Skip to main content

CNN --

A 6-year-old New Jersey boy has died after being shot in the head by a 4-year-old playmate as their parents stood in the yard nearby, a local police chief said.
Brandon Holt was pronounced dead at 5 p.m. Tuesday at Jersey Shore University Medical Center in Neptune, according to Toms River police Chief Michael Mastronardy.
It was the second incident in the United States in recent days involving young children accidentally shooting others.

Brandon was playing in and around the 4-year-old's Toms River home on Monday evening when the younger child left the yard and went inside, police explained.
"The 4-year-old ... retrieved a rifle within the house, a .22-caliber rifle, came outside," Mastronardy told reporters earlier Tuesday. "... A shot went out and the 6-year-old was struck in the head."

Daniel Watkins, uncle of the 6-year-old boy, told CNN affiliate WCBS that the two children were friends.

"It's really difficult to deal with," Watkins said. "This is something that shouldn't have happened. It's horrible."

Only banning guns would.

Availability = Access. Accesss = Opportunity. Opportunity = Tragedy, accidental or otherwise.

Step-by-step, it must be done.

Originally posted to koNko on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 06:41 AM PDT.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA and Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA).

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

  •  Tips for a Civil, Sane Society (8+ / 0-)

    What about my Daughter's future?

    by koNko on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 06:37:05 AM PDT

  •  That one's on the parents. (9+ / 0-)

    Perhaps they would have failed a check, seeing as they're that incompetent.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 06:47:47 AM PDT

    •  I doubt it. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Lots of irresponsible idiots seem to pass the checks, all you have to do is tick off the boxes in a single column.

      But if they couldn't buy a gun, it would not have been available for use regardless of how careless they are.

      What about my Daughter's future?

      by koNko on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 06:54:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Ha, wasn't at least one an active-duty cop? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BachFan, FG

      Pretty sure that's a 'pass'.

      I see what you did there.

      by GoGoGoEverton on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 07:19:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  don't think so -- that was the Tennessee shooting (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FG, andalusi, Texas Lefty, koNko

        where the 4-year-old, in the room with 2 adult males, shot one of the men's wife with one of the men's pistol.

        This is carelessness. This is not responsible ownership or storage.
         This is, indeed, on the adults. In both cases.

        LBJ, Lady Bird, Van Cliburn, Ike, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

        by BlackSheep1 on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 09:09:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  There's No One Fix Including Total Banning (8+ / 0-)

    because that's politically flat out impossible.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 06:59:41 AM PDT

    •  Logistically difficult as well (0+ / 0-)

      You'd have to confiscate about 300million guns currently in circulation. Can you imagine the difficulty in doing that - even if all local government cooperated?

      Look, I tried to be reasonable...

      by campionrules on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 07:01:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Now it is. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Step-by-step. Hopefully the next step is actual legislation not just more examples why it's needed.

      What about my Daughter's future?

      by koNko on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 07:02:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How is banning possible? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BachFan, BlackSheep1

        I'm serious here -where is your evidence that congress or the american population supports a new constitutional amendment overturning the 2nd?

        I see support for new legislation like background checks and even the AWB - but that's about it.

        Unless, you're adopting the anti-abortion playbook of death by a thousands cuts via state legislation. Which is a possible route to take I suppose - you've already got the 'let's parade the pictures of dead children around' tactic down pat.

        Look, I tried to be reasonable...

        by campionrules on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 07:07:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  At this point it is not. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Or any day soon, so it's never too soon to get started. Lots of things are impossible until they get started.

          I'm not the one creating a parade of dead children, gun users are, even other children, so how do we deal with that?

          What about my Daughter's future?

          by koNko on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 07:59:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  More to the point, it's not possible (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BlackSheep1, koNko

        Such legislation could be written and pass into the lawbooks, that is true. But what's written in the books and what is enforced are two different things.

        Furthermore, it must be noted that "guns" are fundamentally very simple. Basically, they are three components. A tube, an explosive, and something that gets pushed by the explosive.

