[Cajulian]

Originally Posted by Golfingnut

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]

Originally Posted by Cajulian

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]

Originally Posted by Bucco

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

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]

Originally Posted by twinklesweep

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]

Originally Posted by Bucco

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]

Originally Posted by twinklesweep

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by buggyone

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]

Originally Posted by NoMoSno

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]

Originally Posted by NoMoSno

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[BS Beef]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 at my naiveté now.