"You have a red dot on your forehead," said a child. Then a man shot his nephew.

[Indy Texas]

Another child has died a needless death from gun violence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd like to point out that Mr. Ohlm was a "law abiding citizen" when this happened. Because law-abiding citizens can have all the guns they want and nothing bad will happen.

In Georgia, he could bring his gun to a bar. Would you trust this law-abiding citizen to safely carry a gun while drunk?

This man is 34 years old with a son, and lives in his father's basement, but apparently has no problem amassing a gun collection that he "safely" uses. This is what the Right thinks the Second Amendment is for. Not for states to maintain militias, but for white men who basically suck at life and have no power to pretend they're important and are agents of their own destiny.

(Fixed title to correctly attribute the quote - TF)

[bedstuy]

It's all about balancing what we care about more.  On one hand, we have safety and the lives of innocent people. On the other hand, we have a hobby and dangerous toys. 

Most people think it's extremely important to protect dangerous toys so we're going to have to live with dead kids.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The Second Amendment was designed as a safeguard against hypothetical tyranny and is irrelevant to this case of criminal homicide. This man is charged with having made a fatal mistake and should be tried for it in court.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The Second Amendment was designed as a safeguard against hypothetical tyranny and is irrelevant to this case of criminal homicide. This man is charged with having made a fatal mistake and should be tried for it in court.

For once, you are one hundred percent right. These type of incidents have happened before and are extremely rare. The only lesson here is to not point your gun at your nephew. He will be charged and punished for this crime, just like people have been since the Bill of Rights was enacted.

[bedstuy]

The Second Amendment was designed as a safeguard against hypothetical tyranny and is irrelevant to this case of criminal homicide. This man is charged with having made a fatal mistake and should be tried for it in court.

For once, you are one hundred percent right. These type of incidents have happened before and are extremely rare. The only lesson here is to not point your gun at your nephew. He will be charged and punished for this crime, just like people have been since the Bill of Rights was enacted.

Let's think this scenario through:  If that idiot didn't have a gun, would this have happened? 

There are always going to be dumb people out there in society.  More weapons in society means more dumb people with access to weapons.  By having our ridiculous gun laws, we're guaranteeing this type of event.  It's so dishonest to pretend that's not true.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The Second Amendment was designed as a safeguard against hypothetical tyranny and is irrelevant to this case of criminal homicide. This man is charged with having made a fatal mistake and should be tried for it in court.

For once, you are one hundred percent right. These type of incidents have happened before and are extremely rare. The only lesson here is to not point your gun at your nephew. He will be charged and punished for this crime, just like people have been since the Bill of Rights was enacted.

Let's think this scenario through:  If that idiot didn't have a gun, would this have happened? 

There are always going to be dumb people out there in society.  More weapons in society means more dumb people with access to weapons.  By having our ridiculous gun laws, we're guaranteeing this type of event.  It's so dishonest to pretend that's not true.

So the solution is universal disarmament that includes the millions of other people who are not idiots? What about drunk drivers? Should we ban alcohol because a few people can't handle their booze?

[MaxQue]

The Second Amendment was designed as a safeguard against hypothetical tyranny and is irrelevant to this case of criminal homicide. This man is charged with having made a fatal mistake and should be tried for it in court.

For once, you are one hundred percent right. These type of incidents have happened before and are extremely rare. The only lesson here is to not point your gun at your nephew. He will be charged and punished for this crime, just like people have been since the Bill of Rights was enacted.

Let's think this scenario through:  If that idiot didn't have a gun, would this have happened? 

There are always going to be dumb people out there in society.  More weapons in society means more dumb people with access to weapons.  By having our ridiculous gun laws, we're guaranteeing this type of event.  It's so dishonest to pretend that's not true.

So the solution is universal disarmament that includes the millions of other people who are not idiots?

No, but it's tight checks to see if you're responsible enough to own weapons because giving you a weapon licence.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The Second Amendment was designed as a safeguard against hypothetical tyranny and is irrelevant to this case of criminal homicide. This man is charged with having made a fatal mistake and should be tried for it in court.

