Toddler Shot in Head at Ind. Wedding Reception

[undeterred]

Source: ABC News

Police say an 18-month-old girl was shot in the head when a man opened fire at a wedding reception in Indiana after scuffling with other guests.

Lawrence police detective Gary Woodruff said the child, Yuridia Sosa, was in critical condition at Methodist Hospital in Indianapolis after surgery Sunday. Her mother, Mariela Rodriguez, and another woman were shot in the legs, but were expected to recover.

At least two shots were fired around 10 p.m. Saturday after three brothers fought with other wedding guests at a reception hall in Lawrence, a community within Indianapolis.

Officers arrested 21-year-old Francisco Ponce on a preliminary charge of attempted murder. His two brothers face lesser charges. It's unclear whether the three men knew the bride and groom.


Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=8177760

---

Yeah, always bring a gun to family events. That way you get to have more family events. :sarcasm:

[47of74]

1. Pretty soon places will be having metal detectors...

...if this sort of shit is going on.

[joeybee12]

2. I'm sure they got the guns legally...after all, we're talking about rights here!

And, of course, that little girl doesn't have a right to a life free from fear, or even a life, maybe.

[imdjh]

3. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[baldguy]

9. Gun worshipers who put NRA robots in office should be ashamed.

People who deny the need for any reasonable sort of gun control should be ashamed.

Politicians we propagandize the purpose & meaning of the 2nd Amendment & promote fear and distrust of the govt among the gullible for political gain should be ashamed.

[Pavulon]

19. Define reasonable. Really, total ban. Because the person here broke multiple laws..

already. I doubt they had a ccw, probably drinking, and fired a weapon. Ww are talking dumb fuckers. They dont care about some law. They broke several to lead up to that event.

So unless you DESTROY every firearm in the united states there is no new regulation that covers this. Maybe the dont be a dumb drunk law will work.

[proud2BlibKansan]

29. I could go along with destroying every gun in the US

No problem at all.

[Pavulon]

39. I could go along with a million a month and a free house

but not a realistic expectation. So look at previous and current bans. Prohibition, wonderful success. Drug ban, what a joke. lots of bodies stacked in our little drug war. Still get any drug i want.

Now that you have an idea, please explain how you are going to ensure the destruction of EVERY weapon, and how this will be done.

Right after jesus plays a set at the garden will this ever happen in the united states.

It would actually be harder to do this than fix root cause of violent behavior and gun death. Mental health (50%), drug murder (not sure, lots) drive real numbers.

[KamaAina]

212. Would you settle for the Jesus and Mary Chain?

Right after jesus plays a set at the garden will this ever happen in the united states.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Frankly, guns scare the living crap out of me -- but you do make a cogent point regarding prohibition. Maybe ammo control (not prohibition) is the way to go. Remember, guns don't kill people -- bullets kill people. :sarcasm:

[slackmaster]

192. Except those that are used by governments

Of course.

[joeybee12]

38. Well, we don't know if there were prior incidents...also, could have got it at a gun show...

...those are still totally unregulated.

[Pavulon]

41. Umm no.

60 minutes is not the best source for information. There is no regulation for resale to individuals. Either way, how they GOT it is not the issue, why they USED it is. It was a crime to conceal it, crime to drink and carry it, and a crime to fire it. Why would this person respond to anything but a physical ban.

[joeybee12]

43. Um, no...the issue is that these guys may have not been able to get the

guns through a way tyhat is regulated...they could have had a criminal record, mental issues, so YES the question is HOW...

[Pavulon]

47. Possession would be a crime,

so even if they find one in the street they are committing a crime by owning in. Then a crime by carrying it concealed, and another by firing it. So even if there is a ban of person to person sales, you think this person will not still break that law?

[geckosfeet]

94. How they got it IS an issue - at least part of the issue if he has no permit.

If he bought it illegally someone sold it to him illegally. I'd say that was an issue.

If he had no concealed carry permit, he was illegal, not to mention shooting while drunk. But hey, if I am buying and possessing a gun outside the law I probably don't give a crap about drinking and shooting either.

Anyway, had he not had access to the gun in the first place some folks may not have gotten shot by him.

