Why

"For the shooter" you said it. The decision and action stays with the individual. Anyone can decide to become a monster. Imagine, a parade. Now imagine a three ton F 350 or even a two ton Prius blowing through a wood barrier at 60 mph aimed at the local high school marching band.

goodwinaj said:

And a car is any different? Far more kinetic and chemical energy and no one looks twice. It's the person, not the object.

Click to expand...

And correct me if I'm wrong, but is it your constitutional right to own a car?

Or do you have to be licenced, and prove that you can operate the machine safely?

And are you allowed to drive a F1 race car up the highway, or are cars regulated to allow only appropriate cars on the roads?

You're making the argument for us........thanks.....

Ah yes if only I had thought to outlaw or regulate things. It might work with crack, cocaine or even pressure cookers. Because as we all know, those bent on mayhem obey the rules.

goodwinaj said:

Ah yes if only I had thought to outlaw or regulate things. It might work with crack, cocaine or even pressure cookers. Because as we all know, those bent on mayhem obey the rules.

Click to expand...

You asked

goodwinaj said:

And a car any different?

Click to expand...

and I answered and explained that. So did InterMechanico.

Do you want to deal with your initial question and try to get out of the hole you dug for yourself, or do you just want to throw out random, mindless comments?

Oh, and just to clarify on the regulation part - what do you think the road toll would be if there was no regulation on speed, drink driving, mobile phone use, and car type on the road. If everyone raced each other up residential streets in F1 cars? Regulation seems to work pretty well I think........

goodwinaj said:

"For the shooter" you said it. The decision and action stays with the individual. Anyone can decide to become a monster. Imagine, a parade. Now imagine a three ton F 350 or even a two ton Prius blowing through a wood barrier at 60 mph aimed at the local high school marching band.

Click to expand...

Do you think the five year old that shot and killed his two year old sister with a rifle, given to him as a birthday present by his father, is a "monster"?

Same question regarding the 13 year old boy who shot his six year old sister playing "hide and seek".

Or are the parents the "monster" and should they be charged with negligent homicide?

What if the dad was unable to buy the "cricket" for his son.

The dad could claim his second amendment rights were "violated" but his daughter would still be alive.

Quite the moral dilemma don't you think.

GG

InterMechanico said:

Firearms, on the other hand, are designed solely to kill.

Click to expand...

Utter nonesene, again, as I've stated before one of the things that concerns me is people who have no knowledge of guns making descions regarding 'my rights'.

'Inter', regarding your sentence I quoted. '6PPC' , do you know what that means....of course not. Google it, look it up, you will see that that cartridge and the firearms that fire it ARE NOT designed 'soley to kill' !!!

Gordon Gray said:

Do you think the five year old that shot and killed his two year old sister with a rifle, given to him as a birthday present by his father, is a "monster"?

Click to expand...

Gordon, no I do not

Or are the parents the "monster" and should they be charged with negligent homicide?

Click to expand...

perhaps, but I don't know all the circumstances surrounding the case

What if the dad was unable to buy the "cricket" for his son.

Click to expand...

if you're speaking of 'toy guns'......paleaaase, to those of us brought up in the 50's and 60's that's what normal boys did, you played Army, Cowboys and Indians, etc. Today with parents more worried about 'their' lifestyle, carrers, keeping ahead of the 'Jone's' , etc it's far easier to let the kid become consumed with other forms of violence (TV, Video) which at time escalates into the real thing.

Gordon, with respect to your refrence on the NRA's concern over universal background checks, again, as I've said before that troubles me as well.

You know gang with all the tragic deaths that have occured as of late the City of Chicago and it's pathetic Mayor (Rahm Emanuel) should be ashamed of their inability to prosecute real criminals.

Remember, it's out 1st amendment that allows us to have this discussion and it's our 2nd that allows me and other reponsible gun owners freedoms that are near and dear.

Dave,

Point of clarification.

A "cricket" is apparently the name used for a smaller, fully operational rifle (single chamber) that parents can purchase for their kids. And you can apparently buy them in many colors, including pink. Kinda like potty training with real ammo.

It's the real deal (not the fake, plastic ones) and was used by the five year old to kill his two year old sister.

That's what makes this so utterly tragic and senseless.

Gordon

Gordon Gray said:

If you have something intelligent to add to the issues raised and discussion thereof, please do so.

Otherwise, hold the bbq sauce.

Click to expand...

Sorry, ain't holding the bbq sauce. Obviously you are against the 2nd Amendment and I am for it. By the way, opinions are like assh**s, everybody's got one. Well you have fun at your party.

Very eloquent, articulate post.

No. I'm not against the Second Amendment.

Another wrong assumption on your part.

This is a far more complex issue than being "for it or against it".

Perhaps you can understand why. Perhaps not. I hope you can.

PS: Listening to NPR this afternoon. They were broadcasting the BBC news.

