U.S. father fatally shoots son mistaken for intruder

[Andaman Al]

In my family we shout 'Hello, I'm home' when we enter the place.

The kid shouldn't have skipped school, shouldn't be sneaking around the house.

The father should have identified his target before shooting.

Whatever way you look at it, it's a tragic accident.

A quite un ****ing believable reply to this thread ( i stopped reading the thread at this point - sorry!). You lot deserve everything you get! A breath taking example of why Disney Land is no longer the valid excuse to go to the USA! Much safer to look on my 4K res TV on google earth !

Edited January 16, 2016 by Andaman Al

[sirineou]

In my family we shout 'Hello, I'm home' when we enter the place.

The kid shouldn't have skipped school, shouldn't be sneaking around the house.

The father should have identified his target before shooting.

Whatever way you look at it, it's a tragic accident.

A quite un ****ing believable reply to this thread. You lot deserve everything you get! A breath taking example of why Disney Land is no longer the valid excuse to go to the USA! Much safer to look on my 4K res TV on google earth !

I find it funny that people living and visiting in Thailand,say, they will not go to the US because they don't think it

is safe

Really , Think about it.

[neverdie]

In my family we shout 'Hello, I'm home' when we enter the place.

The kid shouldn't have skipped school, shouldn't be sneaking around the house.

The father should have identified his target before shooting.

Whatever way you look at it, it's a tragic accident.

A quite un ****ing believable reply to this thread ( i stopped reading the thread at this point - sorry!). You lot deserve everything you get! A breath taking example of why Disney Land is no longer the valid excuse to go to the USA! Much safer to look on my 4K res TV on google earth !

I know, these people are 'priceless'. Have you ever read so much rott. Sneaking around the house? The kid walked through the door, just like he had thousands of other times however this time his trigger happy father greeted him with a bullet.

I never noticed a law where one needs to announce ones arrival at home. Nor can I imagine any decent human being to fire a weapon at a target he hasn't identified.

Nobody is safe in a place like this. You couldbe shot painting your own fence because the neighbour is jumping at shadows, that's no way to live.

What you have here is a people who have "issues" trying to deny they have problems. They need to be "awoken".

Nobody is suggesting to take all the firearms away bit there is a need for new gun control there because the system at present isn't working evident by all the children being needlessly slaughtered.

It seems nothing short of one of those mini nuclear devices at an NRA meeting will convert these idiots. Fire away Mr president the USA would be a safer place without all these fools.

[neverdie]

Furthermore, THIS INCIDENT is NO ACCIDENT.

Anyone that fires at a target that they haven't identified should spend the rest of their days in the monkey house.

This man shot his own son, there was no accident, it was an intentional action. He's a killer and he killed his own son. What a low life father, snuffed out his own son for NO reason.

The pro gun lobby is looking more foolish as each day passes.

They say they need their guns to protect themselves from their own government but what's going to protect the rest of the society from them?

[arjunadawn]

The posts in this forum do not make a case for or against gun control in response this tragic event; they make a case for population control. This is what the end product look like after the gristmill of modern Liberal education- emotional dolts who confuse "I feel" with "I think." Feeling is not a valid premise for overturning a fundamental Right. "I feel... therefore..." is among the core problems with the modern world and its social drones who have a feeling and assert it as a Truth. Each day is a non-stop orgy of the intellectually bankrupt among us asserting they feel and thus it should translate into legislation that comports with their feeling. Logic, reason, history, self reliance, accountability, and individual rights have no place with those who think they have some right to inflict their "good" upon others because they feel... because this is tragic... because it was a child... because... they "feel" something. "There should be gun control because I feel... ______(name your emotion).

The days in the US are equally filled with numerous examples of guns protecting the lives of innocents but these are not carried in the mainstream press because they are the Emotional News Networks, crafting leftist social engineering by the voice of their stooges, or respond to "feeling." The media in the US has long been an extension of the Dewey cesspool of public education, the same engineering that polluted the European education system.Functioning on the level of feeling pollutes the polity, all social contract, and clearly the gene pool.

Its always tragic when a child or any other for that matter loses their life. It is equally tragic when a woman is brutally raped in her home, an old person robbed, a business owner murdered in his/her own store, gangs running mad on the streets, drug dealers shooting innocents... all because people "felt" something and mob rule deprived them of their Natural Right to protect themselves. The "good" liberals continually do for America has littered the graveyards with negative results because nearly every precept is based on "feeling" or social engineering. More guns? Under Obama gun ownership has hit an all time record; one more example of the nonstop train of Leftist Unintended Consequences because [they] legislate by mob rule and feelings.

[rijit]

Yep. Obamas right guns should be harder to get. And Imo a comphrensive insurance compulsory with every gun purchased.

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited January 16, 2016 by rijit

[sirineou]

The posts in this forum do not make a case for or against gun control in response this tragic event; they make a case for population control. This is what the end product look like after the gristmill of modern Liberal education- emotional dolts who confuse "I feel" with "I think." Feeling is not a valid premise for overturning a fundamental Right. "I feel... therefore..." is among the core problems with the modern world and its social drones who have a feeling and assert it as a Truth. Each day is a non-stop orgy of the intellectually bankrupt among us asserting they feel and thus it should translate into legislation that comports with their feeling. Logic, reason, history, self reliance, accountability, and individual rights have no place with those who think they have some right to inflict their "good" upon others because they feel... because this is tragic... because it was a child... because... they "feel" something. "There should be gun control because I feel... ______(name your emotion).

The days in the US are equally filled with numerous examples of guns protecting the lives of innocents but these are not carried in the mainstream press because they are the Emotional News Networks, crafting leftist social engineering by the voice of their stooges, or respond to "feeling." The media in the US has long been an extension of the Dewey cesspool of public education, the same engineering that polluted the European education system.Functioning on the level of feeling pollutes the polity, all social contract, and clearly the gene pool.

Its always tragic when a child or any other for that matter loses their life. It is equally tragic when a woman is brutally raped in her home, an old person robbed, a business owner murdered in his/her own store, gangs running mad on the streets, drug dealers shooting innocents... all because people "felt" something and mob rule deprived them of their Natural Right to protect themselves. The "good" liberals continually do for America has littered the graveyards with negative results because nearly every precept is based on "feeling" or social engineering. More guns? Under Obama gun ownership has hit an all time record; one more example of the nonstop train of Leftist Unintended Consequences because [they] legislate by mob rule and feelings.