        The basic concepts are very damn old. Guns are basically a cannon - first made small and then with some wristwatch level thinking added on.

        It is not possible to achieve a condition of "Lack Of Guns" in america. The tools to make a gun and bullets exist in every auto mechanic shop, hardware store, and other places nationwide. And the powder recipe is more than a thousand years old.

        Prohibition of guns would be like the prohibition of alcohol - such a law might well be enacted but would create comparable crimelords and would be a failure.

        •  It has to evolve (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FG, Glen The Plumber

          Hence my comment "step-by-step".

          I agree the conditions for society to except this do not exist today and would be unlikely to exist absent, not just gradual legal process to wean society from the most dangerous weapons available now, but to evolve socially to a point gun owners become so marginalized that (a) the majority of people see guns an anti-social and unacceptable thing, and (b) it is restricted to the point that it is no longer seen as an inevitable part of society.

          Two generations ago more people smoked and fewer owned guns, and smoking was so prevalent the current restrictions on this behavior would have been futile. But it's not difficult to imagine smoking being even more restricted or banned in the future.

          The same thing needs to happen with guns.

          Goal for both: effectively zero.

          What about my Daughter's future?

          by koNko on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 09:49:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You misunderstood me. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            andalusi, Texas Lefty
            Availability = Access. Accesss = Opportunity. Opportunity = Tragedy, accidental or othe
            I mean that it is not physically possible to remove availability. There are physically IMpossible ways that would work, like one of these:

            1) If you had a wallet of infinite money, it might be possible to achieve if you bought all the iron or lead. But that wallet is not possible, therefore you will NEVER be able to secure all of the material that can be used to make a gun.

            2) If you had a police force large enough to conduct a full search of everyone's possessions at least once every week, you might achieve total prevention of creation of new guns. But that is not possible in current america, therefore you will NEVER be able to remove the ability of people to make new guns.

            That's pretty much it as far as forcing a lack of firearms upon people. It cannot be done here. It was managed so far in UK because that happens to be a domesticated landscape on an island - there really aren't the problems of coyotes / bears / wild boar / wolves that require the existence of guns in public hands. Just a few days ago a guy had a run in with a bear in the suburbs of boston, And the island issue means it's a lot easier to oversee imports. Plus, they are like a tenth of the size of america. They are tiny. None of those things apply to america, we are big and untamed and to the horror of the GOP our border cannot be sealed against smuggling.

            Forcibly separating firearms from the general public is not possible for all those reasons.

            It's like the aesop fable about the contest between the sun and the north wind. I see you as playing the role of the north wind, doing your level best to grab grab grab, and just as doomed to failure.

            If we had weekly presidential pressers about how income inequality strips the dreams from people, pushing a fix to that, the result would be fewer people turning dark as their dreams die. If we had the media reporting segment after segment of people working themselves to exhaustion just for the possibility of working till the day they die, pushing a fix to that, the result would be fewer people so wound up that road rage seems (to them) to be a reasonable response to getting cut off in traffic.

            But no, that's not what we have. What we have is the gun version of the temperance movement, ushering in a gun prohibition that has as much likelihood of endurance as the forceful separation of americans from their liquor.

            Ideally, the push would stop all language regarding guns and instead aim at the sources of crime. Sorta like how you don't aim a fire extinguisher at the flame itself, you aim at the place from where the flame is coming. Gun crime is the flame, is comes from all crime, which is blazing forth from the burning fuel of social problems. Because taking them away just isn't going to work.

            •  It's not possible to absolutely prevent anything. (0+ / 0-)

              But that's not a reason not to pass laws to regulate dangers to society simply because it's possible and inevitable some people will violate them.

              Using your basic reasoning all laws are futile.

              Again, I'm not expecting immediate, magical change, rather, setting a goal and advocating progressive change of laws and culture, which requires breaking the vicious cycle of gun culture where guns are both "problem" and "solution" (rinse/repeat). You have to start somewhere, and it's a process,one that would have to address the social causes you mention. Consider the symbiotic nature of guns and crime; victims would ask us to remove the guns before curing crime, which tends to be a slow, generational process with a long tail.