Then again, if had bought it legally, well then, lets just say I hope that there are not a lot more like him out there. Unfortunately I think that there are.

[Pavulon]

96. I think gun laws should carry weight

there are a whole bunch of them out there and if they carried the same weight as the NFA people would not be as inclined to break them. My opinion.

The reality is there will be access to guns in the US. Influencing how people choose to act is the real issue.

[gorfle]

205. False meme.

Well, we don't know if there were prior incidents...also, could have got it at a gun show......those are still totally unregulated.

All federal, state, and local laws that apply outside of gun shows apply inside of gun shows.

To whit: FFL sales require a background check, private sales do not.

[baldguy]

48. Look at whatever position the NRA has, and take the opposite stance.

[AtheistCrusader]

143. So you opposed the Brady National Instant Background Check system?

Interesting. Tell me more.

[eqfan592]

218. lol, nice :)

[Statistical]

234. The NRA supported and lobbied for multiple measures to keep guns from prohibited persons.

As you point out the most well known is the NICS.

This move was opposed by the Brady campaign as it would make the human and error prone manual system obsolete however it would also allow checks to be done instantly instead of over the course of 3-4 days. So the modern "background check" system was put into place largely due to NRA lobbying.

Also the NRA the supported the GCA Gun Control Act of 1968 which is the law that made felons unable to own firearms.

The NRA (despite a vocal minority) supported the 1986 ban on purchase of new machineguns. They also supported the 1989 update to the NICS that includes mentally ill persons in the instant background check.

So the NRA despite the hysteria has supported sensible gun control measures to keep guns out of the hands of felons.

[X_Digger]

235. tsk tsk tsk..

Stop deflating their imaginary punching bags with facts.

[AlbertCat]

123. Really, total ban.

No one has mentioned that.

Knee jerk reactions! Say "gun control", and the NRA bell goes off and the Pavlov Dog Gun Nuts shout "TOTAL BAN" just like they've been trained to do.

[Pavulon]

129. I promote ideas that work..

total ban would work, if really total. They mentioned it down stream. Problem with that is it will never happen, never. So on the list of stuff that would actually reduce violence you have mental health and drug reform. Those are realistic agenda items.

[Blandocyte]

156. Never happen?

It will happen. I know cuz I have the new XD 2020 crystal ball with the mag that holds 20 rounds of knowledge of the future.

[Pavulon]

162. Yep, jeebus will miracle it

that is the only way it will ever happen. It is politically impossible to ban all firearms. Short of the return of the messiah that option is pretty much off the table.

[Indydem]

95. Are you Fing kidding me?

After 8 years of Bushco, you have no fear or distrust of the government? Were you asleep?

These were (alegedly) uninvited guests who decided to make trouble and shot into a crowd of people.

I guaranteee they were neither licensed gun owners or NRA members.

[AlbertCat]

128. After 8 years of Bushco, you have no fear or distrust of the government? Were you asleep?

And you're going to "protect" yourself from the Federal Government with your gun.

Are you asleep? Nuts? Paranoid?

A bunch of people having guns keeps government honest. Huh. Do tell!

[Pavulon]

130. See the illiterate guys with rifles and ieds

who crippled the US military.

[Mad_Dem_X]

196. .

:applause:

[northernlights]

11. I think they left out the sarcasm icon

That was clearly intended.

[joeybee12]

35. I didn't think that sarcasm button was needed....

....apparently it was.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

50. Sad, isn't it?

Sometimes this place just floors me.

You are not alone, my friend..............

[eqfan592]

219. No, what's sad is....

...that you freeper lites think that getting rid of all the guns in the world would some how create a world without fear. That's borderline delusional.

[baldguy]

59. Right wingers don't do sarcasm.

[No Elephants]

166. Yeah, they do. They just do it the way they do everything else. Very poorly.

[iverglas]

230. here in the Guns forum

it is considered to be "sarcasm" if you make up some really dumb shit that involves something like "banning guns will stop all crime" and then put a sarcasm idiothingy after it.

This is supposed to mean that someone has said "banning guns will stop all crime", and you are mocking it.

Sadly ...


