Skip to main content

No, ready access to guns couldn't have anything to do with this:

A seven-year-old boy was shot to death by his father on Saturday in the parking lot of a gun store in western Pennsylvania in an apparent accident, state police told Reuters.

Craig Allen Loughrey was shot in the chest by a handgun his father, Joseph V. Loughrey, 44, was holding as they were getting into the family vehicle at Twig's Reloading Den in Mercer, about 60 miles north of Pittsburgh, a Pennsylvania State Police spokesman said.

The boy died at the scene of the shooting, which happened at 10:50 a.m. His father was questioned by investigators, but police said the evidence pointed to an accident.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Yet another example that proves... (13+ / 0-)

    Guns don't kill people... People kill people.

    Or something like that.  

    That poor child, and that poor father.  

    I am the neo-con nightmare, I am a liberal with the facts.

    by bhfrik on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 08:00:32 PM PST

  •  4 year old killed 2 year old (13+ / 0-)

    in Minneapolis this week with both parents at home.

  •  the odds were greater he'd run over his kid (10+ / 0-)

    in the parking lot of the gun store.   why use a legitimate accident to make an argument for gun control?  you know, accidents happen in life.  it's terrible when they do, but if you take away everything dangerous in life you are left with nothing.  

    i don't get these arguments about gun control.   i grew up with guns.  nobody ever got hurt.  nobody was ever going to get hurt unless a freak accident like this happened and you can't live your life trying to avoid every kind of freak accident.

    you know what should be the big outrage instead of guns?  traffic accidents.  put a kid behind the wheel of an automobile and then you have a dangerous situation in which the chances of serious injury and death are high.  not to mention all the drunk and high driving kids do.  and let's talk about tired adults who are texting and eating and late for work who are killing people and driving away scott free from it.  hell, even Canada has that problem.  last year there were 2,300 hit and runs in BC (just north of me).  and let's talk the fucking idiots who insist on saving the planet by riding their bikes in the middle of 6 lane traffic and put everyone at risk.  i watch a man in a truck holding the hand of a biker stuck under his front wheel with one hand while talking to 911 on his cell with the other.  and let's talk about saving the planet... from oil that is used by cars.  guns have nothing on the deaths that driving will cause not only in accidents but in making the planet uninhabitable for life.

    but anyway, let's chase the gun control issue, cause we wouldn't want the tea party to be only activists who are too focused on the trees to see the forest.

    so long and thanks for all the fish

    by Anton Bursch on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 08:18:22 PM PST

    •  Are you for real? (12+ / 0-)

      That was humor, right? Your comment was irony, correct?

      I deal in facts. My friends are few but fast.

      by Farugia on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 08:28:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, he's serious (10+ / 0-)

        and spot on.
        Guns are not magical objects imbued with evil.
        They are tools, and like any tool, can cause injury or death if not used responsibly.

        "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

        by kestrel9000 on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 05:29:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And actually, there are issues more important - (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mindful Nature

          except maybe to that dead kid's mom - that get less attention and support than GUNSGUNSGUNSGUNS!!!!

          Correcting voter irregularities, food stamps, infrastructure deficiencies, etc., etc., etc.

          But people keep mentioning kids getting killed, and RBKAers swarm in a feeding frenzy like sharks after chum.

          "I believe more women should carry guns. I believe armed women will make the world a better place. Women need to come to think of themselves not as victims but as dangerous." Anna Pigeon

          by glorificus on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 06:26:19 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  who are you (7+ / 0-)
            RBKAers swarm in a feeding frenzy like sharks after chum.
            and what have you done with glorificus?

            And perish the thought that an interest group should respond in  adiary concerning their area of interest.
            This is unheard of.

            "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

            by kestrel9000 on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 07:22:28 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  And to me (4+ / 0-)

            the sharks in a feeding frenzy are those to rush to whip up the antis into a lather by screaming about teh eeeevil guns every time a person does something stupid with one.

            "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

            by kestrel9000 on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 07:25:32 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  So why doesn't your interest group immediately (5+ / 0-)

              condemn the morons? Sure, you say the guy was acting stupidly but that's not your first response.

              You all are usually fiercely on the defensive in these comments, saying all the rules and regs gun owners have to follow. And yet kids and other innocents get killed by guns on a regular basis.

              After all this time too many opinions may have formed on DK for you to change anyone's mind about RKBAers, but all you do now is pour lead on top of concrete.

              And the car or knife comparison is inappropriate, imo.

              Guns are legal. Maybe being less nasty in comments would help. You know there are morons on the other side, too, whom you will never convince. Let them think what they will.

              I don't consider myself a moron, but I do think there are too many guns out there and dangerous people can get their hands on a gun way too easily.

              Why doesn't RKBA start a push for better mental health screening? Or even better coordination between law enforcement and medical records (Virginia Tech, Aurora guy).

              Or, in fact, SOMETHING other than "DON'T TOUCH MY GUNS!!!"

              Pick a state or region or specific bill, do the research, ID the public officials involved and start lobbying? You might form a coalition, even.

              I'd like to see a specific issue taken up and followed through on here besides a specific election. I can admit that I've seen a few RKBAers make what I consider substantive comments in other areas, which sounds snottier than I mean it to sound.

              And you keep asking "who are you" like you think you should know.

              Pay attention, people can surprise you.

              btw, glad The Baculum King is back. His piece on driving makes me pay more attention on the road.

              "I believe more women should carry guns. I believe armed women will make the world a better place. Women need to come to think of themselves not as victims but as dangerous." Anna Pigeon

              by glorificus on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:01:03 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  ummmm..... (3+ / 0-)
                So why doesn't your interest group immediately (0+ / 0-)
                condemn the morons? Sure, you say the guy was acting stupidly but that's not your first response.
                Yes. It was.

                "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

                by kestrel9000 on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:05:37 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Thanks for your nice comment above. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                glorificus

                And they are fiercely defensive, just follow Pete Cortez.  I don't think I've ever read a comment of his that wasn't rude, condescending, and denigrating.  Oh, but that's okay - "You made me do it".

                Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

                by Smoh on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 10:34:13 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Petey, the goon, pavepusher - they may be the (0+ / 0-)

                  smartest people on the planet per k9k but they are hateful, mean, vindictive SOBs whenever I see them here - which is the only place I see them.

                  I don't follow any of them, life's too short to waste the time, space or oxygen.

                  "I believe more women should carry guns. I believe armed women will make the world a better place. Women need to come to think of themselves not as victims but as dangerous." Anna Pigeon

                  by glorificus on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 02:37:18 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No, I wouldn't think of actually following (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    glorificus

                    any of them.  It's just just that we end up in the same diaries and it has seemed to me that Petey has the worst manners I've ever seen.

                    Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

                    by Smoh on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 04:13:35 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  He seems to be consistently the worst, although (0+ / 0-)

                      I think PavePusher is in the competition. Pete hasn't been here that long, either.

                      I like kes, KV seems ok, but the other regulars (including Robobagger) are just assholes.

                      kes tells me different, but I'm believing my own eyes, lyin' though they may be.

                      "I believe more women should carry guns. I believe armed women will make the world a better place. Women need to come to think of themselves not as victims but as dangerous." Anna Pigeon

                      by glorificus on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 04:23:38 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Kes and KV are the only ones I have any faith in. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        glorificus

                        Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

                        by Smoh on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 05:03:44 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  This should be hide rated (5+ / 0-)

                        Calling out several kossacks by name, and calling others unnamed to be assholes too, is what's called being a dick.
                         I'm not gonna HR, because, sometimes, I think others SHOULD see the way people act on a daily basis towards the RKBA Group here on DKOS. Not to mention the disrepect for DKOS with obvious deviations from general norms of conduct.
                         

                        "The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." -Zappa My Site

                        by meagert on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 10:02:52 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Sadly, however... (4+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          meagert, KVoimakas, gerrilea, happy camper

                          ...no one will see it -- this thread is largely dead now.

                          In fact, I believe that Kos has made a ruling that this sort of thing in a dead-thread is even more unacceptable than at other times -- but I can't find the specific ruling.

                          Say, surely you don't think that's the very reason it was done here and now, because someone thought they could get away with flagrantly breaking site rules, but where no one would see it...?

                          No, surely not -- that would be rather hypocritical...

                          Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                          by theatre goon on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 10:34:35 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  ROFL (4+ / 0-)

                    Asking people to support their assertions, pointing out when they are factually wrong, calling out personal attacks and insults as what they are...