Very good post

what I am not sure is which sides point you are making, I am not sure but what I think you are saying is that the pro gun should not let fillings of fear and paranoia cloud their thinking

The other part where our liberal gun law are actually making America safer but the media ia not reporting it I don't get,

do you have some statistics or is this also a "feeling"

[up2u2]

The posts in this forum do not make a case for or against gun control in response this tragic event; they make a case for population control. This is what the end product look like after the gristmill of modern Liberal education- emotional dolts who confuse "I feel" with "I think." Feeling is not a valid premise for overturning a fundamental Right. "I feel... therefore..." is among the core problems with the modern world and its social drones who have a feeling and assert it as a Truth. Each day is a non-stop orgy of the intellectually bankrupt among us asserting they feel and thus it should translate into legislation that comports with their feeling. Logic, reason, history, self reliance, accountability, and individual rights have no place with those who think they have some right to inflict their "good" upon others because they feel... because this is tragic... because it was a child... because... they "feel" something. "There should be gun control because I feel... ______(name your emotion).

The days in the US are equally filled with numerous examples of guns protecting the lives of innocents but these are not carried in the mainstream press because they are the Emotional News Networks, crafting leftist social engineering by the voice of their stooges, or respond to "feeling." The media in the US has long been an extension of the Dewey cesspool of public education, the same engineering that polluted the European education system.Functioning on the level of feeling pollutes the polity, all social contract, and clearly the gene pool.

Its always tragic when a child or any other for that matter loses their life. It is equally tragic when a woman is brutally raped in her home, an old person robbed, a business owner murdered in his/her own store, gangs running mad on the streets, drug dealers shooting innocents... all because people "felt" something and mob rule deprived them of their Natural Right to protect themselves. The "good" liberals continually do for America has littered the graveyards with negative results because nearly every precept is based on "feeling" or social engineering. More guns? Under Obama gun ownership has hit an all time record; one more example of the nonstop train of Leftist Unintended Consequences because [they] legislate by mob rule and feelings.

Absolute balderdash. To take the position that a societies right to be awash with weapons amounting to some 30,000 deaths a year including slaughtered children no less and to suggest that people who find this to be absolutely horrifying are somehow intellectually bankrupt, emotional dolts, touchy feely Liberals is the hight of Right Wing drivel.

The old Right Wing self reliance, personal responsibility, accountability, Darwinian 'survival of the fittest' tripe is wearing progressively thin as America becomes a morally failed State. A Nation of 1% 'haves' and 99% 'have nots' and the 'have nots' are fully armed and as this tragedy demonstrates when the poor and disenfranchised are pushed up against the wall they reach for a weapon with nothing more to lose.

There is absolutely no evidence that guns make a society safer. In fact the research shows just the opposite. America is one of the few modern democratic Nations that have no gun control laws and it shows. How high do the dead bodies have to be stacked before the US citizens actually take on the NRA and their supporters and create a safer less violent society. As usual at the very core of the Right Wing position is greed and totally devoid of compassion and caring. The Second Amendment? Simple, amend it.

The reason for the surge in gun sales is rational people know that after 20 children are slaughtered surely now someone with a little common sense will enact legislation to restrict weapons but unfortunately it never happens. Dead children are excellent for gun sales. For the NRA and weapons manufacturers these human tragedies are good for profits and you play along with it.

[lostboy]

The posts in this forum do not make a case for or against gun control in response this tragic event; they make a case for population control. This is what the end product look like after the gristmill of modern Liberal education- emotional dolts who confuse "I feel" with "I think." Feeling is not a valid premise for overturning a fundamental Right. "I feel... therefore..." is among the core problems with the modern world and its social drones who have a feeling and assert it as a Truth. Each day is a non-stop orgy of the intellectually bankrupt among us asserting they feel and thus it should translate into legislation that comports with their feeling. Logic, reason, history, self reliance, accountability, and individual rights have no place with those who think they have some right to inflict their "good" upon others because they feel... because this is tragic... because it was a child... because... they "feel" something. "There should be gun control because I feel... ______(name your emotion).

The days in the US are equally filled with numerous examples of guns protecting the lives of innocents but these are not carried in the mainstream press because they are the Emotional News Networks, crafting leftist social engineering by the voice of their stooges, or respond to "feeling." The media in the US has long been an extension of the Dewey cesspool of public education, the same engineering that polluted the European education system.Functioning on the level of feeling pollutes the polity, all social contract, and clearly the gene pool.

Its always tragic when a child or any other for that matter loses their life. It is equally tragic when a woman is brutally raped in her home, an old person robbed, a business owner murdered in his/her own store, gangs running mad on the streets, drug dealers shooting innocents... all because people "felt" something and mob rule deprived them of their Natural Right to protect themselves. The "good" liberals continually do for America has littered the graveyards with negative results because nearly every precept is based on "feeling" or social engineering. More guns? Under Obama gun ownership has hit an all time record; one more example of the nonstop train of Leftist Unintended Consequences because [they] legislate by mob rule and feelings.

Your thesis is that the Left is emotional whereas the Right is what? Logical? Un-emotional? Non-emotional? I cannot see the rationale of your argument except to try to trivialise the concerns raised by the gun control advocates as not reasonable i.e. not founded in reason. This would appear to be merely a manifestation of your ideological bias and not based on any rationalisation. You talk about intellectual bankruptcy. I respond by accusing you of intellectual dishonesty. You judge your antagonists by a different rational standard than you judge yourself.

Your post and your argument ignores the totality of evidence from those countries that have workable gun control legislation. People with a need or desire to own and use guns are still able to do so but the incidence of gun violence is significantly reduced. So your thesis falls down on rational grounds. Your appeal to the constitutional rights n the context of self protection ignores the text of the second amendment that clearly grants the right to bear arms for the protection of the State i.e. the Will of the People and not for individual protection for grannies fearful of being raped by non white people in bad neighbourhoods. So your thesis falls down on constitutional grounds.The foundation of western liberal thought is rationality. It is, after, called the Age of Reason. You cannot accuse Paine, Rousseau, Kant and the rest of failure in rationality. So your thesis falls down on historical grounds.

This tendency of yours to use the Left as emotional argument has cropped up a few times. We have discussed intellectual dishonesty before. Perhaps you might want to research it instead of immediately attacking the concept on definitional grounds this time. I believe it applies to your thesis in this case.

