One more tragic incident

[buggyone]

According to a Cincinnati paper, an 8 year old boy was killed Saturday when one of his brothers aimed a BB pistol at him and pulled the trigger. Turns out, it was a real handgun. The boys were playing at an uncle's house when it happened.

I guess the uncle wanted to be prepared for intruders so the pistol was not locked away and was loaded.

Too many children are killed this way.

[Golfingnut]

Sounds like Uncle Fool had a weapon without proper training or background.

Less weapons with more control on who can own. NOW!!!!

[janmcn]

According to a Cincinnati paper, an 8 year old boy was killed Saturday when one of his brothers aimed a BB pistol at him and pulled the trigger. Turns out, it was a real handgun. The boys were playing at an uncle's house when it happened.

I guess the uncle wanted to be prepared for intruders so the pistol was not locked away and was loaded.

Too many children are killed this way.


If the NRA gets it's way, it will no longer be necessary to lock up your guns as you will not be charged in these type of cases.

Also, the Florida Legislature is proposing expanding the 'Stand Your Ground Law' to make it perfectly legal to fire warning shots into the air. What a stellar idea. Can you imagine sitting at the town squares and having warning shots fired all around you?

Reading these stories makes me sick to my stomach. I have an eight year old great nephew.

Now is the time to contact your FL legislator, since their annual session begins on Tuesday. Not that it will do any good.

[billethkid]

gun controls will not eliminate stupidity!

[Golfingnut]

gun controls will not eliminate stupidity!

It would stop unqualified people from buying guns and ammunition like it was popcorn and soda.

[TexaninVA]

It would stop unqualified people from buying guns and ammunition like it was popcorn and soda.

If you are opposed to firearms for self-defense, and don't want one in your home .... don't buy one.

[buggyone]

gun controls will not eliminate stupidity!

If the stupid uncle did not have a loaded pistol that was not locked away, the 8 year old boy would still be alive.

Kind of like the loaded 12 gauge pump shotgun laying under the bed waiting to blow away a burglar, isn't it?

[buggyone]

If you are opposed to firearms for self-defense, and don't want one in your home .... don't buy one.

...but the boy's uncle did want a pistol for self protection; he bought one; kept it loaded and handy; and his 8 year old nephew got killed with it.

[Golfingnut]

...but the boy's uncle did want a pistol for self protection; he bought one; kept it loaded and handy; and his 8 year old nephew got killed with it.

There are many many accidental shooting every year. We need control to help this horrible statistic come down.

Gun accidents happen because too many gun owners have no ability to do so.

[Bucco]

First, I do not own a gun and never have. No fascination with guns ever in my life.

Now, I say that so it is clear I have "no dog in the race" so to speak. I have followed this conversation for years and have come to an opinion AND have a question for both sides of the debate.

My opinion.....this is another of those cable news issues, made important by them as they accent individual crimes and ignore the big picture totally. That has led it to be a political issue totally....one side versus the other and when that happens we have selected statistics supplied and nothing but emotion. That is my opinion as I watch from "the sidelines"....politics !!

Now, my question for both sides is this.....it took me a while to find this article which I read awhile back but finally found it. From Forbes magazine....and knowing that most folks simply ignore links that they do not feel will back their viewpoint, will try to give you an overview and ask both sides for opinions...

"Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet"

"According to DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. gun-related homicides dropped 39 percent over the course of 18 years, from 18,253 during 1993, to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, non-fatal firearm crimes decreased even more, a whopping 69 percent. The majority of those declines in both categories occurred during the first 10 years of that time frame. Firearm homicides declined from 1993 to 1999, rose through 2006, and then declined again through 2011. Non-fatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through 2004, then fluctuated in the mid-to-late 2000s.

And where did the bad people who did the shooting get most of their guns? Were those gun show “loopholes” responsible? Nope. According to surveys DOJ conducted of state prison inmates during 2004 (the most recent year of data available), only two percent who owned a gun at the time of their offense bought it at either a gun show or flea market. About 10 percent said they purchased their gun from a retail shop or pawnshop, 37 percent obtained it from family or friends, and another 40 percent obtained it from an illegal source.

While firearm violence accounted for about 70 percent of all homicides between 1993 and 2011, guns were used in less than 10 percent of all non-fatal violent crimes. Between 70 percent and 80 percent of those firearm homicides involved a handgun, and 90 percent of non-fatal firearm victimizations were committed with a handgun. Males, blacks, and persons aged 18-24 had the highest firearm homicide rates."

Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/)

I do not believe that the sources are in anyway at all political which is important...While I understand the debate in itself, as it has been going on a long long time (even before the internet), all I see is the magnifying of single events that have characters or circumstances in involved that will show good on television.

PLEASE...dont give me the little smart retort about the children in CT. or another sensational crime. Of course that was a tragedy under any and all circumstances....I would love to hear unemotional debate on the subject, and love an response to my opinion.

I am not sufficiently informed to go deeper....I just see it as another media fueled political debate until I hear other wise.

[Golfingnut]

I am a gun owner and have been for approx 55 years. I still practice gun safety, use shooting ranges to stay proficient with weapons. I truly believe it should be at least as involved to buy any weapon or even more so than it is to obtain a drivers license.

[TexaninVA]

...but the boy's uncle did want a pistol for self protection; he bought one; kept it loaded and handy; and his 8 year old nephew got killed with it.

Yes, I know, and the uncle was a moron and should be prosecuted or sued. But, in the meantime, most gun owners are responsible so let's not overreact by constraining our legitimate right to self defense. That's where these discussions seem to always lead.

[manaboutown]

What about drivers of vehicles killing children, their drowning or dying in fires? The tragic deaths of children from these causes far outnumber their accidental deaths from guns yet the latter deaths appear to get the most publicity, largely from anti-gun media.

RealClearPolicy - How Common Are Child Gun Accidents? (http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2013/09/29/how_common_are_child_gun_accidents_666.html)

[Dusty74]

Absolutely, this was a terrible tragedy. However, how old was the brother that pulled the trigger? Was he old enough to know better? Even if it had been a BB pistol, pointing it at his brother and pulling the trigger was unacceptable. Was this truly an accident or negligent behavior by an older brother? As soon as they are old enough to understand, all children should be taught gun safety and the consequences of mishandling firearms. As far as children dying from gun accidents, 2010 figures from the CDC list firearm deaths as 1.5% of all unintentional fatalities of children 14 and under. Motor vehicle accidents were number one at 34%, suffocation number two at 27%, drowning number three at 18%, fires number four at 7%, etc. Firearm deaths were number eight on the list.

[DianeM]

Anyone ever remember that we have "the right to bear arms " according to, I believe, the constitution? You can't punish all for the stupidity of some. Firm approver of the NRA and "stand your ground ". The uncle's life is over because he was careless. Most gun owners have a brain.

[Bucco]

If the NRA gets it's way, it will no longer be necessary to lock up your guns as you will not be charged in these type of cases.

Also, the Florida Legislature is proposing expanding the 'Stand Your Ground Law' to make it perfectly legal to fire warning shots into the air. What a stellar idea. Can you imagine sitting at the town squares and having warning shots fired all around you?

Reading these stories makes me sick to my stomach. I have an eight year old great nephew.

Now is the time to contact your FL legislator, since their annual session begins on Tuesday. Not that it will do any good.