                    Yep, these are certainly "hateful, mean, vindictive" actions.

                    But you are oh-so-above the fray, aren't you?

                    Oh, no -- you called three different Kossacks in good standing "SOBs."

                    Hypocrisy alive and well on DKos, isn't it?

                    Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                    by theatre goon on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 05:20:52 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

        •  They may not be imbued with evil (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Farugia

          But let's go back to the primary purpose of guns.

          It's to kill.

          Not to get people and goods around like a vehicle is, not to cut veggies, fruits and meats like a knife is, not to hit a ball like a bat is.

          There is no other designed purpose to a gun that I know of, except to injure and kill the living.

          That being said, I would just like to see insurance being required, and open carry. Mainly the insurance is about them pushing for better safety features, like they did with vehicles. The open carry is so that people have the freedom to choose whether they are around guns or not.

          Why wouldn't gun owners not want others to be able to make an informed choice? Who is it that pushes for concealed carry, and why? I would think that even if you had a stalker, it would be a big deterrent for them to see you have a gun.

          Women create the entire labor force. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

          by splashy on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 02:51:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  We do regulate cars... (15+ / 0-)

      The wolfpack eats venison. The lone wolf eats mice.

      by A Citizen on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 08:38:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  A"legitimate accident?" (34+ / 0-)

      Yours is without doubt the dumbest comment I have ever read anywhere, anytime, any topic.

      I own a LOT of guns -- pistols, rifles, and shotguns.  I am 68 years old and have hunted and plinked at tin cans and groundhogs since I was big enough to hold a rifle.

      I have NEVER accidentally fired a firearm.  I have NEVER come close to having an accident with a firearm.

      But when you get cowboys with carry permits who feel they must strap on a loaded weapon every time they step out of their front door, "accidents" will happen and someone will die.  

      This "accident" was not "legitimate" and was entirely preventable.

      And please stop the stupid business of equating automobile accidents to firearms.  Cars are a necessity, guns are not.

      •  You also learned safe handling (18+ / 0-)

        At a guess, in really emphatic terms. Including never, ever letting a muzzle point toward something you can't afford to shoot.

        The number of unbreakable safety rules that person had to break is remarkable.

        Nobody would ever know it from listening to the NRA, but a surprising number of gun owners would be OK with requiring people who want to carry in public to pass a test proving that they can do so with a minimum of danger to bystanders.

      •  That was my first thought. Why was the gun (12+ / 0-)

        loaded and no safety on. And this guy could just walk out with a gun without proving he had a brain in his head. But it is so important he can kill if his butt puckers up and he is scared... or angry at his wife, his boss, the president, the representative, the race of someone, the driver who cut him, the kids with too loud music, the guy whose dog crapped on his lawn,... the list goes on apparently for valid reasons to be armed and willing to kill either accidentally or because the smaller guy you were following got nervous and then confronted you or maybe your wife left you or...There is always some rationalizing about the shooting after but there wouldn't have to be if there were simply better licensing requirements and NO GD Castle defense. You can already defend yourself in your home but to defend your ears at a gas station against loud noise and disrespectful younguns is damn stupid and the shooter should be locked up for homicide.

        Driving a car is very different. First off you don't need a gun to get to work. You don't need a gun to haul 5 bags of groceries home.You don't need a gun if you are absolutely clueless about safety. You can't get a license if you haven't at least met basic minimal knowledge about drivingand having a person with eyes on evaluate you. In CA you can't drive until you are 18. Course if the gun lovers had their way we would all go around armed to the teeth, bandoliers of ammo across our chests proving whos the most dangerous one in the area (WHY???)... Wonder if we reach that saturation point if the number of deaths  by gun would escalate to the point they surpass auto deaths (many of which have to do with cells, distractions and inebriation- even by legal drugs ).

        Fear is the Mind Killer...

        by boophus on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 09:17:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  No, cars are not a "necessity"... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oldpunk

        they are a convenience.  

        Get a horse, cowboy.

    •  Stop conflating traffic accidents and guns. (18+ / 0-)

      He didn't run over his kid.  He was carrying a loaded gun while he was putting his child in the car.  

    •  in response to the comments above (7+ / 0-)

      1. yes i am for real and i have my own opinions and everything.  gasp!

      2. sure and maybe if we regulate guns as well as we do cars guns will actually be involved in as many injuries and deaths as cars.

      3. my comment is worse than calling sandra fluke a slut?  really?  or how about calling half of Americans victims?  really?  is it worse than saying that pregnancies caused by rape are god's will?  really?  well, if YOU say so, it MUST be true.

      4. as opposed to the latest guy who was carrying a cell phone and a drink and ran over and killed a pregnant lady in the cross walk a few days ago?

      remember when Obama won his two elections and gun sales in this country went through the roof?  yeah?  because the right is afraid that the left is going to ban guns.  of course, the truth is that the left is never going to ban guns.  never ever ever.  but because some of the left vocally advocate for banning guns (and don't deny that control is just a step towards a ban) the right flips out every time someone on the left wins an election and stocks up on guns and ammo.  especially when a minority wins an election.  so, congratulations, you are responsible for scaring up gun sales.

      sometimes you just have to let people do things you don't approve of or you just push them into doing it even more, because they resist being controlled.  and let's be honest, it's not gun control.  it's controlling people.  and it's just as dumb as trying to keep kids from getting stds or pregnant by shaming them into abstinence instead of teaching them to be responsible with sex, because they just refuse to accept that kids will fuck whether parents want them to or not.  

      same thing with pot.  my state just legalized pot.  there will probably be maybe a 0.1% increase in the number of people using pot now that it's legal, because everyone who wants to use it was using it already.  they just did it in the shadows.  well, the same thing will happen with guns.  you can't put the fucking jack back in the box once it's come out.  you can't get rid of guns and you can't treat adults with guns like the right treats teenagers with sex or you just make things worse.

      but anyway, you are the experts, so, i should stop thinking about this for myself and just jump on your mostly empty bandwagon.

      so long and thanks for all the fish

      by Anton Bursch on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:02:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  On what planet (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mathazar, blueoasis, cany

      does this post make sense?

      •  on planet earth, where the vast vast vast majority (6+ / 0-)

        of people in the USA think that the anti gun left is ultimately needlessly obsessing over guns

        and i agree with them, because it's the truth.  

        so long and thanks for all the fish

        by Anton Bursch on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:48:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Please stick to facts, and don't make crap up. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sponson, Sandino, gramofsam1
          Record-Low 26% in U.S. Favor Handgun Ban

          Source:  http://www.gallup.com/...

          The "vast vast vast majority" is presumably more than 74%.  74% not favoring a gun ban also does not mean 74% think a gun ban is "ultimately needlessly obsessing over guns".
          •  you think that 74% isn't a vast vast vast majority (6+ / 0-)

            in the united states of america?  the only thing that polls better is stuff like supporting the troops and being against terrorism and believing in god.  things that are basically inarguable.  if you have 74% support for your issue then you own the issue, period.  you don't want to call that having a vast vast vast majority, fine.  it's a completely subjective term anyway.  the point is... the anti gun left is way out on a limb on the issue.  right or wrong.  and my point in saying that the vast vast vast majority of people in the US agree with me is to respond to the bullshit attempt to dismiss me as being out on a limb by asking 'what planet i am from'.  so, i was answering a tactical question that was asked in the form of mocking hyperbole with a little bit of a rhetorical flourish myself: vast vast vast majority.  

            so long and thanks for all the fish

            by Anton Bursch on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 11:15:10 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Belief is god is certainly not inarguable... (0+ / 0-)

              But it is at over 90% in the US, from the latest polls I've seen.  Seems reasonable to call that a vast majority.  Maybe even if it were at 85%...

              But while 74% is certainly a majority (Though, again, I see no evidence that the entire 74% thinks that the rest are "ultimately needlessly obsessing over guns"), it's not the "vast majority", and most definitely not the "vast vast vast majority".

