NationStates Jolt Archive

Father charged after boy shoots girl at day care center
Police: Father has extensive criminal record

Wednesday, January 25, 2006; Posted: 8:41 a.m. EST (13:41 GMT)



GERMANTOWN, Maryland (AP) -- A 7-year-old girl was shot in the arm at a day care center Tuesday after an 8-year-old classmate brought in one of his father's guns and it accidentally went off, authorities said.

The father was arrested for gun offenses, and court documents outlined an extensive criminal record. The boy also was charged, but authorities said that was done only so he could be helped by juvenile authorities.

The boy had the weapon in a backpack and was playing with it when it went off, said Montgomery County police spokesman Derek Baliles. (Watch police activity at the day care center -- 1:26)

The girl was taken to a Washington hospital with a wound that was not considered life-threatening.

There were six children at the For Kids We Care Inc. day care center at the time of the shooting, authorities said. Police said the boy had found the gun, a .38-caliber Taurus revolver, in a container in his father's closet.

Police charged the 56-year-old father with leaving a firearm in a location accessible by an unsupervised minor, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and possession of a firearm by a felon. (Watch as residents react to the shooting -- 1:26)

Montgomery County State's Attorney Douglas Gansler declined to give any details of the charges against the boy because of his age. The boy was to have his case reviewed by the Department of Juvenile Services, according to a police news release.

Neither youngster's name was released.

The father has an extensive criminal record dating to the 1960s, according to court documents. It includes several convictions of assault with intent to maim and gun charges. He could be sentenced to five years in prison if convicted of being a felon in possession of a handgun and three years on the delinquency of a minor charge, authorities said.

>>FULL STORY (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/24/md.child.shot.ap/index.html)



First School shootings and now this? next thing you know babys will be shooting their little siblings in their cribs.

http://ericstocklin.com/cuba/images/baby-gun.jpg

kinda scary isn't it?

another reason why iam am not going to have kids

Sigh.

Why don't people lock up their firearms?

AMERICA, FUCK YEAH.

Johnnys one decent thing was the gun ban in Australia. Guns dont make people safe

Watch out. The NS gun squad will have some choice words for this thread.

Note that this took place in Montgomery County, Maryland. Where gun control laws are very strict, especially with handguns, and trigger locks are mandatory.

The father was an ex-felon. Imagine that - he couldn't legally own a pistol.

Obviously no trigger lock.

Maryland requires that you store your weapons either trigger locked or in a gun safe, with the weapon unloaded.

You can see how well that worked out.

Safety is between your ears - not on a piece of legislation.

Safety is between your ears - not on a piece of legislation.

Which is why of course we have a criminal act, we dont really need it. Its just for fun.

Legislation defines the country.

I was right! And it was none other than...

Note that this took place in Montgomery County, Maryland. Where gun control laws are very strict, especially with handguns, and trigger locks are mandatory.

The father was an ex-felon. Imagine that - he couldn't legally own a pistol.

Obviously no trigger lock.

Maryland requires that you store your weapons either trigger locked or in a gun safe, with the weapon unloaded.

You can see how well that worked out.

Safety is between your ears - not on a piece of legislation.

How long did that take?

Safety is between your ears - not on a piece of legislation.


Sadly, there's a lot of people in this country with really nothing between their ears.

I was right! And it was none other than...

How long did that take?

Not long. It's local news for me.

I live in Fairfax County, adjacent, but in Virginia.

I used to live in Germantown, not far from where the shooting took place.

You can see how useless the various gun laws were. An ex-felon had one anyway, a kid got hold of it, and it wasn't locked.

Feel good now?

This boy was only 8... surely they won't charge him.

Charge the father for being stupid enough to have a gun in the first damn place.

This boy was only 8... surely they won't charge him.

Charge the father for being stupid enough to have a gun in the first damn place.

The father is being charged w/ several offenses.

As for the kid, take him away from the family and get him into counseling.

Sadly, there's a lot of people in this country with really nothing between their ears.
There are a lot of people in every country with "really nothing between their ears."

Umm....did anyone else notice a major problem with the way this story was written?

The boy had the weapon in a backpack and was playing with it when it went off

First of all, guns don't just go off. At the very least you have to cock the hammer back, and even then most modern guns won't actually fire unless you pull the trigger. It might seem like a small point, but the story makes it sound like the gun was badly manufactured and killed someone at random. No, someone pulled the trigger. It wasn't the gun that shot someone, it was a child who wasn't properly supervised.

I know, there will be some who say that if the gun wasn't there then no one would have been shot but...

Police charged the 56-year-old father with leaving a firearm in a location accessible by an unsupervised minor, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and possession of a firearm by a felon....

That last charge is important. If the man was a felon he could not have legally bought the firearm from a liscensed dealer. The gun was already banned for him, he was simply willing to do something criminal to obtain it. I live in a state with very strict gun laws, and in a city with a total handgun ban (which has been in effect for over two decades now) and we still have gangbangers with guns. Criminals do criminal things, laws don't stop them otherwise they wouldn't be criminals.

The father has an extensive criminal record dating to the 1960s, according to court documents. It includes several convictions of assault with intent to maim and gun charges. He could be sentenced to five years in prison if convicted of being a felon in possession of a handgun and three years on the delinquency of a minor charge, authorities said.

Tell me, what law would have prevented this? This isn't a gun problem, this is a people problem. Occasionally bad things happen because bad people are irresponsibile or uncaring. Welcome to the real world, heres your helmet.

Not long. It's local news for me.

I live in Fairfax County, adjacent, but in Virginia.

I used to live in Germantown, not far from where the shooting took place.

You can see how useless the various gun laws were. An ex-felon had one anyway, a kid got hold of it, and it wasn't locked.

Feel good now?

The biggest reason that gun laws aren't curently working is because people like yourself. Laws need the support of the public in order to be enforcable. IMO the current laws regarding firearms are too lax, as well as that stoopid ass phrase about "only criminals will have guns". Such BS, if someone really wants to hurt someone else they're going to find a way to at least try. But with guns everywhere in this country that task becomes vastly simpler.

I was right! And it was none other than...

How long did that take?
It only took that long because I refrained from posting because I realize that anti-gun fanatics always use this sort of story as an excuse to take guns away from those who actually obey the law, and always somehow fail to point out that people like this child's idiot father are disobeying existing laws.

This boy was only 8... surely they won't charge him.

Charge the father for being stupid enough to have a gun in the first damn place.

I doubt the child will face any consequences more severe than therapy/counciling- but as the father is an ex-con, his possession of the gun in the first place was a crime. I am not sure of the particulars of Maryland state law, but in some states he could be charged with the assault as well, being that his original criminal act led to the environment in which the girl was shot.

It is sad that the anti-gun lobby (yes, I'm talking to you UG) will use this incident as an excuse to make a case for stricter gun control, since the gun was not owned legally but was in unlawful possession of criminal and improperly stored.

another reason why iam am not going to have kids
Fear?

Tell me, what law would have prevented this? This isn't a gun problem, this is a people problem. Occasionally bad things happen because bad people are irresponsibile or uncaring. Welcome to the real world, heres your helmet.

This is where "three strikes" laws and similar come in handy. Assuming the article is accurate, This guy is obviously unable to interact w/ society and should be put away permanantly.

The biggest reason that gun laws aren't curently working is because people like yourself. Laws need the support of the public in order to be enforcable.

And if they don't have the support of the public what exactly does that tell you? I'd say upi can guage public support for gun laws by the number of states that allow a normal person to carry a concealed firearm.

The biggest reason that gun laws aren't curently working is because people like yourself. Laws need the support of the public in order to be enforcable. IMO the current laws regarding firearms are too lax, as well as that stoopid ass phrase about "only criminals will have guns". Such BS, if someone really wants to hurt someone else they're going to find a way to at least try. But with guns everywhere in this country that task becomes vastly simpler.
Sigh. See what I mean?

The prosecution rests, Your Honor!

Safety is between your ears - not on a piece of legislation.

C'mon DK, I know you don't like this line of thought, but you just have to admit that if there were no guns, the kid couldn't have taken it to school. I know the gun was illegal, but if gun laws were tough, guns wouldn't be so easy to come by. Much lower chance that your average ex-felon would have one. Much, much lower chance that your average kid of an ex-felon would find one.

No guns=no shootings.

Just look at that for a second. Here in Australia the laws are tough, real tough. So tough, in fact, that not only have I never even seen a hand-gun that wasn't strapped to the side of a cop. So tough that I don't know anyone who has ever used a hand-gun. They are just not around, no one has them. (I have seen plenty of rifles on various rural properties, but never in any urban area).