[neverdie]

^ Well said. An example of another poster with a fully functioning brain and no 'small appendage' issues.

Bravo, take a bow sir !

[Scott]

Off-topic posts have been removed. The discussion is going in circles. Further off-topic posts will be removed and if it continues there is the possibility of a posting suspension.

Responses need to be limited to this particular situation. Not a general discussion of gun laws, violence and the regulations in 50 states and various countries. I think we have had enough of that.

[arjunadawn]

The posts in this forum do not make a case for or against gun control in response this tragic event; they make a case for population control. This is what the end product look like after the gristmill of modern Liberal education- emotional dolts who confuse "I feel" with "I think." Feeling is not a valid premise for overturning a fundamental Right. "I feel... therefore..." is among the core problems with the modern world and its social drones who have a feeling and assert it as a Truth. Each day is a non-stop orgy of the intellectually bankrupt among us asserting they feel and thus it should translate into legislation that comports with their feeling. Logic, reason, history, self reliance, accountability, and individual rights have no place with those who think they have some right to inflict their "good" upon others because they feel... because this is tragic... because it was a child... because... they "feel" something. "There should be gun control because I feel... ______(name your emotion).

The days in the US are equally filled with numerous examples of guns protecting the lives of innocents but these are not carried in the mainstream press because they are the Emotional News Networks, crafting leftist social engineering by the voice of their stooges, or respond to "feeling." The media in the US has long been an extension of the Dewey cesspool of public education, the same engineering that polluted the European education system.Functioning on the level of feeling pollutes the polity, all social contract, and clearly the gene pool.

Its always tragic when a child or any other for that matter loses their life. It is equally tragic when a woman is brutally raped in her home, an old person robbed, a business owner murdered in his/her own store, gangs running mad on the streets, drug dealers shooting innocents... all because people "felt" something and mob rule deprived them of their Natural Right to protect themselves. The "good" liberals continually do for America has littered the graveyards with negative results because nearly every precept is based on "feeling" or social engineering. More guns? Under Obama gun ownership has hit an all time record; one more example of the nonstop train of Leftist Unintended Consequences because [they] legislate by mob rule and feelings.

Absolute balderdash. To take the position that a societies right to be awash with weapons amounting to some 30,000 deaths a year including slaughtered children no less and to suggest that people who find this to be absolutely horrifying are somehow intellectually bankrupt, emotional dolts, touchy feely Liberals is the hight of Right Wing drivel.

The old Right Wing self reliance, personal responsibility, accountability, Darwinian 'survival of the fittest' tripe is wearing progressively thin as America becomes a morally failed State. A Nation of 1% 'haves' and 99% 'have nots' and the 'have nots' are fully armed and as this tragedy demonstrates when the poor and disenfranchised are pushed up against the wall they reach for a weapon with nothing more to lose.

There is absolutely no evidence that guns make a society safer. In fact the research shows just the opposite. America is one of the few modern democratic Nations that have no gun control laws and it shows. How high do the dead bodies have to be stacked before the US citizens actually take on the NRA and their supporters and create a safer less violent society. As usual at the very core of the Right Wing position is greed and totally devoid of compassion and caring. The Second Amendment? Simple, amend it.

The reason for the surge in gun sales is rational people know that after 20 children are slaughtered surely now someone with a little common sense will enact legislation to restrict weapons but unfortunately it never happens. Dead children are excellent for gun sales. For the NRA and weapons manufacturers these human tragedies are good for profits and you play along with it.

I do not state "societies" have a right to be awash with weapons, you did! Americas do have a Right (capital "R") to possess weapons. I implied there is no intellectual nor legal rationale for restricting the Natural Constitution Rights of law abiding citizens because some people have outrage- emotions. The remainder of your post confirms this point. I would agree with you that my choice of "emotional dolts" could have been worded less personally, but the rest is correct.

When a poster notes "self reliance, personal responsibility, and accountability" as something that is wearing (Really? No pun intended?) "progressively" thin, they demonstrate the validity of all I said. America was not nearly morally failed until the rise of "Progressivism," the dependent class, and the Nanny State- all fruit of the Lefist Tree. You make my point. Emotional arguments for social engineering are substantially behind the persuasion used to limit legitimate access to guns in the US.

The false analogy of economic disparity has no linkage to this issue; % of any class has zero bearing on this issue. How this is conflated escapes me.

"Greed... compassion... caring... The Second Amendment? ...amend it." this is my point. You could not have made my argument the better. I kindly thank you for reinforcing my point by admission.

[rijit]

I think it about sums the.essence. Of a culture that can stand and argue a cause, forget right or wrong, that kills 30 000 people a.year and demand people accept it on the say so of something written for 200 years ago. Just sounds so bloody ludicrous .

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[arjunadawn]

The posts in this forum do not make a case for or against gun control in response this tragic event; they make a case for population control. This is what the end product look like after the gristmill of modern Liberal education- emotional dolts who confuse "I feel" with "I think." Feeling is not a valid premise for overturning a fundamental Right. "I feel... therefore..." is among the core problems with the modern world and its social drones who have a feeling and assert it as a Truth. Each day is a non-stop orgy of the intellectually bankrupt among us asserting they feel and thus it should translate into legislation that comports with their feeling. Logic, reason, history, self reliance, accountability, and individual rights have no place with those who think they have some right to inflict their "good" upon others because they feel... because this is tragic... because it was a child... because... they "feel" something. "There should be gun control because I feel... ______(name your emotion).

The days in the US are equally filled with numerous examples of guns protecting the lives of innocents but these are not carried in the mainstream press because they are the Emotional News Networks, crafting leftist social engineering by the voice of their stooges, or respond to "feeling." The media in the US has long been an extension of the Dewey cesspool of public education, the same engineering that polluted the European education system.Functioning on the level of feeling pollutes the polity, all social contract, and clearly the gene pool.

Its always tragic when a child or any other for that matter loses their life. It is equally tragic when a woman is brutally raped in her home, an old person robbed, a business owner murdered in his/her own store, gangs running mad on the streets, drug dealers shooting innocents... all because people "felt" something and mob rule deprived them of their Natural Right to protect themselves. The "good" liberals continually do for America has littered the graveyards with negative results because nearly every precept is based on "feeling" or social engineering. More guns? Under Obama gun ownership has hit an all time record; one more example of the nonstop train of Leftist Unintended Consequences because [they] legislate by mob rule and feelings.

