"Blanks" kill actors

Jim,

Does that mean more guns per person or more people with guns? Or does it work out to the same ratio? So I guess that means that even though the law abiding citizens are still law abiding, the number of bad guys is greater so there are more gun incidents Is that it? So we should pass more laws to limit the use of firearms .......by the law abiding people ....... right?

So that obviously refers to the bad people who have guns and use them unlawfully. So we should pass more laws to limit the use of handguns by law abiding citizens ...... right?

That must refer to newspapers and media never publishing ANYTHING about people who prevent injury, save lives, or property, because they legally used a firearm.

And those today who DON"T teach their kids and take precautions with their firearms ..... and are the cause of a disaster. Why is it THEY are not punished by the law instead of trying to pass gun banning laws and unenforceable trigger lock laws and restrict law abiding citizens access to guns?

Well, lemmie tell ya. You're absolutely wrong. If you're really interested I'll post a dozen or so. All you have to do is look in the right places and it's there. There's been a number of studies done through the years and it's indicated that it's at least in the hundreds of thousand times a year, minimum.

You'd have to show me which gun banning group did that study and provide their sources ( which are never revealed) Can you just imagine someone taking a survey and asking a gun owner if they locked up their gun. Even if they didn't ..... who who would say so? That's just like trying to pass a law that makes it mandatory to store all firearms locked up or with trigger guards. Who the hell is ever going to enforce it? In other words, if they didn't have the sense to keep their guns away from children without there being a law, they wouldn't do it .... if there WAS a law. A trigger lock law is sensless.

I sincerely doubt that and again would ask you for your source and their source of that statistic. I don't remember if the The Dept of Justice statistics go into that detail, but as most of the gun banners information, it's likely a made up story. Show me the source of the information and from where it was derived and then it has credibility. Otherwise it's mear propaganda.

If you think that there isn't a preponderance of liberal media in the US, I don't know what else I can say.

By law abiding citizens ..... or the bad guys? Gun restrictions effect the law abiding citizens. Enforce the laws that are presently on the books and gun crimes will drop to fantastically and unbeliveable lows.

Yep, I think it's a great idea. But beyond that, the best way I can insure that other people who have guns, use them responsibly is to have one myself. If the bad guys don't know who has a gun and who doesn't,.... that's the best deterrent. After this Katrina hurricane business settles down, do you think there will be an increase in the number of people who purchase guns? I do. And I think they're right in doing so. There's a small faction of nasty unlawful people in this world. But as you indicated above, the increase of population makes them more pronounced now and if you are right, it will continue to increase. Law abiding people have the right to protect themselves .....because (as in the aftermath of Katrina) the authorities can't and we can't expect them to.

Up till now, you were doing ok but at this point I'd have to guess that you're just talking off the top of your head, and not a gun advocate, or banner, so I'll have to excuse your lack of knowledge about what's been happening in Britain, Australia and Canada over the past decade or so. Canadian citizens are resiting it and it looks like, over the long haul, the great billion dollar gunboggle just might be recinded. In the other two nations, the rise in the rate of violent crime has reached the highest in the western world. Now, only the crimials have the guns and they know the citizens don't. Also, it's a fact that every nation in history, who's populace has been overpowered by their government, it has been essential that the populace not have access to arms and if they do, over a period of time,. they are registered and then confiscated.

Dat's da Facts Jack. Like it or not. Believe it or not. Do some reading and research, as I've done and you'll either like it or not.

Oh and by the way, my guns are loaded and accessible at all times. With no children in the house any longer, trigger locks and gun cases only hamper access. Keep in mind that over the summer months, in my area ( within 20/30 miles) , there were about a half a dozen home invasions.

Get the facts first.

Hey Fat Ass, Not everyone is a fat blubbering coward like you, you know. You've been a coward all your freaking life. Hide behind mommy when the bad boys come after the fat obnoxious piggy boy. Threaten people with a gun then hide it from the authorities when you apply for a license. Coward! You Fat sniviling coward.

Now see? that's where you'd be at a distinct advantage compared to most people. It would take such a long time for you to turn into a cinder, that you could probably shoot at least 2 or 3 thousand rounds, from a musket, before the flames reached your inner reserve of hamburger grease and you burst into a crackling fire ball.

Perhaps this information has escaped you but the Colonies are no longer facing "massive old Great Britain." Also, in those days a bunch of farmers with muskets could hold off a British invasion. These days if you decided to confront the US military with your personal firearms you'd be turned into a cinder before you squeezed off your first round.