For once, you are one hundred percent right. These type of incidents have happened before and are extremely rare. The only lesson here is to not point your gun at your nephew. He will be charged and punished for this crime, just like people have been since the Bill of Rights was enacted.

Let's think this scenario through:  If that idiot didn't have a gun, would this have happened? 

There are always going to be dumb people out there in society.  More weapons in society means more dumb people with access to weapons.  By having our ridiculous gun laws, we're guaranteeing this type of event.  It's so dishonest to pretend that's not true.

So the solution is universal disarmament that includes the millions of other people who are not idiots?

No, but it's tight checks to see if you're responsible enough to own weapons because giving you a weapon licence.

As far as we know, this man is a "law abiding citizen" who has no criminal record. While I support background checks, this wouldn't have been prevented by them. You can't predict this type of accident. This is the wrong type of incident to base an anti-gun argument off of, IMO.

[Del Tachi]

Accidents happen.  

Sure, its unfortunate but its no reason to go on a anti-gun rant.

Using the same logic found in this thread, we should also be banning swimming pools and lawn mowers.

[bedstuy]

The Second Amendment was designed as a safeguard against hypothetical tyranny and is irrelevant to this case of criminal homicide. This man is charged with having made a fatal mistake and should be tried for it in court.

For once, you are one hundred percent right. These type of incidents have happened before and are extremely rare. The only lesson here is to not point your gun at your nephew. He will be charged and punished for this crime, just like people have been since the Bill of Rights was enacted.

Let's think this scenario through:  If that idiot didn't have a gun, would this have happened? 

There are always going to be dumb people out there in society.  More weapons in society means more dumb people with access to weapons.  By having our ridiculous gun laws, we're guaranteeing this type of event.  It's so dishonest to pretend that's not true.

So the solution is universal disarmament that includes the millions of other people who are not idiots? What about drunk drivers? Should we ban alcohol because a few people can't handle their booze?

It's about risk management.  You balance the risk and the benefits of how you could regulate whatever activity whether it's guns or cars.

With guns, I would be against banning them entirely.  But, I would require a license and registration as well as a legitimate reason to own a gun, whether it's working as a law enforcement officer or hunting.

That would actually be parallel to our regulation of cars which are highly regulated.  But, the obvious point on cars is that cars as a means of transportation that many people legitimately need.  Hardly anyone has a legitimate use for a gun.

[badgate]

Surely this is an appropriate instance to call for greater advancement of the production of handguns; to make accidental shootings harder to accomplish while not hindering ones' ability to turn the safety off in the instance of a home intruder, assault, etc.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

With guns, I would be against banning them entirely.  But, I would require a license and registration as well as a legitimate reason to own a gun, whether it's working as a law enforcement officer or hunting.

A government by and for the 1% which violates human rights at home and abroad isn't reason enough?

[bedstuy]

With guns, I would be against banning them entirely.  But, I would require a license and registration as well as a legitimate reason to own a gun, whether it's working as a law enforcement officer or hunting.

A government by and for the 1% which violates human rights at home and abroad isn't reason enough?

Explain how people are going to fix that with guns.

[Franzl]

All the many cases like this are terrible, but it's the price that must be paid for freedom.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

With guns, I would be against banning them entirely.  But, I would require a license and registration as well as a legitimate reason to own a gun, whether it's working as a law enforcement officer or hunting.

A government by and for the 1% which violates human rights at home and abroad isn't reason enough?

Explain how people are going to fix that with guns.

[bedstuy]

I suppose it's cute that you think that.

But, putting aside the desirability of an armed revolution, it's not realistic as a public policy.  I can't imagine explaining that to a mother who lost her son to random gun violence.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I suppose it's cute that you think that.

But, putting aside the desirability of an armed revolution, it's not realistic as a public policy.  I can't imagine explaining that to a mother who lost her son to random gun violence.

Regardless of your hackneyed emotional appeals and even discarding my revolutionary socialism for a moment, to blame the gun rather than the shooter represents the worst of the paternalistic white liberal attitude of "solving" a problem with a solution that barely scratches the surface and has negative consequences of its own.

[bedstuy]

I suppose it's cute that you think that.

But, putting aside the desirability of an armed revolution, it's not realistic as a public policy.  I can't imagine explaining that to a mother who lost her son to random gun violence.