Very good post

what I am not sure is which sides point you are making, I am not sure but what I think you are saying is that the pro gun should not let fillings of fear and paranoia cloud their thinking

The other part where our liberal gun law are actually making America safer but the media ia not reporting it I don't get,

do you have some statistics or is this also a "feeling"

I went to draw some resources and then thought to approach this not by finding resources that prove my point but that disprove it. What I found was another point of view. Not a POV that disproves my point- there are not, not really. But an analysis that states that both sides of this issue- those suggesting gun control reduces and increases crime, may be incorrect. In other words, I could argue my point is better by other research and links but instead I wish to suggest both points of view may be wrong. In which case, there is no preponderance of evidence, no reasonable doubt, no threshold high enough to attack a fundamental Right of Man.

If the data showing gun control increases crime (because it only effects the law abiding) is not enough to satisfy those opposed to my point then I suggest we meet in the middle, and remove both arguments. Return to what this link suggests- there is simply debatable data on correlation but not causation. If true, then a burden to attack the 2nd Amendment is not remotely valid. No remote threshold has been offered by Brady & Company POV. I offer the first link to suggest my POV is not "feeling" but provide the second links as well to suggest that all things being equal, gun control advocates do not offer a valid burden of proof. (It does not even matter if I were 100% wrong about the data. Crime, accidents, suicide, and emotions are not a valid pretext to attack Constitutional Rights. If all the data arrayed against me, the Left still has no valid position).

http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/207152/

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

Edited January 17, 2016 by arjunadawn

[Linky]

I think it about sums the.essence. Of a culture that can stand and argue a cause, forget right or wrong, that kills 30 000 people a.year and demand people accept it on the say so of something written for 200 years ago. Just sounds so bloody ludicrous .

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

They are in he same category as muslims who follow the koran word for word. Would be hypocritical of them to then say fundamental islamists are the crazies.

[sirineou]

The posts in this forum do not make a case for or against gun control in response this tragic event; they make a case for population control. This is what the end product look like after the gristmill of modern Liberal education- emotional dolts who confuse "I feel" with "I think." Feeling is not a valid premise for overturning a fundamental Right. "I feel... therefore..." is among the core problems with the modern world and its social drones who have a feeling and assert it as a Truth. Each day is a non-stop orgy of the intellectually bankrupt among us asserting they feel and thus it should translate into legislation that comports with their feeling. Logic, reason, history, self reliance, accountability, and individual rights have no place with those who think they have some right to inflict their "good" upon others because they feel... because this is tragic... because it was a child... because... they "feel" something. "There should be gun control because I feel... ______(name your emotion).

The days in the US are equally filled with numerous examples of guns protecting the lives of innocents but these are not carried in the mainstream press because they are the Emotional News Networks, crafting leftist social engineering by the voice of their stooges, or respond to "feeling." The media in the US has long been an extension of the Dewey cesspool of public education, the same engineering that polluted the European education system.Functioning on the level of feeling pollutes the polity, all social contract, and clearly the gene pool.

Its always tragic when a child or any other for that matter loses their life. It is equally tragic when a woman is brutally raped in her home, an old person robbed, a business owner murdered in his/her own store, gangs running mad on the streets, drug dealers shooting innocents... all because people "felt" something and mob rule deprived them of their Natural Right to protect themselves. The "good" liberals continually do for America has littered the graveyards with negative results because nearly every precept is based on "feeling" or social engineering. More guns? Under Obama gun ownership has hit an all time record; one more example of the nonstop train of Leftist Unintended Consequences because [they] legislate by mob rule and feelings.

Very good post

what I am not sure is which sides point you are making, I am not sure but what I think you are saying is that the pro gun should not let fillings of fear and paranoia cloud their thinking

The other part where our liberal gun law are actually making America safer but the media ia not reporting it I don't get,

do you have some statistics or is this also a "feeling"

I went to draw some resources and then thought to approach this not by finding resources that prove my point but that disprove it. What I found was another point of view. Not a POV that disproves my point- there are not, not really. But an analysis that states that both sides of this issue- those suggesting gun control reduces and increases crime, may be incorrect. In other words, I could argue my point is better by other research and links but instead I wish to suggest both points of view may be wrong. In which case, there is no preponderance of evidence, no reasonable doubt, no threshold high enough to attack a fundamental Right of Man.

If the data showing gun control increases crime (because it only effects the law abiding) is not enough to satisfy those opposed to my point then I suggest we meet in the middle, and remove both arguments. Return to what this link suggests- there is simply debatable data on correlation but not causation. If true, then a burden to attack the 2nd Amendment is not remotely valid. No remote threshold has been offered by Brady & Company POV. I offer the first link to suggest my POV is not "feeling" but provide the second links as well to suggest that all things being equal, gun control advocates do not offer a valid burden of proof. (It does not even matter if I were 100% wrong about the data. Crime, accidents, suicide, and emotions are not a valid pretext to attack Constitutional Rights. If all the data arrayed against me, the Left still has no valid position).

http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/207152/

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

an interesting way to look at it.

Not time to concentrate on all your links, only looked at the first one and if it's statistics are true , it makes an interesting point.

I dont think there is anyone who suggests that gun control along will reduce violence, Guns are only one component in the equation, and it will change the product only by the degree of it's contribution.

If the gun component is reduced, but an other component is increased by the same amount, the product will remain the same. But that does not mean we should not act on all it's components.

Even maintaining the same level of violence is more desirable than increasing violence

[arjunadawn]

The posts in this forum do not make a case for or against gun control in response this tragic event; they make a case for population control. This is what the end product look like after the gristmill of modern Liberal education- emotional dolts who confuse "I feel" with "I think." Feeling is not a valid premise for overturning a fundamental Right. "I feel... therefore..." is among the core problems with the modern world and its social drones who have a feeling and assert it as a Truth. Each day is a non-stop orgy of the intellectually bankrupt among us asserting they feel and thus it should translate into legislation that comports with their feeling. Logic, reason, history, self reliance, accountability, and individual rights have no place with those who think they have some right to inflict their "good" upon others because they feel... because this is tragic... because it was a child... because... they "feel" something. "There should be gun control because I feel... ______(name your emotion).

