Strict gun laws are never going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Those laws only hurt responsible gun owners' ability to purchase a firearm.

 

Guns are bought and sold on the streets; used as trade for other items. You can't regulate that and you can't stop it from happening.

So the three year old toddler is the problem? I see the problem as the tragic and unnecessary death of a child. Be careful, your priorities are showing.

 

Wholesale slaughter is the price of freedom.

 

And yes, just a bit hyperbolic.

I can't speak for capt, but I have no problem showing my priorities.

 

The 3 year old is not the problem. The person who left the firearm in a place where the toddler could get at it is, not the firearm. That same person could have left a lit candle where the toddler could have knocked it over, burnt the whole house down, and with the same tragic result.

 

Good point. We should not try to do anything about one type of tragedy, since other types of tragedies exist.

Please tell me how they are different? A candle won't burn a house down unless knocked over by the toddler, same as a car won't start up and run someone over, and a gun wont shoot someone on its own. If people don't realize these objects are not dangerous on their own no education in the world can help, and no a gun is not more dangerous than a steak knife a car, fire or anything else in the wrong persons hands.

That's probably the dumbest question I've ever been asked on these boards.

 

As an aside, I don't recall reading many stories about people robbing banks with lit candles.

That's probably the dumbest question I've ever been asked on these boards.

 

As an aside, I don't recall reading many stories about people robbing banks with lit candles.

 

So instead of debating, you resort to insults.

 

I vehemently disagree with Mayfieldfan, but I see no reason show disrespect because of that.

 

BTW, my extremely simple mind came up with the candle analogy. I'm afraid I don't read NRA literature.

So instead of debating, you resort to insults.

 

I vehemently disagree with Mayfieldfan, but I see no reason show disrespect because of that.

 

BTW, my extremely simple mind came up with the candle analogy. I'm afraid I don't read NRA literature.

Whom did I insult? I thought I was engaging in meaningful -- but tough -- debate. Equating a gun with a lit candle is ludicrous ... to put it mildly. No, a gun is different from a lit candle. Or a steak knife. Or an automobile. It's a manufactured item intended specifically to dispense lead to kill or maim living creatures. It's not a source of illumination, or an eating utensil, or a mode of transportation.

 

Guns are so different from the above that they even have their own amendment to the Constitution.

So the three year old toddler is the problem? I see the problem as the tragic and unnecessary death of a child. Be careful, your priorities are showing.

 

I believe several that have posted after me have answered it very well. Swamprat to give credit where credit is due.

 

Irresponsible persons are the ones to blame. The one that left a loaded gun where a toddler could access it and the criminals that use guns in the commission of their crimes.

Whom did I insult? I thought I was engaging in meaningful -- but tough -- debate. Equating a gun with a lit candle is ludicrous ... to put it mildly. No, a gun is different from a lit candle. Or a steak knife. Or an automobile. It's a manufactured item intended specifically to dispense lead to kill or maim living creatures. It's not a source of illumination, or an eating utensil, or a mode of transportation.

 

Guns are so different from the above that they even have their own amendment to the Constitution.

 

"That's probably the dumbest question I've ever been asked on these boards." is not insulting to you? It would be to me, so I would never degrade someone in that manner. Each to his own, I guess.

 

My point is that accidents happen all the time that don't involve firearms and those accidents can happen even from items that are a source of illumination, or an eating utensil, or a mode of transportation. It's the responsibility and liability of the person who left the tool or firearm in harm's way, not the tool or firearm itself. To me, it's a matter of neglect.

Whom did I insult? I thought I was engaging in meaningful -- but tough -- debate. Equating a gun with a lit candle is ludicrous ... to put it mildly. No, a gun is different from a lit candle. Or a steak knife. Or an automobile. It's a manufactured item intended specifically to dispense lead to kill or maim living creatures. It's not a source of illumination, or an eating utensil, or a mode of transportation.

 

Guns are so different from the above that they even have their own amendment to the Constitution.

 

We should have stricter automobile regulation as they kill more persons than guns do.

"... It's the responsibility and liability of the person who left the tool or firearm in harm's way, not the tool or firearm itself. To me, it's a matter of neglect.

I strongly disagree with those who assign 100 percent of the blame to the irresponsible parent and zero percent to the lead-dispensing device that even a 3-year-old can activate.

 

It ain't that simple.

We should have stricter automobile regulation as they kill more persons than guns do.

Autos are certainly more highly regulated than firearms. If you want to compare auto rules vs. firearms rules, that's an argument you would lose.

Autos are certainly more highly regulated than firearms. If you want to compare auto rules vs. firearms rules, that's an argument you would lose.

 

You won't get an argument out of me on a comparison of regulations.

 

However, you don't see the flaw in your logic? Or am I misunderstanding your point?

I believe several that have posted after me have answered it very well. Swamprat to give credit where credit is due. Irresponsible persons are the ones to blame. The one that left a loaded gun where a toddler could access it and the criminals that use guns in the commission of their crimes.

 

What about the federal agent who left his gun unattended in public, only to be picked up by a known illegal alien/criminal who murdered an innocent bystander with it?

 

The guns fault again?

I'm supporting you Capt with my example not against you.

You won't get an argument out of me on a comparison of regulations.

 

However, you don't see the flaw in your logic? Or am I misunderstanding your point?

I'm just having a little fun by turning the tables on the hackneyed argument that a gun isn't any different than an auto in terms of dispensing death. If that's the way one thinks, then let's regulate guns like we do autos: Age requirements, eyesight requirements, tax the heck out of 'em, registration with the state, proof of liability insurance, possession of an operator's license (which requires a written test and a road test), on and on.