Allow me to correct, or at least put into proper context what you are saying.

1. Laws governing the locking of guns is mostly a state effort, which is good although there are laws on the books now. A federal law passed in 2005 covers it and in Florida ..."states that any person who stores or leaves a loaded firearm on premises under his or her control, and who knows or reasonably should know that a person under age 16 is likely to gain access to the firearm without the lawful permission of the minor’s parent or person having charge of the minor, or without supervision required by law, must do one of the following:

Keep the firearm in a securely locked box or container;

Keep the firearm in a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure; or

Secure the firearm with a trigger lock.1

According to what I could find, the NRA is also in strong support of that....can you allow us where you are getting the NRA proposal ??

2. The expansion of the Stand your Ground law simply is clarifying. About 23 states have this law, and problem was in Florida that you were in more serious danger if you pulled a gun and warned someone.....you seemed to be better of LEGALLY to shoot. That is the clarification being made. Just wanted to clarify the way your presented it.

[janmcn]

NRA fights for the right to leave unsecured guns around children.


NRA News Fights For The Right To Leave Unsecured Guns Around Children | Blog | Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/01/08/nra-news-fights-for-the-right-to-leave-unsecure/197479)

[Bucco]

NRA fights for the right to leave unsecured guns around children.


NRA News Fights For The Right To Leave Unsecured Guns Around Children | Blog | Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/01/08/nra-news-fights-for-the-right-to-leave-unsecure/197479)


WITH all due respect, have you actually read that article ? Beyond the headline I mean ?? WOW is all I can say.

And,as I said, it is still very misleading to say what you said and I again do not have a dog in this race, but misleading stuff like this tends to distort any discussion...it just aint true...PLEASE read the article. This is an article I will keep as I am engaged in ongoing work on the media distortion of facts.

I am not defending the NRA, just defending honesty actually.

I will offer the following from the NRA website...

"Store guns so they are not accessible to unauthorized persons.
Many factors must be considered when deciding where and how to store guns. A person's particular situation will be a major part of the consideration. Dozens of gun storage devices, as well as locking devices that attach directly to the gun, are available. However, mechanical locking devices, like the mechanical safeties built into guns, can fail and should not be used as a substitute for safe gun handling and the observance of all gun safety rules."

Education and Training|NRA Gun Safety Rules (http://training.nra.org/nra-gun-safety-rules.aspx)

[TexaninVA]

NRA fights for the right to leave unsecured guns around children.


NRA News Fights For The Right To Leave Unsecured Guns Around Children | Blog | Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/01/08/nra-news-fights-for-the-right-to-leave-unsecure/197479)

Your post is an excellent example of the pure emotionalism that always seems to surround this debate. It's not about scaring people ... it's not about having a bogeyman to point at ... it's about a right to defend yourself.

The source you cite is also mega-partisan thus hardly persuasive.

[buggyone]

[QUOTE=TexaninVA;838364]

. it's about a right to defend yourself.


I guess the 8 year old boy's uncle defended himself with his pistol quite well?

Now, he will have to have a lawyer defend him!

[CFrance]

Yes, I know, and the uncle was a moron and should be prosecuted or sued. But, in the meantime, most gun owners are responsible so let's not overreact by constraining our legitimate right to self defense. That's where these discussions seem to always lead.

When I was in elementary school, in a one-square-mile middle-to-upper class suburb of Pittsburgh, our family doctor, who was obviously intelligent enough to get through medical school, kept a loaded gun in the desk in his home office. His teenage son and younger son were fooling around in the office after school one day, and found the gun. The teenager pointed it at his younger brother. It went off and killed the brother. I was there in school when the principal showed up and pulled their young sister out of the classroom. She was younger than I, but the news somehow traveled fast through the school.

This family was never the same. The son and the father retreated to a place no one could reach. We were a close-knit community, back in the '60s, with elementary through high school all at the same spot, within walking distance for everyone. Everyone knew everyone. Everyone used Dr. Koenig. Everyone experienced the devastation that ensued.

My first point is that it doesn't take a moron to fail to practice safety where guns are concerned. It crosses all socio-economic boundaries, all intelligence levels.

My second point is that many of us formed our views about gun ownership from personal experiences. I know I did. I was only in the sixth grade. I knew these people, played with Steve and Danny Koenig, and I am haunted to this day.

I know some will say anecdotal, blah, blah, blah. But it keeps happening, doesn't it?

[Bucco]

This debate is seemingly going the way of politics, and single stories. To those who have strong opinions.....if gun deaths plummet as gun sales soar.....what do you think that means ? And please leave your politics at the door. Again, my opinion, this subject falls into that category of media spurred, media flamed political discussions. SILENCE until a noteworthy death occurs, then time to make some point with no regard to facts.

I sincerely want to hear counters to what appears to be solid information, not political mish mash

[Bucco]

When I was in elementary school, in a one-square-mile middle-to-upper class suburb of Pittsburgh, our family doctor, who was obviously intelligent enough to get through medical school, kept a loaded gun in the desk in his home office. His teenage son and younger son were fooling around in the office after school one day, and found the gun. The teenager pointed it at his younger brother. It went off and killed the brother. I was there in school when the principal showed up and pulled their young sister out of the classroom. She was younger than I, but the news somehow traveled fast through the school.

This family was never the same. The son and the father retreated to a place no one could reach. We were a close-knit community, back in the '60s, with elementary through high school all at the same spot, within walking distance for everyone. Everyone knew everyone. Everyone used Dr. Koenig. Everyone experienced the devastation that ensued.

My first point is that it doesn't take a moron to fail to practice safety where guns are concerned. It crosses all socio-economic boundaries, all intelligence levels.

My second point is that many of us formed our views about gun ownership from personal experiences. I know I did. I was only in the sixth grade. I knew these people, played with Steve and Danny Koenig, and I am haunted to this day.

I know some will say anecdotal, blah, blah, blah. But it keeps happening, doesn't it?


I respect your feelings, but according to statistics, it does NOT keep happening. I have a special interest in the media control over our life...not sure where this fits, but thus far as sales rise, deaths go down, BUT if a story can tug at us, the media will explode with it and repeat it over and over.

I would ask why can't we put our politics aside when having such a discussion,but our media does not allow that.

[eweissenbach]

This debate is seemingly going the way of politics, and single stories. To those who have strong opinions.....if gun deaths plummet as gun sales soar.....what do you think that means ? And please leave your politics at the door. Again, my opinion, this subject falls into that category of media spurred, media flamed political discussions. SILENCE until a noteworthy death occurs, then time to make some point with no regard to facts.

I sincerely want to hear counters to what appears to be solid information, not political mish mash


I understand what you are saying Bucco, but "facts" can be and are often manipulated to make the point favored by the author. Personal experiences, rational opinions, and even politics ( much to my dismay) are or can be, a legitimate part of the discussion.

[CFrance]

I respect your feelings, but according to statistics, it does NOT keep happening. I have a special interest in the media control over our life...not sure where this fits, but thus far as sales rise, deaths go down, BUT if a story can tug at us, the media will explode with it and repeat it over and over.

I would ask why can't we put our politics aside when having such a discussion,but our media does not allow that.

But Bucco... the rate of incidence may be going down, but the accidents are still happening.

[Bucco]

I understand what you are saying Bucco, but "facts" can be and are often manipulated to make the point favored by the author. Personal experiences, rational opinions, and even politics ( much to my dismay) are or can be, a legitimate part of the discussion.