The days in the US are equally filled with numerous examples of guns protecting the lives of innocents but these are not carried in the mainstream press because they are the Emotional News Networks, crafting leftist social engineering by the voice of their stooges, or respond to "feeling." The media in the US has long been an extension of the Dewey cesspool of public education, the same engineering that polluted the European education system.Functioning on the level of feeling pollutes the polity, all social contract, and clearly the gene pool.

Its always tragic when a child or any other for that matter loses their life. It is equally tragic when a woman is brutally raped in her home, an old person robbed, a business owner murdered in his/her own store, gangs running mad on the streets, drug dealers shooting innocents... all because people "felt" something and mob rule deprived them of their Natural Right to protect themselves. The "good" liberals continually do for America has littered the graveyards with negative results because nearly every precept is based on "feeling" or social engineering. More guns? Under Obama gun ownership has hit an all time record; one more example of the nonstop train of Leftist Unintended Consequences because [they] legislate by mob rule and feelings.

Very good post

what I am not sure is which sides point you are making, I am not sure but what I think you are saying is that the pro gun should not let fillings of fear and paranoia cloud their thinking

The other part where our liberal gun law are actually making America safer but the media ia not reporting it I don't get,

do you have some statistics or is this also a "feeling"

I went to draw some resources and then thought to approach this not by finding resources that prove my point but that disprove it. What I found was another point of view. Not a POV that disproves my point- there are not, not really. But an analysis that states that both sides of this issue- those suggesting gun control reduces and increases crime, may be incorrect. In other words, I could argue my point is better by other research and links but instead I wish to suggest both points of view may be wrong. In which case, there is no preponderance of evidence, no reasonable doubt, no threshold high enough to attack a fundamental Right of Man.

If the data showing gun control increases crime (because it only effects the law abiding) is not enough to satisfy those opposed to my point then I suggest we meet in the middle, and remove both arguments. Return to what this link suggests- there is simply debatable data on correlation but not causation. If true, then a burden to attack the 2nd Amendment is not remotely valid. No remote threshold has been offered by Brady & Company POV. I offer the first link to suggest my POV is not "feeling" but provide the second links as well to suggest that all things being equal, gun control advocates do not offer a valid burden of proof. (It does not even matter if I were 100% wrong about the data. Crime, accidents, suicide, and emotions are not a valid pretext to attack Constitutional Rights. If all the data arrayed against me, the Left still has no valid position).

http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/207152/

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

an interesting way to look at it.

Not time to concentrate on all your links, only looked at the first one and if it's statistics are true , it makes an interesting point.

I dont think there is anyone who suggests that gun control along will reduce violence, Guns are only one component in the equation, and it will change the product only by the degree of it's contribution.

If the gun component is reduced, but an other component is increased by the same amount, the product will remain the same. But that does not mean we should not act on all it's components.

Even maintaining the same level of violence is more desirable than increasing violence

Actually, its pretty clear that current policy initiatives do not support your point. There has long been cries to address mental health, really address it, not use it as a pretext to place more people with only fiduciary issues on a ban list. Big Phama pushing psychotropics are a major issue and frequently a factor in mass gun violence, but never addresses; in fact, they are increasingly immunized themselves- legally. These points are hardly addressed except as a stalking horse for more gun control. Without question the push for gun control has placed more guns in circulation than any other time in history. On this observation alone would can surmise something is wrong with the radical approach to injure the 2nd Amendment.

[aTomsLife]

The posts in this forum do not make a case for or against gun control in response this tragic event; they make a case for population control. This is what the end product look like after the gristmill of modern Liberal education- emotional dolts who confuse "I feel" with "I think." Feeling is not a valid premise for overturning a fundamental Right. "I feel... therefore..." is among the core problems with the modern world and its social drones who have a feeling and assert it as a Truth. Each day is a non-stop orgy of the intellectually bankrupt among us asserting they feel and thus it should translate into legislation that comports with their feeling. Logic, reason, history, self reliance, accountability, and individual rights have no place with those who think they have some right to inflict their "good" upon others because they feel... because this is tragic... because it was a child... because... they "feel" something. "There should be gun control because I feel... ______(name your emotion).

The days in the US are equally filled with numerous examples of guns protecting the lives of innocents but these are not carried in the mainstream press because they are the Emotional News Networks, crafting leftist social engineering by the voice of their stooges, or respond to "feeling." The media in the US has long been an extension of the Dewey cesspool of public education, the same engineering that polluted the European education system.Functioning on the level of feeling pollutes the polity, all social contract, and clearly the gene pool.

Its always tragic when a child or any other for that matter loses their life. It is equally tragic when a woman is brutally raped in her home, an old person robbed, a business owner murdered in his/her own store, gangs running mad on the streets, drug dealers shooting innocents... all because people "felt" something and mob rule deprived them of their Natural Right to protect themselves. The "good" liberals continually do for America has littered the graveyards with negative results because nearly every precept is based on "feeling" or social engineering. More guns? Under Obama gun ownership has hit an all time record; one more example of the nonstop train of Leftist Unintended Consequences because [they] legislate by mob rule and feelings.

Very good post

what I am not sure is which sides point you are making, I am not sure but what I think you are saying is that the pro gun should not let fillings of fear and paranoia cloud their thinking

The other part where our liberal gun law are actually making America safer but the media ia not reporting it I don't get,

do you have some statistics or is this also a "feeling"

I went to draw some resources and then thought to approach this not by finding resources that prove my point but that disprove it. What I found was another point of view. Not a POV that disproves my point- there are not, not really. But an analysis that states that both sides of this issue- those suggesting gun control reduces and increases crime, may be incorrect. In other words, I could argue my point is better by other research and links but instead I wish to suggest both points of view may be wrong. In which case, there is no preponderance of evidence, no reasonable doubt, no threshold high enough to attack a fundamental Right of Man.

If the data showing gun control increases crime (because it only effects the law abiding) is not enough to satisfy those opposed to my point then I suggest we meet in the middle, and remove both arguments. Return to what this link suggests- there is simply debatable data on correlation but not causation. If true, then a burden to attack the 2nd Amendment is not remotely valid. No remote threshold has been offered by Brady & Company POV. I offer the first link to suggest my POV is not "feeling" but provide the second links as well to suggest that all things being equal, gun control advocates do not offer a valid burden of proof. (It does not even matter if I were 100% wrong about the data. Crime, accidents, suicide, and emotions are not a valid pretext to attack Constitutional Rights. If all the data arrayed against me, the Left still has no valid position).

http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/207152/

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

an interesting way to look at it.