And which facts should I get? The ones that say that you're more many times more likely to be shot with your own gun (by a family member OR a burglar) than you are to ever shoot an intruder? Or the ones that say that households with guns have a much higher suicide rate than households without guns? (probably simply because suicide attempts with guns are much more likely to be successful, not because people with guns are more likely to try)

All of this still does NOT convince me that you shouldn't have a gun, but it does convince me that America is in desperate need of some sort of education requirements for gun owners, just like we have for people who want to drive, or fly, or dispense medicine, or certify financial statements, or operate a restaurant. Yes, these aren't foolproof, but they're better than if we didn't have them.

I've heard they make a pretty good slingshot, but lethal? I dunno.

Bob

It's not gun owners that need to be educated, it's the people who don't. A person who doesn't own a gun can be just as lethal with the misuse of a condom, let alone anyone with a gun.

There's one fact you should come to realize.

More people die from sexually transmitted diseases, four fold, than people who die from gun related incidents. If you don't consider that lethal, than neither are guns. Either way, some guy called "Dick" is the culprit.

Would you say that "Dick" was also a "successful prick"?? :-))

Nah, he's closer to an "asshole"

Jim,

I never said to limit your access to firearms, as long as you don't have a criminal record or a restraining order against you, and can pass a reasonable test.

ANYTHING about people who prevent injury, save lives, or property, because they legally used a firearm.

And those today who DON"T teach their kids and take precautions with their firearms ..... and are the cause of a disaster. Why is it THEY are not punished by the law instead of trying to pass gun banning laws and unenforceable trigger lock laws and restrict law abiding citizens access to guns?

They are punished. Do you think when a kid takes dad's unlocked gun and shoots his friend that dad DOESN'T get punished?

Well, lemmie tell ya. You're absolutely wrong. If you're really interested I'll post a dozen or so. All you have to do is look in the right places and it's there. There's been a number of studies done through the years and it's indicated that it's at least in the hundreds of thousand times a year, minimum.

HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS? Come on. The New York Times (spare me your 'liberal media' argument) probably reports on every homicide that takes place in NYC (a couple a day, on average). Do you think they deliberately avoid publishing an article if a guy shoots a bad guy? Do you think the NY POST would ignore that?

It rarely happens. Sure, you could find examples. Over the course of a year, maybe dozens. Even cops rarely shoot bad guys (and not only on-duty, most of them are armed 24/7 and rarely use their guns).

If it were so prevalent, don't you think that your all-powerful lobbying group the NRA would be running ads citing some of these?

You'd have to show me which gun banning group did that study and provide their sources ( which are never revealed) Can you just imagine

someone taking a survey and asking a gun owner if they locked up their gun. Even if they didn't ..... who who would say so? That's just like trying to pass a law that makes it mandatory to store all firearms locked up or with trigger guards. Who the hell is ever going to enforce

it? In other words, if they didn't have the sense to keep their guns away from children without there being a law, they wouldn't do it .... if there WAS a law. A trigger lock law is sensless.

Why do you assume it was a gun-control group? I don't remember who did the study, but it was reported on the radio within the past couple of weeks, I think CBS News but I'm not sure.

By the way, I don't know about the effectiveness of a trigger lock law. But you could apply the same reasoning to seat belt laws- except that with seat belt laws, a LOT more people are buckling up.

I sincerely doubt that and again would ask you for your source and their source of that statistic. I don't remember if the The Dept of Justice statistics go into that detail, but as most of the gun banners information, it's likely a made up story. Show me the source of the information and from where it was derived and then it has credibility. Otherwise it's mear propaganda.

I think what I referred to as happening several times a year is a kid taking a gun and accidentally shooting a friend. I read the same type of news story probably every other month. It happens A LOT in NYC. Go to NYTimes.com and type the words child and gun into the search box and see what shows up.

Let me say this again. The same scenario is reported several times a year in NYC alone-- a kid finds a gun, accidentally shoots his friend. Legal gun? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. To the dead kid's parents, it doesn't matter. The gun should not have been where the kid could get it.

And probably once or twice a year it's reported that a little kid finds a gun in the house and takes it to school, not really knowing what it is.

By the way, "Gun banners?" How about people who believe in gun control without believing in outlawing guns? Or is everybody who wants to do anything to legislate anything to do with guns suddenly in your cross-hairs as evil?

If you think that there isn't a preponderance of liberal media in the US, I don't know what else I can say.