              Imagine a situation where things get worse to the point of indiscriminate and universal gun violence (this is not a hypothetical, it's a type of chaos found in war zones or failed states). I offer two solutions:

              (a) People keep shooting until there are no more bullets or no more people to shoot.

              (b) People step back from the edge (arguably at personal risk) to stop the violence and make the peace, and beat the guns/swords into ploughs, so to speak.

              What is the difference in practical and philosophical terms?

              Are the people in (a) "exercising" their freedoms wiser, more noble and more free than the people in (b)?

              What solution sounds better?

              I think you are actually arguing for a civil society. So am I.

              What about my Daughter's future?

              by koNko on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 04:37:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yeah, we both want civil society. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                The problem is that you can't force people to be civil through taking away things.

                It's actually an easier example to make using nations, like north korea and iran. NK won't turn into a happy participant in global issues if we take away their nuclear weapons. And iran isn't a happy participant in global issues even though it doesn't have nuclear weapons.

                That is the fundamental flaw with the current gun control thinking, the idea that things will be fixed if we would just take away the bad object. Issues do NOT get fixed by such confiscations, it just makes it easier for the subject to be ignored.

                Take OWS for another example. Exercise of free speech and freedom of assembly is actively dangerous to the corporate person. Did the issue go away by the confiscation of the speech rights of the people of zuccotti park?

                As a general rule, you can't force people to be peaceful. You might force them to act as if they were peaceful, if you have enough "Morality Enforcers" patrolling the streets the same way they patrol in theocratic muslim nations looking for lipstick... But that's no guarantee that the people are doing anything more than going through the motions.

                So, you can't force the people of america to be civil by using the uncivil methods of a police state. You have to encourage civility through the use of civil methods of equal treatment under the law and total accountability.

                And these TRAG laws (targeted regulations against guns) are as likely to squash the source of violence as TRAP laws are likely to squash the source of pregnancy.

  •  a .22 rifle is a legitimate hunting weapon (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Legal even in England.

    Why would we want to ever ban these?

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 07:11:52 AM PDT

    •  Why not? (0+ / 0-)

      Gun kill, even in the hands of 4 year olds, obviously.

      What about my Daughter's future?

      by koNko on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 07:13:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The number one cause of death for US children (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        is car accidents.  It has been for years.

        Cars kill, even when driven by responsible people, obviously.

        If you want to talk about rational reasonable regulation for something in America, then do so.  But this kind of thing is not only unproductive in its own right but it actually weakens the real arguments.

        You are the argument used against gun control.   You are hurting your cause and the cause of others.

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 07:31:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm all for mass-transit (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          It is safer, cheaper and more environmentally sound, and I don't own a car.

          But cars have, actually, a productive use as transportation, which they are designed and intended for.

          Guns are designed to do harm.

          What about my Daughter's future?

          by koNko on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 07:43:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  well, no. Dammit. Even these 4-year-olds could've (4+ / 0-)

        been stopped from pulling the trigger if the guns had been stored correctly and the children had been taught properly.

        Stored correctly: behind a lock the kid couldn't open. No ammunition in the firearm while it's not being used. Put the bullets on a shelf the kid can't reach. Engage the safety. Don't leave a gun laying around.

        Yes, it's true that all the gun will do, by itself, is lay there.

        But somebody will come along and pick it up and mess with it, and then you have an accident or a crime. Be proactive about safety.

        Teach the kid properly: this is not a toy. Don't touch it.
        Further: in sight of the kid, never point a firearm, even unintentionally, toward another person. Never pretend there's anything but the intent to kill what you point a firearm toward; and never ever ever treat a firearm as anything but a loaded gun.

        Permissible exceptions: when you clear the weapon for cleaning or storage, and you're disassembling it for maintenance. Step one is always, always, always open the chamber, eject the round, engage the safety. Three steps, you say? Not if you're trained, I say. If you're going to have it, use it. Use it correctly, use it competently, and when you're not using it, store it safely -- clean and ready for the next use.

