U.S. father fatally shoots son mistaken for intruder

[mopar71]

I seldom post opinions on Aussie, New Zealand, Euro, British or any thread with which I am not personally familiar. I have no personal involvement with any of these nations so why should I waste my time.

America is loved or hated, no in between. Like Man U. People can't help having an opinion even if they have never been to America or if they don't really know any Americans. Years ago I had a European friend tell me that she only watched American news because it was the only news that mattered. Wow. But it's mostly true. It is hard to find an American who cares about the internal politics of another country they have never been to or have no connection to. I mean, no one gives a crap really. Many of the people in those countries don't care either so they follow the big dog, the USA. Just like with football (soccer)...people around the world live in countries with crappy teams so they become fans of Man U. Sad. ;-)

Nobody in there right mind seriously expects or wants all guns to be taken away, ...

Well, there you go, I agree with you on that...the "in there[sic] right mind" part.

Edited January 14, 2016 by mopar71

[mpa]

I wonder how he feels about the 2nd amendment now.

It's about freedom, such stupidity still exists.

Allegedly of course.

[mopar71]

If no statistics ever justified the lack of gun control, why won't anyone rebut the stat I keep providing:

• In total, 2.5-million Americans die every year.
• 11,000 are gun homicides.
• That equals .0044%
• Less than one percent does not an epidemic make.

So go ahead: REBUT THAT ALREADY! and quit your ethnocentric, bleeding heart nonsense.

You're just another victim of yellow journalism, and your post is exhibit A for why logic and reason should always take precedence over emotion.

You left out the part of who is responsible for a large chunk, if not majority, of those 11,000 homicides and where they take place.

[OMGImInPattaya]

I will never understand Americans .... here is an English version of the same story.

Dad, upon hearing a noise, opens the basement door and says "who's there" ?

Son says " it's me dad"

End of story...

I'm sure this happens 1000...10,000?...times a day in America. It's not very newsworthy so we don't hear about it.

[MiKT]

to aTomsLife

Since my more interesting post has been lost without trace in last night’s internet crash and would have been removed anyway, plus the too many text blocks problem stopping me replying directly to your post, I shall simply say the following:

1. There are more guns per head of the population in Thailand than there are in the US and they effect they have had on governments tyranny has been absolutely zilch.

It’s exactly the same in the US, none of the guns in private hands are going to have any effect on the US government. To say otherwise is totally nonsensical. Wacco to you.

1. Nobody is bothering with your pathetic statistics because the only relevance they have is that 11,000 (in one year) people died unnecessarily. How many died in other countries with reasonable gun controls? – very, very few. You can’t count things like the Paris attacks as they are an act of war.

1. Check out where article 2 originated from and let me know if the same statute is still in place and if people are weeping their hearts out over their loss of liberties.

1. It’s perfectly possible under US law to restrict the sale and ownership of different types of weapons (eg Bowie Knives) without restricting individual rights. Article 2 is as out of date as article 3 is in 2016.

1. Article 5 of the US constitution says:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, etc.

Thus it is a total fallacy that you have an INALIENABLE right to bear arms. It can be removed at any time.

1. Thanks for the commendation on my writing, but actually I gave up on yellow journalism when I stopped reading the SCMP in 1985.

[OMGImInPattaya]

I seldom post opinions on Aussie, New Zealand, Euro, British or any thread with which I am not personally familiar. I have no personal involvement with any of these nations so why should I waste my time.

America is loved or hated, no in between. Like Man U. People can't help having an opinion even if they have never been to America or if they don't really know any Americans. Years ago I had a European friend tell me that she only watched American news because it was the only news that mattered. Wow. But it's mostly true. It is hard to find an American who cares about the internal politics of another country they have never been to or have no connection to. I mean, no one gives a crap really. Many of the people in those countries don't care either so they follow the big dog, the USA. Just like with football (soccer)...people around the world live in countries with crappy teams so they become fans of Man U. Sad. ;-)

Well there you go, I actually agree with something you have said for once. Man U is Crap.........Oh no you didn't actually say that did you. Back to square one, Silly Billy.

Some of us actually do know about guns and do care about the US, which is why we think you should do something sensible about gun control. Nobody in there right mind seriously expects or wants all guns to be taken away, but it would be nice if Americans stopped feeding each other bogy man scare mongering and were able to live their lives a bit more fear free.

PS I only watch Fox News as its so goddam awful, its a kind of masochistic entertainment like hitting you head on a brick wall or watching Man U, its nice when it stops.

There is no issue in America with regards to "gun control." The so called "mass shooting" events kill, on average, less than 100 Americans per year. In a nation of 320M people this is so small as to be basically none. The dramatic nature of the events garner outsized publicity and commentary but the actual death toll is deminimus.

As to the thousands of other gun deaths annually, just about all of them are suicides, which by definition are not a danger to others, and gang-bangers and ghetto-thugs taking each other out, which nobody cares much about. The "henny-penny the sky is falling" attitude of some people regarding guns in America is not based on fact and really needs to change.

[MiKT]

I seldom post opinions on Aussie, New Zealand, Euro, British or any thread with which I am not personally familiar. I have no personal involvement with any of these nations so why should I waste my time.

America is loved or hated, no in between. Like Man U. People can't help having an opinion even if they have never been to America or if they don't really know any Americans. Years ago I had a European friend tell me that she only watched American news because it was the only news that mattered. Wow. But it's mostly true. It is hard to find an American who cares about the internal politics of another country they have never been to or have no connection to. I mean, no one gives a crap really. Many of the people in those countries don't care either so they follow the big dog, the USA. Just like with football (soccer)...people around the world live in countries with crappy teams so they become fans of Man U. Sad. ;-)

Well there you go, I actually agree with something you have said for once. Man U is Crap.........Oh no you didn't actually say that did you. Back to square one, Silly Billy.