              •  74% is almost a 50 point difference (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                glorificus, PavePusher, oldpunk

                51% is a 1 point difference and I would call it a slight majority.  a 50 point difference is beyond a majority.  it's beyond strong majority.  beyond super majority.  it's in blow out territory.  50 points is a gulf of difference between two positions.  a vast gulf in my opinion.  is it a vast vast vast gulf?  fuck if i know.  but it's a goddamn lot more than just a majority.  in any case, i said it was a flourish in response to the question 'what planet are you from' that suggested i was out on some limb with my opinion.

                in regards to using the term inarguable, i meant it in the sense that there's no arguing against those things and winning enough support to swing the majority your direction.  you can't convince a majority to not believe in god or to not support the troops or to be for terrorism.  it's inarguable for all intents and purposes.

                as for whether a major (vast vast vast or whatever) think the left is 'ultimately needlessly obsessing over guns' i think i am absolutely correct about it.  i think it's in the realm of people who argue about whether love is real or just an chemically delusion our brains induce to get us to propagate the species.  most people just nod along with the conversation and walk away thinking 'um, okay, anyway'.  guns have been around for everyone since we've all been born.  i think most people think being anti gun is an overreaction.  modest gun regulation is of practical use, but the mission that the anti gun people seem to be on just seems like it's taking place in an alternate reality.  kind of like scientists who study whether love is real.  it just doesn't connect with most people.  

                so long and thanks for all the fish

                by Anton Bursch on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 12:03:56 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  ok... that was an anti-biking rant (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sponson, FiredUpInCA, splashy

      What the heck?  You go on for half a paragraph about drivers being idiots ... and then say that cyclists are putting everyone at risk?  In your world is everyone supposed to take public transit?

      Look gun control - I'm for gun control. Not banning guns (deer hunting, yay!) but gun control targeted at the right weapons, areas and situations.  This gun fetish has us accepting the erosion of the first amendment (free speech "zones?" seriously??) to the point where you can carry a gun to any given event much more easily than you can protest it with free speech.

      But back to the cycling.  I agree with you about the sheer number of traffic accidents as an epidemic, but every bike accident I've ever had was the fault of the driver. Being turned in front of in traffic (no turn signal, across 2 lanes) and being doored. The cause of those accidents is the behavior you complained about at the top of your paragraph, NOT the "fucking idiots who...ride their bikes".

      •  that wasn't an anti biking rant (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pete Cortez, glorificus, oldpunk

        i barely mentioned bikes while trying to illustrate that there are things, such as bad drivers, that cause serious injury and death at an alarmingly high rate that are ignored by the left while they chase after bright and shiny gun control.  

        i get it.  the left have their emotional wedge issues just like the right have their emotional wedge issues.  it gives them their emotional fix to get all worked up about it. meanwhile everyone else gets to endure the unending fights that either go nowhere and waste time and money or go to some extreme that causes problems for everyone and has to be fixed.  it's annoying.

        as for bikers who are fucking idiots and ride in the middle of 6 lane traffic... i don't know about the instances that you have gotten into accidents, but i live in a big biking city and every single day i drive across town and see at least a dozen instances of bikers breaking the law in ways that put not only themselves but everyone around them at risk of an accident.  i list them along with automobile drivers who are idiots while on the road.  i'm not singling them out.

        although, i do think bikers are a unique risk in traffic.  they can't keep up with traffic.  they are very difficult to see in traffic a lot of the time.  they fall down because of pot holes unless they are always focusing on the ground in front of them and then they aren't attentive of the cars around them.  honestly, most i encounter don't pay attention past their own goddamn nose.  just like automobile drivers.

        and they have this mix of wanting to be treated like a car but also wanting to be treated like a pedestrian crossing a crosswalk and given the right away.  hell, most i encounter zip between cars with the same kind of finger crossed stupidity of a person running across six lanes of traffic because they don't want to walk to the crosswalk 30 feet away and wait for the light.  

        and they drift back and forth in and out of a lane when they are supposed to be riding to the side (even when there are bike lanes).  or ride with no hands or while holding a fucking cell phone and texting.

        but most of all, my beef with bikers, and i used to be one, is that they don't just put themselves at risk on the road.  they put everyone around them at risk.  most accidents are caused by drivers who don't give themselves and others a margin for error.  they drive too close or too fast and when someone makes a mistake or some outside force causes them to lose control (like a flat tire) there is no buffer to handle the situation before a colliding with someone (or something) occurs.  now throw a biker into that mix and someone is probably going to die.

        for example: a biker drifts over into the lane in front of a car.  the car swerves to avoid the biker.  the biker doesn't get hurt, but the car that swerved caused the truck in the lane next to them to swerve too and they collide with someone.  the biker rides away with a look back breathing a sigh of relief that they weren't on the side of the road that the accident behind them just happened in.

        you know, my wife was at a cross walk once and the light hadn't turned but the lady next to her, who was crossing the other way, told her just to go, because the cars have to stop for her anyway.  my wife told the lady that just because they have to stop doesn't mean they will and she's not going to win an argument with them about it after she's dead.  this was after my wife was almost hit by cars at the crosswalk numerous times within a matter of weeks.  i bring it up, because i stopped biking in traffic because i realized that i don't win an argument with a car over my right of way after i am dead from being hit.  i don't know what keeps other bikers from realizing the same thing.  them again, i don't what keeps people from going to a bar by themselves when they know they are going to probably try to drive home drunk and are too drunk to realize they shouldn't.  but it happens every day and people die because of it.

        my experience is that modest gun control is neccessary, but singling out guns as some great danger to society is misguided.  but, you know, gun control is a hell of a lot simpler to argue about than traffic.  i mentioned canada above and how they have 5 years in a row of 2,300 hit and runs in BC and that was after a 5 year campaign to get people to drive and walk safer.  they spent a ton of money and nothing has changed.  it's very sad.

        so long and thanks for all the fish

        by Anton Bursch on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 12:45:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  "That wasn't an anti biking rant; THIS is an..." (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gramofsam1, Mindful Nature, splashy

          ...anti-biking rant," apparently.

          Your generalizations about cyclists hit a nerve with me  And to wrap this back into gun control, I'd love to come up with a bunch of sentences about gun owners that generalize the way yours did about cyclists. I modified some of your sentences above, with that goal in mind"

          **They leave their guns out in reach of children when they are supposed to be locking up the unloaded guns. Or they hold the gun while holding a fucking cell phone and texting.

          **but most of all, my beef with gun owners, and i used to be one, is that they don't just put themselves at risk.  they put everyone around them at risk.  most accidents are caused by gun owners who don't give themselves and others a margin for error.

          **for example: a gun owner points a gun inside a car.  the occupant instinctively moves to avoid a gun barrel pointed at him.  the gun owner doesn't get hurt, but the 7-year old that moved dislodges the parking brake and the car rolls into traffic.  The gun owner walks away with a look back breathing a sigh of relief that they didn't pull the trigger by mistake when they were getting in.

          **i stopped carrying a gun in public because i realized that i don't win an argument with a gun over mechanical failures, dropping it, being careless, after i am dead from being hit (by a bullet).  i don't know what keeps other gun owners from realizing the same thing.  them again, i don't what keeps people from going to a bar by themselves when they know they are going to probably try to drive home drunk and are too drunk to realize they shouldn't.  but it happens every day and people die because of it.

          Every single time a cyclist is injured or killed in traffic, the trolls come out in the comments section in every major city newspaper, and start second-guessing or saying the cyclist is at fault.  A great illustration of this is here, and this kind of response is typical whenever cyclists come up in public discussion.

          •  I meant to add, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gramofsam1

            that this is why I'm so sad to see this same anti-cyclist, "if you get dead on the road on a bike it's your own damn fault" dreck show up here on dKos.

          •  easy solution (0+ / 0-)

            register all guns.  If anyone dies with a gun registered to you, life sentence.  Strict liability.

            Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

            by Mindful Nature on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 09:32:36 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No. (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              theatre goon, rockhound, Joieau, oldpunk

              I am not responsible for the actions of criminals.  Period.  End.  Dot.

              Unless you want to extend that law to ALL personal property...?  Then at least you'd be consistent.

              •  Don't like it (0+ / 0-)

                keep your gun locked up.

                Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                by Mindful Nature on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 11:32:44 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You can not make me a criminal by fiat/proxy. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  theatre goon, Wordsinthewind, oldpunk

                  Pound sand, totalitarian.

                  •  behave responsibly (0+ / 0-)

                    and there'll be no problem.  endanger the rest of society and expect consequences.  That's the law that applies to much of the rest of society, so it's time for the gun lobby to become adults and take responsibility for their actions.

                    Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                    by Mindful Nature on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 12:04:23 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  And there's the thing. (4+ / 0-)

                      Gun owners do take responsibility for their actions -- their own actions, not the actions of criminals.

