America's Gun Violence

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

I find it funny that I only responded to a comment about a post that wanted "more severe punishment" for accidents like this by saying who wouldn't, and resulted in the sarcastic posts that followed like "how reassuring" as if that was a lame idea. I never said it was going to "turn this around." Someone made the comment that they don't understand why anyone would be opposed to punishing these people, I simply said I don't think anyone would be opposed to that. Jump to whatever conclusions you wish to. I guess you really cant please anyone anti-gun until you take every gun away.

And to answer the question "5 years for each victim with 2.5 to serve mandatory be okay with you?"
Absolutely. If you run a child care and allow small children access to guns under your watch, then absolutely. This was a business of protecting children, and to allow that to happen is just ridiculous. 

I'd be willing to bet the NRA would be opposed to any kind of "severe punishment." You asked a question and received answers. I guess they triggered you? Too many times those "lawful" gun owners who are responsible for shootings like these don't face any repercussions of import as it's deemed "tragic" or an "accident ," usually both. Start locking these idiots up and I'd be willing to bet people will become more responsible with their thunder sticks and boom makers. Nobody talks about the tens of thousands injured by guns every year and the societal cost of that. Owning a gun carries with it a high level of responsibility that I thought republicans were all about, you know, personal responsibility and all. Start holding them accountable. And in Ronny Ray Guns words of infamy, there you go again with, "can't please any anti-gunners until you take every gun away." Talk about dismissive?

We should probably start locking people up that irresponsibly let children poison themselves with laundry detergent pods, electrocute themselves by unsafe wall outlets, accidentally burn themselves with boiling water, or get mauled by the family pet as well.  Neglectful supervision in all situations, right?  
As a poster above stated, if the possibility of your child dying is not enough of a deterrent to leaving access to something that could be potentially deadly, then threatening to lock them up probably will not do much good either.  
I, for one, always keep the consequences of irresponsible firearm storage/usage in the back of my mind, but was taught at an early age the damage a firearm can do.  I, for one, would also be fine with requiring everyone to take a safety class and display a card showing that you have completed that class before buying a firearm.  Hunters have to take a “Hunters education” class before legally getting a hunting license... In these hunter education classes, you learn not to shoot over hills, how to handle your gun while crossing a fence, etc.  What I do not understand is why so many anti-gunners appose more education...???

Which anti-gunners have opposed further gun safety education? There you go again.........

Plenty, any time I mention education I am met with the “education is not enough” response.  There you go again..........

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

I find it funny that I only responded to a comment about a post that wanted "more severe punishment" for accidents like this by saying who wouldn't, and resulted in the sarcastic posts that followed like "how reassuring" as if that was a lame idea. I never said it was going to "turn this around." Someone made the comment that they don't understand why anyone would be opposed to punishing these people, I simply said I don't think anyone would be opposed to that. Jump to whatever conclusions you wish to. I guess you really cant please anyone anti-gun until you take every gun away.

And to answer the question "5 years for each victim with 2.5 to serve mandatory be okay with you?"
Absolutely. If you run a child care and allow small children access to guns under your watch, then absolutely. This was a business of protecting children, and to allow that to happen is just ridiculous. 

I'd be willing to bet the NRA would be opposed to any kind of "severe punishment." You asked a question and received answers. I guess they triggered you? Too many times those "lawful" gun owners who are responsible for shootings like these don't face any repercussions of import as it's deemed "tragic" or an "accident ," usually both. Start locking these idiots up and I'd be willing to bet people will become more responsible with their thunder sticks and boom makers. Nobody talks about the tens of thousands injured by guns every year and the societal cost of that. Owning a gun carries with it a high level of responsibility that I thought republicans were all about, you know, personal responsibility and all. Start holding them accountable. And in Ronny Ray Guns words of infamy, there you go again with, "can't please any anti-gunners until you take every gun away." Talk about dismissive?