        These things are not that hard. They're called behaving like a responsible adult, whether or not you're a parent.

        Or to be crude, it's what you do with regard to cars, hot water faucets, pan-handles on the stove, that industrial-size bottle of aspirin in the medicine cabinet, the kitchen knife drawer, and electrical sockets when there are kids in the house: behave as though you give a damn what might go wrong.

        LBJ, Lady Bird, Van Cliburn, Ike, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

        by BlackSheep1 on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 09:22:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No guns is more simple and effective. (0+ / 0-)

          And does not rely on ideal circumstances a significant number of owners, by neglect or choice (probably more shots are fired on purpose than accident) seem incapable of realizing.

          But the following would be steps in the right direction and save lives if required:

          - stringent background checks, licensing and accountability
          - mandatory gun safety classes and tests before licensing
          - legally proscribed storage conditions including locks on guns and in cabinets
          - an end to concealed carry
          - prohibitions of gun possession or use in public places except shooting ranges of designated hunting areas
          - mandatory liability insurance

          All of which is common sense and reasonable, and probably quite effective if practiced  Countries with such regulations still have guns but far fewer casualties.

          What about my Daughter's future?

          by koNko on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 10:01:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  More simple? (0+ / 0-)

            I see some big flaws in what you've written -- I'm pretty sure you didn't mean "proscribed" in that context, for instance; and mandatory liability insurance? Right. That works so well with cars. People buy short-term insurance and let it lapse, or just run from the scene of a wreck. (Yes. I've been hit by uninsured drivers. In Texas. Twenty years after you legally couldn't get a car inspected or tagged without insurance.)

            I don't see enforcement happening for mandatory firearms insurance. I do see insurance companies raking off big bucks to do nothing for their policyholders, though.

            Concealed carry banned? I'd be fine with that; I prefer open carry, 'cause it lets me know which twitchy people not to stand downrange from.  

            Makes banking and so forth easier, 'cause with the status quo I gotta not stand downrange of anybody twitchy, not to mention too close. Hard to tell which ones might have a knife, like that criminal lunatic running amok yesterday at Lone Star College.The damage to 14 people he slashed and stabbed still matters. He carried his knife concealed before he started trying to kill as many people as he could, from what I understand.

            Your prohibition notion impinges on the 2nd Amendment pretty hard, too. If, as I suspect, you think that right is antiquated and useless today, I wish you'd explain why you think a person has no right to protect themselves or their homes, children, and livestock absent immediate, effective, appropriate police response.

            LBJ, Lady Bird, Van Cliburn, Ike, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

            by BlackSheep1 on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 10:45:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I do think it's antiquated (0+ / 0-)

              Very few people need guns to protect their homes unless it is to protect themselves from other gun owners. Vicious circle.

              Countries with strong, effective regulation have less violent crime because criminals find it harder obtain guns and so resort to less effective means such as knives.

              My argument is practical, not theoretical; we can never totally prevent people from attacking other but we can make it less lethal, and - surprise - when sane people haven't got what they know to be overwhelming advantage, they think differently.

              I understand your point that even if guns were totally banned people could still make their own guns, bullets and gunpowder, or buy smuggled guns, but it would make this much more difficult and the numbers doing so would become progressively fewer to some low equilibrium. That's the basic reasoning of any regulation; if you demand only laws that are universally followed without exception then you don't want rule of law.

              What about my Daughter's future?

              by koNko on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 05:34:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  koNko, it's not *just* people (0+ / 0-)

                who pose a serious risk, where I live.

                Do think a minute about this:

                and - surprise - when sane people haven't got what they know to be overwhelming advantage, they think differently.

                Patently, we cannot rely on people who attack other people to be sane. We just can't. That's why the SEAL Teams, Delta Force, and the SWAT teams practice in situations they expect will be more difficult than what they'll  face in the real world. They know they're not dealing with people who are thinking at all. They're dealing with the desperate, at the very least, and often with the utterly deranged.