No, not even the average criminal totes a gun, because they aren't easy to come by. If there isn't a flow of guns, where do the criminals get them?

So, at any stage in my childhood, should I have had the inspiration to bring a gun to school I simply would not have been able to find one. No one could. Again for your consideration:

No guns= No shootings

What you're suggesting is that we relly on what is "In between the ears" of the general public. What I'm suggesting is what isn't in their hand. I am sick to death of this NeoCon BS! I know you love your gun, I know it makes you feel 3metres tall with balls of steel. Sometimes you have to sacrifice your security blanket for the greater good of everyone (yourself included).

Again:

If no one has any guns, who is going to get shot?

The biggest reason that gun laws aren't curently working is because people like yourself. Laws need the support of the public in order to be enforcable. IMO the current laws regarding firearms are too lax, as well as that stoopid ass phrase about "only criminals will have guns". Such BS, if someone really wants to hurt someone else they're going to find a way to at least try. But with guns everywhere in this country that task becomes vastly simpler.

And which gun laws exactly do "people like DK" oppose?

The biggest reason that gun laws aren't curently working is because people like yourself. Laws need the support of the public in order to be enforcable. IMO the current laws regarding firearms are too lax, as well as that stoopid ass phrase about "only criminals will have guns". Such BS, if someone really wants to hurt someone else they're going to find a way to at least try. But with guns everywhere in this country that task becomes vastly simpler.
I've never owned a legal gun in my life. That doesn't mean I haven't owned guns. Go ahead, ban 'em. I know for a fact that I'll still be armed. Unfortunately for many people so will others who know how to break the law.

Watch out. The NS gun squad will have some choice words for this thread.

Stupid libral!!1! Guns are your freinds and make you safe!!! Teh only solution is to gve all children guns at birth and then other firearms bearing infants won't dare attack them!!! The idea that we should take away our children's guns and leave them defenseless is MAD!!! If you take away our children's guns only bullies will have guns!!! :mad:

C'mon DK, I know you don't like this line of thought, but you just have to admit that if there were no guns, the kid couldn't have taken it to school. I know the gun was illegal, but if gun laws were tough, guns wouldn't be so easy to come by. Much lower chance that your average ex-felon would have one. Much, much lower chance that your average kid of an ex-felon would find one.

No guns=no shootings.

Just look at that for a second. Here in Australia the laws are tough, real tough. So tough, in fact, that not only have I never even seen a hand-gun that wasn't strapped to the side of a cop. So tough that I don't know anyone who has ever used a hand-gun. They are just not around, no one has them. (I have seen plenty of rifles on various rural properties, but never in any urban area).

No, not even the average criminal totes a gun, because they aren't easy to come by. If there isn't a flow of guns, where do the criminals get them?

So, at any stage in my childhood, should I have had the inspiration to bring a gun to school I simply would not have been able to find one. No one could. Again for your consideration:

No guns= No shootings

What you're suggesting is that we relly on what is "In between the ears" of the general public. What I'm suggesting is what isn't in their hand. I am sick to death of this NeoCon BS! I know you love your gun, I know it makes you feel 3metres tall with balls of steel. Sometimes you have to sacrifice your security blanket for the greater good of everyone (yourself included).

Again:

If no one has any guns, who is going to get shot?
And just how, pray tell, are you going to accomplish this wonderment?

This is where "three strikes" laws and similar come in handy. Assuming the article is accurate, This guy is obviously unable to interact w/ society and should be put away permanantly.


*Sigh* For three strikes laws to work you'd need to retool the entire justice system. I am uncomfortable with the concept when drug offenses and other consentual crimes would almost certainly be added to what counts as a "strike."

Stupid libral!!1! Guns are your freinds and make you safe!!! Teh only solution is to gve all children guns at birth and then other firearms bearing infants won't dare attack them!!! The idea that we should take away our children's guns and leave them defenseless is MAD!!! If you take away our children's guns only bullies will have guns!!! :mad:

Shut up. You're not helping.

I hate these "ghosts". Does anybody know why they have started appearing since the last update?

C'mon DK, I know you don't like this line of thought, but you just have to admit that if there were no guns, the kid couldn't have taken it to school. I know the gun was illegal, but if gun laws were tough, guns wouldn't be so easy to come by. Much lower chance that your average ex-felon would have one. Much, much lower chance that your average kid of an ex-felon would find one.

No guns=no shootings.

Just look at that for a second. Here in Australia the laws are tough, real tough. So tough, in fact, that not only have I never even seen a hand-gun that wasn't strapped to the side of a cop. So tough that I don't know anyone who has ever used a hand-gun. They are just not around, no one has them. (I have seen plenty of rifles on various rural properties, but never in any urban area).

No, not even the average criminal totes a gun, because they aren't easy to come by. If there isn't a flow of guns, where do the criminals get them?

So, at any stage in my childhood, should I have had the inspiration to bring a gun to school I simply would not have been able to find one. No one could. Again for your consideration:

No guns= No shootings

What you're suggesting is that we relly on what is "In between the ears" of the general public. What I'm suggesting is what isn't in their hand. I am sick to death of this NeoCon BS! I know you love your gun, I know it makes you feel 3metres tall with balls of steel. Sometimes you have to sacrifice your security blanket for the greater good of everyone (yourself included).

Again:

If no one has any guns, who is going to get shot?


And so Australia has gotten rid of all guns? Has crime decreased? The UK banned guns. Did shooting decrease?

How do you intend to "get rid of all guns"?

The entire object is "crime control". Crime levels in the US have halved over the past 15 years due to it. "Gun Control" did nothing. In fact, there are more legally owned firearms now than there were 15 years ago.

And which gun laws exactly do "people like DK" oppose?

From what I've seen, just about any.

If no one has any guns, who is going to get shot?


I agree. The problem with that is that it is an pipedream in the US. Australia is a sparsely populated island that never had a major firearms industry. The US has a history of gun ownership, there are literally hundreds of millions in circulation here. We have had factories for 150 years that have been pumping them out. Same story down south in Mexico. Banning guns tomarrow would stop new guns from being made or imported, but there are already so many out there that the idea of a ban really does become a "then only criminals will have guns" situation.

If you take away our children's guns only bullies will have guns!!! :mad:
Pity you don't use the sarcastic smiley.

Actually, that's not too far from the truth. Take away our children's guns and only the bullies will have guns when they both grow up.

*Sigh* For three strikes laws to work you'd need to retool the entire justice system. I am uncomfortable with the concept when drug offenses and other consentual crimes would almost certainly be added to what counts as a "strike."

Agreed. They're not perfect. I'm going more for the intention behind them than how the modern ones have actually turned out.

It only took that long because I refrained from posting because I realize that anti-gun fanatics always use this sort of story as an excuse to take guns away from those who actually obey the law, and always somehow fail to point out that people like this child's idiot father are disobeying existing laws.

Ok Eutrusca, I'm going to present a novel idea to you here. What if nobody has any guns?

That way nobody can break the law using a firearm. I understand there are "law abiding", but what do they need guns for self defence if the other guy doesn't have one?

Finally, are you actually serious with "anti-guns fanatics"?! I've never heard of that before. "Gun fanatics" I have heard, as the people in question are 'crazy' about their guns. I can't say I have ever heard of someone being 'crazy' about their lack of a gun. Perhaps 'pacifists' or 'rationalists' would be a better word.

From what I've seen, just about any.

Really? so you're saying that DK and "people like him" oppose stricter sentencing for criminals that use firearms?

You're saying that they opposed NICS?

Maybe it's just the laws that have no effect on criminals and only effect those who legally own firearms that "they" oppose.

Agreed. They're not perfect. I'm going more for the intention behind them than how the modern ones have actually turned out.

The problem is that our modern penal system doesn't even bother to try to rehabilitate, we have laws that give someone selling pot more time than an armed rapist (which means someone needs to be parolled to make room), and in the end all we end up doing is having a revolving door. And...too keep that on topic...It doesn't help that not enough criminals get shot by their victims!

For some reason this whole thread reminds me of a morbid version of the boxing argument in the barber shop from the (ripped off) movie "Coming to America"...

Ok Eutrusca, I'm going to present a novel idea to you here. What if nobody has any guns?

That way nobody can break the law using a firearm. I understand there are "law abiding", but what do they need guns for self defence if the other guy doesn't have one?

Finally, are you actually serious with "anti-guns fanatics"?! I've never heard of that before. "Gun fanatics" I have heard, as the people in question are 'crazy' about their guns. I can't say I have ever heard of someone being 'crazy' about their lack of a gun. Perhaps 'pacifists' or 'rationalists' would be a better word.