Some of us actually do know about guns and do care about the US, which is why we think you should do something sensible about gun control. Nobody in there right mind seriously expects or wants all guns to be taken away, but it would be nice if Americans stopped feeding each other bogy man scare mongering and were able to live their lives a bit more fear free.

PS I only watch Fox News as its so goddam awful, its a kind of masochistic entertainment like hitting you head on a brick wall or watching Man U, its nice when it stops.

There is no issue in America with regards to "gun control." The so called "mass shooting" events kill, on average, less than 100 Americans per year. In a nation of 320M people this is so small as to be basically none. The dramatic nature of the events garner outsized publicity and commentary but the actual death toll is deminimus.

As to the thousands of other gun deaths annually, just about all of them are suicides, which by definition are not a danger to others, and gang-bangers and ghetto-thugs taking each other out, which nobody cares much about. The "henny-penny the sky is falling" attitude of some people regarding guns in America is not based on fact and really needs to change.

1. Nobody cares mm?

2. Suicides are by definition not a danger to others ... take your foot out of your mouth.

3. Your opinions on some peoples attitude regarding guns in America is not based on the facts. Read the posts and revert to 2 above.

[OMGImInPattaya]

I seldom post opinions on Aussie, New Zealand, Euro, British or any thread with which I am not personally familiar. I have no personal involvement with any of these nations so why should I waste my time.

America is loved or hated, no in between. Like Man U. People can't help having an opinion even if they have never been to America or if they don't really know any Americans. Years ago I had a European friend tell me that she only watched American news because it was the only news that mattered. Wow. But it's mostly true. It is hard to find an American who cares about the internal politics of another country they have never been to or have no connection to. I mean, no one gives a crap really. Many of the people in those countries don't care either so they follow the big dog, the USA. Just like with football (soccer)...people around the world live in countries with crappy teams so they become fans of Man U. Sad. ;-)

Well there you go, I actually agree with something you have said for once. Man U is Crap.........Oh no you didn't actually say that did you. Back to square one, Silly Billy.

Some of us actually do know about guns and do care about the US, which is why we think you should do something sensible about gun control. Nobody in there right mind seriously expects or wants all guns to be taken away, but it would be nice if Americans stopped feeding each other bogy man scare mongering and were able to live their lives a bit more fear free.

PS I only watch Fox News as its so goddam awful, its a kind of masochistic entertainment like hitting you head on a brick wall or watching Man U, its nice when it stops.

There is no issue in America with regards to "gun control." The so called "mass shooting" events kill, on average, less than 100 Americans per year. In a nation of 320M people this is so small as to be basically none. The dramatic nature of the events garner outsized publicity and commentary but the actual death toll is deminimus.

As to the thousands of other gun deaths annually, just about all of them are suicides, which by definition are not a danger to others, and gang-bangers and ghetto-thugs taking each other out, which nobody cares much about. The "henny-penny the sky is falling" attitude of some people regarding guns in America is not based on fact and really needs to change.

1. Nobody cares mm?

2. Suicides are by definition not a danger to others ... take your foot out of your mouth.

3. Your opinions on some peoples attitude regarding guns in America is not based on the facts. Read the posts and revert to 2 above.

I seldom post opinions on Aussie, New Zealand, Euro, British or any thread with which I am not personally familiar. I have no personal involvement with any of these nations so why should I waste my time.

America is loved or hated,

Well there you go, I actually agree with something you have said for once. Man U is Crap.........Oh no you didn't actually say that did you. Back to square one, Silly Billy.

Some of us actually do know about guns and do care about the US, which is why we think you should do something sensible about gun control. Nobody in there right mind seriously expects or wants all guns to be taken away, but it would be nice if Americans stopped feeding each other bogy man scare mongering and were able to live their lives a bit more fear free.

PS I only watch Fox News as its so goddam awful, its a kind of masochistic entertainment like hitting you head on a brick wall or watching Man U, its nice when it stops.

There is no issue in America with regards to "gun control." The so called "mass shooting" events kill, on average, less than 100 Americans per year. In a nation of 320M people this is so small as to be basically none. The dramatic nature of the events garner outsized publicity and commentary but the actual death toll is deminimus.

As to the thousands of other gun deaths annually, just about all of them are suicides, which by definition are not a danger to others, and gang-bangers and ghetto-thugs taking each other out, which nobody cares much about. The "henny-penny the sky is falling" attitude of some people regarding guns in America is not based on fact and really needs to change.

1. Nobody cares mm?

2. Suicides are by definition not a danger to others ... take your foot out of your mouth.

3. Your opinions on some peoples attitude regarding guns in America is not based on the facts. Read the posts and revert to 2 above.

So only the opinions of "gun control" supporters are fit for discussion. This is why gun owners will NEVER lie down with these advocates because it's a slippery slop to national gun registries and confiscation.

And I await the shrieking and knashing of teeth when some states start to pass and implement "Constitional carry" gun rights.

And the ad-hominem attack is a nice touch. ☺

[neverdie]

Somebody has their head wedged firmly either in the sand or up their own butt.

[aTomsLife]

to aTomsLife

Since my more interesting post has been lost without trace in last night’s internet crash and would have been removed anyway, plus the too many text blocks problem stopping me replying directly to your post, I shall simply say the following:

1. There are more guns per head of the population in Thailand than there are in the US and they effect they have had on governments tyranny has been absolutely zilch.

It’s exactly the same in the US, none of the guns in private hands are going to have any effect on the US government. To say otherwise is totally nonsensical. Wacco to you.

1. Nobody is bothering with your pathetic statistics because the only relevance they have is that 11,000 (in one year) people died unnecessarily. How many died in other countries with reasonable gun controls? – very, very few. You can’t count things like the Paris attacks as they are an act of war.

1. Check out where article 2 originated from and let me know if the same statute is still in place and if people are weeping their hearts out over their loss of liberties.