We should probably start locking people up that irresponsibly let children poison themselves with laundry detergent pods, electrocute themselves by unsafe wall outlets, accidentally burn themselves with boiling water, or get mauled by the family pet as well.  Neglectful supervision in all situations, right?  
As a poster above stated, if the possibility of your child dying is not enough of a deterrent to leaving access to something that could be potentially deadly, then threatening to lock them up probably will not do much good either.  
I, for one, always keep the consequences of irresponsible firearm storage/usage in the back of my mind, but was taught at an early age the damage a firearm can do.  I, for one, would also be fine with requiring everyone to take a safety class and display a card showing that you have completed that class before buying a firearm.  Hunters have to take a “Hunters education” class before legally getting a hunting license... In these hunter education classes, you learn not to shoot over hills, how to handle your gun while crossing a fence, etc.  What I do not understand is why so many anti-gunners appose more education...???

Which anti-gunners have opposed further gun safety education? There you go again.........

Plenty, any time I mention education I am met with the “education is not enough” response.  There you go again..........

CM189191 said:

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

I find it funny that I only responded to a comment about a post that wanted "more severe punishment" for accidents like this by saying who wouldn't, and resulted in the sarcastic posts that followed like "how reassuring" as if that was a lame idea. I never said it was going to "turn this around." Someone made the comment that they don't understand why anyone would be opposed to punishing these people, I simply said I don't think anyone would be opposed to that. Jump to whatever conclusions you wish to. I guess you really cant please anyone anti-gun until you take every gun away.

And to answer the question "5 years for each victim with 2.5 to serve mandatory be okay with you?"
Absolutely. If you run a child care and allow small children access to guns under your watch, then absolutely. This was a business of protecting children, and to allow that to happen is just ridiculous. 

I'd be willing to bet the NRA would be opposed to any kind of "severe punishment." You asked a question and received answers. I guess they triggered you? Too many times those "lawful" gun owners who are responsible for shootings like these don't face any repercussions of import as it's deemed "tragic" or an "accident ," usually both. Start locking these idiots up and I'd be willing to bet people will become more responsible with their thunder sticks and boom makers. Nobody talks about the tens of thousands injured by guns every year and the societal cost of that. Owning a gun carries with it a high level of responsibility that I thought republicans were all about, you know, personal responsibility and all. Start holding them accountable. And in Ronny Ray Guns words of infamy, there you go again with, "can't please any anti-gunners until you take every gun away." Talk about dismissive?

We should probably start locking people up that irresponsibly let children poison themselves with laundry detergent pods, electrocute themselves by unsafe wall outlets, accidentally burn themselves with boiling water, or get mauled by the family pet as well.  Neglectful supervision in all situations, right?  
As a poster above stated, if the possibility of your child dying is not enough of a deterrent to leaving access to something that could be potentially deadly, then threatening to lock them up probably will not do much good either.  
I, for one, always keep the consequences of irresponsible firearm storage/usage in the back of my mind, but was taught at an early age the damage a firearm can do.  I, for one, would also be fine with requiring everyone to take a safety class and display a card showing that you have completed that class before buying a firearm.  Hunters have to take a “Hunters education” class before legally getting a hunting license... In these hunter education classes, you learn not to shoot over hills, how to handle your gun while crossing a fence, etc.  What I do not understand is why so many anti-gunners appose more education...???

This why this debate is lost, you equate guns to laundry detergent. One is made to clean clothes, the other to effectively kill things, including people. Golly, who knew? Might as well pass out bags of broken glass at Halloween.

I equated the possible consequences, not the item itself.  Anything, ANYTHING, that a toddler could potentially hurt/kill themselves with should be stored in a safe place.  Why is this so hard for you to understand?  Insecticides and rat poison are made to kill things...so you do not leave them laying around for a child to poison themselves with, right?

I sure the other parents will be appropriately compensated for their damages.  Homeowner's insurance covers this, right?