Nobody could legally own a firearm is all that it is. Do you really think criminals wouldn't get them made illegally?

They would also then have little reason not to break into any home they felt like and overpower the residents as they would have less of a chance of defending themselves.

Ok Eutrusca, I'm going to present a novel idea to you here. What if nobody has any guns?

That way nobody can break the law using a firearm. I understand there are "law abiding", but what do they need guns for self defence if the other guy doesn't have one?

Finally, are you actually serious with "anti-guns fanatics"?! I've never heard of that before. "Gun fanatics" I have heard, as the people in question are 'crazy' about their guns. I can't say I have ever heard of someone being 'crazy' about their lack of a gun. Perhaps 'pacifists' or 'rationalists' would be a better word.

Query: How do you propose to make sure that no one has guns? Travel back in time and stop them from being invented? And how would you stop them from being invented?

If it were possible for guns to magically and completely disappear from the earth entirely, I'd be all for it. But it's not going to happen. What you're describing is an idealistic pipedream.

The problem is that our modern penal system doesn't even bother to try to rehabilitate, we have laws that give someone selling pot more time than an armed rapist (which means someone needs to be parolled to make room), and in the end all we end up doing is having a revolving door. And...too keep that on topic...It doesn't help that not enough criminals get shot by their victims!

Once again, I agree w/ you.

Shut up. You're not helping.

I hate these "ghosts". Does anybody know why they have started appearing since the last update?

Friend, I was being sarcastic as I tried to show through poor spelling, l33t sp34k and plain stupidity; I have no intention of helping you or your trigger happy cause.

Friend, I was being sarcastic as I tried to show through poor spelling, l33t sp34k and plain stupidity; I have no intention of helping you or your trigger happy cause.

Good, because we've all seen how well "gun control" has worked in the UK to deter criminals.

And so Australia has gotten rid of all guns? Has crime decreased? The UK banned guns. Did shooting decrease?

How do you intend to "get rid of all guns"?

The entire object is "crime control". Crime levels in the US have halved over the past 15 years due to it. "Gun Control" did nothing. In fact, there are more legally owned firearms now than there were 15 years ago.

No. The entire object is not crime control. The issue at hand is gun control.

Crime has surprisingly little to do with guns, people will break the law whether or not they have a gun. People don't commit crimes based on whether or not they have a gun. However, you will probably find that criminals with guns are more lethal than those without.

What does decrease when you place such restrictions is the amount of people who are (beleive it or not) shot. Remember, the issue here is a child shooting another child at pre-school with a gun he found in his dad's closet. While crime is involved, the focus here is "how did the kid get a gun?"

Query: How do you propose to make sure that no one has guns? Travel back in time and stop them from being invented? And how would you stop them from being invented?

If it were possible for guns to magically and completely disappear from the earth entirely, I'd be all for it. But it's not going to happen. What you're describing is an idealistic pipedream.
What he said. :)

Pity you don't use the sarcastic smiley.

Actually, that's not too far from the truth. Take away our children's guns and only the bullies will have guns when they both grow up.

I could have used the sarcastic smilie but that would have been too easy.:)

Anyway, a better plan would be to take the weapons away from the children and the bullies so only the teacher has one. [/painfully overextended metaphor]

Nobody could legally own a firearm is all that it is. Do you really think criminals wouldn't get them made illegally?

They would also then have little reason not to break into any home they felt like and overpower the residents as they would have less of a chance of defending themselves.

Well, the problem here is that you're ignoring one glaring fact. One that's already innustrated currently with other gun related products, namely silencers and/or supressors. because they are more strictly controlled than any gun they are both amazingly difficult to obtain, and extremely expensive. Most of the people who would have an interest in owning one simply can't get their hands on one due to those factors.

Ok Eutrusca, I'm going to present a novel idea to you here. What if nobody has any guns?

As Eut already said, that isn't exactly a possibility in the U.S. Even were you to ban the production and importation of firearms, and make it illegal to have one in your possession, you still have plenty already here for the criminals to choose from.

Number of firearms in the US as of 1995: 223 Million
(Source: US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 7/95, from ATF data)

All you will do is take them away from law-abiding citizens.

The problem is that our modern penal system doesn't even bother to try to rehabilitate, we have laws that give someone selling pot more time than an armed rapist (which means someone needs to be parolled to make room), and in the end all we end up doing is having a revolving door. And...too keep that on topic...It doesn't help that not enough criminals get shot by their victims!

Or, instead of rehabilitation, we could make it more punishing. So punishing that no one wants to do it again. How many people would drive drunk if everytime they did it, they got to pay a $250,000US fine and fifteen lashings? In public. Or if rapists were "disarmed" with rusty pruning shears?

We don't need prisons. We need gallows.

As Eut already said, that isn't exactly a possibility in the U.S. Even were you to ban the production and importation of firearms, and make it illegal to have one in your possession, you still have plenty already here for the criminals to choose from.

Number of firearms in the US as of 1995: 223 Million
(Source: US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 7/95, from ATF data)

All you will do is take them away from law-abiding citizens.

That's old data from 1995. It's over 300 million guns now.

Oddly, firearm violence has plummeted 65 percent over the same period, and firearm murders dropped by 53 percent over that period.

Interesting.

Well, the problem here is that you're ignoring one glaring fact. One that's already innustrated currently with other gun related products, namely silencers and/or supressors. because they are more strictly controlled than any gun they are both amazingly difficult to obtain, and extremely expensive. Most of the people who would have an interest in owning one simply can't get their hands on one due to those factors.

Which is why a lot of people who want one make their own.

And just how, pray tell, are you going to accomplish this wonderment?

It's quite simple. You make them illegal to anyone who doesn't have a good reason to own them. Have strict and thorough licencing regulations. That way, all of the professional and hobby shooters/hunters still get to have limited access to appropriate firearms. Gun sales go right down, and virtually all guns are very easily tracable. We dd it down under, and it works wonders!

Remember, the issue here is a child shooting another child at pre-school with a gun he found in his dad's closet. While crime is involved, the focus here is "how did the kid get a gun?"

And the answer is the child got the gun from a father who got the gun illegally. There are more than a hundred million legal guns in circulation in the US alone and god knows how many illegal ones. You cannot effectively restrict those kinds of numbers. It is like bailing out the ocean with a teaspoon. The guns will still be there and criminals will still purchase them. If anything, bans and the like increase the likelyhood of criminals getting guns as owners who are now faced with owning illegal weapons sell them off before they can be charged and their weapons confiscated.

Which is why a lot of people who want one make their own.

Why am I suddenly reminded of Star Trek 5, and the "planet of intergalactic peace"?

It's quite simple. You make them illegal to anyone who doesn't have a good reason to own them. Have strict and thorough licencing regulations. That way, all of the professional and hobby shooters/hunters still get to have limited access to appropriate firearms. Gun sales go right down, and virtually all guns are very easily tracable. We dd it down under, and it works wonders!

Making something illegal is about as effective at making it go away as waving an 18 inch strip of birch and saying, "Presto-disappearo!"

We found that out the hard way with alcohol. And we continue to be reminded of it with the "war on drugs" and despite the fact that sawed-off shotguns and fully automatic weapons are illegal.

All you will do is take them away from law-abiding citizens.

*laughs* They'd try. Think of people you know who own guns, theres always one who has the "pry it from my fingers" stance. Even I would do my best to get the hell out if the government was confiscating them door-to-door. The United States just doesn't have the same "freedom" value if I can't shoot what I please, whenever I want. ( before someone says it, I'm refering to the multitude of different targets and animals we have. )

It's quite simple. You make them illegal to anyone who doesn't have a good reason to own them. Have strict and thorough licencing regulations. That way, all of the professional and hobby shooters/hunters still get to have limited access to appropriate firearms. Gun sales go right down, and virtually all guns are very easily tracable. We dd it down under, and it works wonders!

And what do you do with the over 300 million or so firearms already in circulation?

Well, the problem here is that you're ignoring one glaring fact. One that's already innustrated currently with other gun related products, namely silencers and/or supressors. because they are more strictly controlled than any gun they are both amazingly difficult to obtain, and extremely expensive. Most of the people who would have an interest in owning one simply can't get their hands on one due to those factors.

You're kidding, right? If you live in a class III state all you have to do is get the right papers (which is no problem if you have a clean record) and pony up 300 bucks and its yours. If you don't live in a class III state, well, then you have to know someone who sells illegal guns and be ready to pay closer to $650.

Which is why a lot of people who want one make their own.