By law abiding citizens ..... or the bad guys? Gun restrictions effect the law abiding citizens. Enforce the laws that are presently on the books and gun crimes will drop to fantastically and unbeliveable lows.

Sure, police and prosecutors are deliberately avoiding enforcing the existing laws because of... oh, why do you think they're doing that? To make things worse so they can take away your gun?

Oh and by the way, my guns are loaded and accessible at all times. With no children in the house any longer, trigger locks and gun cases only hamper access. Keep in mind that over the summer months, in my area ( within 20/30 miles) , there were about a half a dozen home invasions.

That's your choice. But you ARE more likely to be shot with your own gun than you are to kill one of those invaders. Or do you dispute that most murders are committed by a member of the household?

Well, even if you can show me where, in the Dept of Justice statistics, that is stated, what does that address so far? Are you saying that even if that were true, it would be a reason for someone to not have a firearm? Because it was dangerous? I'd guess I'd better give up driving also. What could be more dangerous than being on a highway traveling at

60 mph, in a 300 horsepower machine, along with hundreds of other of people, whom I have no idea of what their driving skills are? I'd also have to give up being a passenger too. That would seem to be MUCH more dangerous than owning a firearm that I might discharge accidently.

I don't think that's in any Dept of Justice statistics either. But even

if it were true, what does it pertain to .... so far ..... here? That people should be tested for suicidal tendencies before being issued a gun permit? With an annual questionnaire re-affirming it? Or, put a multiple choice question on the test that would determine that if they ARE, going to commit suicide, if there were a gun in the house, would they choose poison or a razor or a rope, instead and if so, which would be their preference?

All of that has nothing to do with the facts that you obviously DON'T have. What you've stated above is what is commonly believed by many people because it is stated over and over again by people who want to ban the public from exercising their right to bear arms. They claim this information is a "statistic" or a "fact" when, if anyone would do the actual research or ask these people to reveal their source of information, you would find that it is mostly fabricated or an extension or assumption or twisting of available information. Unfortunately, the press coverage of what these gun banning groups say, is considered valid while the gun support groups, are considered fanatical and their statistics are not even published, much less considered valid. Have you ever seen or read an article having to do with gun control, where the NRA wasn't mentioned in a bad, unsavory way or ridiculed? Have you ever seen an article where Hand Gun Control or the Brady group, was mentioned with similar disdain?

But in answer to your question about which "FACTS" you should get..... no, the items you mentioned above are not what I was referring to but they too, are not valid until you actually look up the sources to see if they are simply propaganda or not. I can tell you that it IS, but until YOU look it up and research it, you would tend to doubt me. The facts that I suggested you get, in my previous post, had to do with the number of times firearms were used to stop a crime, or bodily harm..... and the 1 in 3 homes that fire arms are not locked away. Find out if the "several times in NYC" is actually true or not. And in the process of finding out about the number of "kids" harmed or killed by a gun every year, you just may discover that in all those so called "statistics" that it includes all the gang members that are under the age of 18 .....in the category of CHILDREN. And then investigate if registration of firearms, through history and that which is actually happening TODAY in other countries, is true or not. It's not here in the US ... yet but with every new restriction on the use and ownership of a firearm by a law abiding citizen it's just one step further down the slippery slope towards the loss of the individuals natural right to protect his life, property and freedom.

I don't know what state you are in but in NY you are required to take a safety course before owning a firearm. It's not as comprehensive as it could be, but it is some semblance of effort. There is also a hunters safety course that is required before being issued a hunting license too. It's cursory, but, again, an effort. I'm sure you realize that any test or qualification to perform any activity does not control how well someone will use that information. It's certainly an "effort" but all licensed activities that you named have more than their share of dumb, uncooperative and oblivious participants. And, I'd venture a guess, that there are far more atrocious events that happen every year in any one of those categories than there are involving firearms. You see, in those categories, they have to blame the people. There isn't an inanimate object that can be blamed. The only other place I've seen this tactic used is with SUV's. Did you ever notice that descriptions of auto accidents, never refer to mini vans or sedans or pick-ups. But will be referred to as "the driver of the vehicle". But let there be a SUV involved, all of a sudden the SUV's become the perpetrator and not the driver. You'll hear things such as, "The SUV swerved into the crowd of people" The SUV, ran head on into the ...... " and so on. Firearms have heretofore been alone, in that kind of characterization.

I saw a cartoon once that said it all as far as what the gun banning groups try to portray.