You are absolutely correct, but as you maintained in a separate debate...I think the facts were supplied by the DOJ, the FBI, etc, not a media or group with special interests.

My point about the personal stories is to simply point out, this is ONLY an issue when a STORY sadly occurs that fits the position to be told. It does not seem ever to go anywhere near facts or context. It is left entirely to emotions, which is why the selection of and presentation of selected stories is used.

Listen I do not own a gun, have no feelings at all about the NRA...I was/am struck by the seemingly political only discussions....

I think that is inspired by the media.

I took this opportunity to ask the OP and others who have, or seem to have, strong feelings on this how they feel about the FACTS.

I have no desire to divide....but I do not like discussions that may or may not, influence legislation in this country to be devoid of discussion of facts...and you know I agree that source is important...presented by the countries law enforcement experts.

To allow that is just like giving it up and allowing the loudest and best financed to dictate law.

I will shut up and go away, but discussing single incidents wrapped around seeking legislation, without allowing facts to enter is wrong in my .

[Bucco]

But Bucco... the rate of incidence may be going down, but the accidents are still happening.

Yes..sadly. But do you ever hear this debate in context...do you ever hear how sad a situation was, but keep in mind, etc. Do you ever hear a legitimate, adult conversation.

I may have missed them, but all I hear is sensationalism, and attempts to put folks on the defense. I recall my reading these facts, but NEVER hearing anything about them anywhere. And when alluded to, you are put on the defensive (as I am feeling)

I simply asked a question about what folks think about those stats...I have heard about the NRA alleged and untrue movement, stand your ground, etc.

Locking of guns are covered by law...federal and state (in 23 states).....what is our point of these sensational stories if it has no point EXCEPT ..for what ?

Let us discuss much more strict punishment for DUI, which does factually kill many...let us make a headline for every crash that kills children because of DUI. Those stories are presented in a much different light !

[TexaninVA]

[QUOTE=TexaninVA;838364]

. it's about a right to defend yourself.


I guess the 8 year old boy's uncle defended himself with his pistol quite well?

Now, he will have to have a lawyer defend him!

So what would you truly, honestly like to see? The Australian solution where private ownership of firearms is outlawed? What would you recommend?

[CFrance]

Yes..sadly. But do you ever hear this debate in context...do you ever hear how sad a situation was, but keep in mind, etc. Do you ever hear a legitimate, adult conversation.

I may have missed them, but all I hear is sensationalism, and attempts to put folks on the defense. I recall my reading these facts, but NEVER hearing anything about them anywhere. And when alluded to, you are put on the defensive (as I am feeling)

I simply asked a question about what folks think about those stats...I have heard about the NRA alleged and untrue movement, stand your ground, etc.

Locking of guns are covered by law...federal and state (in 23 states).....what is our point of these sensational stories if it has no point EXCEPT ..for what ?

Let us discuss much more strict punishment for DUI, which does factually kill many...let us make a headline for every crash that kills children because of DUI. Those stories are presented in a much different light !

Well, we may be talking in the same vein. One of my points was that personal experience with gun tragedy colors many people's views on gun ownership laws--including mine. If they could show me that if everyone bought a gun these incidents would disappear, I'd be out at the nearest gun shop.

I do, however, think we hear about every innocent person who is killed by a drunk driver. And I think it has gone a long way toward tightening the drinking/driving laws and penalties.

But where are the penalties for the idiots who leave loaded guns lying around the house for whatever reason? Do they end up in jail like the drunk drivers? I'd like to see those statistics, because I believe they are simply pitied because they suffered a tragedy but not made to pay for their stupidity/laziness/lack of awareness.

[CFrance]

[quote=buggyone;838372]

So what would you truly, honestly like to see? The Australian solution where private ownership of firearms is outlawed? What would you recommend?

A common misconception is that firearms are illegal in Australia and that no individual may possess them. While it's true that Australia has restrictive firearms laws, rifles and shotguns (including semi-automatic), as well as handguns are all legal within a narrow set of criteria.


the federal government and the states and territories agreed to a uniform approach to firearms regulation, including a ban on certain semiautomatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns, standard licensing and permit criteria, storage requirements and inspections, and greater restrictions on the sale of firearms and ammunition. Firearms license applicants are required to take a safety course and show a “genuine reason” for owning a firearm, which could not include self-defense. The reasons for refusing a license would include “reliable evidence of a mental or physical condition which would render the applicant unsuitable for owning, possessing or using a firearm.” A waiting period of twenty-eight days would apply to the issuing of both firearms licenses and permits to acquire each weapon.

A common-sense approach, IMO.

[graciegirl]

When I was in elementary school, in a one-square-mile middle-to-upper class suburb of Pittsburgh, our family doctor, who was obviously intelligent enough to get through medical school, kept a loaded gun in the desk in his home office. His teenage son and younger son were fooling around in the office after school one day, and found the gun. The teenager pointed it at his younger brother. It went off and killed the brother. I was there in school when the principal showed up and pulled their young sister out of the classroom. She was younger than I, but the news somehow traveled fast through the school.

This family was never the same. The son and the father retreated to a place no one could reach. We were a close-knit community, back in the '60s, with elementary through high school all at the same spot, within walking distance for everyone. Everyone knew everyone. Everyone used Dr. Koenig. Everyone experienced the devastation that ensued.

My first point is that it doesn't take a moron to fail to practice safety where guns are concerned. It crosses all socio-economic boundaries, all intelligence levels.

My second point is that many of us formed our views about gun ownership from personal experiences. I know I did. I was only in the sixth grade. I knew these people, played with Steve and Danny Koenig, and I am haunted to this day.

I know some will say anecdotal, blah, blah, blah. But it keeps happening, doesn't it?



Well said, and deeply felt.

[buggyone]

[quote=buggyone;838372]

So what would you truly, honestly like to see? The Australian solution where private ownership of firearms is outlawed? What would you recommend?

I do not know about Australian rules. I was on a recent cruise to Australia and several Australians that I spoke with were surprised to find out I could obtain a concealed carry permit with no testing of rules or skill but just by paying about $110.

I do not advocate banning guns. I advocate showing a legitimate need for carrying and not the b.s. about "it is my right" to carry. It is just ridiculous to think carrying a gun in The Villages is necessary.

I advocate "smart" guns so kids could not accidently shoot them.

[CFrance]

[quote=TexaninVA;838415]

I do not know about Australian rules. I was on a recent cruise to Australia and several Australians that I spoke with were surprised to find out I could obtain a concealed carry permit with no testing of rules or skill but just by paying about $110.

I do not advocate banning guns. I advocate showing a legitimate need for carrying and not the b.s. about "it is my right" to carry. It is just ridiculous to think carrying a gun in The Villages is necessary.

I advocate "smart" guns so kids could not accidently shoot them.
:BigApplause::BigApplause:

[Cajulian]

[quote=TexaninVA;838415]

I do not know about Australian rules. I was on a recent cruise to Australia and several Australians that I spoke with were surprised to find out I could obtain a concealed carry permit with no testing of rules or skill but just by paying about $110.

I do not advocate banning guns. I advocate showing a legitimate need for carrying and not the b.s. about "it is my right" to carry. It is just ridiculous to think carrying a gun in The Villages is necessary.