1. It’s perfectly possible under US law to restrict the sale and ownership of different types of weapons (eg Bowie Knives) without restricting individual rights. Article 2 is as out of date as article 3 is in 2016.

1. Article 5 of the US constitution says:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, etc.

Thus it is a total fallacy that you have an INALIENABLE right to bear arms. It can be removed at any time.

1. Thanks for the commendation on my writing, but actually I gave up on yellow journalism when I stopped reading the SCMP in 1985.

• Americans would react far differently to a military coup than did the Thais. Think whatever you want, though. If I'm correct in presuming you an Englishman, you wouldn't be the first to underestimate our fortitude.

• No one is bothering with my statistics because they demonstrate the weakness people like you suffer with visceral stimuli. You let your emotions get in the way of reason: of the 11,000 deaths--again less than even half of 1% of all U.S. deaths per year--a very significant plurality of them are gang related. In other words, the weapons involved are illegally possessed and thus fall outside the impact any further regulations might have.

• I know that restrictions are perfectly legal. My arguments are rooted in the belief that there is regulation enough already.

• The right to self defense is inalienable. In the United States, gun ownership is part and parcel of that right. That it can be removed any time is a theory that can and will never see the light of day, barring another civil war. For all intents and purposes, then, bearing arms is an inalienable right intrinsic to the existence of the nation. Any allusions otherwise are simply academic and, thus, are of no real interest to me.

• My yellow journalism remark has nothing to do with your writing, but with you falling victim to anecdotal reporting. Stories like the OP are tantamount to shining a flashlight on a mouse to create a shadow the size of an elephant: 85,000 shootings per year in a population of 320,000,000 = .00027% of the population directly impacted. Yet you argue that's reason enough to scrap our Constitution...

[CMNightRider]

Somebody has their head wedged firmly either in the sand or up their own butt.

Actually, I suspected this for some time now. Please seek out medical attention right away to fix your problem.

[OMGImInPattaya]

He should have taken it upon himself to get proprely trained in the use of a firearm for home and personal defense. I bet now he wishes that he did. However, this is no reason to repeal the Second Amendment.

No the government should have ensured he had a very good reason and was trained and competent to be allowed to keep a firearm in his home properly secured. Quoting a 200 year old piece of paper does not cut it.

The whole point of the second ammendment was to have a trained and instantly available militia in the event of an attack on the US by an outside country, when the US was just a few millions of people in an agricultural society, not to allow free reign for every nut in a hugely different society.

Do you really think the framers of the US constitution wanted "Black" people or "Indians" or "Mexicans", I should say "Hispanics", to have guns? I don't think so, it was a slave owning society.

Stop burning witches, get it amended.

Well that's your interpretation but until you're appointed to the Supreme Court it is an incorrect one. In the Heller case, the Supremes said the Amendment granted an individualized right to bear arms...not only a collective one as in an organized militia.

And maybe you want the government to do everything for you, including kissing and tucking you into bed at nite, but most Americans would rather take responsibility for living their lives on their own shoulders.

[Credo]

There is no need to repeal or amend the 2nd amendment. The Supreme Court can re-interpret the amendment if they wish to and someone puts forth a reasonable law. They cannot remove all guns from the citizens in general, but any laws on gun ownership can be accepted or rejected by the court.

Up until now, SCOTUS has had a very liberal interpretation on gun ownership.

Future Courts may have a different view.

[neverdie]

Somebody has their head wedged firmly either in the sand or up their own butt.

Actually, I suspected this for some time now. Please seek out medical attention right away to fix your problem.

No prizes second best.

[Grouse]

This may come as a shock to the hysterical anti-gun posters but guns are not going to be confiscated from law abiding citizens in America, because this father shot his son.

No, you would have to do something really bad for that to happen

Like killing loads of kids.... Oh, sorry, that's already been done

Er..... Yeah, you are correct, nobody will ever be able to take your guns. Impossible to shame you or make you understand.....

Bad things happen, and governments can't protect you from all of it, especially at times when the government itself is the aggressor. But maybe it's impossible to make you understand, so never mind that now.

I wrote an earlier post (#134) wherein I demonstrated that gun homicides make up less than half of 1% of all deaths in the U.S. Maybe you didn't see it. Or maybe you did and ignored it so you could continuing slinging mud, asserting that Americans need to give up their guns, but won't because they've no shame.

Your knee-jerk argument reminds me of the idiots who, after a shark attack on a human, believe it's good policy to go out and massacre all the sharks near the scene.

It would be sensible to bring in regulations to minimise risk. Why can you not understand that?

Why is the USA so very much worse in this respect than any other country?

If you want to have a gun, great! Good for you! You can sleep with it and lick it until your heart's content.

BUT, wouldn't it be wise to minimise the number of firearms falling into the wrong hands?

Also, forgive my ignorance, but why would anyone want/need a military style machine gun? Very odd. ( yes I know that this was not the case in this truly appalling accident)

[joshstiles]

i love it....more more more

[aTomsLife]

This may come as a shock to the hysterical anti-gun posters but guns are not going to be confiscated from law abiding citizens in America, because this father shot his son.

No, you would have to do something really bad for that to happen

Like killing loads of kids.... Oh, sorry, that's already been done

Er..... Yeah, you are correct, nobody will ever be able to take your guns. Impossible to shame you or make you understand.....

Bad things happen, and governments can't protect you from all of it, especially at times when the government itself is the aggressor. But maybe it's impossible to make you understand, so never mind that now.

I wrote an earlier post (#134) wherein I demonstrated that gun homicides make up less than half of 1% of all deaths in the U.S. Maybe you didn't see it. Or maybe you did and ignored it so you could continuing slinging mud, asserting that Americans need to give up their guns, but won't because they've no shame.

Your knee-jerk argument reminds me of the idiots who, after a shark attack on a human, believe it's good policy to go out and massacre all the sharks near the scene.