                      A law-abiding, responsible gun-owner does not endanger the rest of society just by being a gun-owner.

                      If they are negligent or intentionally break the law?  Yes, they should be held accountable for their actions.

                      If they do not become negligent or intentionally break the law?  They should not be held accountable for the actions of others.

                      I mean, that's how we treat everything else.  We don't take away driver's licenses from those who do not drive under the influence of alcohol just because someone else does.

                      That would just be silly...

                      Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                      by theatre goon on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 12:31:23 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Not strictly true (0+ / 0-)

                        if you are a shipper of, say, dangerous chemicals, and something goes wrong, one can be strictly liable for the harm without a showing of negligence because the action was inherently dangerous.  Since guns are commensurately dangerous, there needs to be a heightened standard of care here.

                         Certainly, if your gun gets stolen because it wasn't locked away, then the gun owner should be negligently liable for whatever crime is committed with it as a very foreseeable consequence.

                        Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                        by Mindful Nature on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 01:09:48 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  If a criminal has to break into my vehicle... (4+ / 0-)

                          or house, I've taken all the security precautions I need to morally and legally.  

                          Would you be responsible for any damages caused by a criminal who stole your kitchen knives?

                        •  Not at all true. (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          oldpunk, rockhound, Wordsinthewind
                          ...if you are a shipper of, say, dangerous chemicals, and something goes wrong, one can be strictly liable for the harm without a showing of negligence because the action was inherently dangerous.  Since guns are commensurately dangerous, there needs to be a heightened standard of care here.
                          Firearms are not directly comparable to dangerous chemicals.

                          Some chemicals are dangerous by their very existence, and require specialized containment or handling procedures.  They can harm people simply by existing, with no need for an outside agent to use them.

                          Guns are in no way analogous to that -- they are only dangerous if they are used by someone.  They don't, for instance, get up and shoot people on their own.  They require an outside agent -- a person -- to use them before they become dangerous.

                          Apples and oranges -- your comparison is completely invalid.

                          Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                          by theatre goon on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 01:32:55 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  I do, your obvious insinuations not withstanding. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      theatre goon, oldpunk

                      So do the vast majority of gun owners.  Something on the close order of 99.9%.

                      And those same laws already apply to gun owners.

                      How's that sand feel?  I bet it chaffs....

    •  There is no analogy. (4+ / 0-)

      Cars are seen as relatively safe.  Guns are not.  So you would expect to see people taking extra care with a gun.

      The guy was a fucking idiot.

    •  I don't honestly see (5+ / 0-)

      why we can't address BOTH gun safety AND traffic accidents.

      This sounds like the argument that people make to try to get women to stop talking about women's rights in the US -- "well, you shouldn't ask us to be concerned about THAT, because in (insert Middle Eastern country here) women are stoned to death for going to school!"

      Do you not see that it is the grossest idolatry to speak of the market as though it were the rival of God?

      by kismet on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 04:21:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Unlike guns (0+ / 0-)

      the car industry doesn't have a massive and vicious lobby out to defeat and destroy any possible regulation of cars so that we can maintain as much carnage as possible on our roadways.

      Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

      by Mindful Nature on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 09:26:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bwaaaaahahahahahahahaha....!! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theatre goon, oldpunk

        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        The auto industry fights everything. They simply do it much less publically.

      •  Actually, there is a constant battle (0+ / 0-)

        Between auto manufacturers and the insurance corporations. The insurance corps have a vested interest in having vehicles as safe as possible, to avoid payouts, while the manufacturers want to make them as inexpensive as they can get away with, considering the quality they are known for.

        Going with the auto bit: I would like to see all gun owners have insurance for each and every gun they own. That way the insurance corporations would push for safer guns.

        Open carry would be nice too.

        Women create the entire labor force. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

        by splashy on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 05:18:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Arguably, this was NOT an accident... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theatre goon, oldpunk

      it was negligence.

      Which, sadly, has it's own intrinsic punishment.

  •  Disagree (18+ / 0-)

    Completely stupid people's access to guns was exactly what caused this.

    I have a controversial minority opinion in that I have no issue with gun ownership and use, but I think a sensible approach would be a driver's license type "written test passed""probationary period with a licensed [gun] owner""driver's[prospective gun owner's] test passed"/license.

    And we can slice and dice firearm licenses much the same way as motorcycle/car/the various truck type licenses requirements are written.

    "Republicans have been fleeced and exploited and lied to by a conservative entertainment complex." - David Frum

    by Glinda on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 08:39:49 PM PST

    •  We don't know (4+ / 0-)

      How proficient the guy may have been -- he may have been able to pass any gun handling and written test you could think up.  It appears he was careless here, of course -- it's hard to imagine how such a freak accident could have happened.

      But all I'm saying, as having a drivers license does not guarantee  that the driver will never drive stupidly, having a gun license does not guarantee that the gun owner will never make stupid mistakes.

      Things work out best for those who make the best of the way things work out.

      by winsock on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 09:17:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It doesn't guarantee but it make it less likely (15+ / 0-)

        Period.

        Ask any serious gun owner who uses guns regularly. Based on my upstate NY casual conversations with serious hunters, most would love this kind of licensing to keep the idiot casual gun users from putting others in danger.

        "Republicans have been fleeced and exploited and lied to by a conservative entertainment complex." - David Frum

        by Glinda on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 09:28:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Absolutely n/t (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ZenTrainer, Cedwyn, Glinda

          Things work out best for those who make the best of the way things work out.

          by winsock on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 09:34:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  "It doesn't guarantee but it make it less likely" (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theatre goon, oldpunk

          And what do you base this assertion on?

          Most people (I'd say the vast majority) have no idea of the capabilities and limitations of their vehicles or others, and operate them in a blind fog of recklessness.

          I say this as a bicyclist, motorcyclist, on-and off-road car/truck driver with some not inconsiderable track time, and heavy-equipment operator.

          I'd also say that New York hunters are not particularly representative of people who actually carry firearms for personnal defensive purposes.

      •  He emptied the magazine but forgot there (8+ / 0-)

        was a bullet in the chamber. He had the gun in his hand while he and his kid got in the car. He was coming from a gun store. (According to the article at MSN.)

        So much for those highly touted gun safety courses!

        Tracy B Ann - technically that is my signature.

        by ZenTrainer on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:19:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Anyone who's not... (7+ / 0-)

          ...a fucking idiot doesn't forget to check the chamber.

          •  Yep. Why was that gun not holstered... (15+ / 0-)

            ...or cased when he was getting into the car? Why was that muzzle pointed at anything other than the ground? Why was there a round in the chamber?

            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 02:51:10 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You're asking questions presuming facts... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PavePusher

              ...not in evidence.  Aside from the obvious--the handgun was loaded and charged, and the child suffered a GSW to the chest--we have absolutely no idea what happened here.

              •  Since we don't have the police ... (8+ / 0-)

                ...report—much of which is, by necessity, going to be simply the story that the guy who shot his son to death said to the cops—the questions I am asking are, by necessity, based on the newspaper report. That is based either on the police report or the reporter's discussion with the police. Just like the police report itself, this may contain inaccuracies.

                However:

                We DO know that the muzzle of the gun was pointed somewhere other than the ground unless the child was lying on the ground when he was shot. We DO know that the gun was not cased because cased guns do not "go off" accidentally. We DO know that the safety was off (unless it was defective) because guns with working safeties on do not "go off" accidentally. The gun MAY have been holstered, but that's unlikely. And we know that a 44-year-old was careless, and possibly reckless.

                So contrary to your claims, we DO know more than simply that the child died of a gunshot wound.

                Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                by Meteor Blades on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 10:31:54 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  More detail now. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  PavePusher

                  From Bend Bulletin:

                  Loughrey put the boy in the passenger seat and loaded the rifle into the truck, state police said. He was attempting to get inside and reached to put the handgun in the center console when it fired, they said.
                  •  As I am sure you will agree, there are ... (8+ / 0-)

                    ...two things wrong with that second sentence unless magic was involved: he didn't merely reach for the gun and it didn't just fire by itself.

                    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                    by Meteor Blades on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 10:57:20 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Again, don't know. (0+ / 0-)

                      Will wait for details.

                      •  So, you believe he wasn't touching that gun... (5+ / 0-)

                        ...when it fired?

                        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                        by Meteor Blades on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 11:07:35 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  No. (0+ / 0-)

                          According to the report, he was placing it in the center console (between the driver seat and passenger seat).