And you can make a "gun" out of a piece of lead pipe and an hammer, though I pity the fool who tries to use it. The idea is that a ban drives up the risk, which decreases availability, and increases the price. Petty thugs would have less and less, and the bigger fish would become more scarce as law enforcement tracked them down.

Ok Eutrusca, I'm going to present a novel idea to you here. What if nobody has any guns?

And so, I have to post it again. Guns are Easy to Build - Machineguns even easier. (link) (http://spaces.msn.com/members/Syniks/PersonalSpace.aspx?_c11_PhotoAlbum_spaHandler=TWljcm9zb2Z0LlNwYWNlcy5XZWIuUGFydHMuUGhvdG9BbGJ1bS5GdW xsTW9kZUNvbnRyb2xsZXI%24&_c11_PhotoAlbum_spaFolderID=cns!1pAe7PHCtVOODaOYc9G_8dBg!174&_c=PhotoAlbum)

Guns exist. They are easy to make. People will have guns. If the guns are illegal, then only Criminals will have guns... and people will still get shot. Your idea is not novel, it is a physical impossibility.

That way nobody can break the law using a firearm. I understand there are "law abiding", but what do they need guns for self defence if the other guy doesn't have one? Because he is 250lbs and weilding a crowbar?
Finally, are you actually serious with "anti-guns fanatics"?! I've never heard of that before. "Gun fanatics" I have heard, as the people in question are 'crazy' about their guns. I can't say I have ever heard of someone being 'crazy' about their lack of a gun. Perhaps 'pacifists' or 'rationalists' would be a better word.What is rational about wanting somthing that is physically impossible?

[note for the humor impared - the following is a JOKE and is NOT what Pro (gun) Choice people believe. :headbang: ]

As for the Felonious Moron, he forgot the Felon's 10 rules of Gun Safety, number 9 in particular: ;)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/imaogun600.jpg :p

Or, instead of rehabilitation, we could make it more punishing. So punishing that no one wants to do it again. How many people would drive drunk if everytime they did it, they got to pay a $250,000US fine and fifteen lashings? In public. Or if rapists were "disarmed" with rusty pruning shears?

We don't need prisons. We need gallows.

See, theres this pesky 5th ammendment in the way of that. Sigh...torture is a tool of tyrants.

It's quite simple. You make them illegal to anyone who doesn't have a good reason to own them. Have strict and thorough licencing regulations. That way, all of the professional and hobby shooters/hunters still get to have limited access to appropriate firearms. Gun sales go right down, and virtually all guns are very easily tracable. We dd it down under, and it works wonders!

Ok, and the few hundred million already floating around without real paperwork?

I agree. The problem with that is that it is an pipedream in the US. Australia is a sparsely populated island that never had a major firearms industry. The US has a history of gun ownership, there are literally hundreds of millions in circulation here. We have had factories for 150 years that have been pumping them out. Same story down south in Mexico. Banning guns tomarrow would stop new guns from being made or imported, but there are already so many out there that the idea of a ban really does become a "then only criminals will have guns" situation.

A fair whack of my family are bushies from out west. When the gun laws came into effect there was a huge uproar in the rural areas as a lot of guns (semi autos) were banned. But the police actively asked for the guns they did know about, and paid rewards for all hand ins. It was still unpopular, but it really did soften the blow when you got given a fistfull of yellowbacks in exchange for your old weapons.

While the U.S. problem is much larger, given incentive, and time, eventually the guns would be brought under control.

And you can make a "gun" out of a piece of lead pipe and an hammer, though I pity the fool who tries to use it. The idea is that a ban drives up the risk, which decreases availability, and increases the price. Petty thugs would have less and less, and the bigger fish would become more scarce as law enforcement tracked them down.
You haven't a clue about it, so I suggest doing a bit of research (http://spaces.msn.com/members/Syniks/PersonalSpace.aspx?_c11_PhotoAlbum_spaHandler=TWljcm9zb2Z0LlNwYWNlcy5XZWIuUGFydHMuUGhvdG9BbGJ1bS5GdW xsTW9kZUNvbnRyb2xsZXI$&_c11_PhotoAlbum_spaFolderID=cns!1pAe7PHCtVOODaOYc9G_8dBg!174&_c=PhotoAlbum)before spouting. :headbang:

*laughs* They'd try. Think of people you know who own guns, theres always one who has the "pry it from my fingers" stance. Even I would do my best to get the hell out if the government was confiscating them door-to-door. The United States just doesn't have the same "freedom" value if I can't shoot what I please, whenever I want. ( before someone says it, I'm refering to the multitude of different targets and animals we have. )

Some people of "lawful good alignment" would hand in their guns, I'm sure. But not very many.
But for you, I, and the rest of us...
*applies face paint*
"They can take our Conceiled Weapons Permits, but they'll never take our FREEDOM!!"

And you can make a "gun" out of a piece of lead pipe and an hammer, though I pity the fool who tries to use it. The idea is that a ban drives up the risk, which decreases availability, and increases the price. Petty thugs would have less and less, and the bigger fish would become more scarce as law enforcement tracked them down.


Just like with heroin and cocaine, right? I mean, we started that war in the 70s and the US was drugfree by 1985, right?

Nobody could legally own a firearm is all that it is. Do you really think criminals wouldn't get them made illegally?

They would also then have little reason not to break into any home they felt like and overpower the residents as they would have less of a chance of defending themselves.

That's where the police come in mate. In the case that a criminal does have a gun, it is highly unlikely that he will run around on a crime spree because he can. I've noticed a lot of you Americans have very little faith in such a massively over funded police force...

Well, the problem here is that you're ignoring one glaring fact. One that's already innustrated currently with other gun related products, namely silencers and/or supressors. because they are more strictly controlled than any gun they are both amazingly difficult to obtain, and extremely expensive. Most of the people who would have an interest in owning one simply can't get their hands on one due to those factors.

A firearm can be machined for under $20 in materials and common tools.

A submachine gun can be made out of parts available at any hardware store for less than $150.

You think that wouldn't become a market?

You haven't a clue about it, so I suggest doing a bit of research (http://spaces.msn.com/members/Syniks/PersonalSpace.aspx?_c11_PhotoAlbum_spaHandler=TWljcm9zb2Z0LlNwYWNlcy5XZWIuUGFydHMuUGhvdG9BbGJ1bS5GdW xsTW9kZUNvbnRyb2xsZXI$&_c11_PhotoAlbum_spaFolderID=cns!1pAe7PHCtVOODaOYc9G_8dBg!174&_c=PhotoAlbum)before spouting. :headbang:

Ahh, patronization, that's the best way in the universe to get someone to agree with you... NOT

Well, the problem here is that you're ignoring one glaring fact. One that's already innustrated currently with other gun related products, namely silencers and/or supressors. because they are more strictly controlled than any gun they are both amazingly difficult to obtain, and extremely expensive. Most of the people who would have an interest in owning one simply can't get their hands on one due to those factors.Again, No. Suppressors are relatively easy to make (though to make a good one is actually a bit more difficult than making the gun itself...) People don't use them because they are essentially unnecessary and make a firearm too bulky.

And you can make a "gun" out of a piece of lead pipe and an hammer, though I pity the fool who tries to use it. The idea is that a ban drives up the risk, which decreases availability, and increases the price. Petty thugs would have less and less, and the bigger fish would become more scarce as law enforcement tracked them down.

Actually, anyone with a knowledge of light machining can manufacture virtually any firearm they desire.

I've made rifles and submachineguns before - legally of course, but I have no special knowledge other than how to use CNC milling equipment, a lathe, and a few other metalworking tools.

You can get your own CNC milling machine starting at around 20,000 dollars used, so it's not a big deal.

I bet I could make 100 submachineguns a day.

See, theres this pesky 5th ammendment in the way of that. Sigh...torture is a tool of tyrants.

I think you meant the Eighth.

Except the Eighth Amendment, like much of the rest of the Constitution, is subject to interpretation.

And much of the reason for the "revolving door" is that punishments which are un-cruel and usual, won't lead to any modification of behavior.

And tyrants aren't nessesarily evil. They're just undemocratic. :p

A fair whack of my family are bushies from out west. When the gun laws came into effect there was a huge uproar in the rural areas as a lot of guns (semi autos) were banned. But the police actively asked for the guns they did know about, and paid rewards for all hand ins. It was still unpopular, but it really did soften the blow when you got given a fistfull of yellowbacks in exchange for your old weapons.

While the U.S. problem is much larger, given incentive, and time, eventually the guns would be brought under control.