I advocate "smart" guns so kids could not accidently shoot them.


Just out of curiosity, in your opinion what would be "a legitimate reason for carrying a gun"? Particularly if you consider it b.s. "That it is your Right", per the 2nd Amendment of our a Constitution.

[buggyone]

[quote=buggyone;838471]


Just out of curiosity, in your opinion what would be "a legitimate reason for carrying a gun"? Particularly if you consider it b.s. "That it is your Right", per the 2nd Amendment of our a Constitution.

Get your quotes right if you are going to quote someone. I said Legitimate NEED. Please play your semantics games with someone else. If you do not think I am right, so be it. 'Nuff said

[2BNTV]

According to a Cincinnati paper, an 8 year old boy was killed Saturday when one of his brothers aimed a BB pistol at him and pulled the trigger. Turns out, it was a real handgun. The boys were playing at an uncle's house when it happened.

I guess the uncle wanted to be prepared for intruders so the pistol was not locked away and was loaded.

Too many children are killed this way.

Big sigh!!!! When will all this madness end?

[Polar Bear]

[quote=Cajulian;838483]

Get your quotes right if you are going to quote someone. I said Legitimate NEED...

Ouch. That IS important. Especially when stating opposing views.

[Bucco]

[quote=TexaninVA;838415]

I do not know about Australian rules. I was on a recent cruise to Australia and several Australians that I spoke with were surprised to find out I could obtain a concealed carry permit with no testing of rules or skill but just by paying about $110.

I do not advocate banning guns. I advocate showing a legitimate need for carrying and not the b.s. about "it is my right" to carry. It is just ridiculous to think carrying a gun in The Villages is necessary.

I advocate "smart" guns so kids could not accidently shoot them.

I support what you say here. I also apologize for hi jacking your thread, but I never posted until we leaped to "stand your ground" and condemnation of the NRA as a knee jerk reaction. There are laws governing what you are alarmed about and they should be enforced.

[Taltarzac725]

[quote=TexaninVA;838415]

I do not know about Australian rules. I was on a recent cruise to Australia and several Australians that I spoke with were surprised to find out I could obtain a concealed carry permit with no testing of rules or skill but just by paying about $110.

I do not advocate banning guns. I advocate showing a legitimate need for carrying and not the b.s. about "it is my right" to carry. It is just ridiculous to think carrying a gun in The Villages is necessary.

I advocate "smart" guns so kids could not accidently shoot them.

There are legitimate reasons why someone might be carrying a concealed weapon in the Villages. I had a stalker for maybe a school year @ 1989-1990- Gail P-- at the University of Minnesota Law Library while on the reference desk. She was well known to the U of MN police as she had chained herself to her previous fixation's desk. Her rights were emphasized though. She harassed my live- in girlfriend Jennifer V. at the time who was a year behind me in law school. (Class of 1990) My girlfriend complained to the Director of the Law Library M. Kathleen Price about it and to anyone else who would listen including me. This stalking kept on as her rights again were important. The last straw for the administration seemed to be her following me home one day. I, of course, complained about it. She seemed to have something quite off about her especially when judged by her previous behavior around the U of MN. And, I am no George Clooney.

I believe that others on TOTV have had these kind of experiences-- stalkers, angry ex-spouses, jilted lovers, cheating, etc.-- which can get even worse if for some reason bad choices in friendship and/or romances were made. I have also certainly made quite a lot of those especially in law school (U of MN- Class of 1989). You see what you want to see in some person and that person turns out far different from the image that you had of her.

A lot of reasons for carrying a concealed weapon would probably involve bad judgments within relationships.

Personally, I do not think I could ever shoot another human being and shudder at the idea of doing such a thing. But, I suppose if loved ones' lives were threatened then that is another matter.

I would like to see more arguments based on facts like some of these on this thread. I still see no need for many of the weapons on the US streets to be in the hands of law abided citizens. Of course, the criminals will still be able to get weapons because they never follow the laws that apply to citizens.

And, there might be a legitimate need for a loaded gun in a bedroom especially if domestic violence has been in that household and one of the parties is a lot stronger than the other. I do not see any easy answers.

I grew up in Reno, Nevada were guns in preteens hands was a common occurrence especially if you lived in more rural area of Reno. You did learn gun safety however and accidents caused by negligence, stupidity, or ill will still happened.

[TexaninVA]

[quote=TexaninVA;838415]

I do not know about Australian rules. I was on a recent cruise to Australia and several Australians that I spoke with were surprised to find out I could obtain a concealed carry permit with no testing of rules or skill but just by paying about $110.

I do not advocate banning guns. I advocate showing a legitimate need for carrying and not the b.s. about "it is my right" to carry. It is just ridiculous to think carrying a gun in The Villages is necessary.

I advocate "smart" guns so kids could not accidently shoot them.

Let's focus on where we agree as a means to progress ...

1. I'm glad you don't advocate banning guns. That's a non-starter anyway.

2. The law permits people to carry hence assumes the need. However, I agree that making sure people are trained in the use of firearms is both reasonable and desirable.

3. I also agree that carrying concealed within the interior of TV is not needed at present ... however Leesburg and other impoverished places is another story. I would carry there for sure. You can also make a case to carry on the periphery ...ie recent robbery of an elderly woman in broad daylight just off 441.

[graciegirl]

We will never change each other's minds on some things. As CFrance so perfectly explained, our attitudes toward these issues are formed for a variety of reasons. In Ohio where I grew up, people hunted game and my grandfather was a police officer for 37 years and never used his gun.


The only people I ever knew who had guns before moving here were people who hunted.


This is a new issue for many of us.


Many people who I respect here have guns.


I think how we feel about it personally rests a lot on our own history.

[TexaninVA]

[quote=Cajulian;838483][quote=buggyone;838471]



"I do not know about Australian rules. I was on a recent cruise to Australia and several Australians that I spoke with were surprised to find out I could obtain a concealed carry permit with no testing of rules or skill but just by paying about $110.

I do not advocate banning guns. I advocate showing a legitimate need for carrying and not the b.s. about "it is my right" to carry. It is just ridiculous to think carrying a gun in The Villages is necessary.

I advocate "smart" guns so kids could not accidently shoot them"

Just to be clear ... the quote above attributed to me was made by Buggyone ...not me.

And btw I agree with you Cajulian... given the 2nd amendment, the right per se is not at issue. Being licensed, having the proper training, and having some level of smarts about what you do with your right is legitimate to discuss ... as long as those with anti-2nd amendment absolutist views don't drift into attempts to ban them because a few gunowners do stupid things ... and yes, with innocent victims sometimes involved. Like everything, this issue involves tradeoffs and a balancing of rights.

I also agree with several posters that our views are shaped by our experience in life. If you used firearms before, you have a different view than if you always viewed them as dangerous or uncomfortable to be around.

For those who want to learn however, there are two gun clubs in TV which offer training. I know one lady who never touched a weapon in her life two years ago. She later took the NRA courses, which heavily emphasize safety, and she learned she's good at it. She is now an instructor at the expert level, and she carries when she travels outside TV.