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

I find it funny that I only responded to a comment about a post that wanted "more severe punishment" for accidents like this by saying who wouldn't, and resulted in the sarcastic posts that followed like "how reassuring" as if that was a lame idea. I never said it was going to "turn this around." Someone made the comment that they don't understand why anyone would be opposed to punishing these people, I simply said I don't think anyone would be opposed to that. Jump to whatever conclusions you wish to. I guess you really cant please anyone anti-gun until you take every gun away.

And to answer the question "5 years for each victim with 2.5 to serve mandatory be okay with you?"
Absolutely. If you run a child care and allow small children access to guns under your watch, then absolutely. This was a business of protecting children, and to allow that to happen is just ridiculous. 

I'd be willing to bet the NRA would be opposed to any kind of "severe punishment." You asked a question and received answers. I guess they triggered you? Too many times those "lawful" gun owners who are responsible for shootings like these don't face any repercussions of import as it's deemed "tragic" or an "accident ," usually both. Start locking these idiots up and I'd be willing to bet people will become more responsible with their thunder sticks and boom makers. Nobody talks about the tens of thousands injured by guns every year and the societal cost of that. Owning a gun carries with it a high level of responsibility that I thought republicans were all about, you know, personal responsibility and all. Start holding them accountable. And in Ronny Ray Guns words of infamy, there you go again with, "can't please any anti-gunners until you take every gun away." Talk about dismissive?

We should probably start locking people up that irresponsibly let children poison themselves with laundry detergent pods, electrocute themselves by unsafe wall outlets, accidentally burn themselves with boiling water, or get mauled by the family pet as well.  Neglectful supervision in all situations, right?  
As a poster above stated, if the possibility of your child dying is not enough of a deterrent to leaving access to something that could be potentially deadly, then threatening to lock them up probably will not do much good either.  
I, for one, always keep the consequences of irresponsible firearm storage/usage in the back of my mind, but was taught at an early age the damage a firearm can do.  I, for one, would also be fine with requiring everyone to take a safety class and display a card showing that you have completed that class before buying a firearm.  Hunters have to take a “Hunters education” class before legally getting a hunting license... In these hunter education classes, you learn not to shoot over hills, how to handle your gun while crossing a fence, etc.  What I do not understand is why so many anti-gunners appose more education...???

Which anti-gunners have opposed further gun safety education? There you go again.........

Plenty, any time I mention education I am met with the “education is not enough” response.  There you go again..........

Education is not enough. You get your license at 16. Have you been back to driver's retraining? Whats the difference? "Responsible" car drivers get tickets for speeding and serve jail time when they kill someone with their car if they did so driving irresponsibly. They're required to have insurance. Registration. Clear title transfer. Graduated licensing. Database statistics collected. You pro-gunners want to constantly shift the blame and not hold your own responsible. Hold them responsible and I don't care how many guns you have. But yea, Obama is coming for your guns. And show me the "plenty" of opposition to gun safety education. Don't confuse the difference of "more" and "its not enough," because its not.

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

I find it funny that I only responded to a comment about a post that wanted "more severe punishment" for accidents like this by saying who wouldn't, and resulted in the sarcastic posts that followed like "how reassuring" as if that was a lame idea. I never said it was going to "turn this around." Someone made the comment that they don't understand why anyone would be opposed to punishing these people, I simply said I don't think anyone would be opposed to that. Jump to whatever conclusions you wish to. I guess you really cant please anyone anti-gun until you take every gun away.

And to answer the question "5 years for each victim with 2.5 to serve mandatory be okay with you?"
Absolutely. If you run a child care and allow small children access to guns under your watch, then absolutely. This was a business of protecting children, and to allow that to happen is just ridiculous. 

I'd be willing to bet the NRA would be opposed to any kind of "severe punishment." You asked a question and received answers. I guess they triggered you? Too many times those "lawful" gun owners who are responsible for shootings like these don't face any repercussions of import as it's deemed "tragic" or an "accident ," usually both. Start locking these idiots up and I'd be willing to bet people will become more responsible with their thunder sticks and boom makers. Nobody talks about the tens of thousands injured by guns every year and the societal cost of that. Owning a gun carries with it a high level of responsibility that I thought republicans were all about, you know, personal responsibility and all. Start holding them accountable. And in Ronny Ray Guns words of infamy, there you go again with, "can't please any anti-gunners until you take every gun away." Talk about dismissive?