                          •  The problem with the report in question is that... (7+ / 0-)

                            ...it says:

                            "A man’s handgun went off..."

                            "reached to put the handgun in the center console when it fired..."

                            "went off" and "when it fired" makes it seem, as I am sure the understandably distraught father wants to convince himself and everyone else, that the firearm did these things and had nothing to do with his mishandling of it.

                            Presumably, since there was no arrest or charges filed in this case, the father is licensed to carry in Pennsylvania; otherwise he was in violation of the law requiring firearms to be transported unloaded.

                            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                            by Meteor Blades on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 11:40:18 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I agree, but it also seems like part of (3+ / 0-)

                            why this story has so much media traction is because of how rare it is compared to stuff like people accidentally killing their kids in a wide variety of other ways, as horrifying as this is.

                            If we want to talk about parental negligence, then we have to open the discussion up, I feel, to a full discussion of the matter.

                            Note: this is per 100,000 children -- sorry about the format, it's not working:

                            Accidental child deaths           total #     percent
                            Motor Vehicle                           6,683       8.1    
                            Drowning                           1,056       1.3    
                            Fire/Burn                                      544       0.7    
                            Poisoning                              972         1.2    
                            Suffocation/Strangulation     1,263       1.5     Firearm                                      138         0.2
                            From what I can see online, a number of kids in the U.S. die of accidental gunshots each year with 200,000 firearms around. That's horrible, but it seems to me like this issue is about parental negligence all around, be it with firearms, fire, water, high steps, overly thick blankets, toxic substances, or cars.

                            Is this different than that, and if so, why? How is this issue distinct from other causes of accidental child deaths which are either wholly or largely preventable?

                            And yes, this particular story is truly tragic.

                            Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

                            by mahakali overdrive on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 02:47:03 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

              •  You are kidding, right? The facts are in evidence. (0+ / 0-)

                1. A child is dead.
                2. He died of a gunshot wound
                3. The accident happened while father and son were getting into a vehicle
                4. The gun was loaded
                5. The gun was evidently NOT pointing at the ground (re: #1)

                More info...
                State police Lt. Eric Hermick said Sunday the father had secured a rifle in the back of the truck and placed his pistol on the console when the handgun went off. Hermick said police are reviewing surveillance video from the store, which helped lay out the chain of events; the video is not being released.

                "It is very clear-cut exactly what transpired here," Hermick said of what he called clearly an accident. "As he's laying it down, it discharges."

                All of MB's questions are perfectly valid (in fact those are the very questions I had when I read the story), and no doubt at the top of the investigators list.

                'If you want to be a hero, well just follow me.' - J. Lennon

                by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 09:22:39 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  I wondered why the handgun was naked also. (0+ / 0-)

              I know they make holsters for them.

              "I believe more women should carry guns. I believe armed women will make the world a better place. Women need to come to think of themselves not as victims but as dangerous." Anna Pigeon

              by glorificus on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 07:54:43 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Therein lies the problem (6+ / 0-)

            There are far too many "fucking idiots" running around with easy access to weapons.  Unquestionably a very slim minority of gun owners, but enough to ensure that we see stories like this far too often...

            I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

            by Wayward Wind on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 03:15:24 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The same can be said of any object that is... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              theatre goon, oldpunk

              dangerous when handled negligently.

              •  No, it can't be. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cany, blueness, splashy

                There is no equivilant.

                Tracy B Ann - technically that is my signature.

                by ZenTrainer on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 11:51:56 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Sarcasm, yes? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  oldpunk

                  I have to be sure....

                •  I have both a chainsaw (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  theatre goon

                  and an ER nurse friend (who also has a chainsaw), and we'd both beg to differ with you on tools being dangerous when handled negligently. They can be positively deadly, and it happens with some sad regularity.

                  We have hard hats, protective goggles, and leather/kevlar chaps to wear when bringing in the firewood. Doesn't prevent widowmakers from falling on a head or a tree crushing the life out of someone when it's brought down, but it does prevent 'accidentally' cutting your leg off or nearly so during a deep woods on-the-slope slice-up operation. Heck, I even got steel-toed mountain boots just for the task. Helpers (our not-so-little kids) know to gage the fall line and "oops" possibles, stay away from it and away from kickback arcs during slice-up "just in case."

                  We take all due precautions when target shooting in the bottomland as well. This occasional pastime helps us all keep the guns in good working order and our individual knowledge/skills with those guns up to date. No one has ever been shot - accidentally or on purpose - on my land for the entire 20 years I've lived here. We plan on keeping it that way, barring any more meth-heads up to no good who just might need some convincing.

                  When some creep pulls a gun on me, I may not want to run for the chainsaw (or machete), as those aren't the appropriate tools to use for the task at hand. Grandpa's shotgun [he was once the sheriff of a one-horse town in Oklahoma, the horse belonged to him] is.

        •  Is there any evidence he's taken such a class? n/t (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          oldpunk
    •  I am a life-long gun-owner and I have come... (11+ / 0-)

      ...to the conclusion gun-owners should be licensed.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 02:48:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I have thought that for 40 years... (5+ / 0-)

        I did some background investigations for NY pistol permits back in the 70s and taught some classes on firearm laws for applicants, and was absolutely horrified at the lack of knowledge, judgment, and awareness that some of them exhibited.

        Very glad to have you come to the conclusion that you have reached.

        I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

        by Wayward Wind on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 03:19:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  It just seems logical (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joy of Fishes, cany, Nailbanger, splashy

        that we would test gun buyers the same way we test would-be drivers. Pass a written exam to demonstrate that they understand gun use and best practices, pass a skills exam to demonstrate they can handle a gun and have the judgment to make good decisions.
        I also think that liability insurance should be an absolute requirement.  For car owners, it's an effective (and expensive) reminder that you are personally responsible for damage or injury resulting from the use of your car.

        •  Logical != feels right (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PavePusher, oldpunk, Joieau

          Operating a motor vehicle is considerably more difficult than safely using a firearm, knives, Draino, or any number of potentially deadly products.  

          As for this liability insurance tangent, I've no problem with it.  You can get personal liability insurance up to $1 million for a cost of only $100 a year.  In fact, it usually comes standard as part of your home owners insurance.  That's more than sufficient to deal with whatever fraction of the 2,000 or so annual unintentional firearms-related injuries are due to negligence and don't involve family members.

          •  No, actually, logical to me= (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cany

            makes sense, follows a logical train of thought.  As in:
            a) Guns are objects whose use can result in injury or death
            b) It is the goal of gun owners and non gun owners alike to reduce the number of injuries and deaths.
            c) Injuries and deaths are more likely when gun owners are not familiar with gun safety and handling. therefore:
            d) An evaluation of gun buyers' familiarity and competency re gun safety and handling would likely result in fewer deaths and injuries.

            You might disagree with one or all of the premises, or you might think the conclusion is irrelevant to the broader argument of regulation, but I don't think it's illogical.

            •  Does not follow. (0+ / 0-)

              Easy enough to see when you reduce it to propositional logic:

              AND(a,b,c) -> d

              •  You're right it's a sloppy argument- (0+ / 0-)

                long time since I studied formal logic, but I think I can still think logically.
                So let's remove a and b- since a is undeniable, let's call it a given.  Same for b, which is is not undeniable but I think it's a basic point of agreement.

                Let's simplify it to say that injuries and deaths are more likely when gun owners are not familiar with gun safety and handling.  And conversely, injuries are deaths are less likely when gun owners are familiar with such.
                So if you accept a and b as given, your goal is to reduce those numbers.  If you accept that competency is important to safety, but reject the idea of evaluating competency, I guess we're back to the question of what- if anything- you would accept as a trade-off for better safety and fewer gun tragedies. So I guess it's more of a question than an argument.

                •  Two points. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  PavePusher, Joieau

                  1. At a rate of 1.1 per 100,000, unintentional firearm injury is exceedingly rare (comparable to injury resulting from pedal cyclist-MV accidents).  

                  2. Firearms safety and handling is trivial; requiring only minutes to master.  In fact, the whole of it can be printed in a 15-cent brochure and a 30 page owner's manual.

                  The utility of any licensing scheme and evaluation of competency is an empirical question; if you're going to make the case for such an endeavor, then you should be able to show with facts that it will improve the already marginal risk of unintentional firearm injury over voluntarily mastering such trivial things.