[TexaninVA]

[quote=TexaninVA;838415]

A common misconception is that firearms are illegal in Australia and that no individual may possess them. While it's true that Australia has restrictive firearms laws, rifles and shotguns (including semi-automatic), as well as handguns are all legal within a narrow set of criteria.


the federal government and the states and territories agreed to a uniform approach to firearms regulation, including a ban on certain semiautomatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns, standard licensing and permit criteria, storage requirements and inspections, and greater restrictions on the sale of firearms and ammunition. Firearms license applicants are required to take a safety course and show a “genuine reason” for owning a firearm, which could not include self-defense. The reasons for refusing a license would include “reliable evidence of a mental or physical condition which would render the applicant unsuitable for owning, possessing or using a firearm.” A waiting period of twenty-eight days would apply to the issuing of both firearms licenses and permits to acquire each weapon.

A common-sense approach, IMO.

It's reasonable to say it's a common sense approach and I respect that. However, at least under the law at present, an Australian approach would be unconstitutional and that ...thankfully ... still matters.

I also note that with the "authorities" able to decide who gets to own a firearm and who does not, and given that self-defense is not a legitimate reason per the Aussies, that's completely unacceptable in the US. This is exacerbated by an erosion of trust in "the authorities" in recent years where for examples, statues passed by congress and signed by the president in to law are later changed seemingly on a whim to meet a political need. Why should we trust in that?

[CFrance]

[quote=CFrance;838434]

It's reasonable to say it's a common sense approach and I respect that. However, at least under the law at present, an Australian approach would be unconstitutional and that ...thankfully ... still matters.

I also note that with the "authorities" able to decide who gets to own a firearm and who does not, and given that self-defense is not a legitimate reason per the Aussies, that's completely unacceptable in the US. This is exacerbated by an erosion of trust in "the authorities" in recent years where for examples, statues passed by congress and signed by the president in to law are later changed seemingly on a whim to meet a political need. Why should we trust in that?

Frankly, I don't trust anybody on anything having to do with guns in the US. What I like about the Australian law is that it limits the kinds of guns--the kind that enable you to shoot many things/people at one time. And also that anyone with a mental problem cannot own a gun. I also like the 28-day waiting period, and the requirement to take gun safety training. I don't believe any of this would be unconstitutional in the US, except in the eyes of certain groups.

These laws came about after a couple of group massacres in the '90s. The government took action and succeeded.

[TexaninVA]

[quote=TexaninVA;838627]

Frankly, I don't trust anybody on anything having to do with guns in the US. What I like about the Australian law is that it limits the kinds of guns--the kind that enable you to shoot many things/people at one time. And also that anyone with a mental problem cannot own a gun. I also like the 28-day waiting period, and the requirement to take gun safety training. I don't believe any of this would be unconstitutional in the US, except in the eyes of certain groups.

These laws came about after a couple of group massacres in the '90s. The government took action and succeeded.

Safety training, waiting periods etc are fine if done in a reasonable manner and, as mentioned earlier, I have no problem with that in a constitutional sense.

I have a big problem however if "the authorities" say one cannot own a firearm for self-defense. That's kind of like the whole point of owning a firearm isn't it ?

[CFrance]

[quote=CFrance;838693]

Safety training, waiting periods etc are fine if done in a reasonable manner and, as mentioned earlier, I have no problem with that in a constitutional sense.

I have a big problem however if "the authorities" say one cannot own a firearm for self-defense. That's kind of like the whole point of owning a firearm isn't it ?
Although I am not a gun advocate or enthusiast, I have to agree with you on the self-defense issue. But the rest of their law appeals to me.

[Taltarzac725]

[quote=TexaninVA;838627]

Frankly, I don't trust anybody on anything having to do with guns in the US. What I like about the Australian law is that it limits the kinds of guns--the kind that enable you to shoot many things/people at one time. And also that anyone with a mental problem cannot own a gun. I also like the 28-day waiting period, and the requirement to take gun safety training. I don't believe any of this would be unconstitutional in the US, except in the eyes of certain groups.

These laws came about after a couple of group massacres in the '90s. The government took action and succeeded.

Power can be abused easily and has been repeatedly in US history. Black activists, for instance, were labeled paranoid schizophrenic. The people in power were after them and had enough power to do something about it. Very recently, the military labeled women who had been abused sexually by officers as people with difficult personalities. The Library of Congress had had a policy which may or may not still be in place of labeling problem employees mentally ill. This was according to a CBS News National report of around July 6, 1996 or thereabouts. I remember when I fought for my right to the pursuit of happiness through seeking employment after my contract with the University of Minnesota Law Library expired and was not being renewed, the Law Library Administration and maybe others in the Law School Administration started in a subtle manner putting my mental health in question over a nine month period of January through September of 1991. They were not trying to help me but were addressing my own problems with their resources available to survivors/victims of crimes. If an advocate does not like what the person is saying because it is true to the facts, unprincipled advocates will use attacks against the person rather than addressing the issue involved.

I do think you have to be very careful with labels like "mentally ill" and who gets to use these.

The CBS News National Report had reported that the Library of Congress's use of this tactic was something borrowed from behind the Iron Curtain. And, I do not mean the USSR of when the Berlin Wall fell but that of Stalin and his ilk. People like Stalin who trample all over human rights in the name of their usually very flawed view of Utopia.

The poor woman who had been a victim of the Library of Congress policy-- which they actually bragged was very effective-- had lost everything like her home and ability to earn a livelihood. Again, this was according to the CBS National News of around July 6, 1996. I would bet that she was quite messed up by this abuse of power.

[Will VDS]

There are many many accidental shooting every year. We need control to help this horrible statistic come down.

Gun accidents happen because too many gun owners have no ability to do so.

Do you mean more government gun control , like FAST & FUROUS gun control, with no one held accountable when things go wrong, like when our own Border patrol agent got Murdered and nobody is man enough to step up and say they screwed up. yea that's are government in action, more controls HA.

[Cajulian]

[quote=Cajulian;838483]

Get your quotes right if you are going to quote someone. I said Legitimate NEED. Please play your semantics games with someone else. If you do not think I am right, so be it. 'Nuff said

Touchy, touchy!! Ok. So again, in your opinion, what would you consider "a legitimate NEED", for owning a gun?

I am not arguing for or against guns. I am just curious about your comment. Be polite now, I am being courteous to you. Thank you for your opinion.

[buggyone]

[quote=buggyone;838489]

Touchy, touchy!! Ok. So again, in your opinion, what would you consider "a legitimate NEED", for owning a gun?

I am not arguing for or against guns. I am just curious about your comment. Be polite now, I am being courteous to you. Thank you for your opinion.

My opinion is that if that man did not have a loaded pistol unsecured in his house, his 8 year old nephew would still be alive. Ask the uncle, not me, what he now considers a legitimate need for having a loaded unsecured gun in the house. Ask the parents of the boy if the are in favor of having loaded unsecured guns in the house.

Ask them. Do not ask me.

[Dusty74]

Buggyone, some states do have a concealed carry permit system that requires a legitimate need in order to get a permit. These types of permits are also known as may issue and also discriminatory permits. One of these states was California, in which their discriminatory permit system was recently ruled unconstitutional. In many, many cases, these "legitimate need" based permits are only given to people who donate money to a certain political party, hollywood celebrities, relatives of the sheriff or mayor, people whose skin is a certain color, etc. Do you really believe that is what we want in America? Where only the elite and connected have rights that us commoners do not have?