As the cowboy hero rides off into the sunset, there, hanging from a noose in the hanging tree, .... is ...... a six shooter ..... and the bad guy is riding off in the other direction.

If you keep these things in mind when you hear and see things in the media, regarding firearms ..... if you question the source of the information that is given ..... and if you actually research for the truth of the matter, you'll more often than not, see that most people, only hearing one side of the information regarding gun use and crimes, will believe that what they hear is the truth. And gun banning groups, obviously having an agenda and the media with them, gives them special access to the public. If the other side is never allowed/permitted to rebut the claims, how can the public be "informed" .... And obviously the answer is ....it can't. And this is where the politicians pick it up, to pass the "feel good" laws and restrictions on the ownership of firearms by the law abiding citizens and they do nothing to call for enforcing the thousands of laws already on the books ... nationwide. Stronger enforcement is finally beginning to show results in lower gun crimes after many years of liberal pandering for shorter sentencing. And one by one states are passing "right to carry" laws. There are presently 38 states and growing. There are millions of people who are aware of the true significance and results of banning guns from law abiding citizens. I can only hope that they hold on strongly to their rights to do so.

Shaun Eli wrote:

I never said to limit your access to firearms, as long as you don't have a criminal record or a restraining order against you, and can pass a reasonable test.

Absolutely NOT.

He should be imprisioned just the same as any accesory to a murder.

Yes, I do

Yes, I sure do.

Well, you are wrong. Were this another group, I might just take the time to do a little research for you and show you what's taken place in the last few weeks or so, but I'm sure this is getting boring for most of the others here, that are already aware that what I'm saying true.

Well, first of all it isn't MY all powerful lobbying group but it sure is powerful. With several million supporters, they've got to be doing something right. Secondly, they DO publish a list, which I one time verified myself, as being quite accurate. They always list the source of the newspaper so I found a site with links to newspapers across the nation and except for those that required a fee to research their site, all the articles that were referenced where there. There are also a couple of studies and books that have been written some of which say it happens millions of times a year. Taking the middle of the road, I'd guess that hundreds of thousands would more likely be verifiable,

Can you tell me what kind of law or training or course that you might suggest that would actually "force" someone to keep their firearm safely stored? It's a WEAPON! If an owner doesn't have the sense to put it safely away and keep it from kids, do you think you can pass a law that will make them do it? Can you create a training course that will make them do it? Can you make them smart enough to realize they could be harmed or someone else could be harmed if they don't take proper precautions? Regardless of what you tell someone, if they don't want to do it they wont. And therefore when you ask me if the father who causes his child or anyone to be harmed or killed with his improperly kept weapon, should be punished, I say he should ...... just like any other criminal. You want to pass a law that'll make people put their guns away???? Pass one that says if someone is killed or injured by a weapon that you improperly stored, you're going to jail for 25 years.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. "Somewhere", "someone" heard "something" that "they think" was said by "someone" that said ....

Yes, I've thought about that too. Although "I'd" not use a trigger lock, at this point in my life, I perhaps would have when my children where here. I suppose there would be some who would. However, I tend to think that those who would not .... would always include ALL of those who would store their weapons unsafely anyway.

I don't deny that it occurs, but just for the moment, try to ignore the tragedy of it and tell me what deterrent there is to stop it from happening? Would you suggest that a father on crack will be remorseful any longer than it takes him to get his next fix? I'd suggest that he have 25 years to decide if he did the right thing or not.

Exactly right. Who's at fault? What laws, tests or courses could have prevented it? What's the deterrent? Who get's punished for it?

DITTO

After years and years of seeing the the errosion of the Second Amendment and the results of not being a cynical and questioning skeptic of anything that is derogatory to the private ownership of a firearm, EMPHATICALLY YES. Evil, no, they certainly don't think that what they are doing is evil, they think that idealistically if there were NO guns at all, wouldn't the world be a wonderful place. And that just ain't gonna happen. What could their goal be if not to put so many restrictions on gun ownership that it completely negates the purpose of having one? If you had been following this for as many years as I have, you'd see the path and the nuances and subtlety of the antigun supporters. Take this assault rifle ban that was enacted during Clintons office. Strictly a "feelgood" law. There was no reason to pass the law. The firearms that were included were not assault rifles ..... they "looked" like assault rifles, is all. There were only a misicule of crimes that had been committed with them, if I remember right, .01 percent of all gun crimes included some sort of firearm that was or looked like an assault rifle. During the ban, no increase of crimes with the weapon occured, even though there are thousands of them out there and available on the black market. I could understand banning a completely automatic weapon, but not a firearm that has no more capability than a hunting rifle but "looks" like an assault rifle. Fortunately it has recently been allowed to expire. The point is, that each and every NEW law, restriction, limitation to gun ownership can eventually be the line that was crossed that leads to complete banning of gun ownership. Since there's a propensity to equate gun ownership with fanatics and insurgents, as propagated by the media, it's not too far fetched to think that all it's going to take is one event to occur that will throw the majority of the populace towards recinding the ownership of firearms, completely. Or, at least making it SO restricted that it will amount to the same thing. Holding the tide back as early as possible and as much as possible seems to me, to make good sense. Evey chink in the armor is one step closer to complete elimination of the right to self protection. It will be a govenment of the government, and the people be damned.