                  •  There's also this- (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    blueness

                    http://www.preventinjury.org/...

                    which is an essential part of what I would consider very basic knowledge about gun safety. Apparently too many people are not careful about how or whether they store their guns, and too many kids are victimized by that carelessness.  I would not call that level of ignorance trivial, I would not call the number of kids trivial.
                     Handing out brochures and manuals is different from evaluating whether or not gun buyers have read and understand them, and express an intention to observe them. Especially if there are kids who live in or visit their dwelling.

                    •  No, that's just some crap. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      PavePusher

                      Has nothing to do with keeping and using firearms safely, and is written by people who remain willfully ignorant about the subject entirely.

                      No deal.

                      •  Just some crap. Well that settles it. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        blueness

                        Which of their suggestions for keeping kids safe from gun accidents do you disagree with?

                        •  There are only two explicitly stated, so... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          PavePusher

                          ...both of them.

                          •  Well if you disagree with this: (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Joy of Fishes, cany, blueness, splashy

                            •    Gun owners should always store firearms (including BB or pellet guns) unloaded and locked up, out of reach of children. Ammunition should be locked in a separate location, also out of reach of children. Quality safety devices such as gun locks lock boxes or gun safes should be used for every gun kept in the home. Keep gun storage keys and lock combinations hidden in a separate location.
                            •    Parents should talk to children about the dangers of guns, teach children never to touch or play with guns, and teach them to tell an adult if they find a gun.
                            •    Parents should check with neighbors, friends or relatives — or adults in any other homes where children may visit — to ensure they follow safe storage practices if firearms are in their homes.

                            then I guess it's pointless to continue this conversation. It's getting way too personal for me- kids I knew are now dead because their parents thought safe storage was "just crap".

                          •  Yep. All of them. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PavePusher

                            1. An unloaded and locked away firearm is useless.  You should always keep one or two within reach and ready.  Gun locks are also terrible devices; use a case instead, and keep the keys on your person or nearby at all times.
                            2. Parents should introduce their children to firearms, teach them how to use them and respect them.  
                            3. Parents don't need to be missionaries for the Brady Bunch.  Make friends with parents who share your interest in firearms, and respect each others privacy.  You can do a lot worse than excise the gun grabbers from your lives.

                          •  Also...I don't buy your time machine crap. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PavePusher
                          •  You know, I really had no (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            splashy

                            intention of responding to you again until I saw this.

                            Not sure what you mean by "time machine crap", but if you're actually suggesting I should not still be impacted by dead kids because their deaths happened years ago, you're just being an asshole. And bear in mind that although only one of them was under 14 like the kids in the study, all but one of them was 16 or younger. Access to a gun did not make them kill themselves, it just vastly increased the odds of fatality- which is statistically 90% but in their cases, 100%.

                            If you want the link for the Harvard study of fatality rates for gun by suicide I posted it in the last gun diary I commented in. But I'm guessing you'd just dismiss it so why bother reading it.  I know I won't bother reading any more of your responses, which at this point basically boil down to "it's just crap".

                          •  Your time machine crap... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...that is, your "if only we had done this or that" bullshit.  I'm not buying it.

                            Your poor attempt to combine two separate variables to reach a non-numerical third is just ridiculous; Japan has a significantly higher suicide rate than the US with negligible access to firearms.  Hell, you can't even show that removing access to firearms doesn't increase the risk of fatal suicide attempts.  You're just spouting nonsense.

                            Go ahead, post your link.  Chances are I've seen it before and I'll demolish it like I do every other one.  And maybe by then you'lll learn to stop raging about extremely rare tragedies and junk science simply because you don't like my lifestyle.

                          •  Last one, going out to dinner: (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            splashy

                            http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/...

                            see #12 for fatality rates. Demolish away, I'm outta here.

                            But trust me that the people saying "if only we'd done this or that" were the kids' parents, not me.  Nothing I could have done about any of it.

                          •  According to the World Health Organization... (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            oldpunk, Joieau, rockhound

                            http://www.who.int/...

                            in per capita suicides, the US is in (thank goodness!) the 38th or so place, and the top 10 are predominantly countries of the former Eastern Bloc, including parts of what used to be the Soviet Union. Notably, Japan is also there, at number 7. The US has a lower suicide rate than most of Europe. Most of the countries where suicide is more of a problem than the US have MUCH tougher gun laws.

                            I don't see much of a correlation, sorry, and WHO statistics are based on a much larger collection of samples than the US-only study you refer to (limited to the northeastern region of one country only).

                            Dixi.

                          •  Was not making the argument (0+ / 0-)

                            that we have more suicides.  Link was about the relatively higher likelihood that suicide will result in fatality when a gun is used.

                          •  Does not say what you said it says. (0+ / 0-)
                            Across the Northeast, case fatality rates ranged from over 90% for firearms to under 5% for drug overdoses, cutting and piercing (the most common methods of attempted suicide).
                            Case fatality rates for suicide attempts involving firearms are over 90 percent.  Says nothing about access to a firearm.
                          •  Yes, exactly: (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            splashy

                            case fatality rates for suicide attempts involving firearms are over 90 percent, compared with 5% lethality for other common methods.
                            You seem to conclude that the use of a gun to commit suicide somehow does not imply access to a gun.  Or that kids with no access to guns are just as likely to die from a suicide attempt. Or that it's all irrelevant. Or something.
                            But just to make you happy, let me amend my original statement.  A kid who has access to a gun is more likely to use a gun in a suicide attempt than is a kid who has no access to a gun. And the kid who uses a gun is much more likely to die in the attempt.
                            But really we will never agree about any of this. And Hugh Jackman is on my TV screen right now so it's time to turn off dailykos and concentrate.

                          •  No. (0+ / 0-)

                            I'm saying there's no evidence that access to a gun implies greater risk of fatal suicide attempt.

                  •  Sigh. "Firearms safety and handling is ... (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    cany, blueness, splashy

                    ...trivial; requiring only minutes to master."

                    Nonsense. Reading about about to handle a firearm safely can be done in 15 minutes. Getting a rudimentary, hands-on lesson about doing so can be done in that same amount of time.

                    Mastering it takes a good deal longer. I have taught perhaps three dozen people how to shoot handguns. None of them came close to mastering the basics of safety in 15 minutes or an hour. Each them had to told repeatedly to always to be aware of where they were pointing their weapon, for example.

                    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                    by Meteor Blades on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 11:06:03 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Nonsense. (0+ / 0-)

                      You're not instructing in some esoteric martial art.  This is where the bullet comes out.  You may have noticed that in your X many years on planet.  Keep it away from people.  Here's the safety.  Here's how to engage.  Here's the magazine.  Here's how to load.  Here's how release.  Here's how charge.  Point, squeeze the trigger.  Within minutes you'll have them putting 2 in groups at 5 yards, which is a typical enough range of engagement they'll likely encounter.  I've yet to meet anyone who didn't have a healthy enough respect for the business end of a gun.

                      Perhaps you're dealing with exceptionally dimwitted students, in which case you have to ask yourself why you're bothering in the first place.

                      •  Nonsense? I hope I am never on a target... (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        splashy, KVoimakas, blueness

                        ...range with someone who learned gun safety from you.

                        Because despite all the expertise and facility with statistics you've displayed in the gun threads here, despite your large gun collection and presumed skill, your statement above indicates a reckless disregard for and lack of understanding about the reality of the average person who is in the early stages of learning how to handle firearms.

                        I'm not talking out of my ass here. Over the years, I have personally witnessed several people with CCLs point the muzzle of their weapon at someone while they were loading it or getting ready to aim it at a target. Not once, not twice, but many times. I have personally taken to task someone (at a range frequented by police officers near downtown Los Angeles) because he was pointing the pistol at the abdomen of the student (presumably his teenaged son) to whom he was giving safety instructions. At the second outdoor lesson I gave a college professor, she accidentally fired the pistol she had put a cumulative 100 or so rounds through because she forgot to keep her finger off the trigger. Fortunately, the gun was pointed at the ground, not at someone, not even her own foot, though the latter was close.

                        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                        by Meteor Blades on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:11:49 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Reckless? (0+ / 0-)

                          How do your "many" eye witness accounts of people handling firearms "unsafely" lead you to a conclusion about the "average" newcomer's competence in handling firearms?  We've already shown that unintentional firearms injury and mortality is extremely rare.  In fact, it is so rare that it is rare in every state in the Union, from constitutional carry states like Arizona to heavily regulated ones like California.  There's no evidence of significant, persistent variation amongst the several states.