                Where I live, too, the dangers include things like rabid skunks (and horses, and dogs, and cats), rattlesnakes or copperheads and coral snakes, not to mention uncontrolled dogs (whether or not they're alone).

                I will refute your last point "if you demand only laws that are universally followed without exception then you don't want rule of law" by asking a question.

                Do you value law enough not to pass laws that won't be obeyed?

                LBJ, Lady Bird, Van Cliburn, Ike, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

                by BlackSheep1 on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 06:12:15 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  My thoughts (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  First, I think you are missing the fact that the "rules" for the starting point I mentioned would not be an outright ban but just stronger regulations that wouldn't prevent people who qualify from possessing guns.

                  I'll grant you that two I mention are a bit absolute for some circumstances or need reasonable/practical definition, namely, areas where guns would/would not be allowed in the public space and the issue of liability insurance, which would have to be reasonably set to avoid economic discrimination (and would best be a government self-insurance pool).

                  But that's why I have put forth ideas and try to approach this with reason; we need more discussion.

                  Most definitely people think differently when they have a perceived power advantage; this is an inherent attraction and hazard with weapons, particularly firearms, and it applies to the "sane" in conflict situations where they can make snap judgements based on fear, emotions or merely perceived threat calculations. What i was intending to express was the opposite case; absent a perceived advantage, sane people tend to rely on other options such as avoidance, flight, whatever is available. IOW, they have to use their brains before hands. Insane people may not perceive their own limits, and may, in fact, have fewer (ask any beat cop about that, they deal with crazy/crazed people a lot).

                  For example, two people in a conflict without weapons will tend to resort to violence later if at all, so it's a different, slower process with a less potentially lethal outcome. Put a weapons in the hands of one or both and the process changes and outcomes tend to be more lethal.

                  Do you value law enough not to pass laws that won't be obeyed?
                  I value law enough to pass laws that will certainly be disobeyed by some (just about any law you care to mention) but will produce some improvement if enforced, and I understand that often, laws do not produce immediate results particularly when change is dependent on cultural change - a slow process. And I also understand that in many cases, without laws, the cultural change will never get to critical mass.

                  For example, to make progress on racism (a human, cultural problem), you have to outlaw some of the manifestations to change the status quo and create space for people to gain other experiences that heal the disease.  I don't see that any society has achieved a total cure, but some are doing a lot better and we have to give some credit to law.

                  Civilization depends on a lot of things, laws are one part. I'm not about to give up on either.

                  I'm not expecting change from A-Z in one step when it seems difficult to get to B. Z is a goal.

                  Availability = Access.
                  Accesss = Opportunity.
                  Opportunity = Tragedy, accidental or otherwise.
                  Statement of observable fact.
                  Step-by-step, it must be done.
                  Modest proposal.

                  Thanks for your thoughtful feedback.

                  What about my Daughter's future?

                  by koNko on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 05:32:25 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  may we continue to discuss this? (0+ / 0-)

                    I come from a very old-school family. My mom and dad were not tolerant, at all, of bullying or mistreatment or fraud. To that end, I grew up with something of a "you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything" attitude. Then at 18 I joined the Air Force. One of the core principles of the UCMJ is that you should recognize -- and refuse! -- an illegal order, if you are enlisted. If you are an officer or the senior person present, you should recognize, and not issue, an order that's illegal, or that cannot or will not be obeyed.

                    E.G.: the Air Force I served in could not have imagined the kind of mistreatment of prisoners we saw at Abu Ghraib.

                    I would also note that "weapon" is not the same thing as "arm" is not necessarily the same thing as "gun". That sounds as if I want to get into semantics, but ... well. In that conflict you mention, what if one person is a trained boxer or other martial artist? Is that sufficient advantage to overcome sanity?

                    LBJ, Lady Bird, Van Cliburn, Ike, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

                    by BlackSheep1 on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 03:21:26 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Sure (0+ / 0-)

                      Sorry my late reply, busy this weekend.

                      All sorts of things can be deadly weapons, including words.