It would be sensible to bring in regulations to minimise risk. Why can you not understand that?

Why is the USA so very much worse in this respect than any other country?

If you want to have a gun, great! Good for you! You can sleep with it and lick it until your heart's content.

BUT, wouldn't it be wise to minimise the number of firearms falling into the wrong hands?

Also, forgive my ignorance, but why would anyone want/need a military style machine gun? Very odd. ( yes I know that this was not the case in this truly appalling accident)

I answered all these questions numerous times already.

"It would be sensible to bring in regulations to minimise risk. Why can you not understand that?"

There are already enough regulations. Most gun deaths are gang related, and thus more regulations will have no bearing on a large majority of the statistics--homicides which are perpetrated using illegally acquired weapons. Why can you not understand that?

"Why is the USA so very much worse in this respect than any other country?"

Guns are an integral part of U.S. culture and that will not change, however much it offends your sensibilities. Naturally there are going to be more shootings in a country where guns are more accessible. Your question is like asking why are there more drownings in backyard pools in Florida than there are in Alaska? (Psss--it's because there are more people swimming in pools in Florida than there are in Alaska, in case you were wondering.)

Moreover, "so very much worse," as you say, doesn't automatically equate to being bad: 85,000 shootings in a country of 320,000,000 people is just .00027% of the population. I've already explained as much in other posts, yet knee-jerk simpletons continue to say things like this: "If you want to have a gun, great! Good for you! You can sleep with it and lick it until your heart's content."

"BUT, wouldn't it be wise to minimise the number of firearms falling into the wrong hands?"

Gun violence is highest in cities like Chicago and Washington D.C., where owning handguns is already illegal, yet criminals--i.e., people with no regard for the law--don't seem to care and carry them anyway. Wow imagine that, it's as if more regulation would only punish law abiding citizens.

Also, forgive my ignorance, but why would anyone want/need a military style machine gun? Very odd. ( yes I know that this was not the case in this truly appalling accident)

One reason is that in order to guard against government tyranny--like the very kind we see today in a place that will remain unnamed--an effective militia must have weapons on par with those in possession by the government itself.

Edited January 15, 2016 by aTomsLife

[chuckd]

There are an estimated 30,000 federal, state and municipal gun laws on the books now.

Not a single one of them will keep guns out of the hands of a determined gang banger, drug dealer or any other criminal that wants one.

Guns are coming across the southern border with Mexico by the thousands and they will continue coming as long as there is a market.

Somebody brilliantly mentioned automatic weapons. Automatic weapons are strictly regulated, licensed and controlled by the Feds. Licenses are cost prohibitive and not run of the mill issues. Automatic weapons, legally obtained, are a non-issue.

The illegally obtained ones, as well as the illegally obtained handguns are the problem.

Edited January 15, 2016 by chuckd

[sirineou]

There are an estimated 30,000 federal, state and municipal gun laws on the books now.

Not a single one of them will keep guns out of the hands of a determined gang banger, drug dealer or any other criminal that wants one.

Guns are coming across the southern border with Mexico by the thousands and they will continue coming as long as there is a market.

Somebody brilliantly mentioned automatic weapons. Automatic weapons are strictly regulated, licensed and controlled by the Feds. Licenses are cost prohibitive and not run of the mill issues. Automatic weapons, legally obtained, are a non-issue.

The illegally obtained ones, as well as the illegally obtained handguns are the problem.

"There are an estimated 30,000 federal, state and municipal gun laws on the books now.

Not a single one of them will keep guns out of the hands of a determined gang banger, drug dealer or any other criminal that wants one."

There are numerous law concerning pedophilia, non of them would stop a determined pedophile

[chuckd]

There are an estimated 30,000 federal, state and municipal gun laws on the books now.

Not a single one of them will keep guns out of the hands of a determined gang banger, drug dealer or any other criminal that wants one.

Guns are coming across the southern border with Mexico by the thousands and they will continue coming as long as there is a market.

Somebody brilliantly mentioned automatic weapons. Automatic weapons are strictly regulated, licensed and controlled by the Feds. Licenses are cost prohibitive and not run of the mill issues. Automatic weapons, legally obtained, are a non-issue.

The illegally obtained ones, as well as the illegally obtained handguns are the problem.

"There are an estimated 30,000 federal, state and municipal gun laws on the books now.

Not a single one of them will keep guns out of the hands of a determined gang banger, drug dealer or any other criminal that wants one."

There are numerous law concerning pedophilia, non of them would stop a determined pedophile

Is there a point in here somewhere or is it merely off topic?

[MiKT]

to aTomsLife

Since my more interesting post has been lost without trace in last night’s internet crash and would have been removed anyway, plus the too many text blocks problem stopping me replying directly to your post, I shall simply say the following:

• There are more guns per head of the population in Thailand than there are in the US and they effect they have had on governments tyranny has been absolutely zilch.

It’s exactly the same in the US, none of the guns in private hands are going to have any effect on the US government. To say otherwise is totally nonsensical. Wacco to you.

• Nobody is bothering with your pathetic statistics because the only relevance they have is that 11,000 (in one year) people died unnecessarily. How many died in other countries with reasonable gun controls? – very, very few. You can’t count things like the Paris attacks as they are an act of war.

• Check out where article 2 originated from and let me know if the same statute is still in place and if people are weeping their hearts out over their loss of liberties.

• It’s perfectly possible under US law to restrict the sale and ownership of different types of weapons (eg Bowie Knives) without restricting individual rights. Article 2 is as out of date as article 3 is in 2016.

• Article 5 of the US constitution says:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, etc.

Thus it is a total fallacy that you have an INALIENABLE right to bear arms. It can be removed at any time.

• Thanks for the commendation on my writing, but actually I gave up on yellow journalism when I stopped reading the SCMP in 1985.