                          There's no mystique to a firearm.  Recognizing that gun safety is easy to learn and to master is not reckless disregard, anymore than pointing out that we all break the rules on occasion (or, in your words, "many" of us "several" times).  That includes seasoned handlers.  But only an exceedingly small group of people ever accidentally discharge, and of those an even smaller group cause injury or death.

                        •  And to bring it back to the point. (0+ / 0-)

                          The question is whether or not there should be some licensing scheme that includes some mandatory training before a citizen can take possession of his weapon and carry as he sees fit.  I say this is ridiculous, and all this hard nosed talk about "mastering" the firearm is irrelevant.  You know enough by the time you finish reading the brochure and skimmed through the owners manual to do less damage than most people will do with household chemicals and medicines.  At some point, you need to stop treating people as children.

                  •  Licensing of drivers and motor vehicles (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Pete Cortez, theatre goon

                    has absolutely nothing to do with public safety. Why else would the DMV fall under the purview of the Department of Revenue?

                    By the Collision of different Sentiments, Sparks of Truth are struck out, and political Light is obtained. - Benjamin Franklin

                    by oldpunk on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 04:44:53 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

        •  There is no test for merely buying a car. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theatre goon, oldpunk

          Most states already have a class and test system for public carry, the equivalent of public driving.

          Since accidental/negligent firearms injury/deaths are exceedingly rare, what you propose will only further enrich insurance companies.  Seriously, why would you want to do that?  Homeowners insurance generally already covers such incidents in the home.  

      •  I'd be in favor of mandatory training.... (4+ / 0-)

        which has nothing to do with licencing, and should be a part of general primary education.

      •  Thank God you came to that conclusion (0+ / 0-)

        I thought you had a different view point on that, so did you change your mind about it lately, or did I recollect  what you wrote about gun ownership during the years wrongly and misunderstood you?

    •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

      Why do you think this man did anything stupid?  Here's a hint; he's not being charged with negligent homicide.

  •  Christ on a Rusty Handrail (9+ / 0-)

    Would you let them at least get the dead kid in the ground before you LEAP to use his death to score a political point?

    Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.

    by The Baculum King on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:34:32 PM PST

    •  Was Bob Costas trying to score a politcal point,nt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      splashy

      you don't believe in evolution, you understand it. you believe in the FSM.

      by Mathazar on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:40:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Probably (8+ / 0-)

        What's his role in this? I was addressing this Diary, but am always willing to expand a discussion.

        As I have made abundantly clear in the distant past this is, and will remain, a losing issue politically for Democrats. It's one of the most powerful recruiting tools the Rethugs have, and it gains currency every time it comes up.

        Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.

        by The Baculum King on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:45:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not so... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueness, splashy
          As I have made abundantly clear in the distant past this is, and will remain, a losing issue politically for Democrats. It's one of the most powerful recruiting tools the Rethugs have, and it gains currency every time it comes up.
          I hear that repeatedly, and it is a myth that the NRA and others rely upon, but it is all smoke and mirrors.

          Have a look at Paul Waldman's series:

          Part 1

          Part 2

          Part 3

          Part 4

          I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

          by Wayward Wind on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 03:27:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Actually (5+ / 0-)

            before I go with an agenda-driven series on ThinkProgress, I'll go with this:

            "Clinton added that the National Rifle Association also played a bigger role than it's credited in turning over Congress during the 1994 Republican revolution. "They were mad about this whole weapons ban and the Brady Bill, and they probably took 15 of our House members out. That was their number, they said between 15 and 20, and I'd say, at least on the low side, they were right," he said."

            "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

            by kestrel9000 on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 06:26:54 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Read the series (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              blueness

              One part focuses on the supposed 1994 losses, analyzes the actual results, and debunks the myth.  Clinton's off the cuff acceptance of the NRA puffery simply does not withstand analysis.

              I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

              by Wayward Wind on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 07:02:22 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Mr. Waldman Makes a Common Mistake (4+ / 0-)

            He conflates the NRA directly with the gun issue, as if those concerned with gun rights marched lock-step behind Wayne LaPierre and were at his beck and call. This conflation, while common, is akin to lumping all women's rights behind NOW. The NRA represents only a relatively small segment of those for whom the gun issue is hugely determinative in deciding voting, so it's not that surprising that the formal endorsement of the NRA is of marginal value. However, interpreting that value to mean that Democrats can therefore move with impunity against the Second Amendment is a gross miscalculation that has cost them electorally in the past and will again in the future. Where the gun issue costs Democrats is not in narrow races where the NRAs endorsement (or lack thereof) is a measurable factor, but rather in overall recruitment of people who would otherwise naturally align with Democrats on a wide range of issues but have little flexibility on this one; the NRA is then just the guy with the bullhorn highlighting the Democratic position, but once Rethugs have a vote it tends to be theirs across the board.

            And yeah, Bill Clinton is a piker when it comes to political instincts; what does he know about politics?

            Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.

            by The Baculum King on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 07:49:57 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Did you read the whole series? (0+ / 0-)

              Particularly Part 4, which addresses the issue that you raise of a broader constituency.  The research that he cites clearly indicate that firearms ownership is declining - remarkably so.  The number of guns is clearly up, but those weapons are concentrated in fewer hands each year, and those hands tend to older and white; given the clear trends in American demographics that are projected, that trend is likely to continue and perhaps even accelerate.

              Beyond that, the research shows that even the most ardent gun owners and yes, NRA members, support ideas such as waiting periods (86%), registration (79%), and requiring a permit from the police for ownership (74.3%).

              It is absolutely true that there are more guns, and that if you poll the simple question of support for gun control, it is a losing proposition.  But that is about all that is true - the rest is hyperbole and myth.

              I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

              by Wayward Wind on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:09:34 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Yes. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theatre goon, Wordsinthewind

        "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

        by kestrel9000 on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 05:32:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  There are over 3 gun deaths per day in the US. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nailbanger

      Thus, is it never appropriate to talk about gun violence?

    •  No. (0+ / 0-)

      "I believe more women should carry guns. I believe armed women will make the world a better place. Women need to come to think of themselves not as victims but as dangerous." Anna Pigeon

      by glorificus on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 06:36:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Stupid tragic accident... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FiredUpInCA, Duckmg, blueness

    But why do people still think guns make them safer?

    "I don't give them Hell. I just tell the truth about them and they think it's Hell."

    by Notthemayor on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 01:19:04 AM PST

    •  Ah, the dumb question game. (0+ / 0-)

      Why do people think food makes them full?

      •  Not a dumb question... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueness

        And not at all the same.  Can't live without food.  Can live without guns.  Really.

        I work at night.  A lot of people I know who do the same work carry guns.  I don't.

        I really don't believe that on balance they enhance safety.  They seem mostly to be used to commit suicide, kill family members and to commit crime.

        (No...I am not calling all gun owners criminal.)

        In comparison to the number of gun deaths the incidents I read of where gun successfully protect an innocent person seem quite rare.

        So my question stands.  Do you have an answer besides calling the question dumb.

        "I don't give them Hell. I just tell the truth about them and they think it's Hell."

        by Notthemayor on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 08:38:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Damn UN librals. Prolly will use UN treaties (0+ / 0-)

    To change how dads discipline their kids.

    Grrrr.

    This one's for Anton.

    What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

    by agnostic on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 02:51:56 AM PST

  •  The 7-year old should have had a gun! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FiredUpInCA, Cedwyn, cany, Nailbanger

    Didn't you get the memo from the NRA?  

  •  Gun laws, gun manufacturers, and guns (8+ / 0-)

    themselves are not responsible for this.

    Joseph V. Loughrey
    bears 100% responsibility for this.

    To attempt to assign any responsibility whatever to any other factor than that man's irresponsibility is wrongheaded and misguided.

    "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

    by kestrel9000 on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 05:35:01 AM PST

  •  150 million own cars, 150 million own guns.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greengemini, splashy

    But we USE our cars everyday, we don't go around shooting things everyday.

    So like DUH, cars yield more casualties.  If everyone starting shooting up the place every day, more people would be injured by guns instead of cars.

