Father of man killed in mall shooting says guns not the problem

 @ormom  @MarkKpic >'If guns don't kill, how come no one picks up a pea shooter instead of a gun when they want to kill something?'

 

Can you show me where I said "guns don't kill"?

 

>'If guns don't kill, how come we don't let children play with them?'

 

Again, can you show me where I made the statement that 'guns dont kill'?

 

Secondly, it's for the same reason that we don't let... well, for the same reason that I don't let, a child play with a saw, a running vehicle, or a bottle of drain cleaner. Because they're not toys, they are tools designed with a very specific intent. Children 'playing' with them are not using them in their proper (intended) use, therefore I would not allow them to 'play' with them... Secondly, because they are dangerous when they are 'played' with.

 

Of course, the point could be made that there are irresponsible people out there who DO let their children 'play' with things like knives, guns and kitchen cleaner. In such instances, it is the adult who is typically charged (appropriately) in the resulting criminal trial. 

 

'If guns don't kill, how come kids kill other kids everyday while mis-handling them?'

 

Again, please show me where I made the statement that 'guns dont kill'. 

 

There are people who kill others by misusing cars, tractors, lawn mowers, nail guns, fireworks, alcohol, train tracks, etc.... I guess the answer to your question would be, because there are some pretty foolish people in the world who do not properly secure and/or properly educate their children about the very real dangers that exist when someone drives, plays in the road, uses a lawn mower, or mishandles a firearm.

 

"After all, you say it's not the gun it's the intent of the person shooting the gun, right?"

 

I did? Where did I say that?

 

"So those kids are murderers apparently."

 

Well, it would depend on the circumstances, but there are several options that the local judiciary has;

 

163.145¹  Criminally negligent homicide

 

163.118¹  Manslaughter in the first degree

 

163.125¹  Manslaughter in the second degree

 

I would think that manslaughter charges would be easier to convict on, but that's assuming that the local prosecuting attorney chooses to go forward with prosecution. If it was truly an accident, it's entirely likely that they will decline to prosecute the child. The owner of the gun, however, could very well face charges relating to the incident. 

 @ormom  @MarkKpic Yeah ormom and yours grows tiresome as well.  Guns only kill if a human chooses to do so with it. Millions of people use guns daily and never kill a soul with them.   Kids playing with guns and killing other kids are the product of careless and irresponsible parents.  Should they be charged with murder, no because that doesn't fit the description of murder.  Perhaps negligent homicide or manslaughter.  I am all for people with children in the house having their guns locked up.  To not do so is irresponsible.  However, that has nothing to do with adults stealing guns and choosing to commit crimes with them.

 @ChrisJ82 

If you are as willing to defend the 1st amendment as much as the 2nd (and all others) then you are not one of the people I was eluding too. There are plenty of gun nut blowhards on this blog who would vote to turn over your medical records or ban certain types of media if they thought it would prevent a ban on any kind of gun or ammunition. They are true Johnny-one-note hypocrites and they are not answering my challenge for that reason.

 

One of them showed his true colors on the Yashawnee Vaughn thread when he proposed tearing up laws that weren't worth the paper they were written on for the duty to protect children. His whole screed could have been used to make an argument for much stronger gun control. He showed what a hypocrite he is and there are others just like him.

 @DJK  ((((((Applause!!!!))))))

 @DJK  @ormom I was fine until you tried to take away my porn.,,,that's just taking it too far.

 @Sundowner 

9 hours in and nothing but sarcasm. It's pretty much what I expected.

@agateriver sorry and thanks, this whole thing rubs me the wrong way.

@Playanekes @Oglethorpe I think that's exactly what he's saying. "Since those of us who aren't Gun Savvy, what alternatives can the gun wielding community offer us who don't a comprimise on the issue?"

@Playanekes @Oglethorpe ---we'll said!

@Playanekes@Oglethorpe One major difference in Columbine is the tactical response by LE where they waited (and waited) because they were concerned with officer safety first. Because of Columbine they changed tactical response and no longer wait.

 

Theoretically (here I go again) deaths from an unskilled shooter or person who is not familiar with the weapon could have an impact in body count BUT magazine size would probably not have had an impact with the Newtown shooter since he was very familiar with his weapons.

@HenryBowman And you would be wrong about that.

@A TRUE PATRIOT I can't argue that I have 100% reliable first-hand knowledge of every killing. I, like you, have to rely on statistics published by reliable and credible sources. I have seen many reports that put the number of gun deaths at or about 10000 people per year in the US. If that number is accurate, that would make about 833 murders per month. It has been over a month since Newtown. Do the math and 900 killings since Newtown is not far off - it is likely more than that by this morning.