• Americans would react far differently to a military coup than did the Thais. Think whatever you want, though. If I'm correct in presuming you an Englishman, you wouldn't be the first to underestimate our fortitude.

• No one is bothering with my statistics because they demonstrate the weakness people like you suffer with visceral stimuli. You let your emotions get in the way of reason: of the 11,000 deaths--again less than even half of 1% of all U.S. deaths per year--a very significant plurality of them are gang related. In other words, the weapons involved are illegally possessed and thus fall outside the impact any further regulations might have.

• I know that restrictions are perfectly legal. My arguments are rooted in the belief that there is regulation enough already.

• The right to self defense is inalienable. In the United States, gun ownership is part and parcel of that right. That it can be removed any time is a theory that can and will never see the light of day, barring another civil war. For all intents and purposes, then, bearing arms is an inalienable right intrinsic to the existence of the nation. Any allusions otherwise are simply academic and, thus, are of no real interest to me.

• My yellow journalism remark has nothing to do with your writing, but with you falling victim to anecdotal reporting. Stories like the OP are tantamount to shining a flashlight on a mouse to create a shadow the size of an elephant: 85,000 shootings per year in a population of 320,000,000 = .00027% of the population directly impacted. Yet you argue that's reason enough to scrap our Constitution...

Oh god your ignorance is so funny. Yellow journalism, SCMP, its almost an art to winding up you second amendmentists.

Don't you feel ashamed that a cog Brit has to quote you your own constitution only to find that really you dont respect any of it, except the bit you need to keep your toys.

Military coupe in America, fortitude, scrap the constitution, it gets better and better, I just can't stop laughing.

Thanks for going ahead and making my day!

Edited January 15, 2016 by MiKT

[OMGImInPattaya]

This may come as a shock to the hysterical anti-gun posters but guns are not going to be confiscated from law abiding citizens in America, because this father shot his son.

No, you would have to do something really bad for that to happen

Like killing loads of kids.... Oh, sorry, that's already been done

Er..... Yeah, you are correct, nobody will ever be able to take your guns. Impossible to shame you or make you understand.....

Bad things happen, and governments can't protect you from all of it, especially at times when the government itself is the aggressor. But maybe it's impossible to make you understand, so never mind that now.

I wrote an earlier post (#134) wherein I demonstrated that gun homicides make up less than half of 1% of all deaths in the U.S. Maybe you didn't see it. Or maybe you did and ignored it so you could continuing slinging mud, asserting that Americans need to give up their guns, but won't because they've no shame.

Your knee-jerk argument reminds me of the idiots who, after a shark attack on a human, believe it's good policy to go out and massacre all the sharks near the scene.

It would be sensible to bring in regulations to minimise risk. Why can you not understand that?

Why is the USA so very much worse in this respect than any other country?

If you want to have a gun, great! Good for you! You can sleep with it and lick it until your heart's content.

BUT, wouldn't it be wise to minimise the number of firearms falling into the wrong hands?

Also, forgive my ignorance, but why would anyone want/need a military style machine gun? Very odd. ( yes I know that this was not the case in this truly appalling accident)

Why would anyone want a Rolls Royce or a Bentley...they surely don't need one of those either? I guess because people like to buy different kinds of toys...so why not just let them be.

[CMNightRider]

to aTomsLife

Since my more interesting post has been lost without trace in last night’s internet crash and would have been removed anyway, plus the too many text blocks problem stopping me replying directly to your post, I shall simply say the following:

• There are more guns per head of the population in Thailand than there are in the US and they effect they have had on governments tyranny has been absolutely zilch.

It’s exactly the same in the US, none of the guns in private hands are going to have any effect on the US government. To say otherwise is totally nonsensical. Wacco to you.

• Nobody is bothering with your pathetic statistics because the only relevance they have is that 11,000 (in one year) people died unnecessarily. How many died in other countries with reasonable gun controls? – very, very few. You can’t count things like the Paris attacks as they are an act of war.

• Check out where article 2 originated from and let me know if the same statute is still in place and if people are weeping their hearts out over their loss of liberties.

• It’s perfectly possible under US law to restrict the sale and ownership of different types of weapons (eg Bowie Knives) without restricting individual rights. Article 2 is as out of date as article 3 is in 2016.

• Article 5 of the US constitution says:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, etc.

Thus it is a total fallacy that you have an INALIENABLE right to bear arms. It can be removed at any time.

• Thanks for the commendation on my writing, but actually I gave up on yellow journalism when I stopped reading the SCMP in 1985.

• Americans would react far differently to a military coup than did the Thais. Think whatever you want, though. If I'm correct in presuming you an Englishman, you wouldn't be the first to underestimate our fortitude.

• No one is bothering with my statistics because they demonstrate the weakness people like you suffer with visceral stimuli. You let your emotions get in the way of reason: of the 11,000 deaths--again less than even half of 1% of all U.S. deaths per year--a very significant plurality of them are gang related. In other words, the weapons involved are illegally possessed and thus fall outside the impact any further regulations might have.

• I know that restrictions are perfectly legal. My arguments are rooted in the belief that there is regulation enough already.

• The right to self defense is inalienable. In the United States, gun ownership is part and parcel of that right. That it can be removed any time is a theory that can and will never see the light of day, barring another civil war. For all intents and purposes, then, bearing arms is an inalienable right intrinsic to the existence of the nation. Any allusions otherwise are simply academic and, thus, are of no real interest to me.

• My yellow journalism remark has nothing to do with your writing, but with you falling victim to anecdotal reporting. Stories like the OP are tantamount to shining a flashlight on a mouse to create a shadow the size of an elephant: 85,000 shootings per year in a population of 320,000,000 = .00027% of the population directly impacted. Yet you argue that's reason enough to scrap our Constitution...

Oh god your ignorance is so funny. Yellow journalism, SCMP, its almost an art to winding up you second amendmentists.