[Taltarzac725]

Buggyone, some states do have a concealed carry permit system that requires a legitimate need in order to get a permit. These types of permits are also known as may issue and also discriminatory permits. One of these states was California, in which their discriminatory permit system was recently ruled unconstitutional. In many, many cases, these "legitimate need" based permits are only given to people who donate money to a certain political party, hollywood celebrities, relatives of the sheriff or mayor, people whose skin is a certain color, etc. Do you really believe that is what we want in America? Where only the elite and connected have rights that us commoners do not have?

That's interesting. Do you have any more information about this case in California? I certainly do not think that only the "ins" should have the privilege of carrying concealed weapons. Would hope that extensive safety training would be required as well as a thorough objective evaluation of temperament and the like. I am more afraid of hotheads getting access to concealed weapon permits-- like the retired police officer near Tampa who shot the moviegoer over getting hit in the face with popcorn-- than of mentally ill people getting them. If you look at the statistics it is the mentally ill who are usually the victims of violence and not the perpetrators. There are the very violent criminals who are mentally ill or use the appearance of being mentally ill to conduct their heinous plans and possibly get away with such actions. Probably like the Aurora movie shooter who in my mind knew exactly what he was doing and that it was evil. There are legitimate cases of what looks like a seemingly good person going bad because of some tumor or a chemical imbalance in the brain like Charles Whitman, the U of Texas tower shooter who had some kind of brain tumor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting

Who would you rather have a gun-- the thugs who set some paranoid schizophrenic on fire for their amusement or the paranoid schizophrenic who more than probably not knows that he or she has mental problems and has probably worked hard for a cure? It is the thugs who probably try to act "normal" around others when they are not bullying people who cannot fight back. This link is for the UK but the same problem exists in the US-- http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/02February/Pages/mental-illness-disability-attack-risk.aspx

[buggyone]

Buggyone, some states do have a concealed carry permit system that requires a legitimate need in order to get a permit. These types of permits are also known as may issue and also discriminatory permits. One of these states was California, in which their discriminatory permit system was recently ruled unconstitutional. In many, many cases, these "legitimate need" based permits are only given to people who donate money to a certain political party, hollywood celebrities, relatives of the sheriff or mayor, people whose skin is a certain color, etc. Do you really believe that is what we want in America? Where only the elite and connected have rights that us commoners do not have?

No, I think it is wonderful that states such as Floriduh gives any yahoo a permit to carry a concealed pistol. Look at the prime examples set by the retired police captain who kills because he was upset over texting and our star example of police wannabee George Zimmerman.

We also have Villagers who carry pistols when visiting "impoverished" communties like Leesburg and Wildwood. They also want to shoot pursesnatchers in the back.

Yes, us commoners need them concealed weapon permits like those high falootin Hollywood people got. ( read sarcasm in there)

[Dusty74]

It may soon be easy to carry a permitted concealed handgun in California, FOX News, Feb 13, 2014:
"Counties such as Los Angeles have only let a few hundred people get concealed handgun permits out of 7.5 million adults. In San Diego, only about 700 out of 2.4 million can carry. And in San Francisco, no one is granted a permit to carry a gun.
In Los Angeles and Orange Counties, the few lucky people getting permits are big donors to a sheriff’s re-election campaign or a sheriff’s personal friend. In other counties, such as Stanislaus County in northern California, the key to getting a permit seems to be either an influential politician or a prominent businessman.
Yet, in liberal California, the very people who need protection the most, poor blacks who live in high crime urban areas, have no chance of getting approved."

[2BNTV]

If they weren't able to change the gun laws after The Newton, CT tradegy, they never will.

I guess the NRA rules supreme!!!

Sadly, most murders happen between people who know each other. Scary!!!!!

Just ask Reeva. Oh wait she's dead, from Petorius bullets. :(

[Taltarzac725]

If they weren't able to change the gun laws after The Newton, CT tradegy, they never will.

I guess the NRA rules supreme!!!

Sadly, most murders happen between people who know each other. Scary!!!!!

Just ask Reeva. Oh wait she's dead, from Petorius bullets. :(

Gabrielle Giffords - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Giffords)

Not sure if things will not change with the gun laws. Stubborn very dedicated and connected people can work wonders, especially if they have a lot of help. ;)

Gabby Giffords and her husband are such a team and if they keep bugging Congress they might really get some where. The problem seems to be that the Gun lobby and its supporters often couch the 2nd Amendment as a God- given right to bear arms. The Founding Fathers were often very noble, well-read and intelligent men who lived during an era when they had had Native American and other attacks near their homes. The Founding Fathers were not Gods though or like Moses and the Ten Commandments.

[TexaninVA]

No, I think it is wonderful that states such as Floriduh gives any yahoo a permit to carry a concealed pistol. Look at the prime examples set by the retired police captain who kills because he was upset over texting and our star example of police wannabee George Zimmerman.

We also have Villagers who carry pistols when visiting "impoverished" communties like Leesburg and Wildwood. They also want to shoot pursesnatchers in the back.

Yes, us commoners need them concealed weapon permits like those high falootin Hollywood people got. ( read sarcasm in there)


Buggy

Ok, your feelings are clear on this topic. I have a couple of questions out of curiosity. I can't remember if you already provided this info so, my apologies in advance if so. If not, here are yy questions ...

1. Do you own any firearms at all?

2. Have you ever had any firearms training ...military, NRA or whatever?

3. Can you ever envision a scenario where you, personally, would need a firearm to defend either yourself or your family?

[Cajulian]

Buggy

Ok, your feelings are clear on this topic. I have a couple of questions out of curiosity. I can't remember if you already provided this info so, my apologies in advance if so. If not, here are yy questions ...

1. Do you own any firearms at all?

2. Have you ever had any firearms training ...military, NRA or whatever?

3. Can you ever envision a scenario where you, personally, would need a firearm to defend either yourself or your family?


TexaninVa,

I need to warn you. It doesn't matter which side of the argument you favor, you will get a non-relevant answer to your questions. When people discuss serious topics with their emotions, they tend to get angry when asked about actual facts, generally because they can't support what they are saying.

Anyone who served our country and fought or died to protect our Constitution to enable the freedoms granted to all that live here, fully understand why it is utmost important to uphold the constitution and laws.

Our cities everywhere have become infested with crime and it has even crept into our smaller communities. For those naive enough to believe that crime can't happen to them, may someday be in for a rude awakening.

No SANE person with a license/permit to carry a firearm ever wants to use it to hurt another individual. The fastest growing population of concealed carry permits is now from women. I wonder why?

There are no winners in this discussion topic. There will never be agreement.

[Golfingnut]

Buggy

Ok, your feelings are clear on this topic. I have a couple of questions out of curiosity. I can't remember if you already provided this info so, my apologies in advance if so. If not, here are yy questions ...

1. Do you own any firearms at all?

2. Have you ever had any firearms training ...military, NRA or whatever?

3. Can you ever envision a scenario where you, personally, would need a firearm to defend either yourself or your family?

1. I own firearms.
2. I have 22 years military training.
3. Living in The Villages it seems Quite remote, but I am prepared via my qualification, far different from the average gun owner in this country.

I joined in here as I, like Buggy, am in full support of much stronger gun control.

[TexaninVA]

1. I own firearms.
2. I have 22 years military training.
3. Living in The Villages it seems Quite remote, but I am prepared via my qualification, far different from the average gun owner in this country.

