into a family member, friend, or neighbor.
Now explain to me again why you think you need to have a gun in the house.
15 Likes
Wow, just heartbreaking. At 11yrs old you know what a gun is, and what it can do. Poor kids, they had access to a gun now one is dead, while the other lives with this for the rest of his life. Two lives for one gun.
7 Likes
I hope they pursue the souce of the gun.
Instead of spending millions upon millions of dollars to attack our Constitution, people like Bloomberg and Moms Demand action and so on should really spend that money on educating people on the safe storage of weapons. The NRA offers plenty of material that address guns safety, the Bloombergs of this world could help advertise them to the masses.
This young boy obviously has uneducated parents who thought it safe to leave a loaded and unsupervised gun in the house. Which is a good thing to have, but an adult can’t be stupid about it and expect an eleven years old to know better. Let’s spend the money to educate parents and adults, not playing Don Quixote against the windmills.
3 Likes
I agree with the poster LIBS. I grew up around firearms. I knew not to touch them until it was time my father and grandparents and a few uncles taught me. I can recall it started around 6 maybe 7 years old. I was educated on them, knew how to break them down and clean and learned and practiced firing them. I learned to respect them. I knew where they were locked up along with the ammo. My four younger brothers had the same education and training.
1 Like
Hey Pissboy…maybe they should create training films like we had in High School for Drivers Ed? You know the ones with the dead and mangled bodies caused by improper use of the vehicle. Instead, they’ll feature morgue shots of mangled dead children, mothers, fathers, etc. with holes in them.
5 Likes
Yet another watering of the tree of liberty by the ammosexual gundamentalists…
3 Likes
Fighting for reasonable gun regulations is not attacking the Constitution, as you repeatedly claim, Libsy boy. That’s a form of fallacy originally called “begging the question.” There are no untrammeled rights; freedom of speech does not give you the right to slander, libel, defame, or incite to riot. Regulations on gun owners are entirely Constitutional. Stop making this false claim if you want to be taken at all seriously around here, where people are not idiots.
15 Likes
Exc[quote=“MisterNeutron, post:2, topic:5634”]
Now explain to me again why you think you need to have a gun in the house
[/quote]
Excellent response. The “protection” thing falls apart just as you say. Trigger locks are a great solution but, God forbid, anyone who has already spent hundreds on a gun should have to spend another single dollar on a trigger lock.
1 Like
To you, dozens (and maybe even hundreds) of dead people are an acceptable price to pay for that once in a blue moon chance to shoot an armed robber who might be breaking in. To us it’s not acceptable.
Like Mr Neutron said above, guns are only useful for protection if they’re freely accessible. Secure them and they take too long to get to. So either you have a useful gun that’s a danger to everyone, or a secured gun that’s a danger to pretty much no one.
I don’t know, maybe the armed robbers where you live will wait patiently while you go unlock your gun and load it up.
1 Like
Ah, yes - “Homeowner shoots intruder.” The favorite of the timid, scared gun lovers. But it’s like putting up a link to a news item about someone who was in a car accident and was saved because he wasn’t wearing a seatbelt, and was “thrown clear” of the accident. From this, you conclude that not wearing seatbelts is the smart move.
Once in a while, an armed homeowner uses his weapon successfully to protect himself. But the other hundred times, the gun ends up shooting your kid’s playmate or brother. Does this sound like a good trade-off to you?
9 Likes
I also grew up around firearms. Most people here did. And the fact is, statistics prove that where a firearm is present, it is far more likely that an innocent individual is shot than a bad actor, and by a wide margin.
That’s because everyone is a responsible gun owner until the split second they become irresponsible – and at that point, there’s no turning back. How many must die for a fetish?
Gun owners should be required to carry insurance. Any gun owner whose weapon is used by a child to kill another should be held responsible for the murder. Ammo should be tagged. Magazines should be limited in capacity. Mental health checks should be required before authorizing an individual to own a firearm. None of those things would make one iota of difference to the kind of gun owner your father and grandparents were, however, none are even remotely acceptable to today’s industry-duped gun nut.
9 Likes
Guns are fun. You can always get new friends but a gun is forever.
3 Likes
Unfortunately, logic has no appeal to the brain stem.
1 Like
Even the uber-right Christo-fascist Antonin “Fat Tony” Scalia agrees: gun regulations do not necessarily impede what he errantly defines as “Second Amendment rights.”
1 Like
Whoever didn’t secure this weapon needs to go to prison - period. One boy is dead. Another is now a killer.
It needs to be illegal to be reckless with a gun. It is illegal to reckless with a car, but gun owners get a pass for some reason. Literally thousands of people die in this country every year from bullets.
If those deaths were somehow attributed to Islam, we would have already launched like six wars.
2 Likes
Because my dick is tiny, of course, admitted no gun-hugger ever.
1 Like
Especially considering that the first few words of that amendment are “A well regulated…”.
Saying that even the first amendment is restricted and regulated, therefore all the amendments can be restricted and regulated, it’s just playing semantics. Yes, one can’t scream “Fire” in a crowded theater but that’s not free speech, that’s causing harm to other people. You can still scream “Fire” in an open field where people aren’t feared into stampede for an exit or if you are alone in that very same theater. That’s not a restriction on free speech.
The second amendment grants to “The People” the right to keep and bear arms, but that doesn’t mean one can go in a theater and shoot the place up, even for celebratory fire. That’s not a restriction on the right to keep and bear arms, just common sense.
Attempting to remove the right to go on that same theater bearing arms, because of the idiotic meme that someone “is a responsible gun owner until he is not”, equals to expect that those who go to theaters get gagged and bound before they go in so that we can make sure that nobody will scream “Fire”.