I do hope you and Tangerine LaBamba will visit us more often. eqfan592 and many of his cohort make much of how they can't see my posts. Doesn't bother me - I can see theirs just fine - but I could use the novelty of observing intelligent life here occasionally. Perhaps as long as they can see yours, brief as that time may be - yes, so great is the interest in discourse here in the dungeon - I'll get the benefit of reading them. ;)

[joeybee12]

I can't remember...are you a gun nut, or did my obvious sarcasm

miss you? Didn't think I needed to out that there.

[imdjh]

102. I meant that you should be ashamed of yourself for exploiting that child's injury...

... to oppose the Second Amendment.

[katandmoon]

134. Ashamed why? Gun worshippers value their dick extensions more than the lives taken with them.

[imdjh]

135. clever

[we can do it]

215. WHY?

[Tangerine LaBamba]

6. You talking right to life here?

As if that's more important than the right to bear arms.

What kind of Commie are you, anyway?

:sarcasm: <------------- sadly needed, I'm afraid.............

[joeybee12]

34. Oh, that's what I forgot!

The sarcasm button...didn't think I needed it...apparently I did.

[Fumesucker]

60. It's a corollary of Poe's Law..

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe%27s_Law

""Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.""

I haven't found anything yet to be sarcastic about online that SOMEONE won't mistake for being serious.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

63. It's vital,

that emoticon, in a two-dimensional plane that so lacks a sense of humor.

I can never quite believe it, but here it is again..................

[valerief]

49. I'm sure she was a post-birth girl anyway.

:sarcasm:

No loss.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

53. Good one!!!!

Oh, what a GOOD ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Lorien]

121. Amen. nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

137. You really should be ashamed of yourself. Of course this poor little girl has a right to live.

The criminal that shot her should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

[marshall]

140. They certainly do sound like law abiding citizens

In these days and times.

[solstice]

141. Hope gun nuts are happy.

[eqfan592]

220. Why would anybody be happy about this?

Should anybody in support of the 1st amendment be happy at the way Fox News uses it? The real criminal thing here is that you target the guns as your focal point when they are about as far from the root source of the problem as can be. You distract from the issues that could have a real impact on crime, like poverty and urban decay, and instead promote an ideology bereft of any actual logic, not to mention integrity among the organizations that promote it.

You stand in the way of those of us who would try to actually do something about crime by going after the real issues. I hope you're happy.

[rd_kent]

193. Ah, yes, stir THAT pot before you know that whole story.

Is it a race to be the first ass?

[rocktivity]

4. So much for putting the video on YouTube.

x(
rocktivity

[jberryhill]

57. No More Calls, Please. We Have A Winner. /nt

[Tangerine LaBamba]

68. Forgive me if this is forward, but

[sasquatch]

97. .

:rofl:

[No Elephants]

161. Rocktivity is so funny!

[Tangerine LaBamba]

5. See, if only more people had had guns there,

then, uh, wait, how does it go?

If there had been more people with guns there, then there could have been returned fire, and the guy who shot first would have gotten shot himself, and then it would have been fair.

Or something like that.

Guns don't kill people - people kill people. Or so I've heard.

Now, who's gonna tell that baby's mother how that works?

[undeterred]

15. If the 18 month old had been armed,

she could have shot first.

:sarcasm:

[Tangerine LaBamba]

16. Well,

at least she'd maybe have gotten a shot off in return.................

[Pavulon]

18. Maybe the asshole who shot her? Lets make guns responsible..

that makes great sense. wtf is wrong with people. "SUV kills..." "gun kills..." a PERSON fired that weapon.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

58. Yes, that's right -

a person fired that weapon.

Think about what you wrote..............

[Pavulon]

76. Yep, a person is required.

to act with intent and break a law. A person chooses to get in a car drunk. They choose to text and drive. The result a person pays fro their stupidity. And that person should be responsible for their act. car, gun, knife, whatever.

A stupid person will not follow the law unless it has teeth. Dont see many illegal machine guns. That law puts you in prison for 10 years, 1st time, every time.. More than rape, more than manslaughter.

Illegal possession of a weapon, use of a weapon in a crime should carry the same results.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

79. Guns -

none of it would have happened if a gun weren't involved.