Not time to concentrate on all your links, only looked at the first one and if it's statistics are true , it makes an interesting point.

I dont think there is anyone who suggests that gun control along will reduce violence, Guns are only one component in the equation, and it will change the product only by the degree of it's contribution.

If the gun component is reduced, but an other component is increased by the same amount, the product will remain the same. But that does not mean we should not act on all it's components.

Even maintaining the same level of violence is more desirable than increasing violence

I agree with your sentiments. It's not the regulations themselves we should be focusing on, but what is largely driving violence in the U.S. Overwhelmingly, homicides are gang related, and that stems from the U.S.'s failed drug policies.

Yet many Europeans believe it fair to draw policy comparisons between their countries and the U.S. given the similar levels of development. But the comparisons are specious, as none of their countries neighbor Mexico, which in many areas has become a narco state as a result of the power drug prohibition has given the cartels.

For a time, the U.S.'s wealth and might insulated it from the same fate as Mexico, but that time is coming to an end. Many cities in the U.S. already witness enough violence to be considered war zones. And in a sense they are--the war being the one on drugs.

I admit I don't have all the answers. All I'm saying is that for anyone truly interested in reducing the U.S.'s homicide rate, focus your attention on the drug war. Arguing to enact more red tape will have no real impact at all, as the criminally minded will just ignore it all anyway.

With regard to this story, no regulations could've prevented this accident either. There's no background check that would've predicted he'd act in such a way, and I still don't understand how he did what he did. I mean, it's common sense. "Hello! Who's there?" But no, the man acted like a fool, and now in consequence must bury his own son, as well as live with the guilt of it for the rest of his life.

[sirineou]

an interesting way to look at it.

Not time to concentrate on all your links, only looked at the first one and if it's statistics are true , it makes an interesting point.

I dont think there is anyone who suggests that gun control along will reduce violence, Guns are only one component in the equation, and it will change the product only by the degree of it's contribution.

If the gun component is reduced, but an other component is increased by the same amount, the product will remain the same. But that does not mean we should not act on all it's components.

Even maintaining the same level of violence is more desirable than increasing violence

Actually, its pretty clear that current policy initiatives do not support your point. There has long been cries to address mental health, really address it, not use it as a pretext to place more people with only fiduciary issues on a ban list. Big Phama pushing psychotropics are a major issue and frequently a factor in mass gun violence, but never addresses; in fact, they are increasingly immunized themselves- legally. These points are hardly addressed except as a stalking horse for more gun control. Without question the push for gun control has placed more guns in circulation than any other time in history. On this observation alone would can surmise something is wrong with the radical approach to injure the 2nd Amendment.

Just because we are not addressing one aspect of the problem, does not mean we should not adress an other.

I agree a holistic approach is more desirable.

[sirineou]

Very good post

.

what I am not sure is which sides point you are making, I am not sure but what I think you are saying is that the pro gun should not let fillings of fear and paranoia cloud their thinking

The other part where our liberal gun law are actually making America safer but the media ia not reporting it I don't get,

do you have some statistics or is this also a "feeling"

I went to draw some resources and then thought to approach this not by finding resources that prove my point but that disprove it. What I found was another point of view. Not a POV that disproves my point- there are not, not really. But an analysis that states that both sides of this issue- those suggesting gun control reduces and increases crime, may be incorrect. In other words, I could argue my point is better by other research and links but instead I wish to suggest both points of view may be wrong. In which case, there is no preponderance of evidence, no reasonable doubt, no threshold high enough to attack a fundamental Right of Man.

If the data showing gun control increases crime (because it only effects the law abiding) is not enough to satisfy those opposed to my point then I suggest we meet in the middle, and remove both arguments. Return to what this link suggests- there is simply debatable data on correlation but not causation. If true, then a burden to attack the 2nd Amendment is not remotely valid. No remote threshold has been offered by Brady & Company POV. I offer the first link to suggest my POV is not "feeling" but provide the second links as well to suggest that all things being equal, gun control advocates do not offer a valid burden of proof. (It does not even matter if I were 100% wrong about the data. Crime, accidents, suicide, and emotions are not a valid pretext to attack Constitutional Rights. If all the data arrayed against me, the Left still has no valid position).

http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/207152/

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

an interesting way to look at it.

Not time to concentrate on all your links, only looked at the first one and if it's statistics are true , it makes an interesting point.

I dont think there is anyone who suggests that gun control along will reduce violence, Guns are only one component in the equation, and it will change the product only by the degree of it's contribution.

If the gun component is reduced, but an other component is increased by the same amount, the product will remain the same. But that does not mean we should not act on all it's components.

Even maintaining the same level of violence is more desirable than increasing violence

I agree with your sentiments. It's not the regulations themselves we should be focusing on, but what is largely driving violence in the U.S. Overwhelmingly, homicides are gang related, and that stems from the U.S.'s failed drug policies.

Yet many Europeans believe it fair to draw policy comparisons between their countries and the U.S. given the similar levels of development. But the comparisons are specious, as none of their countries neighbor Mexico, which in many areas has become a narco state as a result of the power drug prohibition has given the cartels.

For a time, the U.S.'s wealth and might insulated it from the same fate as Mexico, but that time is coming to an end. Many cities in the U.S. already witness enough violence to be considered war zones. And in a sense they are--the war being the one on drugs.

I admit I don't have all the answers. All I'm saying is that for anyone truly interested in reducing the U.S.'s homicide rate, focus your attention on the drug war. Arguing to enact more red tape will have no real impact at all, as the criminally minded will just ignore it all anyway.

With regard to this story, no regulations could've prevented this accident either. There's no background check that would've predicted he'd act in such a way, and I still don't understand how he did what he did. I mean, it's common sense. "Hello! Who's there?" But no, the man acted like a fool, and now in consequence must bury his own son, as well as live with the guilt of it for the rest of his life.