Don't you feel ashamed that a cog Brit has to quote you your own constitution only to find that really you dont respect any of it, except the bit you need to keep your toys.

Military coupe in America, fortitude, scrap the constitution, it gets better and better, I just can't stop laughing.

Thanks for going ahead and making my day!

You have got to be kidding me. You are insinuating (aTomsLife) is ignorant??? This poster is articulate and well versed on gun ownership in America. If you and other anti-gun posters were to stop your simple minded hysterical anti-gun rants, and read his posts, you would have a better understanding of America's 2nd Amendment.

[aTomsLife]

to aTomsLife

Since my more interesting post has been lost without trace in last night’s internet crash and would have been removed anyway, plus the too many text blocks problem stopping me replying directly to your post, I shall simply say the following:

• There are more guns per head of the population in Thailand than there are in the US and they effect they have had on governments tyranny has been absolutely zilch.

It’s exactly the same in the US, none of the guns in private hands are going to have any effect on the US government. To say otherwise is totally nonsensical. Wacco to you.

• Nobody is bothering with your pathetic statistics because the only relevance they have is that 11,000 (in one year) people died unnecessarily. How many died in other countries with reasonable gun controls? – very, very few. You can’t count things like the Paris attacks as they are an act of war.

• Check out where article 2 originated from and let me know if the same statute is still in place and if people are weeping their hearts out over their loss of liberties.

• It’s perfectly possible under US law to restrict the sale and ownership of different types of weapons (eg Bowie Knives) without restricting individual rights. Article 2 is as out of date as article 3 is in 2016.

• Article 5 of the US constitution says:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, etc.

Thus it is a total fallacy that you have an INALIENABLE right to bear arms. It can be removed at any time.

• Thanks for the commendation on my writing, but actually I gave up on yellow journalism when I stopped reading the SCMP in 1985.

• Americans would react far differently to a military coup than did the Thais. Think whatever you want, though. If I'm correct in presuming you an Englishman, you wouldn't be the first to underestimate our fortitude.

• No one is bothering with my statistics because they demonstrate the weakness people like you suffer with visceral stimuli. You let your emotions get in the way of reason: of the 11,000 deaths--again less than even half of 1% of all U.S. deaths per year--a very significant plurality of them are gang related. In other words, the weapons involved are illegally possessed and thus fall outside the impact any further regulations might have.

• I know that restrictions are perfectly legal. My arguments are rooted in the belief that there is regulation enough already.

• The right to self defense is inalienable. In the United States, gun ownership is part and parcel of that right. That it can be removed any time is a theory that can and will never see the light of day, barring another civil war. For all intents and purposes, then, bearing arms is an inalienable right intrinsic to the existence of the nation. Any allusions otherwise are simply academic and, thus, are of no real interest to me.

• My yellow journalism remark has nothing to do with your writing, but with you falling victim to anecdotal reporting. Stories like the OP are tantamount to shining a flashlight on a mouse to create a shadow the size of an elephant: 85,000 shootings per year in a population of 320,000,000 = .00027% of the population directly impacted. Yet you argue that's reason enough to scrap our Constitution...

Oh god your ignorance is so funny. Yellow journalism, SCMP, its almost an art to winding up you second amendmentists.

Don't you feel ashamed that a cog Brit has to quote you your own constitution only to find that really you dont respect any of it, except the bit you need to keep your toys.

Military coupe in America, fortitude, scrap the constitution, it gets better and better, I just can't stop laughing.

Thanks for going ahead and making my day!

You have got to be kidding me. You are insinuating (aTomsLife) is ignorant??? This poster is articulate and well versed on gun ownership in America. If you and other anti-gun posters were to stop your simple minded hysterical anti-gun rants, and read his posts, you would have a better understanding of America's 2nd Amendment.

Thank you, CMNightRider. Much like all the others, our snide English friend above didn't address any of my points directly, so I'm through responding to him. And I think the attached quote sums things up nicely:

[GeorgesAbitbol]

to aTomsLife

Since my more interesting post has been lost without trace in last night’s internet crash and would have been removed anyway, plus the too many text blocks problem stopping me replying directly to your post, I shall simply say the following:

• There are more guns per head of the population in Thailand than there are in the US and they effect they have had on governments tyranny has been absolutely zilch.

It’s exactly the same in the US, none of the guns in private hands are going to have any effect on the US government. To say otherwise is totally nonsensical. Wacco to you.

• Nobody is bothering with your pathetic statistics because the only relevance they have is that 11,000 (in one year) people died unnecessarily. How many died in other countries with reasonable gun controls? – very, very few. You can’t count things like the Paris attacks as they are an act of war.

• Check out where article 2 originated from and let me know if the same statute is still in place and if people are weeping their hearts out over their loss of liberties.

• It’s perfectly possible under US law to restrict the sale and ownership of different types of weapons (eg Bowie Knives) without restricting individual rights. Article 2 is as out of date as article 3 is in 2016.

• Article 5 of the US constitution says:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, etc.

Thus it is a total fallacy that you have an INALIENABLE right to bear arms. It can be removed at any time.

• Thanks for the commendation on my writing, but actually I gave up on yellow journalism when I stopped reading the SCMP in 1985.

• Americans would react far differently to a military coup than did the Thais. Think whatever you want, though. If I'm correct in presuming you an Englishman, you wouldn't be the first to underestimate our fortitude.

• No one is bothering with my statistics because they demonstrate the weakness people like you suffer with visceral stimuli. You let your emotions get in the way of reason: of the 11,000 deaths--again less than even half of 1% of all U.S. deaths per year--a very significant plurality of them are gang related. In other words, the weapons involved are illegally possessed and thus fall outside the impact any further regulations might have.

• I know that restrictions are perfectly legal. My arguments are rooted in the belief that there is regulation enough already.