See, you already had an active registration scheme, we don't. Only a handful of jurisdictions require registration and most people ignore it. As for buybacks, I find it difficult to believe that the government is going to have the cash on hand to buy back my weapons at market value, much less the weapons of someone with a large collection. Further, what of the question of heirlooms? I have one weapon that is literally a piece of world history, that was dragged back from WWII by a member of my family. How much is that worth in a buyback program?

Query: How do you propose to make sure that no one has guns? Travel back in time and stop them from being invented? And how would you stop them from being invented?

If it were possible for guns to magically and completely disappear from the earth entirely, I'd be all for it. But it's not going to happen. What you're describing is an idealistic pipedream.

If you can manage to climb down off that high horse and have a look elswhere in the world that isn't a member of the Union you may find that it does work, and it works well.

You don't have to eliminate all guns, just most of them. Criminals still have guns here in Aus, but not many do.

Ahh, patronization, that's the best way in the universe to get someone to agree with you... NOT
Did you do the research - especially since I gave you a link?

Have you made firearms?

If the answer is NO, then given your statement about pipes I am most certainly justified in being patronizing because you are trying to sound competent and informed when you are not.

Just like with heroin and cocaine, right? I mean, we started that war in the 70s and the US was drugfree by 1985, right?

We're not talking about drugs, we're talking about guns (though to some here it would seem that there is something of a gun addiction...). To compare the two is apples and oranges.

That's where the police come in mate. In the case that a criminal does have a gun, it is highly unlikely that he will run around on a crime spree because he can. I've noticed a lot of you Americans have very little faith in such a massively over funded police force...

Because we recognize that the cops can't be everywhere at the same time.

Some people of "lawful good alignment" would hand in their guns, I'm sure. But not very many.
But for you, I, and the rest of us...
*applies face paint*
"They can take our Conceiled Weapons Permits, but they'll never take our FREEDOM!!"


...holy crap, I rolled a 20! I so totally criticaled on that city counselman!

Good, because we've all seen how well "gun control" has worked in the UK to deter criminals.

US murder rate in 2004: 5.5 per 100,000 source (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html)

UK murder rate in 2003/4: 1.42 per 100,000 source (http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page40.asp)

Yup, seems to be working.

That's where the police come in mate. In the case that a criminal does have a gun, it is highly unlikely that he will run around on a crime spree because he can. I've noticed a lot of you Americans have very little faith in such a massively over funded police force...

Well since our courts have rules on numerous occasions that the police have no obligation to protect the individual even if there is a law saying they do, the onus is on the individual to protect themselves.

I think you meant the Eighth.


Holy crap...I appologize everyone. Cold medicine and the contitution do not mix...

*Goes and sits in the corner with his nose to the wall*

And what do you do with the over 300 million or so firearms already in circulation?

The ones that you can't collect legally, you treat as any other contraband. Regular stings and raids are required over a long period of time.

US murder rate in 2004: 5.5 per 100,000 source (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html)

UK murder rate in 2003/4: 1.42 per 100,000 source (http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page40.asp)

Yup, seems to be working.
(Sigh) and how did it compare before the laws went into effect?

Different countries, different rules, different social paradigms. In no way comparable, gun laws or no gun laws.

We're not talking about drugs, we're talking about guns (though to some here it would seem that there is something of a gun addiction...). To compare the two is apples and oranges.


No, to compare the two is to compare two things with a high demand and the likelyhood of prohibition working. If there is a demand for something, someone will fill it. Going after "big fish" just makes a job opening for the new boss.

US murder rate in 2004: 5.5 per 100,000 source (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html)

UK murder rate in 2003/4: 1.42 per 100,000 source (http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page40.asp)

Yup, seems to be working.

And what were the rates BEFORE the "gun control"?

Capital gun crime rises by 50 per cent
Weapons are now fashion accessories, warns Yard
By Sophie Goodchild, Chief Reporter
Published: 22 January 2006

Record levels of gun crime are being blamed on the fact that more people than ever are carrying firearms as fashion accessories.

Figures published this week by the Home Office are expected to show that offences involving guns have soared by as much as 50 per cent in some parts of the country.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article340224.ece

While the US's is dropping.

Try again.

Holy crap...I appologize everyone. Cold medicine and the contitution do not mix...

*Goes and sits in the corner with his nose to the wall*

Sorry...?

...holy crap, I rolled a 20! I so totally criticaled on that city counselman!
Yeah, but he made his Save and got off a 4d20 Swat Team.

Sorry, You lose.

No, to compare the two is to compare two things with a high demand and the likelyhood of prohibition working. If there is a demand for something, someone will fill it. Going after "big fish" just makes a job opening for the new boss.
And yet, no one has refuted my assertion that guns are easy to make. I wonder why? :rolleyes:

See, you already had an active registration scheme, we don't. Only a handful of jurisdictions require registration and most people ignore it. As for buybacks, I find it difficult to believe that the government is going to have the cash on hand to buy back my weapons at market value, much less the weapons of someone with a large collection. Further, what of the question of heirlooms? I have one weapon that is literally a piece of world history, that was dragged back from WWII by a member of my family. How much is that worth in a buyback program?

Yeah, the heirlooms thing sucks, my grandad was pretty cut up about handing in and old shotgun that had been in the family for a while, in fact he still is. (He definitely sings a different tune to me on this issue). You gotta do what you gotta do.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/nonvictim.jpg

US murder rate in 2004: 5.5 per 100,000 source (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html)

UK murder rate in 2003/4: 1.42 per 100,000 source (http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page40.asp)

Yup, seems to be working.


Did you notice a trend starting in the late 90s, like, maybe from 1997? Honestly, did you look at your own source? BTW, heres what the BBC has to say:
A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.

The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.

The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997 as a result of the Dunblane massacre, when Thomas Hamilton opened fire at a primary school leaving 16 children and their teacher dead.

The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm

The ones that you can't collect legally, you treat as any other contraband. Regular stings and raids are required over a long period of time.
Welcome to the Police State. Not that the Liberals would complain like they do about "Domestic Spying"... :rolleyes:

The ones that you can't collect legally, you treat as any other contraband. Regular stings and raids are required over a long period of time.

Yeah, that has worked well for the drug problem...

Yeah, the heirlooms thing sucks, my grandad was pretty cut up about handing in and old shotgun that had been in the family for a while, in fact he still is. (He definitely sings a different tune to me on this issue). You gotta do what you gotta do.
And exactly how was grandad's shotgun a danger to society? Was he a criminal, or did the creation of a stupid law threaten to make him one.

That old piece of metal was threatening no one, yet the State comes and threatens an old man because he simply possess it. And you applaud. How noble. :rolleyes:

We're not talking about drugs, we're talking about guns (though to some here it would seem that there is something of a gun addiction...). To compare the two is apples and oranges.

No, it's more like comparing red apples and green apples. Prohibition didn't work, the "War on Drugs" isn't working, what makes you think a "War on Guns" would be any different?

If you can manage to climb down off that high horse and have a look elswhere in the world that isn't a member of the Union you may find that it does work, and it works well.

You don't have to eliminate all guns, just most of them. Criminals still have guns here in Aus, but not many do.

Not many criminals have guns in the US, either.

Keep in mind our culture is not your culture. What works for you may not (and probably will not) work for us. Perhaps you've mistaken my high horse for your own.

It's not particularly difficult to ban guns in a culture where few people have ever owned the things (like Japan), but it's much more difficult to do so some place where they are not only deeply rooted in our national heritage, but are common tools.

And what happens once you get rid of guns? Are baseball bats next? If I recall properly, most murders in the US are committed with weapons other than guns. I also recall reading that 4/5 criminals (ie: they're in jail) would not have committed their crime if they thought the victim was armed.

Let's do some math -

Are guns dangerous? Yes.
Should felons have guns? No.
Should guns be kept out of reach of children? Yes.
Do laws against ANY weapon keep some jerk who wants to from hurting people ? Hell No.
Do cars and other automobiles kill/maim WAY more people every year? Yes.

The matter of fact here is that the problem is with the humans involved, not the tools (weapon = killing tool). Outlawing the weapon is passing the buck and ducking TAKING THE RESPONSIBILITY. While there are flaws in our gun laws AND *I* will be the most strident about that item (I HATE guns), not recognizing that it is the people whos actions are in question, rather than the presence of the object, is a failure to address the root of the problem.

We let any mook who can pass some very forgiving tests (and no re-tests) drive a grenade on wheels, but we get **ssy about guns. I say we solve the CAR PROBLEM first. We need stiffer CAR laws.

Friends lost to guns = 0
Friends lost to cars = 4

And if we persue the problem to its logical conclusion we'd ban guns, bows, spears, sharp sticks, rocks, random objects, and ultimately we'd all end up living in a vacuum.