I agree also

No degree of regulation can eliminate "stupid"

all these gun related discussions seem to degenerate to the same polar arguments,

The situation of politics was described to me as such,

I have a sick sense of humor as some of you are already know, and I found it funny, I hope you all do also and that I dont offend anyone

Politics are like a stripper. A stripper dances from one leg to the Other, but makes her living in-between

the same is true for most Americans, . Most people don't want to take your guns away, and most gun owners welcome common seance regulation

But we all love to Dance

[arjunadawn]

Actually, its pretty clear that current policy initiatives do not support your point. There has long been cries to address mental health, really address it, not use it as a pretext to place more people with only fiduciary issues on a ban list. Big Phama pushing psychotropics are a major issue and frequently a factor in mass gun violence, but never addresses; in fact, they are increasingly immunized themselves- legally. These points are hardly addressed except as a stalking horse for more gun control. Without question the push for gun control has placed more guns in circulation than any other time in history. On this observation alone would can surmise something is wrong with the radical approach to injure the 2nd Amendment.

Just because we are not addressing one aspect of the problem, does not mean we should not adress an other.

I agree a holistic approach is more desirable.

I can tell you are being diplomatic. Thank you. I do not believe further gun control is warranted in the manner of Obama et al. Some holism:

-Automatic weapons should be licensed, as is. There is no need to change this. These are not the problem. Other restrictions on military grade weapons already exist and are not the problem either. However, the US government IS the largest exporter of arms on the planet! This should change.

-I believe any weapon looking like an automatic is fine, it still shoots like hunting rifle. Weapons with a tactical appearance are not tactical weapons, its cosmetic.

No restrictions should exist on magazines. This is utterly ridiculous. 3,5 round magazines are a joke and would not do anything at all. I can change a magazine in 1-2 seconds! From a firing position, reaching into a vest carrier, inserting, and sending the bolt forward! Magazine restrictions are only incremental injury to the 2nd Amendment. Increasingly, citizens are attacked by greater than 3-5 assailants.

-No American should be on a banned list because of placement on a no fly or watch list. Have a problem, take it to court and have a judge rule on disenfranchising any citizen!

-Mental health mechanisms need to be addressed in a way that does not arbitrarily allow the entire DSM-V act as a caveat to injure someone's Bill of Rights.

If patient's risk being added to a state or federal database for seeking mental health counseling there is no end to the slippery slope. It will necessarily include PTSD (already), fiduciary patients (already), grieving patients, abused patients, veterans (already), Social Security (already) and patients diagnosed with the newly created, utterly subjective Stalinist/Maoist label of Oppositional Defiant Disorder.

-I remain unclear about gun show background checks. It seems to me if a person requires a background check to buy a gun in a store he should require one at a flea market. Because the market is a common area for regular Joes to meet and gather and barter it sounds like a weak link to me.

-The Federal government should have people indicted, tried, and imprisoned for Fast and Furious to send a message the gun abuse under any color will not be tolerated.

-Inner cities should employ new technology that triangulates "shots" and people caught and imprisoned. Even a portion of the resources spent enacting new laws would be better served enforcing existing laws.

-Every single American should be permitted to have a weapon in their home unless decried by a court.

-The US government should stop trampling on the State's authority via its Gun Free School Zones Act. This is so self evident. Anyone who has ever taught self defense or crime prevention knows there are primarily two types of crime: opportunity and planned. Crimes of opportunity are difficult to prepare for but both require a key ingredient- do not be a Soft Target. Or, if soft, do not appear so. A Gun Free Zone is a Soft Target.

- The Federal Government should be forced by law to project its ammunition needs out to 10-20 years and prorate the contracting/purchasing as to never again allow the 2nd Amendment to have an 'end run' by drying up the market by massively dispersing billions of rounds of ammo purchases across federal agencies to deplete the citizen market. Ammo purchase by the government, outside of projected purchases, must require additional purchases over this time to be second tier/as available, rather than preferential market seizing by the Fed.

-There should be no requirement to present identification to buy ammunition. A vote is far more dangerous and the left protests this requirement. The government should have no knowledge who shoots, how often, and where they access their ammunition.

-All laws should be equally binding and law enforcement should not be excluded from laws- spousal abuse, mental health counseling, etc. The government should permit no circumstance where a confrontational "us/them" appearance is permitted to exist.

Obama should be censored for insulting America; apology is not enough. People who "cling to guns" (he elsewhere ID'd these people as PA and middle America) are not the problem. The primary problem with guns are from those vast populations in the cities for which Obama offers no plan to disarm, only those "clinging to guns, god, and religion."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/13/barackobama.uselections2008

[NeverSure]

Yes, the anti's reaction to guns is based on emotions and by the length of this thread, out of control emotions.

Gun homicides in the US have fallen by 50% in the past 20 years, but to read this thread one would think they were increasing.

"The new study found U.S. firearm homicides peaked in 1993 at 7.0 deaths per 100,000 people. But by 2010, the rate was 49% lower, and firearm-related violence -- assaults, robberies, sex crimes -- was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993, the study found.

Those drops parallel an overall decline in violent non-fatal crime, with or without a gun, the study said." (Quoting the very liberal, anti-gun) CNN

If I ask the average anti, I will almost be sure to be told that gun crime is on the increase.

75% lower for all firearm related violence and yet I read the know-nothings in this OCD thread.

The US is huge with 330 million people and 300 million guns. The headline of this thread hardly equals an epidemic, as sad as it is.

The Homicide rate in the US is often quoted but don't forget, a suicide is a homicide as is an accident. The dishonest reporters don't single out murders.

I watch videos while millions of Muslims stream into countries and ask myself how people are going to protect themselves. The answer is that they can't and they won't. I have no intention of ever becoming defenseless.

Cheers.

Edited January 17, 2016 by NeverSure

[chuckd]

@ Sirineou:

" most gun owners welcome common seance regulation"

Is the word preceding "regulation" a typo or is it subliminal?

Edited January 17, 2016 by chuckd

[sirineou]

@ Sirineou:

" most gun owners welcome common seance regulation"

Is the word preceding "regulation" a typo or is it subliminal?

t's a typo

but I am glad all you could find wrong to comment on my post, was a typo

A reply so great it deserves repeating

Edited January 17, 2016 by sirineou

[NeverSure]

^^^ Yeah, I was going to tell you that you'd already said that once, LOL.

[copa8]

T.I.A.

[Rhys]

Tragic... pray for the family and forgive that father.. people kill people ...

[MiKT]

Yes, the anti's reaction to guns is based on emotions and by the length of this thread, out of control emotions.

Gun homicides in the US have fallen by 50% in the past 20 years, but to read this thread one would think they were increasing.