They interviewed an American who posted plans on the internet on how to make a plastic gun from a 3D printer. He claims he's been successful in doing so. If true, this is a game changer.

PPS: It is true. It's called the "Liberator".

Gordon Gray said:

A "cricket" is apparently the name used for a smaller, fully operational rifle (single chamber) that parents can purchase for their kids. And you can apparently buy them in many colors, including pink. Kinda like potty training with real ammo.

It's the real deal (not the fake, plastic ones) and was used by the five year old to kill his two year old sister.

That's what makes this so utterly tragic and senseless.

Gordon

Click to expand...

Gottcha Gordon, even though it's a rimfire .22 in unsupervised hands it too is a deadly weapon like it's more powerfull .223 centerfie (AR-15) Again, I'm not aware of the circumstances but the parents must be devastated

Dave,

From what I've read on the internet, the "cricket" was in a room corner and was loaded.

Gordon

That's right, Gordon. Did US media not cover the printed gun?

Was the "cricket" purchased in such a manner that this background check law would have prevented this death? From what I have read, it doesn't appear it would have. In fact, would this background check have prevented the Sandy Hook, Columbine or the Aurora massacres? Again, the answer is no. The VA Tech shooter should have already been prevented by the background check already in place, but his mental health record wasn't properly coded in the database. The mass shootings almost always involve someone with mental health issues, but I don't think this law adequately addressed this issue, if at all. Of course, while receiving a majority of the press, most gun violence doesn't stem from these mass shootings. Most gun violence is an urban, inner city problem related to gangs and drugs. Are these criminals going to go to the local sporting goods store to submit themselves to background checks before purchasing weapons from one another? I don't think so. You also have the stupidity factor, which these parents who gave a 5 year old a gun to keep in his possession would fit under. So this law, if it had passed, wouldn't have put a 'dent' in our current gun violence. Neither would an 'assault' weapons ban. So then what? Do we start going further down the line until like in Britain, we start having discussions on which kitchen knives we are allowed to own? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4581871.stm

I stand by my previous comments, and would like to say that I respect the views of the participants in this thread.

Kevin,

As always, I appreciate your comments.

Three observations.

1) We've discussed this issue many times and there's no reason to repeat comments from the previous threads. I take full responsibility for this since I've been the one that has started these threads.

2) I was hoping to "limit" this particular thread discussion to the fact that the background check bill failed in the Senate despite overwhelming public support (including those in strong conservative states) for this bill.

3) Status quo on this issue (nothing can be done and it would not have stopped this, etc.) is, from my personal perspective, unacceptable and socially destructive from a safety / quality of life perspective. Read denial. We need to look at solutions from a "collective" long term (30 to 50 year) perspective and not a narrow historical lens.

This is a problem that continues to increase as time goes on, with no relief in sight. And absent any responsible actions, it will only get worse.

GG

Ok, quite simply, if you want to pass a gun control law that saves lives, then why pass a bill that will not really accomplish this? This bill wouldn't have prevented any of the deaths that you have mentioned in both this thread and the past thread.

Like a good number of things out of Washington, this bill had a good bit of what I see as potential problems. The bill allows family members and 'friends' to trade, give, sell firearms without a background check. How does the government define a 'friend'? I purchased a Mossberg shotgun from my foreman at work some 25 years ago. It was as simple as my giving him a $100 bill and him handing me the shotgun. Would we now be required to go to store, run background checks and pay the required fees for this transaction? I would have said he is a friend, but would the government? How do you prove who is a friend or not? Why rush through bills such as this without first taking in all possible consequences? Notice how the health care law was rushed through, and now we have one of the writers of the bill calling it a potential "train wreck".

I'm not against background checks, perhaps it should have passed through. However, the "denial" you mention, is not fully knowing where our problem really exists with guns. Your state of Wyoming has one of the highest rates of gun ownership and yet ranks at the bottom in murder rate. How could this be if guns are really the problem???

Sorry you missed my point.

End of conversation.

However, the "denial" you mention, is not fully knowing where our problem really exists with guns.

Click to expand...

The problem could be that there are 300,000,000 (three hundred million) civilian owned guns in the U.S.

Maybe?

Is it possible that having one gun for every person in the country makes it easy for someone (anyone) to procure one, regardless of what they want it for? The only thing that will fix that problem is a metal foundry, Kevin.

Did it occur to anyone that perhaps these laws were designed more to reduce new gun sales (because of the trillion zillion already in existance) rather than to hassle existing gun owners? It might accomplish that, because the casual window shopper may not bother due to the hassle.

Do guns ever retire, or do they just keep on giving all they've got? (kidding)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIpLd0WQKCY

Some Light Bedtime Reading _ Successfully Controlling Guns

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

Gordon Gray said:

Sorry you missed my point.

End of conversation.

Click to expand...

How very liberal of you Gordon.