I didn't ask the question. It "triggered" me because I answered the question which was an anti-gun stance question, then everyone who criticized the question to begin with directed it at me with, who didn't even ask it. 
And I doubt the NRA would be opposed to laws against leaving guns in access to children while in a daycare. I seriously doubt that. For a small child to get a gun and shoot it, it was likely left in the open and loaded. Now if it was a high school kid who broke into a poor quality safe and did it, yes I could see the NRA being against putting those people in prison. But a small child in daycare? I don't see them being against that.

If we look into the nitty gritty of that, preventing children from getting their hands on guns means preventing guns from being kept in handbags and briefcases and in holsters on belts. It means going back to what we've talked about on here many times - safe storage. It rules out open carry, and in fact any carry, where children are in the vicinity. And given that, I don't believe that the NRA would be in support. 
 

I disagree about it ruling out those things. You may be against them for other reasons and thats fine. But open carry doesn't impact safe storage. Mainly because its not being stored, it is in your possession. You are implying a toddler would overpower an adult and take his weapon if he open carries. That just doesnt happen. Open carry, or even concealed carry,  doesn't permit you to leave the gun in the glove box somewhere off your body when children are around, but that is different. 

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

I find it funny that I only responded to a comment about a post that wanted "more severe punishment" for accidents like this by saying who wouldn't, and resulted in the sarcastic posts that followed like "how reassuring" as if that was a lame idea. I never said it was going to "turn this around." Someone made the comment that they don't understand why anyone would be opposed to punishing these people, I simply said I don't think anyone would be opposed to that. Jump to whatever conclusions you wish to. I guess you really cant please anyone anti-gun until you take every gun away.

And to answer the question "5 years for each victim with 2.5 to serve mandatory be okay with you?"
Absolutely. If you run a child care and allow small children access to guns under your watch, then absolutely. This was a business of protecting children, and to allow that to happen is just ridiculous. 

I'd be willing to bet the NRA would be opposed to any kind of "severe punishment." You asked a question and received answers. I guess they triggered you? Too many times those "lawful" gun owners who are responsible for shootings like these don't face any repercussions of import as it's deemed "tragic" or an "accident ," usually both. Start locking these idiots up and I'd be willing to bet people will become more responsible with their thunder sticks and boom makers. Nobody talks about the tens of thousands injured by guns every year and the societal cost of that. Owning a gun carries with it a high level of responsibility that I thought republicans were all about, you know, personal responsibility and all. Start holding them accountable. And in Ronny Ray Guns words of infamy, there you go again with, "can't please any anti-gunners until you take every gun away." Talk about dismissive?

We should probably start locking people up that irresponsibly let children poison themselves with laundry detergent pods, electrocute themselves by unsafe wall outlets, accidentally burn themselves with boiling water, or get mauled by the family pet as well.  Neglectful supervision in all situations, right?  
As a poster above stated, if the possibility of your child dying is not enough of a deterrent to leaving access to something that could be potentially deadly, then threatening to lock them up probably will not do much good either.  
I, for one, always keep the consequences of irresponsible firearm storage/usage in the back of my mind, but was taught at an early age the damage a firearm can do.  I, for one, would also be fine with requiring everyone to take a safety class and display a card showing that you have completed that class before buying a firearm.  Hunters have to take a “Hunters education” class before legally getting a hunting license... In these hunter education classes, you learn not to shoot over hills, how to handle your gun while crossing a fence, etc.  What I do not understand is why so many anti-gunners appose more education...???

Which anti-gunners have opposed further gun safety education? There you go again.........

Plenty, any time I mention education I am met with the “education is not enough” response.  There you go again..........

Can the education include that you and those around you aren't safer when you have a gun?