• The right to self defense is inalienable. In the United States, gun ownership is part and parcel of that right. That it can be removed any time is a theory that can and will never see the light of day, barring another civil war. For all intents and purposes, then, bearing arms is an inalienable right intrinsic to the existence of the nation. Any allusions otherwise are simply academic and, thus, are of no real interest to me.

• My yellow journalism remark has nothing to do with your writing, but with you falling victim to anecdotal reporting. Stories like the OP are tantamount to shining a flashlight on a mouse to create a shadow the size of an elephant: 85,000 shootings per year in a population of 320,000,000 = .00027% of the population directly impacted. Yet you argue that's reason enough to scrap our Constitution...

Oh god your ignorance is so funny. Yellow journalism, SCMP, its almost an art to winding up you second amendmentists.

Don't you feel ashamed that a cog Brit has to quote you your own constitution only to find that really you dont respect any of it, except the bit you need to keep your toys.

Military coupe in America, fortitude, scrap the constitution, it gets better and better, I just can't stop laughing.

Thanks for going ahead and making my day!

You have got to be kidding me. You are insinuating (aTomsLife) is ignorant??? This poster is articulate and well versed on gun ownership in America. If you and other anti-gun posters were to stop your simple minded hysterical anti-gun rants, and read his posts, you would have a better understanding of America's 2nd Amendment.

We know the second amendment, it was written a long time ago and is now outdated, the only ignorance is to still think it doesn't need to be modified to fit semi auto, kids rifles,...this is ignorance!

As well as ignoring the facts and numbers:

just look at this global comparison with France, a country pro gunners think should have its own second amendment

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/France/United-States/Crime

Now we all know USA is a violent country, culture of violence is praised rather than avoided.

Well maybe it is time to MODERNIZE the laws, don't you think?

Edited January 15, 2016 by GeorgesAbitbol

[chuckd]

to aTomsLife

Since my more interesting post has been lost without trace in last night’s internet crash and would have been removed anyway, plus the too many text blocks problem stopping me replying directly to your post, I shall simply say the following:

• There are more guns per head of the population in Thailand than there are in the US and they effect they have had on governments tyranny has been absolutely zilch.

It’s exactly the same in the US, none of the guns in private hands are going to have any effect on the US government. To say otherwise is totally nonsensical. Wacco to you.

• Nobody is bothering with your pathetic statistics because the only relevance they have is that 11,000 (in one year) people died unnecessarily. How many died in other countries with reasonable gun controls? – very, very few. You can’t count things like the Paris attacks as they are an act of war.

• Check out where article 2 originated from and let me know if the same statute is still in place and if people are weeping their hearts out over their loss of liberties.

• It’s perfectly possible under US law to restrict the sale and ownership of different types of weapons (eg Bowie Knives) without restricting individual rights. Article 2 is as out of date as article 3 is in 2016.

• Article 5 of the US constitution says:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, etc.

Thus it is a total fallacy that you have an INALIENABLE right to bear arms. It can be removed at any time.

• Thanks for the commendation on my writing, but actually I gave up on yellow journalism when I stopped reading the SCMP in 1985.

• Americans would react far differently to a military coup than did the Thais. Think whatever you want, though. If I'm correct in presuming you an Englishman, you wouldn't be the first to underestimate our fortitude.

• No one is bothering with my statistics because they demonstrate the weakness people like you suffer with visceral stimuli. You let your emotions get in the way of reason: of the 11,000 deaths--again less than even half of 1% of all U.S. deaths per year--a very significant plurality of them are gang related. In other words, the weapons involved are illegally possessed and thus fall outside the impact any further regulations might have.

• I know that restrictions are perfectly legal. My arguments are rooted in the belief that there is regulation enough already.

• The right to self defense is inalienable. In the United States, gun ownership is part and parcel of that right. That it can be removed any time is a theory that can and will never see the light of day, barring another civil war. For all intents and purposes, then, bearing arms is an inalienable right intrinsic to the existence of the nation. Any allusions otherwise are simply academic and, thus, are of no real interest to me.

• My yellow journalism remark has nothing to do with your writing, but with you falling victim to anecdotal reporting. Stories like the OP are tantamount to shining a flashlight on a mouse to create a shadow the size of an elephant: 85,000 shootings per year in a population of 320,000,000 = .00027% of the population directly impacted. Yet you argue that's reason enough to scrap our Constitution...

Oh god your ignorance is so funny. Yellow journalism, SCMP, its almost an art to winding up you second amendmentists.

Don't you feel ashamed that a cog Brit has to quote you your own constitution only to find that really you dont respect any of it, except the bit you need to keep your toys.

Military coupe in America, fortitude, scrap the constitution, it gets better and better, I just can't stop laughing.

Thanks for going ahead and making my day!

There is currently a move afoot to call a Constitutional Convention of the States to discuss Constitutional Amendments

The Governor of Texas has so far lined up 15 other states that are interested in addressing some problems in the Constitution.

It will take 38 of the 50 States to agree on any new Amendments or changes to existing ones.

The proposed Amendments are:

1. Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.

2. Require Congress to balance its budget.

3. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law.

4. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting state law.

5. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

6. Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.

7. Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.

8. Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.

9. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation.

You will notice the Bill of Rights is not under consideration for change. Should the Constitutional Convention take place, it will be the perfect time for all you gun controllers to show up and raise your voices.

But you knew all this anyway...didn't you?

[DDbkh]

Tragic accidental shooting of son by father? Time to change the Constitution and take guns from tens of millions law-abiding citizens.

Pre-planned terrorist attack invoking Islam? Deny Islam had anything to do with it, blame guns, change the Constitution and disarm law-abiding citizens so they are unable to defend themselves so that the next terror attack on American soil will resemble Paris, Norway or a Tunisian beach full of tourists.

At least liberals are consistent...take away Constitutionally guaranteed rights, turn every city into another Chicago or Detroit while enabling criminals and Muslim extremists...