                      But I think modern guns are different than stones, knives and hands, which have other basic uses.

                      I'm also for the control of explosives, fighting swords and other things that present significant and inherent hazards and should not be freely distributed amongst the general public without strong precautions, qualifications and accountability, but I think these are regulated in the USA now. Perhaps if they were classified as "arms" with second amendment protection they would not.

                      But maybe a couple of examples illustrate my points:

                      Following the Oklahoma City Bombing, which was truly horrible, I believe regulations on sales of strongly oxidizing fertilizer were strengthened and color coding beads required to improve traceability in case it was misused, and I'm not aware of this becoming a "rights" issue or people claiming farmers would be subject to undue hardship. People seemed to accept it as reasonable. Stronger regulations of firearms are equally reasonable.

                      Going back a couple of years, there was a rash of attacks against school children in China including some copy-cat incidents, and parents here (I'm one) were as alarmed and outraged as Americans are about these school shootings, and calling for improved security in schools, better training for teachers and greater attention to and care for mentally ill, etc. But the difference is, all of these attacks were done with knives or sticks, so there were fewer fatalities and injuries compared the shootings in the US. I can even say in the case of the US, the teachers were better trained and prepared, and responded more expertly and heroically because of it, but the results have still been far worse because guns are simply more powerful and able to harm at long range. Of course, note that price guns are not allowed in China except is some very special circumstances. Even beat police don't carry them because they aren't needed.

                      So my bottom line case for gun control is they are simply dangerous and the defenses against them rather difficult in practical terms, so they should be strongly regulated.

                      And as I noted elsewhere, when/if they are allowed, training should be mandatory; we trust solders and police with guns because the training, discipline and security exercised lowers the risk.

                      At the time the second amendment was written, guns were actually pretty rare, inaccurate and slow; a good archer had a better chance of prevailing. That's no longer the case.

                      What about my Daughter's future?

                      by koNko on Sun Apr 14, 2013 at 08:46:28 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  @ the time of the Constitution rifling had (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        begun making inroads (cf Daniel Boone, Kentucky gunmakers' flintlock masterpieces); muzzle-loading for most firearms was the rule.

                        But I know that trained boxers or karatekas are required to register their hands (and feet) as deadly weapons in some jurisdictions (not the one I live in).

                        As folks in Boston learned the hard way today, sadly, you can do an awful lot of damage without a firearm.

                        Good archers are still competent warriors; the advantages of silence and cheap reloads should not be understated. Swords are still out there, along with kitchen knives, daggers, cleavers, tomahawks, and similar edged tools -- and that doesn't count hatchets or logging axes.

                        I agree that we should train users -- and we should train nonusers to leave stuff alone too. Stringently; and require periodic retraining / testing to be sure that your users are still using their knowledge and tools properly.

                        LBJ, Lady Bird, Van Cliburn, Ike, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

                        by BlackSheep1 on Mon Apr 15, 2013 at 04:29:21 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

  •  Liability insurance and holding people accountable (5+ / 0-)

    will reduce such events.
    Banning guns ain't gonna happen. We're going to have to change our attitudes about guns.
    Attitudes will have to be reality based going forward.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 07:16:52 AM PDT

    •  Long term goal. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Banning guns will not happen in my lifetime, but that doesn't mean it should not be a goal.

      Consider an opposition just as ambitious, with the goal of defeating gun control and promoting more guns and more use of ever more deadly guns.

      What would you rather have, none or twice as many?

      What about my Daughter's future?

      by koNko on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 07:47:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Guns have been needed in the past, they may (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        again be needed. However, given the abstract choice, I'd rather have none.
        I'd prefer to have a society that is adult enough such that we do not use guns on one another, and we prevent accidents.  
        I think that's possible.

        I can think of no more insidious ploy the gun manufacturers could do to incite further resistance to responsible controls than to encourage, fund and facilitate a movement to get rid of all guns.

        I don't think that's your motive, I think you're sincere. But to get to your ideal world, we are going to have to evolve into a more mature, responsible society that learns how to behave and think in regards to firearms, first.