It's not with any forethought about it's affect on gun ownership. It's just a fact that the courts are (used to be) easier on criminals commiting gun crimes if a "Deal" was made. The result was ....... no deterrent to commit a gun crime. The more gun crimes, the more outcry against the existance of guns. Just cause and effect. No conspiracy. There were a number of cities about 10 years ago, that strated a "tough on gun crimes" policy. There was objection but, in those cities, the gun crimes dropped in a matter of a couple of years. Since then, the trend has been growing and the result are exactly what has been predicted. Gun crimes are the lowest that they been in decades.

I don't really know. I'd have to check to see if the Dept of Justice statistics contained that information. But then it would have to break it down to economic, educational, area, ...... etc and so on. Which I doubt it would do. But, as for me personally ....... there's only me and my wife of 46 years and she'd kill me if I shot her.

If you believe that even a conservative newspaper like the NY Post deliberately omits news stories that show gun owners using their guns to stop criminals, and that this happens several hundred thousand times a year yet a vast conspiracy is keeping this out of the news, I don't know what more I can say to you.

Except we do agree on much-- obviously a safety course isn't going to force a trigger lock on someone, but it may make them realize the advantages. Just like all those gory driver ed films probably do get some students to think about seat belts, not driving drunk, etc. And before you start saying that they're ineffective, I think thirty or forty years of actuarial studies would prove that wrong.

As far as the NRA doing something 'right' because they have a lot of supporters, well, doing something that favors their members doesn't make it right.

And in addition to the news stories about kids finding daddy's gun and shooting little Timmy by accident, there are also news stories about daddy going to jail. Yes, they lock him up. Sometimes even when it's his OWN kid who died.

Shaun, I have stayed pretty much out of this thread because it deals with American situations. As you may or may not know, our laws in Canada are in many ways pretty horrible as far as the bureaucratic restrictions put on legitimate owners; however, in matters of safety, they do deal adequately with training and safe storage. We do have laws dealing with trigger locks as well, but there is no way of knowing whether they work or not, since most gun owners in rural areas either don't bother with such things, or have chosen to ignore the laws because they simply are not practical in those areas. And in the cities where it's more applicable, the minority who have chosen to register their firearms and keep them locked up with a trigger lock on them as the law requires, don't advertise it for fear of theft. And those who don't follow the law don't advertise either for obvious reasons. However, on occasion, some child does get hold of a firearm and shoots himself or a playmate, and our laws ensure the owner is charged with a serious offence. Whether trigger locks help or not in the overall scheme of things, I can't say, but it's logical to assume they do to some degree (all firearms must be unloaded, stored under lock and key, with a trigger lock on them)

The one area where I might take exception to what you say is in regards to how the news media treat the issue of gun control. I have been following this issue for over 30 years, and I can say with absolute 100% assurance that the news media do a very poor job of showing both sides of the gun control issue. Time and time again, they completely distort the issue ensuring that people only see one side - always the negative side. So much so, that any reasonable person knowing anything at all about the issue, can only conclude they are doing so deliberately, or are completely incompetent in their reporting abilities. I once met with the editor of a large daily paper here in Ottawa on this issue, and I'll always remember his words..." We're running a business here, and we have to fill a large number of pages daily with news. Is it any wonder that a lot of it is not researched very well, or just plain wrong"...(or words to that effect)

One can only conclude that if they present such a distorted, negative and one sided view of this issue to the public, what are they reporting when it comes to the millions of other issues in the news.

Scary stuff....