 

The US does not have the highest rate of gun murders per capita. There are many smaller 3rd world countries with higher murder rates per capita. These countries by and large are not countries the US should consider itself in league with – economically, socially, our means of governance and so on. In other words, just because there are more murderous societies in the world that end up with more gun deaths per capita does not mean that people in the US should use them as an argument against making an effort to solve the problem here.

 

If you are saying you have proof to the contrary in in terms of numbers of killings by guns in the US, I will listen.

 

These stats from FactCheck seem to be fairly balanced and use actual numbers and math. Of course, like any other analysis, there is argument as to cause and effect of RTC laws and crime rates, including murder rates.

 

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

 

It should be noted that no one is proposing to take your guns. The proposals on the table today are not as unreasonable as the gun-nut lobby is saying. One of the proposals is the requirement for background checks for nearly every gun sale. That is something the gun lobby has opposed in the past. It seems an obvious first-step.

 

It should also be noted that the Second Amendment does not say you have a right to have any weapon. I think most people would say you don't have a right to have a nuclear weapon. We can start there and back down. At some point an equilibrium would be reached and we would find what makes sense to the majority.

 

The Second Amendment also states 'a well-regulated militia'. I know about the Heller case and I think there is is still something of a question around the concept of what the authors intended by using the term 'a well-regulated militia'. When you read the Second Amendment, it is fairly simple. One sentence. I read it as intending to define one right - not two rights.

 

I would, using your words, suggest that you get a clue, dude. Doing nothing is not working. We've been doing nothing for decades now and it is not working. Doing nothing is how we ended up where we are today with thousands of our citizens dead. Maybe doing something or proposing ideas you have that would help work towards lowering the gun deaths (assuming you have any ideas outside of the 'more guns' argument), would actually help preserve your gun rights. With more and more of these crazy killings likely to happen and with more incidents where gun freaks walk around in neighborhoods with AR-15's over their shoulders like we saw  in downtown Portland to 'educate the public', you can see public 'education' taking place. Public opnion is seems to be swining away from the simplistic notion that 'more guns' will solve the problem in any way at all. The people who are opposed to the 'more guns' argument vote too. Public opinion is WE THE PEOPLE. Dude, public opinion IS democracy in action. With events like these mass killings, losing 10000 people a year outside of the mass killings and seeing people like these gun totoing screwballs 'educating the public' happening all around us, we stand a greater chance of losing more of our gun rights than the legislation currently being proposed. In the end, the optics of these mass shootings and killings of over 10000 Americans a year gets people's attention and will utlmately impact public opinion. Get a clue.

 

Remember, there are few absolute rights. The Constitution was clearly intended to be changed as society and the world we live in evolved. Looking at the history of this country and the Constitution, I would be willing to bet the Founding Fathers would be shocked to find us using the same document over 200 years later and arguing about the Second Amendment the way we are in the face of the weaponry we have today. Do you think the framers of the Constitution and the authors of the Second Amendment would have intended for everyone to have a fully automatic weapon that can fire hundreds of armor-piercing bullets a minute or were they thinking about muzzle-loading muskets and the British invaders?

 

@A TRUE PATRIOT Gun control - no matter how it is defined – won’t stop every shooting. That is obvious. That is also not an excuse to do nothing.

 

Using the automobile as an analogy in any case, is clearly wrong. First of all, the two are different. A car is meant to solve a problem of transporting people. The fact that people steal (not steel) cars or that people are killed in cars does not change that. The gun is meant to kill. Period.

 

When we had a problem with cars, we determined that training and licensing of the drivers was required. When cars were being stolen, we increased security with loking devices. When we had a problem with people getting injured or killed in them, we added seat belts and impact/crumple zones. We required people to have financial responsibility when driving cars to help indemnify the people who were hit by someone driving a car. We limit the type of car and the speed you can drive them. When we found too many people were being killed by drunk drivers, we increased penalties and lowered the BAC. All of these were done as a matter of legislation (i.e.: laws were passed). The result of all these laws is fewer and fewer deaths by automobiles. This is proven by statistics. I am sure that very few people would argue against the majority of safety features and the laws related to cars. It should be pointed out that it was not ONE of these laws that increased safety and responsibility of autmobiles and their operation. It was all of them together that got us where we are today.

 

We have over 10000 people a year killed outside of the mass shootings that are very much in the news. We have far more killings than any other nation. We have more guns than any other nation. And we do nothing.

 

We have people trying to compare cars to guns. Where is the connection? Amazing.

 

@scared_citizen I respect your perspective on his opinion. On that question, we should not forget that since this shooting, there are more than 900 addiutional families who have lost bothers, sisters, sons, daughters, husbands and wives. As a society, we don't determine policy based on the opinions of one person but by the will of the majority.

 

The problem is we are losing tens of thousands of lives every year at the barrel of a gun.

 

It is the solution we can't seem to find consensus on.

 

My point is simple here: Doing nothing or simply adding more guns is clearly not working. The statistics tell us that much.