        You can't make this stuff up.

        by David54 on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 08:43:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Change takes time (0+ / 0-)

          And often, as in this case, equal measures of social, cultural and legal change.

          Step-by-step, it must be done.
          I don't think there is any immediate danger of most people taking to the streets to demand the immediate banning of all guns so I feel reasonably safe to raise it as a long term goal and subject for debate.

          But just in case, please don't quote me to Wayne LaPierre. (;^)

          What about my Daughter's future?

          by koNko on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 05:38:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  If it comes out that the mother was mentally (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber

    ill - which reports are saying that may be the case - then yes, an improved background check system may have prevented the tragedy.

    A friend, Marvin LaFontaine, told the News that Nancy Lanza had said that Adam had a genetic disorder that had killed her grandfather and which she also had until it went into remission.

    Adam had a form of autism and a sensory perception disorder that kept him from recognizing pain and caused him to recoil from being physically touched.

    The newspaper says Nancy Lanza learned of her own condition in 1999, but did not tell her children.
    •  Improved background checks would be a start. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Oh Mary Oh, FG, coquiero, Glen The Plumber

      And would certainly save some lives, despite that the NRA would have you believe.

      What about my Daughter's future?

      by koNko on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 07:49:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  and may be on the way, which I support (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        koNko, FG, Glen The Plumber

        because the system as it stands is a bad joke. Improved background checks won't do any harm. A background check that's failed in West Virginia also ought to raise a flag in, say, California -- or any other state -- too. I'd even go so far as to say a user permit is a good idea, as long as it's earned by a performance test and renewed at reasonable intervals ... like a hunting license that you have to pass the safety course for every so often to get renewed; and then if you want to have more than one type of firearm, get a stamp or endorsement on the license. Put a photo on it and use it for voter ID, or make it one of the recognized IDs to use to fly.

        In other words, make it something worthwhile, not just another PITA.

        LBJ, Lady Bird, Van Cliburn, Ike, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

        by BlackSheep1 on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 09:32:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  What about licensing? (5+ / 0-)

    While I look favorably upon a gun ban, I don't see it as realistic in the US anytime soon. Perhaps stricter regulations that include licensing for gun ownership. It would be a bit like we do for cars. Have gun purchasers get a license if they pass a test that relates to basic gun safety. You know, like not leaving a gun where 4-year-olds can get to it. Baby steps.

    The second amendment starts with the words, "A well regulated..."

    i just baptized andrew breitbart into the church of islam, planned parenthood, the girl scouts and three teachers unions. - @blainecapatch

    by bobinson on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 08:24:20 AM PDT

    •  Rec'd, bobinson, for seeing that there's a (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      koNko, Glen The Plumber

      difference between "a well regulated" and these incidents.

      LBJ, Lady Bird, Van Cliburn, Ike, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

      by BlackSheep1 on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 09:34:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It would be a good step forward. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coquiero, Glen The Plumber

      As I've explained in comments, I'm not expecting a ban to fly during my lifetime, but stronger regulations would be possible.

      Australia took the first step about 10 years ago with a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines/clips, and under a conservative government.

      Surely we don't suppose Australians are less freedom loving and independent than Americans, but they did not have the problem of a constitutional "right" so avoiding some of the ridiculous theoretical arguments.

      What about my Daughter's future?

      by koNko on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 10:06:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I like the fact that you're honest (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I totally disagree with you of course, but I like the fact that you don't try to hide your intentions of wanting to ban all guns.  

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

    by Texas Lefty on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 10:04:48 AM PDT

    •  Thank You (0+ / 0-)

      I think we can approach this with honesty and reason, and if I can live with my wife without our being in total agreement, I suppose I can tolerate you disagreeing with me here.

      And come to think of it, one of the things I like most about Mrs koNko is she can be a bit outspoken. Passion - don't go home without it.

      What about my Daughter's future?

      by koNko on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 05:43:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Let's do smth possible (e.g. background checks) (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    and not worry about impossible things.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site