Blaming the object solves nothing. Hold the people responsible. Yelling at the chair makes me no less the goof who stubbed his toe on it. :headbang:

DaGuye

Yeah, the heirlooms thing sucks, my grandad was pretty cut up about handing in and old shotgun that had been in the family for a while, in fact he still is. (He definitely sings a different tune to me on this issue). You gotta do what you gotta do.

Well, what I gotta do is fight the confiscation of my property at all costs, especially when that confiscation means that my family will be less safe. I live three blocks from a slum and on a good day police response is around three minutes, if you manage to make it to a phone on a day that the 911 lines are working and the operator takes your information correctly. Thanks, but I'll keep my shotgun. That way, my family is safe and either the police can arrest the criminals or the coroner can bag them.

Personally I support gun control here in the UK, but if I lived in the US I wouldn't be so sure. With so many people so desperate to wield a gun due to the strange fascination with them over there, you're never going to be able to keep them from people. Plus the fact there's so many guns in circulation...it's too late to try to ban them now, just like it would be impossible to ban tobacco despite the fact it's more harmful than many illegal drugs.

Ideally I want to live in a gun-free society, but i'd rather live in a society where everyone can own a gun than one where there's lots of them in circulation but they are illegal.

Personally I support gun control here in the UK, but if I lived in the US I wouldn't be so sure. With so many people so desperate to wield a gun due to the strange fascination with them over there, you're never going to be able to keep them from people. Plus the fact there's so many guns in circulation...it's too late to try to ban them now, just like it would be impossible to ban tobacco despite the fact it's more harmful than many illegal drugs.

Ideally I want to live in a gun-free society, but i'd rather live in a society where everyone can own a gun than one where there's lots of them in circulation but they are illegal.

So get those immigration papers in order friend. There's lots of us here that would be willing to help you out once you get here (assuming you aren't a felon) :)

Well since our courts have rules on numerous occasions that the police have no obligation to protect the individual even if there is a law saying they do, the onus is on the individual to protect themselves.

O.k.
I'm getting the idea that a lot of you guys enjoy the whole "action hero vigilante" thing. (sigh). You know what forget it. You can either go through a long period of gradual gun control, slowly but surely disarming the general population; or you can sit around and shoot down 'commie' solutions which 'threaten your god given right to a gun'.

Note that whenever something like this happens, the lefties go crazy for a solution, and the righties start defending their guns. I haven't heard any solutions from any of you guys at all. All you do is cut down potential options.

Either learn to manage you gun population, or get used to school shootings and gun related deaths. Unless you can think of another way to stop an angry guy with a gun from shooting someone, that's it.

Personally, I have a better solution. Don't live in America. In fact I have practiced this solution from the day I was born, and plan to do so for a very long time.

See ya later guys...

<Snip>

OK.

Solution: More effective punishments for crimes, actually prosecuting people who violate firearm laws.

The former will never happen, because the ACLU would bitch about it.

And the latter will never, ever happen. It wasn't done under Clinton and, although Bush promised to do it more, he's actually doing it less.

kinda scary isn't it?

nope

O.k.
I'm getting the idea that a lot of you guys enjoy the whole "action hero vigilante" thing. (sigh). You know what forget it. You can either go through a long period of gradual gun control, slowly but surely disarming the general population; or you can sit around and shoot down 'commie' solutions which 'threaten your god given right to a gun'.

Nice Ad Hominem. Nothing was said about "the whole "action hero vigilante" thing." That's the typical gun control meme, that those who support the right to own firearms and self-defense are some sort of Rambo wanna-be's.

It's the very "gradual disarming" that we oppose as they do nothing but restrict the rights of citizens.

Note that whenever something like this happens, the lefties go crazy for a solution, and the righties start defending their guns. I haven't heard any solutions from any of you guys at all. All you do is cut down potential options.

Note that that the "lefties" go crazy to try and take more guns from those who have not committed any crimes and the "righties" oppose it. Many solutions have been offered. You just don't like them.

Either learn to manage you gun population, or get used to school shootings and gun related deaths. Unless you can think of another way to stop an angry guy with a gun from shooting someone, that's it.

The number of school shootings is very small and there have been cases of other students stopping them W/ firearms.

Until you can find another way to stop an angry guy from killing someone period, that's it.

Personally, I have a better solution. Don't live in America. In fact I have practiced this solution from the day I was born, and plan to do so for a very long time.

See ya later guys...


Good. Those who don't want to be here, shouldn't.

O.k.
I'm getting the idea that a lot of you guys enjoy the whole "action hero vigilante" thing. (sigh). You know what forget it. You can either go through a long period of gradual gun control, slowly but surely disarming the general population; or you can sit around and shoot down 'commie' solutions which 'threaten your god given right to a gun'.

Note that whenever something like this happens, the lefties go crazy for a solution, and the righties start defending their guns. I haven't heard any solutions from any of you guys at all. All you do is cut down potential options.

Either learn to manage you gun population, or get used to school shootings and gun related deaths. Unless you can think of another way to stop an angry guy with a gun from shooting someone, that's it.

Personally, I have a better solution. Don't live in America. In fact I have practiced this solution from the day I was born, and plan to do so for a very long time.

See ya later guys...


Here's a solution to crime. Here in Connecticut, the gun banners just had a moderated event. It was brought up by someone there that there are around 30,000 outstanding arrest warrants in CT. How about we start serving some of these warrants, and get the criminals off the streets? If that were done, I think we'd see a real decrease in crime. I don't honestly think banning guns will have the same effect as putting the wanted criminals in jail.

http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/albums/arms/before1934_7305.sized.jpg

All I have to say on the topic is already better said by the great Oleg Volk.

Umm....did anyone else notice a major problem with the way this story was written?



First of all, guns don't just go off. At the very least you have to cock the hammer back, and even then most modern guns won't actually fire unless you pull the trigger. It might seem like a small point, but the story makes it sound like the gun was badly manufactured and killed someone at random. No, someone pulled the trigger. It wasn't the gun that shot someone, it was a child who wasn't properly supervised.

I know, there will be some who say that if the gun wasn't there then no one would have been shot but...
<snip>

There are several guns that you don't have to cock the hammer back. If the gun's safety is off, and you pull the trigger, it fires. This can be relatively easily done with just "playing with it" The father was an idiot as well as a felon. It's one thing to illegally own a handgun. It's completely another to have it loaded, with no safety lock, where a CHILD can get their hands on it. God I hate stupid people.

There are several guns that you don't have to cock the hammer back. If the gun's safety is off, and you pull the trigger, it fires. This can be relatively easily done with just "playing with it" The father was an idiot as well as a felon. It's one thing to illegally own a handgun. It's completely another to have it loaded, with no safety lock, where a CHILD can get their hands on it. God I hate stupid people.

I can imagine the kid cocking a SA/DA and then accidentally discharging the firearm, much easier than I can a kid accidentally discharging a DAO or a SA/DA with the hammer down.

Of course there's always the possibility that the kid actually wanted to kill someone....

O.k.
I'm getting the idea that a lot of you guys enjoy the whole "action hero vigilante" thing. (sigh). So, the three seperate times I defended myself from people intent on injuring me without firing my gun was an "action hero vigilante" thing. Uh huh. Tell you what. YOU stare down a 200+ lb guy swinging a crowbar when you have nowhere to run. Make sure to let him know you have no meaningful method of self defense. I'm sure he will start sobbing and back away. :rolleyes: You know what forget it. You can either go through a long period of gradual gun control, slowly but surely disarming the population; making them sheep or you can sit around and shoot down 'commie' solutions which 'threaten your god given right to a gun'. A "solution" that has no reasonable chance of doing anything but raising my taxes and ensuring Police State tactics is not a solution.
Note that whenever something like this happens, the lefties go crazy for a solution, and the righties start defending their guns. I haven't heard any solutions from any of you guys at all. All you do is cut down potential options. That's because we realize that you can't IMPOSE a "final solution", to gun unsafe gun handling..
Either learn to manage you gun population, or get used to school shootings and gun related deaths.This is the diference between a Statist and an Individualist. A Statist believes people can be "managed" or controlled through outside influence, like laws when in reality laws only form a guideline for Self Control. Unless you can think of another way to stop an angry guy with a gun from shooting someone, that's it.Yes. Shoot the angry guy first.
Personally, I have a better solution. Don't live in America. In fact I have practiced this solution from the day I was born, and plan to do so for a very long time.And yet, you still think that it was OK for the government to threaten your grandfather so that he turned in an antique shotgun. Bravo.
See ya later guys...Can't win the argument, so quit. BuhBye.