"The new study found U.S. firearm homicides peaked in 1993 at 7.0 deaths per 100,000 people. But by 2010, the rate was 49% lower, and firearm-related violence -- assaults, robberies, sex crimes -- was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993, the study found.

Those drops parallel an overall decline in violent non-fatal crime, with or without a gun, the study said." (Quoting the very liberal, anti-gun) CNN

If I ask the average anti, I will almost be sure to be told that gun crime is on the increase.

75% lower for all firearm related violence and yet I read the know-nothings in this OCD thread.

The US is huge with 330 million people and 300 million guns. The headline of this thread hardly equals an epidemic, as sad as it is.

The Homicide rate in the US is often quoted but don't forget, a suicide is a homicide as is an accident. The dishonest reporters don't single out murders.

I watch videos while millions of Muslims stream into countries and ask myself how people are going to protect themselves. The answer is that they can't and they won't. I have no intention of ever becoming defenseless.

Cheers.

I think that sums it up nicely. You watch video's whilst millions of Muslims stream into the US.

From what we can glean from posts here that seems to be so typical. No idea of what happens in the real world but John Wayne and Wyat Erp will soon sort out all those naughty muslims for you; and if they don't you will be insantly ready to shoot through the door if someone in a long white shirt pops round to borrow a cup of sugar.

You seem to have no idea of TRYING, or at least "aiming" to live in a peacfull society.

Do you really still have nightmares that those "millions of muslims" are going to be rampaging through your neighborhood and you are going to be out there, legs splayed, facing them all down with your trusty little pistol.

Do you not realise that when people from countries with at least a semblance of gun control read stuff like that, they seriously think that the author should not be classed as mentally fit to own a gun?

Sensible gun control is what is required; and sensible gun control is what is being advocated by those you lable "the anti-gun lobby". The are not suggesting gun abolition, but all they get is the "I must have a gun because I watch videos of muslims" class of arguments.

Nb sensible gun control includes ensuring that the police are sufficiently well trained not to need to shoot 16 shots into an unarmed person; and that every licensed gun owner has passed a test to prove that they are competent to own a gun and have some idea how to use it ( like a driving test).

The really sad thing is that there are many, many, many well trained and responsible gun owners in the US, plenty of whom actually do need a gun to put food on the table, but they are dragged into indiscriminately supporting a law (call it what you will) that (some claim) allows anybody to have a gun with no controls.

No countries gun controls are perfect, but the US seems to be the only " civilised country" that very sadly and shamefully lets commercial interests dictate that thousands will die needlessly and corrupts the views of ligitimate gun owners by scaremongering "the muslims are coming but THEY want to take your gun away" tactics.

[up2u2]

Absolute balderdash. To take the position that a societies right to be awash with weapons amounting to some 30,000 deaths a year including slaughtered children no less and to suggest that people who find this to be absolutely horrifying are somehow intellectually bankrupt, emotional dolts, touchy feely Liberals is the hight of Right Wing drivel.

The old Right Wing self reliance, personal responsibility, accountability, Darwinian 'survival of the fittest' tripe is wearing progressively thin as America becomes a morally failed State. A Nation of 1% 'haves' and 99% 'have nots' and the 'have nots' are fully armed and as this tragedy demonstrates when the poor and disenfranchised are pushed up against the wall they reach for a weapon with nothing more to lose.

There is absolutely no evidence that guns make a society safer. In fact the research shows just the opposite. America is one of the few modern democratic Nations that have no gun control laws and it shows. How high do the dead bodies have to be stacked before the US citizens actually take on the NRA and their supporters and create a safer less violent society. As usual at the very core of the Right Wing position is greed and totally devoid of compassion and caring. The Second Amendment? Simple, amend it.

The reason for the surge in gun sales is rational people know that after 20 children are slaughtered surely now someone with a little common sense will enact legislation to restrict weapons but unfortunately it never happens. Dead children are excellent for gun sales. For the NRA and weapons manufacturers these human tragedies are good for profits and you play along with it.

I do not state "societies" have a right to be awash with weapons, you did! Americas do have a Right (capital "R") to possess weapons. I implied there is no intellectual nor legal rationale for restricting the Natural Constitution Rights of law abiding citizens because some people have outrage- emotions. The remainder of your post confirms this point. I would agree with you that my choice of "emotional dolts" could have been worded less personally, but the rest is correct.

When a poster notes "self reliance, personal responsibility, and accountability" as something that is wearing (Really? No pun intended?) "progressively" thin, they demonstrate the validity of all I said. America was not nearly morally failed until the rise of "Progressivism," the dependent class, and the Nanny State- all fruit of the Lefist Tree. You make my point. Emotional arguments for social engineering are substantially behind the persuasion used to limit legitimate access to guns in the US.

The false analogy of economic disparity has no linkage to this issue; % of any class has zero bearing on this issue. How this is conflated escapes me.

"Greed... compassion... caring... The Second Amendment? ...amend it." this is my point. You could not have made my argument the better. I kindly thank you for reinforcing my point by admission.

When an innocent 12 year old girl is shot through the neck and bleeds to death, sorry but I do get emotional. No amount of 'Constitutional Rights' gobbledygook can pacify my outrage. I am certainly not going to apologise for taking a position based on basic humanity.

A young 12 year old girl is shot through the neck and dies and as usual the Right Wingers apply the tired old 'self reliance', 'personal responsibility' and 'accountability' drivel and yes it is wearing thin because it is the Right Wing 'cure all' to every issue. I don't know the circumstance of this family but I always approach these issues with compassion, caring and understanding. You seem to have lost these qualities amongst your draconian Right Wing ideology.

It isn't as if this is just an over reaction to an isolated 'one off' situation. This is never ending. A mother shot dead by a toddler in a Mall, I mother blows away a daughter she thought was an intruder, rivers of children's blood at Sandyhook. On and on and on.

[chuckd]

This in NOT, I emphasise NOT a comment on moderation in any shape or form.

But one of my earlier posts has been eliminated due the quality of the replies, or miscoception as to its purpose (gun safety) or both.

I simply want to pass on a little information (and again must not be misconstrued to be anything but heresay and alleged comment which is totally unatributable) to the effect that hundreds of police and army, all fully armed legally; and many of whom have virtual stacks of private weapons; are reading some of your replies with interest.

Sleep well.

"This in NOT, I emphasise NOT a comment on moderation in any shape or form."

A rose by any other name...