R.H.Campbell Home Security Metal Products Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Well, you can try to understand that the goal of a Newspaper is ...... to sell newspapers. Have you ever "rubbernecked" at an automobile accident on the road? That's the same effect that gun crimes has on people who read, watch or hear the news. More people will be attracted to a heinous crime story with a gun than someone who stops a burglar or scares off a robber from a 7/11 store...... without even firing the weapon! It's not a conspiracy, it's business. It's the RESULT that it has on private gun ownership that suffers.

Yet the number of "children" (ie. under 18, same criteria use as children killed with weapons) killed in automobile accidents is considerably higher than those of gun use. Why isn't "something" done to stop this carnage? But then, again, the number of children killed in bicycle and pool accidents is also higher. When's the last time you heard of a car, pool or bike banning law and dozens of groups to support them? And comparably, all of these are only "privileges" while gun ownership is a "right" Is it not alright to infringe upon privlieges but ok to do so to a Constitutional right?

Really? Hmmm I guess I and our Forefathers thought that was what our government was all about? Remember? By the people? For the people? Convince people that your ideas are right and lobby the government for change? Sounds to me as if it's working and that the NRA is using those precepts in their purest form.

And I'm sure you wouldn't say that supporting the Second Amendment to the Constitution isn't right ...... or perhaps because you've seen the NRA painted as fanatics, with the broad brush of the media, and know nothing else about them, you wouldn't have a basis to think of them as a patriotic oganization ...... would you?

As I say, I've been involved with this for decades. I see where you are coming from and can understand, that without closer investigation on your part, that you are repeating exactly the same points and arguments that the general public is prone to echo. You have only the general media as a source for your opinion. Your replies are boiler plate response of anyone who's only source is what they "read in the newspapers". It's not a plot or a conspiracy but it is just the way things are. Unfortunately the anti gun proponents can utilize these conditions to favor their agenda. I'm here along with a few million others, defending my right to defend my self. And hopefully cause someone such as yourself to think that there might actually BE another side and deeper more far reaching consequences to this anti gun drive, rather than simply a minor inconvenience to law abiding people, who own firearms.

I've never seen that, as a matter of fact. It always seems to me to be ...... what you said before. "It's punishment enough that he lost his ....... etc etc " That, to me is BS.

I say, that if they do go to jail, it not for long enough.

Sorry, but if you're saying that newspapers don't report major stories because they're trying to please their readers, AND that people do NOT want to read about bad guys being shot, you're way off. I can't imagine anybody who doesn't want to read about bad guys being shot. But it doesn't happen all that often. And there is at least some separation between editorial and sales.

Okay, first of all, cars are used for transportation and it's only a bad side-effect that people are killed. A hundred million cars in this country are used probably on average a half-hour a day. Guns? Not so much. Furthermore, we have A LOT of laws to protect children in cars. Cars and drivers are licensed, we have thousands of traffic police, and traffic laws, and stop signs, and speed limits, and seat belt laws, and child seat laws-- AND TESTING before they LET YOU DRIVE. Oh, and bicycle helmets.

As far as pools-- there are fewer than 7,000 drownings a year in this country, and most are not in pools, and most are people who didn't intend to be in the water (fell in, etc.). But still we have laws requiring lifeguards at public pools, and some great percentage of municipalities have laws requiring that private pools be fenced in. Your analogy of guns vs. cars and pools is severely flawed. Guns are made to kill. Sure, you own your handgun for defense, not offense, but the gun doesn't know the difference.

As far as the Constitution, it's clear to everyone who doesn't rally around gun ownership that the framers of the Constitution intended the Second Amendment to apply to state militias, NOT to private ownership. Otherwise there would be no way to stop you from owning machine guns or nuclear weapons. But as I doubt either of us is a Constitutional scholar, let's leave the Constitution out of this.

The media may be a source of some of my information but it is not a source of my opinion. My opinion is my own.

And if you'd read what I'm writing you'd see that I've repeatedly said that I'm not against guns nor against legal ownership, given some sort of requirements such as we have for car owners, so continuing to say that I'm anti-gun is not only disengenuous but just plain wrong.

The last couple of stories about this I've seen, the gun owner did get jail time. I never said anything about loss of the kid being punishment enough. Maybe those were someone else's words on this thread.

I am not attacking your right. Let me say that again. I am not...

But I am suggesting we require people to prove they know how to be safe with something that has proven to be dangerous.

And as far as "wouldn't it be the bad guys that steal them..." From whom? From YOU. Your gun left around can get stolen. Although I read that a huge percentage of black market guns started out being sold by only a handful of gun stores. But of course there are laws preventing the government from doing something about those stores. Gee, smart idea?