Personally I support gun control here in the UK, but if I lived in the US I wouldn't be so sure. With so many people so desperate to wield a gun due to the strange fascination with them over there, you're never going to be able to keep them from people. Plus the fact there's so many guns in circulation...it's too late to try to ban them now, just like it would be impossible to ban tobacco despite the fact it's more harmful than many illegal drugs.

Ideally I want to live in a gun-free society, but i'd rather live in a society where everyone can own a gun than one where there's lots of them in circulation but they are illegal.Intellectual Honesty! Big Cookie for You! :D

There are several guns that you don't have to cock the hammer back. If the gun's safety is off, and you pull the trigger, it fires. This can be relatively easily done with just "playing with it" The father was an idiot as well as a felon. It's one thing to illegally own a handgun. It's completely another to have it loaded, with no safety lock, where a CHILD can get their hands on it. God I hate stupid people.

Ummm, not really. I have never in my life encountered a normal handgun that you could shoot by "just playing with it." Even handguns that don't need the hammer cocked either need a significant amount of force on the trigger or are single shot bolt action competition guns.

More to the point, lets look at the actual story. The gun was a .38 revolver made by Taurus. A double action (Taurus doesn't seem to make a 38 in single) .38 revolver either needs the hammer cocked or it needs a fair amount of pull on the trigger (I don't know which specifically because the story doesn't specify model).

Both the kid and the father should be punished...

The father because he didn't keep the weapon somewhere safe.... And the kid... Well... 'Cause he's a kid! After this traumatisation he probably ends up peddling drugs or something anyway.

Ummm, not really. I have never in my life encountered a normal handgun that you could shoot by "just playing with it." Even handguns that don't need the hammer cocked either need a significant amount of force on the trigger or are single shot bolt action competition guns.

More to the point, lets look at the actual story. The gun was a .38 revolver made by Taurus. A double action (Taurus doesn't seem to make a 38 in single) .38 revolver either needs the hammer cocked or it needs a fair amount of pull on the trigger (I don't know which specifically because the story doesn't specify model).
Well, considering that the father was a Criminal and a Moron, I think it's distinctly possible that the hammer was left cocked. AYK, most single-action pulls on a DA revolver are only in the 2-3lb range...

Not many criminals have guns in the US, either.

Keep in mind our culture is not your culture. What works for you may not (and probably will not) work for us. Perhaps you've mistaken my high horse for your own.

It's not particularly difficult to ban guns in a culture where few people have ever owned the things (like Japan), but it's much more difficult to do so some place where they are not only deeply rooted in our national heritage, but are common tools.

And what happens once you get rid of guns? Are baseball bats next? If I recall properly, most murders in the US are committed with weapons other than guns. I also recall reading that 4/5 criminals (ie: they're in jail) would not have committed their crime if they thought the victim was armed.

It's not just murders that criminals commit more with other weapons. I'm not sure of the national stats, so I won't cite anything.

My personal stats:

Number of times I was assulted with a baseball bat: 5
Number of times I was assulted with a crowbar: 2
Number of times I was assulted with a rubber hose: 12+
Number of times I was assulted with no weapon: 50+
Number of times I was assulted with a knife: 1
Number of times I was assulted with a firearm: 0, nada, zilch

(All but three of these were inflicted upon me by a parent/gaurdian)

Forgive me if I don't see guns as an ultimate evil. There are many more common and more dangerous weapons out there.

It's not just murders that criminals commit more with other weapons. I'm not sure of the national stats, so I won't cite anything.

My personal stats:

Number of times I was assulted with a baseball bat: 5
Number of times I was assulted with a crowbar: 2
Number of times I was assulted with a rubber hose: 12+
Number of times I was assulted with no weapon: 50+
Number of times I was assulted with a knife: 1
Number of times I was assulted with a firearm: 0, nada, zilch

(All but three of these were inflicted upon me by a parent/gaurdian)

Forgive me if I don't see guns as an ultimate evil. There are many more common and more dangerous weapons out there.

Wow, you have amazing tolerance. If I had stats anything like those, I'd be in jail, and less a parent/guardian.

We should eliminate guns, along with other pesky things like privacy rights, property rights, and free speech. Then we can live in the ultimate free society where the omnipotent government (henceforth called "The People") shall protect us from bad things in life.

We should eliminate guns, along with other pesky things like privacy rights, property rights, and free speech. Then we can live in the ultimate free society where the omnipotent government (henceforth called "The People") shall protect us from bad things in life.

Why don't I just step up to the bloody bullet-riddled wall right now and not waste any time? :)

I know you're being sarcastic. :)

Wow, you have amazing tolerance. If I had stats anything like those, I'd be in jail, and less a parent/guardian.

They were done to me, not by me...

Almost all of those assults were by a particular set of foster parents who also didn't feed us (they had about 10 foster children) and bribed our caseworker to ignore the abuse.

2 (one baseballbat assult and one crowbar assult) were by a Neo-Nazi type person on account of my Jewishness.

1 (steel toed boots and crowbar) was a gay-bashing event.

The knife was when my mother went crazy, thought I was a demon and tried to kill me.

My plan for gun control:

1. Confiscation of personal property including guns, knives, bats, bows, or gun-related paraphelia (squirtguns, spudguns)

2. Installment of security cameras into every individual's home. This will require a huge tax hike but will accomplish two things: 1) first, it will allow constant survelliance to ensure no guns are obtained and will allow precrime specialists to arrest any potential violaters; 2) it will create a sense of fear that will gradually wean guns out of existence.

3. Death penalty for gun users. Anyone found with a gun will be secretly executed, also known as being "vanquished."

4. Institute martial law. Keeping police and military units on every street will ensure that no gang violence and gun-related violence shall occur. It shall also allow for quick reaction time for peacekeepers (rename the police and military to this) to react to calls oft criminals found holding weapons in the "privacy" of their homes.

5. Abolish free speech so as to allow the government to remove any material that could be seen to promote gun violence: this includes video games, pro-gun organizations, protests, and toys of any sort.

6. If a gun crime is committed, instead of mourning, a massive political campaign demanding more gun control shall thus be issued.

7. The attendance of anti-gun rallies shall be made mandatory for citizens.

They were done to me, not by me...

Almost all of those assults were by a particular set of foster parents who also didn't feed us (they had about 10 foster children) and bribed our caseworker to ignore the abuse.

2 (one baseballbat assult and one crowbar assult) were by a Neo-Nazi type person on account of my Jewishness.

1 (steel toed boots and crowbar) was a gay-bashing event.

The knife was when my mother went crazy, thought I was a demon and tried to kill me.

Well, I figured they were done to you. I was saying that if my parents had done anything remotely similar, there would have been violent reprecussions.

Well, I figured they were done to you. I was saying that if my parents had done anything remotely similar, there would have been violent reprecussions.

sorry 'bout the confusion. I've been having a two-day bout of insomnia.

This boy was only 8... surely they won't charge him.

Charge the father for being stupid enough to have a gun in the first damn place.

we all (at least in this Free country) have a right to protect our families and belongings.. should there be the need.. as in burglaries, armed robberies, etc. you would want to protect yourself, i imagine.. and not get into the hands of someone who may do nasty things to you and yours. you don't want to find yourself as a helpless victim.

guns are tools. they should be explained to children. they're not responsible for death; they're objects. people need to step up and be responsible.. including parents.

My plan for gun control:

1. Confiscation of personal property including guns, knives, bats, bows, or gun-related paraphelia (squirtguns, spudguns)

2. Installment of security cameras into every individual's home. This will require a huge tax hike but will accomplish two things: 1) first, it will allow constant survelliance to ensure no guns are obtained and will allow precrime specialists to arrest any potential violaters; 2) it will create a sense of fear that will gradually wean guns out of existence.

3. Death penalty for gun users. Anyone found with a gun will be secretly executed, also known as being "vanquished."

4. Institute martial law. Keeping police and military units on every street will ensure that no gang violence and gun-related violence shall occur. It shall also allow for quick reaction time for peacekeepers (rename the police and military to this) to react to calls oft criminals found holding weapons in the "privacy" of their homes.

5. Abolish free speech so as to allow the government to remove any material that could be seen to promote gun violence: this includes video games, pro-gun organizations, protests, and toys of any sort.

6. If a gun crime is committed, instead of mourning, a massive political campaign demanding more gun control shall thus be issued.

7. The attendance of anti-gun rallies shall be made mandatory for citizens.You know, that is the sort of final solution to gun crime that just might work ;)

Until the Revolution starts :D

You know, that is the sort of final solution to gun crime that just might work ;)

Until the Revolution starts :D

exactly! people don't often realize that Criminals don't FOLLOW laws.. and they'd end up with all the power.. and therefore we'd be screwed. doesn't take a lot of brains to figure this out, but then again a lot of people don't have much between their ears!

