Toddler shoots his mother dead

[Ryantology]

While we are at it lets sue the spoon manufacturers for making people fat.

Agreed, because spoons, like guns, are designed only for the purpose of killing and maiming living things.

[CapnAwesome]

Did you know that the U.S. is just filled with regular people? Who go about their daily lives and drink coffee and stuff.

But nowhere else in the world has anything like the open carry movement.
Who think taking an assault rifle into Target is perfectly normal.

Nowhere else in the world? Really? I've seen people openly carry automatic weapons in several Central American countries. Why do so many people say 'the world' and mean only the United States and Western Europe.

[Brian37]

People have a right to privacy and because that right exists some bad things will come of it. Some will use their privacy to conceal child molestation or the cooking of meth or some other dastardly deed. People have the right to carry weapons and because that right exists some bad things will come of it.....like this tragic accident.

She had some responsibilities too.

In a utopia you could leave it at that. The flooded market and no rules attitude by the makers and NRA allow for the conditions for these things to happen far too much. There needs to be some accountability on the makers part as to where they end up. Right now they simply use fear to sell guns and keep and expand their market. They have no care in the world how many people die from their products.

[The Grand Nudger]

...but the market isn't flooded, there are tuns of rules....and there already -is- accountability for the manufacturers. It's not like they can sell crates of guns to terrorists. I think that you're imagining some strange things about factory workers and business owners, also.

[Chas]

*sigh*

Sometimes I think everyone needs to take a class before they are allowed to carry a gun.

Several classes, with official certification

Sure, seems reasonable.

and licensure that should be renewed every two years.

Why two years? What would be involved?

Gun owners (and it doesn't matter what kind of gun) should be required to individually register and insure every weapon they own.

What problem does this solve?

Any conviction for violent crime, crime involving firearms, or diagnosis of disassociative mental disorders, should be accompanied by a lifetime ban from possessing any kind of firearm.

Convicted felons can't legally possess firearms. The rest is already largely the case in states with licensing.

A responsible gun owner would have no problem with firearms being regulated. And, since we can't just get rid of guns, we should try our best to make sure that only responsible people possess guns.

Firearms are regulated, the debate is about the extent of regulation.

---

I live out in the country, and we have coyotes and cougars locally. I haven't yet bought a shotgun, but it's on the shopping list.

RationalPoet.......That is more understandable. But even with wild animals most of the time a loud noise without actually shooting them will scare them off. Still does not change that we have way too many guns as a result of an industry, much like big oil doesn't care about green house gasses, we still have way too many.

WTAF? The firearms industry is supplying a demand, just like the auto industry supplies unskilled people with SUVs.

---

"Go as far?" It was 100% her fault. This was a blatant act of wanton stupidity, which will undoubtedly scar a human being for life. We're all just lucky she only got herself killed.

Um no, I am tired of this cop out bullshit excuse that the marketing of guns like they are toys has nothing to do with why things like this happen. The gun makers have a responsibility to insure they do not get into irresponsible hands. Just like we don't allow 5 year olds to drive cars.

We don't require the auto industry to insure that vehicles don't get into irresponsible hands.
Maybe we should sue them for the 35,000 auto accident deaths annually?

We have a flooded gun market which is why things like this happen. Unless the makers and the NRA are sued, they will continue to merely protect profits and hand guns out like toys.

The firearms industry has, in the last few years, been barely able to keep up with demand for some firearms and many types of ammunition.

[vorlon13]

Obama has been the best thing ever for the gun industry.

[Ryantology]

Why two years? What would be involved?

The point is mostly to make gun ownership a lot less convenient than it is. The ease of access to firearms is a huge part of the problem.

What problem does this solve?

As with the first item, it emphasizes the seriousness of gun ownership by making it more difficult to own guns legally. It also helps ensure that law enforcement has current records of legal firearms and can more easily trace them when used in a crime.

Convicted felons can't legally possess firearms. The rest is already largely the case in states with licensing.

I don't want even someone with simple assault on their record to have legal access to firearms. It is insane to allow firearms to any person who has demonstrated a willingness to harm others to the point where they have had to be punished by the legal system.

Firearms are regulated, the debate is about the extent of regulation.

And there are a lot of people who are against regulations of any kind. Those are people who are demonstrably not responsible enough to legally own firearms.

Regulation should ideally be making firearms restricted to all but a tiny minority of the population.

[Chas]

Why two years? What would be involved?

The point is mostly to make gun ownership a lot less convenient than it is. The ease of access to firearms is a huge part of the problem.

What problem does this solve?

As with the first item, it emphasizes the seriousness of gun ownership by making it more difficult to own guns legally.

Making it difficult for the sake of making it difficult is not rational or fair.
Requiring training and education is rational and fair.

It also helps ensure that law enforcement has current records of legal firearms and can more easily trace them when used in a crime.

But registering a firearm does not help identify what firearm was used in a crime - unless you have the gun. And if you do, what has been gained?

Convicted felons can't legally possess firearms. The rest is already largely the case in states with licensing.

I don't want even someone with simple assault on their record to have legal access to firearms. It is insane to allow firearms to any person who has demonstrated a willingness to harm others to the point where they have had to be punished by the legal system.

Assault is a very broad term that encompasses a range of actions. Felony assault involves the use of a weapon.

Firearms are regulated, the debate is about the extent of regulation.

And there are a lot of people who are against regulations of any kind. Those are people who are demonstrably not responsible enough to legally own firearms.

Non sequitur. Not believing in regulations does not make one irresponsible.

Regulation should ideally be making firearms restricted to all but a tiny minority of the population.

I don't share that belief.

[Natachan]

The current law in this state is the license must be renewed every five years I think you have to retake the course each time. Each firearm is already registered when purchased. And any assault, at all, is grounds to be denied. Hell, if you get convicted of a traffic violation you can't get a permit.

The laws are in place. This woman was just an idiot.

[Heywood]

While we are at it lets sue the spoon manufacturers for making people fat.

Agreed, because spoons, like guns, are designed only for the purpose of killing and maiming living things.

Yeah but I don't like the fact that some people use spoons irresponsibly and eat themselves to early grave. Since I can't muster enough political will to ban spoons....the next best thing is to pass laws to make it easier to sue and bankrupt spoon manufacturers. Once we've destroyed the market for spoons....we'll move on to sporks.