Regardless of your hackneyed emotional appeals and even discarding my revolutionary socialism for a moment, to blame the gun rather than the shooter represents the worst of the paternalistic white liberal attitude of "solving" a problem with a solution that barely scratches the surface and has negative consequences of its own.

You can't be a shooter if you don't have a gun.  I don't understand how that can escape you. 

So, I'm paternalistic for not taking into account the poor black people who like gun shot wounds and being murdered?  I think I'm safe in thinking that nobody likes being shot.  And, honestly, I'd rather be paternalistic than indifferent to the loss of human life. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I wonder if Snowstalker honestly believes he sounds any less stupid than some militia hoarding guns because he believes the big bad gummint is going to send in black helicopters full of invading federal forces to take away his guns and his freedoms any time soon.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

With guns, I would be against banning them entirely.  But, I would require a license and registration as well as a legitimate reason to own a gun, whether it's working as a law enforcement officer or hunting.

That would actually be parallel to our regulation of cars which are highly regulated.  But, the obvious point on cars is that cars as a means of transportation that many people legitimately need.  Hardly anyone has a legitimate use for a gun.

So self defense, whether from animals, other individuals, or from the state does not qualify as legitimate because we can depend upon law enforcement to do that task for us?

By that logic, hardly anyone has a legitimate use for a car.  Between public transport, taxis, and delivery services, hardly anyone legitimately needs a car, especially those who live in urban areas.  Does your your typical commuter with a car that just sits in a parking lot or driveway most of the time really need that car?  Of course not!

[bedstuy]

With guns, I would be against banning them entirely.  But, I would require a license and registration as well as a legitimate reason to own a gun, whether it's working as a law enforcement officer or hunting.

That would actually be parallel to our regulation of cars which are highly regulated.  But, the obvious point on cars is that cars as a means of transportation that many people legitimately need.  Hardly anyone has a legitimate use for a gun.

So self defense, whether from animals, other individuals, or from the state does not qualify as legitimate because we can depend upon law enforcement to do that task for us?

By that logic, hardly anyone has a legitimate use for a car.  Between public transport, taxis, and delivery services, hardly anyone legitimately needs a car, especially those who live in urban areas.  Does your your typical commuter with a car that just sits in a parking lot or driveway most of the time really need that car?  Of course not!

I can never be sure if you're joking or not.  Is this a serious point?

Obviously, some people may need a gun because they enjoy hunting or need it to kill/chase off a polar bear.  However, most people live in areas where hunting is illegal, right?  In terms of self-defense, the fact is that a gun in your house makes you less safe.  And, just in terms of risks, guns make cities more dangerous.  That's just obvious. 

On the cars point, I don't follow.  Cars provide a benefit to people in terms of transportation.  Guns provide no such benefit generally. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

With guns, I would be against banning them entirely.  But, I would require a license and registration as well as a legitimate reason to own a gun, whether it's working as a law enforcement officer or hunting.

That would actually be parallel to our regulation of cars which are highly regulated.  But, the obvious point on cars is that cars as a means of transportation that many people legitimately need.  Hardly anyone has a legitimate use for a gun.

So self defense, whether from animals, other individuals, or from the state does not qualify as legitimate because we can depend upon law enforcement to do that task for us?

By that logic, hardly anyone has a legitimate use for a car.  Between public transport, taxis, and delivery services, hardly anyone legitimately needs a car, especially those who live in urban areas.  Does your your typical commuter with a car that just sits in a parking lot or driveway most of the time really need that car?  Of course not!

I can never be sure if you're joking or not.  Is this a serious point?

Obviously, some people may need a gun because they enjoy hunting or need it to kill/chase off a polar bear.  However, most people live in areas where hunting is illegal, right?  In terms of self-defense, the fact is that a gun in your house makes you less safe.  And, just in terms of risks, guns make cities more dangerous.  That's just obvious. 

I am trying to use humor to make a serious point.

