...a couple staffers had been armed?
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Wow, man, you're getting really up in arms here. Your example did nothing more that to highlight how important gun safety is and how some people can forget that. A guy puts down a shotgun he forgot was loaded, and, shotguns being shotguns, hit 3 people with bird shot.
You can say no guns = no shootings, but no fires = loss of life or property to fires. Does that mean we should all give up our stoves, oven, and the electrical wiring in our house? Brush fires are a huge problem out west, maybe we should uproot all vegetation in 1/4 mile swaths as fire breaks and salt the land so that nothing grows. My point is: sometimes getting rid of what causes the problem isn't a good answer, and in such a case, we have to look for more adaptable solutions.
A guy puts down a shotgun he forgot was loaded, and, shotguns being shotguns, hit 3 people with bird shot.
A shotgun that goes off when "put down" sounds abysmally bad quality; there is a shit ton of mechanical safeties in any reasonably modern firearm. I suspect he had his finger on the trigger and negligently pulled on it as he removed his hand from the grip. (Rule 3 Fail.)
Admittedly some people have been known to use shotguns as hammers and earned Darwin Awards that way.
True that. The "shotguns being shotguns" part was in reference to having a spread so it should come as no surprise that 3 people were hit. Should have been more specific.
Thanks Blaine can you also find a link to auto accidents?
You missed the point of Tim's question.
But there are sometimes intentional shootings where gun owners meet, we recently lost Chris Kyle at a range, he will be missed.
And precisely how do you plan to accomplish "no guns"? Magic?
And by the way I thought you just said there were no real accidents?
And criminals--the people who really shouldn't have them--will obey these laws banning guns... when? They're criminals. THEY DON'T OBEY LAWS.
The police will still have them, and so will the military. And there are cases of both sorts going rogue.
All you accomplish with your law is to disarm the people who don't need to be disarmed. Actually that's not strong enough. They positively should not be disarmed as they are the first line of defense against law breakers.
Irrelevant. They already have them. They'll simply keep the ones they already have.
Oh that makes sense. Just do something, anything, without perhaps considering if it will have any effect at all. Pass a "feel good" law against the symptom, maybe that will work. Let's ignore the fact that you are punishing millions of law-abiding Americans for the crimes of a very few.
It won't work.
Eradicating gun free zones (which is where all these double digit massacres happen) might.
Here we go again. I shall help you with this, as apparently you have STILL neglected to educate yourself. Class one firearms are long rifles, class two firearms are pistols, and class three firearms are automatic and semi-automatic weapons. None of which are illegal to own except for a few exceptions such as NY city. MAYBE you were thinking class three firearms as being illegal because you must have a special permit in order to own them, but again, you would be wrong. And what reason do you base your interest in making all firearms illegal? Is it the deaths that result from them? In that case there are other places we should look first. Such as automobiles. They have been involved in more deaths outside of war zones than all firearms combined... Or maybe we should just make incompetent people illegal, and solve the whole problem no matter the medium involved in the deaths.....
Good catch on the Class 2, it went past me.
Blaine doesn't NEED to educate himself, he just relies on the mantra that if you get rid of all guns (somehow) by a magic law, everything will be fine.
Oh and he claimed a couple of days ago he was neither pro nor anti gun. Just too ridiculous a joke to really be funny.
"so we just make all guns illegal"
Absolutely true. Guns have no legitimate function in society worth even one life - except as protection from other guns, which is, of course, circular. The idea that they deter tyranny is simply laughable. The laws just recently re-affirmed by congress place the US well down the road toward tyranny already. So who are you going to shoot.
Unfortunately the idea of doing away with all guns has one minor drawback - it's impossible. Nor can I see "peripheral" laws (gun type, magazine size) having any practical purpose.