I joined in here as I, like Buggy, am in full support of much stronger gun control.

Ok Golfingnut and thanks ... waiting for Buggy's reply.

[Cajulian]

1. I own firearms.
2. I have 22 years military training.
3. Living in The Villages it seems Quite remote, but I am prepared via my qualification, far different from the average gun owner in this country.

I joined in here as I, like Buggy, am in full support of much stronger gun control.


Golfing nut, I commend you for your Military service.

The fact that you own firearms, are wise enough to ensure that you know how and when they should be used, and that you are indeed aware that crime can happen anywhere and you are prepared, tells us that you believe there is a need for the 2nd Amendment.

There are some states where gun control can definitely be improved and some laws are needed in those states, even a gun rights advocate can understand this.

Some states, like NY and California, impose overkill or redundant laws that statistically do nothing to reduce crime or prevent unintended tragedies.

When some individuals on here, based on emotions rather than facts, deny citizens the rights you and I fought to protect, then we would be remiss if we didn't work towards a common goal to educate and wisely produce legislation that actually makes sense rather than a ideological view.

Again Thank You for your service to our country.

[Golfingnut]

Golfing nut, I commend you for your Military service.

The fact that you own firearms, are wise enough to ensure that you know how and when they should be used, and that you are indeed aware that crime can happen anywhere and you are prepared, tells us that you believe there is a need for the 2nd Amendment.

There are some states where gun control can definitely be improved and some laws are needed in those states, even a gun rights advocate can understand this.

Some states, like NY and California, impose overkill or redundant laws that statistically do nothing to reduce crime or prevent unintended tragedies.

When some individuals on here, based on emotions rather than facts, deny citizens the rights you and I fought to protect, then we would be remiss if we didn't work towards a common goal to educate and wisely produce legislation that actually makes sense rather than a ideological view.

Again Thank You for your service to our country.

Thank you for your kind words. YES we have need for the 2nd amendment. YES, some states have overkill will duplication of regulations, but I feel gun sale loopholes must be tightened. If the NRA would step up and be reasonable about enacting sensible gun control, they would be more credible to the general population. To block all attempts to try to get control on an out of control gun madness we live with now is not responsible nor to the betterment of anyone of us.

[twinklesweep]

WITH all due respect, have you actually read that article ? Beyond the headline I mean ?? WOW is all I can say.

And,as I said, it is still very misleading to say what you said and I again do not have a dog in this race, but misleading stuff like this tends to distort any discussion...it just aint true...PLEASE read the article. This is an article I will keep as I am engaged in ongoing work on the media distortion of facts.

I am not defending the NRA, just defending honesty actually.

I will offer the following from the NRA website...

"Store guns so they are not accessible to unauthorized persons.
Many factors must be considered when deciding where and how to store guns. A person's particular situation will be a major part of the consideration. Dozens of gun storage devices, as well as locking devices that attach directly to the gun, are available. However, mechanical locking devices, like the mechanical safeties built into guns, can fail and should not be used as a substitute for safe gun handling and the observance of all gun safety rules."

Education and Training|NRA Gun Safety Rules (http://training.nra.org/nra-gun-safety-rules.aspx)


Because of the point made by Bucco for one to read the entire article rather than just the headline, I did so to see what the “agenda” actually is from a comprehension point of view. Here are some quotes from it. My focus is on reading the actual article, as recommended by Bucco, and my understanding of the quotes.

“NRA News host Cam Edwards attacked laws to prevent children from accessing guns by positing that there should be no criminal penalty even when an admittedly careless adult allows a child access to a gun that the child then uses to kill themselves.”

Does this mean that the NRA believes there should be no legal penalty against a careless adult allowing a child to easily get hold of a gun and use it on himself or another person, possibly with a death resulting?

“Edwards responded to Watts' USA Today interview by suggesting that if "you are careless with a firearm and one of your own children accidentally kills themself" [sic] that the "horror" of the incident alone would be sufficient punishment for the adult.”

This seems to imply that living with the death of one's child—or possibly someone else’s child?—is sufficient punishment, in contrast to drunk driving laws that criminalize the death of someone resulting from drunk driving?

“Mocking Watts' comparison between a child access prevention law and a law that criminalizes killing someone while driving drunk, Edwards said, "We don't have a negligent storage law for alcohol," and, "We don't have a negligent storage law for automobiles, and so I'm not quite sure what she is talking about." ”

This seems to imply that the NRA representative equates carelessly leaving a loaded gun where a child can have easy access to it with the existence of automobiles and alcohol rather than the results of using the automobile or the alcohol carelessly.

“Edwards also attempted to distract from an epidemic of fatal gun accidents involving young children by highlighting unintentional deaths caused in children by suffocation and other methods. Even so, according to the Centers for Disease Control unintentional shootings remain a top ten cause of accidental death for children ages 1-4 and 10-14. (Firearm homicides are the top violence-related cause of death for children 5-9 and a top five violence-related cause of death for children of all ages.)

While NRA lobbying has prevented the CDC from studying gun violence for years, in 1997 the CDC found that children in the United States were nine times more likely to die in gun accidents compared to other high-income nations.”

This appears clear and revealing. The statistics, presuming the CDC is accurate, would appear to speak for themselves. Granted, statistics can be used to illustrate a specific point of view, but they are not focusing on any one sensationalized case (a common accusation). Why would the NRA lobby against the CDC studying gun violence? Are they concerned what might be a result of such a study? Could there be other reasons?

“The topic of accidental fatal shootings involving young children became national news in April 2013 following a tragedy where a 5-year-old boy unintentionally shot his 2-year-old sister with a rifle designed to be used by young children. Edwards responded to controversy over that shooting by attacking the media for covering the incident.”

This seems to imply that to the NRA, the accidental fatal shootings are not an issue, that the real issue is that they are reported in the media. While it is true that the media often have their own agenda, is the NRA implying that only the Second Amendment counts and not the First Amendment?

What am I missing? In no way am I expressing a personal view one way or the other. My interest here is not the content of the debate but rather our ability to comprehend an article that we’ve been encouraged to read.

[Bucco]

Because of the point made by Bucco for one to read the entire article rather than just the headline, I did so to see what the “agenda” actually is from a comprehension point of view. Here are some quotes from it. My focus is on reading the actual article, as recommended by Bucco, and my understanding of the quotes.

“NRA News host Cam Edwards attacked laws to prevent children from accessing guns by positing that there should be no criminal penalty even when an admittedly careless adult allows a child access to a gun that the child then uses to kill themselves.”

Does this mean that the NRA believes there should be no legal penalty against a careless adult allowing a child to easily get hold of a gun and use it on himself or another person, possibly with a death resulting?

“Edwards responded to Watts' USA Today interview by suggesting that if "you are careless with a firearm and one of your own children accidentally kills themself" [sic] that the "horror" of the incident alone would be sufficient punishment for the adult.”

This seems to imply that living with the death of one's child—or possibly someone else’s child?—is sufficient punishment, in contrast to drunk driving laws that criminalize the death of someone resulting from drunk driving?

“Mocking Watts' comparison between a child access prevention law and a law that criminalizes killing someone while driving drunk, Edwards said, "We don't have a negligent storage law for alcohol," and, "We don't have a negligent storage law for automobiles, and so I'm not quite sure what she is talking about." ”

This seems to imply that the NRA representative equates carelessly leaving a loaded gun where a child can have easy access to it with the existence of automobiles and alcohol rather than the results of using the automobile or the alcohol carelessly.

