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

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

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

I'm not against that at all, but it still would not have prevented this individual incident. A permit and background checks are perfectly reasonable ideas.