    Meantime, how about a COMPETENCY test for gun ownership? If you are too much of an idiot, then NO you can't have a gun. Of course, a competency test for parenting might be a good idea too. ;P

    •  Why not a competency test for blog comments, too? (5+ / 0-)

      You know, competency to express 1st Amendment rights.
       Everyone wants to stop the unnecesary, and sad things that occur in our lives. But if everytime teh stupid happens, and a new law is enacted, because of that irresponsible action, we wouldn't be able to leave our homes without getting arrested. Hell, we couldn't even live in our homes there would be so many laws against what stupid things we do in them.
       

      "The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." -Zappa My Site

      by meagert on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 07:37:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  "we don't go around shooting things everyday." (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theatre goon, oldpunk, rockhound

      Exactly.  Nor do we go around (most of us) crashing our cars every day.

      Your analogy was made to the wrong part of the car use continuum.

      Nor do we have a competency test for mere ownership of cars.

  •  If you're going to compare guns and automobiles (4+ / 0-)

    You have to look at the number of deaths beyond traffic accidents. You have to factor in the number of people who die from the pollution caused by automobiles. You also have to factor in the number of people who die from oil wars (ie Iraq, Kuwait, etc.). Then there's climate change, which will probably do more damage than guns, pollution, and wars combined.  

    America's lust for the automobile is far worse than our lust for firearms.  When was the last time we invaded another country for control of their bullets like we do for oil? When was the last time huge swaths of wilderness were cut down to make shooting lanes for shooters like we do for highways? How many people die each year from bullet pollution?

    I may have gotten off track in regards to the diary, but this weekend, millions of hunters and shooters went out, successfully practiced firearm safety, and not a single news article was published talking about this fact. We only get the articles when idiots with guns do something stupid like shoot a kid.  Violence sells, safety doesn't.  

    "I'm a progressive man and I like progressive people" Peter Tosh

    by Texas Lefty on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 07:48:30 AM PST

    •  Though we never read about close calls like a (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      glorificus, splashy

      hunter aiming at a deer and shooting INTO a campground as happened to me.

      He caught verbal hell from me, but it never makes the papers.

      202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

      by cany on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 12:52:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  "Killing Machine": make it clearer (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueness, splashy

    Calling them 'guns' confuses the issue, simply call them 'killing machines'.

    It makes all these accidents MUCH clearer.  "The father was was holding his recently purchased KILLING MACHINE in his hand when it discharged and killed his son."

    "The man was exercising his constitutional right to own a KILLING MACHINE when it activated while he was cleaning it and killed him."

    "Sale on at Butch's KILLING MACHINES".

    or here, to be exact:

    Craig Allen Loughrey was shot in the chest by a KILLING MACHINE his father, Joseph V. Loughrey, 44, was holding as they were getting into the family vehicle at Twig's Reloading Den in Mercer, about 60 miles north of Pittsburgh, a Pennsylvania State Police spokesman said.
    "KILLING MACHINES don't kill people, people do."

    When you've got a lot of KILLING MACHINES around, accidents are bound to happen.

    •  Excellent idea (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theatre goon, ban nock, PavePusher

      Knives: Butcher tools.
      Cars: Murder wagons.
      Bleach: Poison.
      Fertilizer: Bomb sludge.

      •  Primary use (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        splashy

         I think the idea is that the primary purpose of a handgun
        is to kill (or seriously injure) someone, or at the very least to threaten said death or injury.

        Knives, cars, bleach, and fertilizer all of have other primary purposes than those you have listed.

        •  Is that so? (0+ / 0-)

          As opposed to recreational shooting?

          •  agreed, but... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            splashy

            I'm not sure why constitutional protection would be needed for recreational shooting...nor why anyone would have objections to banning the carrying of concealed weapons, or large magazines, or weapons that are easily converted to fully automated use, if the main use was target practice.

            This is not to say that some folks don't enjoy target practice, and some folks might only have a gun for that purpose.

            Perhaps you are one.  

            Still, that argument sounds rather reminiscent of the "I only buy Playboy for the articles" argument I used to try on my Mom....

            •  Easily converted to fully automated use? (0+ / 0-)

              Didn't know there were so many budding roboticists amongst our nations murderers.

              Don't see how carrying concealed or large magazines bothers you.

              •  missed the point (0+ / 0-)

                I am afraid you have dodged the question: if the primary purpose of handguns were target practice, then why does the NRA, for example, object to restrictions on large magazines (which can facilitate mass murder) or carrying concealed? Seems like an awfully small set of concessions for target-practice aficionados.

                My point is that all of the other "deadly" objects you referred to in your original comment cannot be argued to have as their primary use/purpose causing harm (or threatening harm). It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

                Do you really believe Founding Fathers had thought guns were mainly for target shooting, and that was their motivation for the 2nd amendment?

                I suggest that any argument for or against changes in gun control or gun policy should at least be honest as to how and why they differ from cars or fertilizer.... instead one should speak honestly about the relative merits of arguments involving self-defense, for example, not sophistry about how cars kill people too...

                •  Why concede them at all? (0+ / 0-)

                  Carry--concealed and open--is a convenient way to transport.  In fact, concealed is a concession itself; when and where I'm willing to offer it.  And large magazines are very convenient at the range.  They do not facilitate mass murder.

                  The fact is that there are nearly 300 million firearms in the US today, and Americans go through billions of rounds of ammunition.  All without ever killing or injuring another human being.  To suggest the primary purpose of a firearm is to inflict lethal force is stupidly disingenuous.

                  •  most bicycle helmets don't get used either (0+ / 0-)

                    Umm... "All without killing or injuring another human being"?

                    I fear some of them do (granted, not the majority). Are you really suggesting none of them kill/injure anyone?

                    The majority of bicycle helmets don't actually get used to prevent traumatic brain injury, but you'll agree that is their purpose?

          •  Don't need concealed carry for target shooting (0+ / 0-)

            So why is there concealed carry?

            I would rather have open carry.

            Women create the entire labor force. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

            by splashy on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 10:26:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Well, I have owned guns (5+ / 0-)

      ever since I got old enough to buy one in my own name, been shooting at tin cans and bottles even longer. Don't have any handguns (too many children around), do have a shotgun and a rifle. These are usually used only in target practice, but I've kept the shotgun handy (near the box of buckshot shells) ever since a couple of crazy rednecks showed up a year and a half ago looking for meth money and pulled a gun on me in my own driveway. Also keep two baseball bats and a sword behind the kitchen door, a nice pistol-action crossbow in the library - we live on acreage far out in the woods where there are no neighbors within eye or ear shot and the cops are 40 minutes away on a good day.

      No gun I've ever owned has ever shot a human being. But I keep them because they could if they had to.

      We do not hunt (don't even eat meat), but there are plenty of hunters here who believe against all law and reason that they can hunt bear or deer or turkeys on my posted property without permission, and think their guns make any complaint from me non-binding. My gun evens that out very well. And we do get occasional rabid coons, skunks and unfriendly starving hounds the hunters don't care enough about to collect when they go home. They are dangerous to children and adults, dogs and cats, chickens and ducks, and me.

      My guns are tools. Like my scythe and my machetes and my axes/mauls and my DR and my chainsaw. Their job is to protect and defend my family and property from people/animals bent on destruction. They are not registered, nor are they required to be registered. You can of course consider them "KILLING MACHINES," I don't mind. That is precisely why I have these tools. As is my right as a citizen of this country, regardless of how you wish to characterize it. What you cannot do - and will never be able to do - is to confiscate them from me because you're scared of guns and do not believe I have the right to protect and defend my family, livestock and property with a "KILLING MACHINE" that has no other purpose than to launch potentially lethal projectiles when I pull the trigger. For whatever reason launching potentially lethal projectiles at something or someone might be my choice of action.

      •  Guns in your own home = (0+ / 0-)

        No problem to me. It's when they are carried around others that don't want them around that problems start.

        I would prefer open carry, so all could make their own decisions as to what they want to be around.

        Women create the entire labor force. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

        by splashy on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 10:29:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Go play outside, child. n/t (4+ / 0-)
  •  I read about that elsewhere yesterday (5+ / 0-)

    What a terrible story. I just hate hearing about accidental deaths especially when committed by a parent.

    One time at the Shwagunks a dad was teaching his kid to rappel. Kid fell 90 feet straight down to the carriage road. Just horrendous.

    Thankfully gun accidents are extremely rare, more rare than falling or other forms of accident. Cars really give me pause but I see little way around them.

    As a parent I know that life involves risk.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 10:04:37 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site