Obviously, some people may need a car because they enjoy driving or need it to go someplace way off the beaten track.  Most people travel in areas where professional transport is available, right? In terms of transportation, the fact is that a car in your driveway makes you less safe.  And, just in terms of risks, cars make cities more dangerous.  That's just obvious.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What right do you have to decide whether they benefit?  More people die from the misuse of cars than from the misuse of guns, considerably more if one doesn't count suicides by guns as a misuse.  That would seem to suggest that car control is a far more pressing need than gun control.  As an aside, I would add that it is a sad commentary on our society that we have made one of the more messy ways of suicide the easiest one for most people to obtain.

[bedstuy]

With guns, I would be against banning them entirely.  But, I would require a license and registration as well as a legitimate reason to own a gun, whether it's working as a law enforcement officer or hunting.

That would actually be parallel to our regulation of cars which are highly regulated.  But, the obvious point on cars is that cars as a means of transportation that many people legitimately need.  Hardly anyone has a legitimate use for a gun.

So self defense, whether from animals, other individuals, or from the state does not qualify as legitimate because we can depend upon law enforcement to do that task for us?

By that logic, hardly anyone has a legitimate use for a car.  Between public transport, taxis, and delivery services, hardly anyone legitimately needs a car, especially those who live in urban areas.  Does your your typical commuter with a car that just sits in a parking lot or driveway most of the time really need that car?  Of course not!

I can never be sure if you're joking or not.  Is this a serious point?

Obviously, some people may need a gun because they enjoy hunting or need it to kill/chase off a polar bear.  However, most people live in areas where hunting is illegal, right?  In terms of self-defense, the fact is that a gun in your house makes you less safe.  And, just in terms of risks, guns make cities more dangerous.  That's just obvious.

I am trying to use humor to make a serious point.

Obviously, some people may need a car because they enjoy driving or need it to go someplace way off the beaten track.  Most people travel in areas where professional transport is available, right? In terms of transportation, the fact is that a car in your driveway makes you less safe.  And, just in terms of risks, cars make cities more dangerous.  That's just obvious.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What right do you have to decide whether they benefit?  More people die from the misuse of cars than from the misuse of guns, considerably more if one doesn't count suicides by guns as a misuse.  That would seem to suggest that car control is a far more pressing need than gun control.  As an aside, I would add that it is a sad commentary on our society that we have made one of the more messy ways of suicide the easiest one for most people to obtain.

I still don't understand the car point.  A car is the primary means of transportation for most people.  The benefit of cars thus outweighs the risks of allowing them on the road, albeit with safety precautions and regulations. 

And so, we ought to regulate cars heavily and we do.  We ought to heavily regulate guns and cars in an well-considered and appropriate way.  I don't see how this is a winning argument for the gun crowd.

The point that more people are injured by cars is completely frivolous and I hope you know it.  Guns are seldom used and most people don't own a gun.  The fact that they're even comparable in number of deaths and injuries is a national shame.

What right do you have to decide whether they benefit?

I have a special "opinion-having" license.

[Indy Texas]

Here's a question - why does a 34 year old who lives in his parents' basement with his minor child need a gun? Multiple guns, actually. He clearly didn't have his ducks in a row to begin with. And we're to assume he's responsible enough to own deadly weapons?

[MaxQue]

The Second Amendment was designed as a safeguard against hypothetical tyranny and is irrelevant to this case of criminal homicide. This man is charged with having made a fatal mistake and should be tried for it in court.

For once, you are one hundred percent right. These type of incidents have happened before and are extremely rare. The only lesson here is to not point your gun at your nephew. He will be charged and punished for this crime, just like people have been since the Bill of Rights was enacted.

Let's think this scenario through:  If that idiot didn't have a gun, would this have happened? 

There are always going to be dumb people out there in society.  More weapons in society means more dumb people with access to weapons.  By having our ridiculous gun laws, we're guaranteeing this type of event.  It's so dishonest to pretend that's not true.

So the solution is universal disarmament that includes the millions of other people who are not idiots?

No, but it's tight checks to see if you're responsible enough to own weapons because giving you a weapon licence.

As far as we know, this man is a "law abiding citizen" who has no criminal record. While I support background checks, this wouldn't have been prevented by them. You can't predict this type of accident. This is the wrong type of incident to base an anti-gun argument off of, IMO.

You need a licence to drive, why not a licence to own guns?