“Edwards also attempted to distract from an epidemic of fatal gun accidents involving young children by highlighting unintentional deaths caused in children by suffocation and other methods. Even so, according to the Centers for Disease Control unintentional shootings remain a top ten cause of accidental death for children ages 1-4 and 10-14. (Firearm homicides are the top violence-related cause of death for children 5-9 and a top five violence-related cause of death for children of all ages.)

While NRA lobbying has prevented the CDC from studying gun violence for years, in 1997 the CDC found that children in the United States were nine times more likely to die in gun accidents compared to other high-income nations.”

This appears clear and revealing. The statistics, presuming the CDC is accurate, would appear to speak for themselves. Granted, statistics can be used to illustrate a specific point of view, but they are not focusing on any one sensationalized case (a common accusation). Why would the NRA lobby against the CDC studying gun violence? Are they concerned what might be a result of such a study? Could there be other reasons?

“The topic of accidental fatal shootings involving young children became national news in April 2013 following a tragedy where a 5-year-old boy unintentionally shot his 2-year-old sister with a rifle designed to be used by young children. Edwards responded to controversy over that shooting by attacking the media for covering the incident.”

This seems to imply that to the NRA, the accidental fatal shootings are not an issue, that the real issue is that they are reported in the media. While it is true that the media often have their own agenda, is the NRA implying that only the Second Amendment counts and not the First Amendment?

What am I missing? In no way am I expressing a personal view one way or the other. My interest here is not the content of the debate but rather our ability to comprehend an article that we’ve been encouraged to read.

Since you used me to make some point......

In your post above you used "SEEMS TO IMPLY" four times....DOES THIS MEAN and APPEARS also.

THAT is my problem with that article, and it would bother anyone with an interest in facts, instead of spin.

[twinklesweep]

Since you used me to make some point......

In your post above you used "SEEMS TO IMPLY" four times....DOES THIS MEAN and APPEARS also.

THAT is my problem with that article, and it would bother anyone with an interest in facts, instead of spin.


Bucco, I am sorry that you feel "used"; please accept that that was not my intention. Rather, I was using the point you made about not simply reading a headline and deciding what the article was going to say, rather than actually--and thoughtfully--reading the article.

We are in agreement about the problems with the article. What is unfortunate is that this is the person the NRA chose to represent it! He is as emotional in some of his comments as others are accused of being in responding to this issue, and he obfuscates it with unrelated points which, to me at least, come across as smokescreens rather than "sticking to the facts."

Again, my thoughts are about the presentation in the article, not the views of one side or the other of this debate. Thank you again for your suggestion to examine the article closely. An article like this would make a good class exercise for high school students.

[Bucco]

Bucco, I am sorry that you feel "used"; please accept that that was not my intention. Rather, I was using the point you made about not simply reading a headline and deciding what the article was going to say, rather than actually--and thoughtfully--reading the article.

We are in agreement about the problems with the article. What is unfortunate is that this is the person the NRA chose to represent it! He is as emotional in some of his comments as others are accused of being in responding to this issue, and he obfuscates it with unrelated points which, to me at least, come across as smokescreens rather than "sticking to the facts."

Again, my thoughts are about the presentation in the article, not the views of one side or the other of this debate. Thank you again for your suggestion to examine the article closely. An article like this would make a good class exercise for high school students.

The issue is now POLITICAL !!!! It needs to be allowed to be discussed by adults OUTSIDE THE POLITICAL ARENA and I am betting there would be great compromise and solutions.

Articles and headlines like the one we are discussing are maybe the most irritating thing to me today. If your only source is a source like the one used to present that article, you are very uninformed but do not even know it.

It indeed WOULD make a great presentation......it manifests our problems in politics and communications in this day. It manifests what folks THINK is journalism and the type that needs to be avoided if you have any integrity at all.

I do not know guns...that I admit....but I can very easily identify the misleading attempts by some to misinform and if they read things like this...it is just plain not telling the truth.

Note from a personal standpoint....I have, at times, when found to have presented something that was misleading or not true, come back to the thread and admitted it was an error. I mention this because folks DO make mistakes in presenting, but if it is just a mistake, you come back and apologize. Some present these things with no thought and could care less if it is wrong or right....just make sure it feeds their agenda.

Enough said on this......as I said early on in this thread, I never posted until this crap about NRA and stand your ground...an attempt once again to make it political and I find that offensive.

I believe we can solve so many problems if we just leave the D or the R out of the equation, stop listening to those folks on tv....read and allow professionals to do their job. Being informed on subjects sure makes it easier to understand what is happening in this world.

[Golfingnut]

What was this thread about?

[buggyone]

The complete truth is that an 8 year old boy is dead because his uncle left a loaded pistol unsecured in his house. If the gun had been secured or had "smart" technology, the boy would not have been killed that day.

Should the uncle be locked up? What good would that do?

Just a tragedy with no simple answer on how to prevent others.

[Bucco]

The complete truth is that an 8 year old boy is dead because his uncle left a loaded pistol unsecured in his house. If the gun had been secured or had "smart" technology, the boy would not have been killed that day.

Should the uncle be locked up? What good would that do?

Just a tragedy with no simple answer on how to prevent others.

You mean it had nothing to do with the NRA or Stand Your Ground.....what ????

As the OP, you presented a sad story......one that folks tried to twist !

[NoMoSno]

Should the uncle be locked up? What good would that do?

Yes.
In many states this is unlawful.
It would compel others, with children in the household, to be a responsible firearms owner.

[Golfingnut]

Yes.
In many states this is unlawful.
It would compel others, with children in the household, to be a responsible firearms owner.

I am not sure that if they were not before this tragedy, they never will be. Please vote for more control and accountability.

[CFrance]

Yes.
In many states this is unlawful.
It would compel others, with children in the household, to be a responsible firearms owner.

I agree with this. It sounds like negligent homicide to me, or close to it. Maybe if we start holding the ignorant/arrogant/or just plain stupid gun owners responsible for leaving weapons around where people can get to them and kill others, it might wake some of them up.

Good solution.

[Indydealmaker]

If you have ever been a Guardian Ad Litem, you would recognize this issue as one entirely grounded in Poor Parenting. You want to fix that? Then be prepared to climb a mountain with no peak. Poor parenting is an epidemic in this country and at the root of most of society's ills.

[Golfingnut]

If you have ever been a Guardian Ad Litem, you would recognize this issue as one entirely grounded in Poor Parenting. You want to fix that? Then be prepared to climb a mountain with no peak. Poor parenting is an epidemic in this country and at the root of most of society's ills.

You are absolutely correct, but with 38 % of children with only one parent! the future is not good.

[BS Beef]

If you have ever been a Guardian Ad Litem, you would recognize this issue as one entirely grounded in Poor Parenting. You want to fix that? Then be prepared to climb a mountain with no peak. Poor parenting is an epidemic in this country and at the root of most of society's ills.

I agree whole heartedly. I was actually wondering the other day if this generation of youth will raise their children with a firmer hand. I think it's somewhat natural to rebel against your parents and this generation of parents don't want to parent, they just want to be their kids friend.

At least that's my optimistic/wishful thinking. OK you can stop :1rotfl: at my naiveté now.