Is the Left Even on America’s Side Anymore?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429423/left-betrayal-america?iM1rwZkgV5PLVEcG.01

Incredible - now you say you need guns to defend yourselves against Islamic terrorists, previously it's been gun wielding black gangsters, or an evil government. Next you'll be saying they are needed to fight off spacemen!

[OMGImInPattaya]

• Americans would react far differently to a military coup than did the Thais. Think whatever you want, though. If I'm correct in presuming you an Englishman, you wouldn't be the first to underestimate our fortitude.

• No one is bothering with my statistics because they demonstrate the weakness people like you suffer with visceral stimuli. You let your emotions get in the way of reason: of the 11,000 deaths--again less than even half of 1% of all U.S. deaths per year--a very significant plurality of them are gang related. In other words, the weapons involved are illegally possessed and thus fall outside the impact any further regulations might have.

• I know that restrictions are perfectly legal. My arguments are rooted in the belief that there is regulation enough already.

• The right to self defense is inalienable. In the United States, gun ownership is part and parcel of that right. That it can be removed any time is a theory that can and will never see the light of day, barring another civil war. For all intents and purposes, then, bearing arms is an inalienable right intrinsic to the existence of the nation. Any allusions otherwise are simply academic and, thus, are of no real interest to me.

• My yellow journalism remark has nothing to do with your writing, but with you falling victim to anecdotal reporting. Stories like the OP are tantamount to shining a flashlight on a mouse to create a shadow the size of an elephant: 85,000 shootings per year in a population of 320,000,000 = .00027% of the population directly impacted. Yet you argue that's reason enough to scrap our Constitution...

Oh god your ignorance is so funny. Yellow journalism, SCMP, its almost an art to winding up you second amendmentists.

Don't you feel ashamed that a cog Brit has to quote you your own constitution only to find that really you dont respect any of it, except the bit you need to keep your toys.

Military coupe in America, fortitude, scrap the constitution, it gets better and better, I just can't stop laughing.

Thanks for going ahead and making my day!

You have got to be kidding me. You are insinuating (aTomsLife) is ignorant??? This poster is articulate and well versed on gun ownership in America. If you and other anti-gun posters were to stop your simple minded hysterical anti-gun rants, and read his posts, you would have a better understanding of America's 2nd Amendment.

We know the second amendment, it was written a long time ago and is now outdated, the only ignorance is to still think it doesn't need to be modified to fit semi auto, kids rifles,...this is ignorance!

As well as ignoring the facts and numbers:

just look at this global comparison with France, a country pro gunners think should have its own second amendment

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/France/United-States/Crime

Now we all know USA is a violent country, culture of violence is praised rather than avoided.

Well maybe it is time to MODERNIZE the laws, don't you think?

"Culture of violence" you say...that's rich coming from a continent that started TWO world-wars that killed tens of millions of people in the last century...and it was that so called "culture of violence" that saved Europe's bacon in those two wars.

All ten of those Amendments were written a long time ago...any other's you don't like and would like to get rid of?

[aTomsLife]

You have got to be kidding me. You are insinuating (aTomsLife) is ignorant??? This poster is articulate and well versed on gun ownership in America. If you and other anti-gun posters were to stop your simple minded hysterical anti-gun rants, and read his posts, you would have a better understanding of America's 2nd Amendment.

We know the second amendment, it was written a long time ago and is now outdated, the only ignorance is to still think it doesn't need to be modified to fit semi auto, kids rifles,...this is ignorance!

As well as ignoring the facts and numbers:

just look at this global comparison with France, a country pro gunners think should have its own second amendment

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/France/United-States/Crime

Now we all know USA is a violent country, culture of violence is praised rather than avoided.

Well maybe it is time to MODERNIZE the laws, don't you think?

"Culture of violence" you say...that's rich coming from a continent that started TWO world-wars that killed tens of millions of people in the last century...and it was that so called "culture of violence" that saved Europe's bacon in those two wars.

All ten of those Amendments were written a long time ago...any other's you don't like and would like to get rid of?

The English pointing fingers, some things never change. Yet...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

And for a more in depth analysis of your hypocrisy:

http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/

[GeorgesAbitbol]

"Culture of violence" you say...that's rich coming from a continent that started TWO world-wars that killed tens of millions of people in the last century...and it was that so called "culture of violence" that saved Europe's bacon in those two wars.

You have got to be kidding me. You are insinuating (aTomsLife) is ignorant??? This poster is articulate and well versed on gun ownership in America. If you and other anti-gun posters were to stop your simple minded hysterical anti-gun rants, and read his posts, you would have a better understanding of America's 2nd Amendment.

We know the second amendment, it was written a long time ago and is now outdated, the only ignorance is to still think it doesn't need to be modified to fit semi auto, kids rifles,...this is ignorance!

As well as ignoring the facts and numbers:

just look at this global comparison with France, a country pro gunners think should have its own second amendment

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/France/United-States/Crime

Now we all know USA is a violent country, culture of violence is praised rather than avoided.

Well maybe it is time to MODERNIZE the laws, don't you think?

All ten of those Amendments were written a long time ago...any other's you don't like and would like to get rid of?

yeah culture of violence.

Please let me know in which modern country you can find those kind of rifles or company?

www.crickett.com

Show me a country in europe where you can buy at the same place a uzi and your groceries

Name some countries in europe which have the stupid "stand your ground" law.

Name one country in europe where you have a tv channel dedicated to gun selling and promotion...

It is also funny to see how you speak about world war when usa started or was implicated in most of the modern wars (do you want an extensive list?)

Did you have a look at the wesite i gave you (you can compare with other european countries)? I highly doubt about it otherwise you wouldn;t try to argue about

the violence culture of USA.

Just open the tv in USA and browse the channels.

As far as I know there are not a lot of countries which praise gun ownership as USA or rely on an outdated amendment.

and yes you can change it, because it is an amendment...