And so Australia has gotten rid of all guns? Has crime decreased? The UK banned guns. Did shooting decrease?

Shootings I am reasonably sure did. However Gun CRIME increased because people having a handgun and not using it is now a crime.

Also, they didnt ban guns, only handguns. Rifles and shotguns are still legal. With pretty hefty regulations. Which is as it should be.

And I do wish people would stop overreacting to suggestions about gun control. Not having weaponry does not "make the people sheep" or result in a police state. If you have that little faith in your government then get a new one.

Shootings I am reasonably sure did. However Gun CRIME increased because people having a handgun and not using it is now a crime.

You apparently haven't read the thread.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm

A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.

But the report suggests that despite the restrictions on ownership the use of handguns in crime is rising.

The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000.


Also, they didnt ban guns, only handguns. Rifles and shotguns are still legal. With pretty hefty regulations. Which is as it should be.

That is merely your opinion.

And I do wish people would stop overreacting to suggestions about gun control. Not having weaponry does not "make the people sheep" or result in a police state. If you have that little faith in your government then get a new one.

So the UK gov't is NOT planning on monitoring travel? It does NOT confiscate property when people say they'll use a gun to defend themselves after being robbed multiple times?

We have "gotten a new one". The elections over the past 10 years have clearly stated what the majority of people who bother to vote think about firearm ownership.

We have "gotten a new one". The elections over the past 10 years have clearly stated what the majority of people who bother to vote think about firearm ownership.

No, the past two elections have clearly stated how EASY it is to completely fuck up an election. Florida in 2000 anybody? Indiana, Ohio, and several other states in 2004? Gun control wasn't even an issue in the past two presidential elections. Maybe in specific state senate and representative races, but the major cards giving republicans control have been abortion and gay marriage.

No, the past two elections have clearly stated how EASY it is to completely fuck up an election. Florida in 2000 anybody? Indiana, Ohio, and several other states in 2004? Gun control wasn't even an issue in the past two presidential elections. Maybe in specific state senate and representative races, but the major cards giving republicans control have been abortion and gay marriage.

Really? I seem to remember different.

Tin hattiness aside, it was major issues between the presidential candidates. Gore's hard-core anti-gun stance cost lots of votes, even Clinton admitted that.

Why do you think Kerry went to all the trouble of his "hunting" photoshoots if it weren't for firearms?

Local/State elections are also a major part of US politics unless you think the president controls everything. It was a major factor since the '94 elections when the Dem's lost the house and Senate. Can we say "daschled" anyone?

So the UK gov't is NOT planning on monitoring travel? It does NOT confiscate property when people say they'll use a gun to defend themselves after being robbed multiple times?


Monitoring travel? It is called numberplates.

And just because sometimes the government are idiots on some things doesnt mean I have to disagree with others.

In this case I would say stop using the guns and let the police get on with crime prevention rather than getting them to arrest people who run their cars on vegetable oil rather than diesel

Really? I seem to remember different.

Tin hattiness aside, it was major issues between the presidential candidates. Gore's hard-core anti-gun stance cost lots of votes, even Clinton admitted that.

Why do you think Kerry went to all the trouble of his "hunting" photoshoots if it weren't for firearms?

Local/State elections are also a major part of US politics unless you think the president controls everything. It was a major factor since the '94 elections when the Dem's lost the house and Senate. Can we say "daschled" anyone?

I thought that Kerry did all those "good ol' boy" photo ops because he was a pretentious prick who middle America hated.

Really--who would you rather have at your BBQ/beer bash? Kerry in a suit, or Bushy in jeans and a T-shirt?

Monitoring travel? It is called numberplates.

No, it's called camera's and databases tracking where you go. Keep up w/ the news.

And just because sometimes the government are idiots on some things doesnt mean I have to disagree with others.

And that doesn't apply here why?

In this case I would say stop using the guns and let the police get on with crime prevention rather than getting them to arrest people who run their cars on vegetable oil rather than diesel

The police are not here for "crime prevention". That has been made clear by SCOTUS.

As for the second part of the statement, would you like to source that or was it just a false analogy?

I thought that Kerry did all those "good ol' boy" photo ops because he was a pretentious prick who middle America hated.

Really--who would you rather have at your BBQ/beer bash? Kerry in a suit, or Bushy in jeans and a T-shirt?


That too.

No, it's called camera's and databases tracking where you go. Keep up w/ the news.

I thought numberplates showed where the car was registered?






The police are not here for "crime prevention". That has been made clear by SCOTUS.

As for the second part of the statement, would you like to source that or was it just a false analogy?

Well they do do some Crime prevention. Or quite a lot, even if it is as a side effect of other work.

I will try and find the story about the vegetable oil thing, it was in the Independant earlier this week.


Here we go.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article340398.ece

police were forced to set up "frying squads" of detectives to sniff out offending exhaust pipes and apprehend the drivers

I thought numberplates showed where the car was registered?

Britain will be first country to monitor every car journey
From 2006 Britain will be the first country where every journey by every car will be monitored
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Published: 22 December 2005

Britain is to become the first country in the world where the movements of all vehicles on the roads are recorded. A new national surveillance system will hold the records for at least two years.

Using a network of cameras that can automatically read every passing number plate, the plan is to build a huge database of vehicle movements so that the police and security services can analyse any journey a driver has made over several years.


Well they do do some Crime prevention. Or quite a lot, even if it is as a side effect of other work.

I will try and find the story about the vegetable oil thing, it was in the Independant earlier this week.


Here we go.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article340398.ece


Ok. We were talking about US police I thought. Your article does go to show even more nonsense about UK "crime prevention" policy.

Well, considering that the father was a Criminal and a Moron, I think it's distinctly possible that the hammer was left cocked. AYK, most single-action pulls on a DA revolver are only in the 2-3lb range...

I dunno, the 2-3 pound range is still more than accidental. I know a fair bit about trigger pull because my wife is quite petite and has rather small hands. 2-3 pounds isn't much of a problem for a 250 pound man with forearms like a longshoreman, its quite a bit for a seven year old (or a 24 year old who weighs under a hundred pounds).

i saw once that a kindergardener shot and killed a classmate in Michigan

Hmm. If we're still on the subject of gun-control, as we kinda seem to be, I remember reading something in some fictional book where a city outlawed bullets and replaced them with a non-lethal variety that had recently been developed. There were was a heavy fine for being found with lethal bullets, and possibly jail time.

"Blue Avenger", or a similar title. Someone else has probably read it more recently than I have.

I dunno, the 2-3 pound range is still more than accidental. I know a fair bit about trigger pull because my wife is quite petite and has rather small hands. 2-3 pounds isn't much of a problem for a 250 pound man with forearms like a longshoreman, its quite a bit for a seven year old (or a 24 year old who weighs under a hundred pounds).I'm no longshoreman, but my SP101 sure has a light touch and will surprise me when it lets off in SA mode...

I know from experience that a 4yo can successfully pull the trigger on a .44 Redhawk in SA. In a bag full of books and crap, a revolver in SA is just asking to discharge.

Hmm. If we're still on the subject of gun-control, as we kinda seem to be, I remember reading something in some fictional book where a city outlawed bullets and replaced them with a non-lethal variety that had recently been developed. There were was a heavy fine for being found with lethal bullets, and possibly jail time.

"Blue Avenger", or a similar title. Someone else has probably read it more recently than I have.
IIRC there was a US TV series called "US Marshals" or somthing similarly inappropriate where the "good guy" bounty hunters swaggered around with full auto firearms firing "stun" bullets. They would spray a crowd to get the badguy. Typical Anti Gun media crap.

Honestly, don't people know how to use a lock and key. And don't leave the key lying around also.

IIRC there was a US TV series called "US Marshals" or somthing similarly inappropriate where the "good guy" bounty hunters swaggered around with full auto firearms firing "stun" bullets. They would spray a crowd to get the badguy. Typical Anti Gun media crap.

Actually that makes some degreee of sense. It allows you to fire indiscriminately without having to worry about civilian/innocent casualties.

I think riot police use rubber bullets or something...

Actually that makes some degreee of sense. It allows you to fire indiscriminately without having to worry about civilian/innocent casualties.

I think riot police use rubber bullets or something...
Except then the Govt Lawyer had to go around passing out Settlement Payments to anyone who wasn't a legitimate target....

Point was, the Gun Toters were portrayed as "spray and pray" yahoos rather than LE professionals (or even Professional bounty hunters)