It's that simple. And, please - it's not defensible. Facts are pesky things, and you're trying too hard to defend a losing argument.,,,,,

[Pavulon]

87. 8 dead in DWI accident, ban booze

my argument is that a constitutional right is not relevant to some criminal ass who should probably have been in jail already. You thing no one died before guns were invented?

What is your solution?

[Tangerine LaBamba]

88. We're not talking about deaths here -

we're talking about guns.

Didn't you get that?

My solution is that all guns should be banned, save for those in the military, regulated by the Federal government.....................

[Pavulon]

91. Great, now we are on track..

so your solution is untenable. It will never happen here no matter how many bodies are paraded out. EVER, unless God almighty miracles it. Tried that with booze and dope, what a joke. Abandon a ban and try something useful. Like addressing the motivation for the bad act.

That factor is why Tokyo and Zurich have tiny numbers of violent crimes, tokyo no guns, zurich guns.

Root cause takes real work.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

99. OK -

I think guns are horrible things, and should be banned.

Why are you blathering at me?

Are you trying to tell me that my opinion is WRONG?

Are you trying to change my mind?

Why are you prattling on?

I think guns are horrible things, and should be banned.

And that's the end of it.

Now, why are you banging your head against the pavement?

I have absolutely no desire to change your opinion, so why are you badgering here?

It IS funny, though, I must admit, all those words.....................

[Pavulon]

100. Cool, be sure to call in support the health care bill

i am telling you your opinion will never become a reality in your lifetime.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

103. So what?

It's still my opinion, so why are you being so vehement in trying to convince me otherwise?

Lots of people have hopes. I'm sure you do, too, but they won't become realities in their lifetimes.

So what?

THAT is your explanation for all your wordy posts to me?

Oh, brother.

Go, go spread joy, honey.......................................

[Pavulon]

107. We agree to disagree..

but do call for health care. Access to mental health care would actually prevent death.

No one is changing opinion, Maybe looking at the problem from a different angle would not hurt?

[Tangerine LaBamba]

109. No, I don't agree with you

about anything.

I avoid having agreements with people who do silly, intemperate things, and given what I've seen of you here, you do silly, intemperate things...........................

[Pavulon]

114. That is a generally polite way to end a discussion

less polite ways are childish and involve name calling and insults. You added neither fact or value to this thread, certainly no alternative to status quo approach. The only thing I have done is type stuff, that is the only action you have from me. Typed words in response to people who trot out bodies to support their politics.

[llmart]

120. We can only hope that yours won't either.

n/t

[Pavulon]

125. Universal healthcare and drug reform?

pretty much my big topics. Most people agree with those around here.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

115. Let's not violate the Constitution while coming up with a solution.

[No Elephants]

165. The Roberts' Court view of the Second Amendment, anyway.

[eqfan592]

221. Them...

...and the majority of constitutional scholars, and the person who promoted the "collective" right ideal originally as well, not to mention anybody with half a brain and an understanding of grammar. But hey, who's counting?

[Common Sense Party]

184. Damn that pesky Constitution.

Your idea is idiotic, unworkable, and unconstitutional.

Other than that, it has a lot going for it.

[No Elephants]

174. People died, but not from stray bullets.

[AlbertCat]

132. Yep, a person is required.

So let's outlaw people instead of guns!


If the person didn't have a gun, he couldn't shoot it. Like Eddie Izzard says: "I think the gun helps. After all just yelling "BANG" isn't gonna do anything....unless someone's heart is dodgy."

[Pavulon]

133. Wonder why this does not happen in canada or switzerland

both have armed populations but tiny fractions of this violence. That is the core of this topic, any solution that ignores that is just a lie served up to idiots to show what "action" was taken to prevent crime. Those days are done, no one is buying that anymore..

[No Elephants]

173. Is your argument that we should ban Americans then, since they seem so much

less responsible with guns than the Swiss and the Canadians?

Since we're kind of stuck with our own population, arguments about what people in other countries do or don't do with guns seem beside the point when discussing what we should do here.

[iverglas]

233. actually

Arguments based on relevant facts from other countries can be useful.

For instance, the fact that most firearms crime/deaths in the US involve handguns, and the fact that access to handguns in Canada is subject to stringent oversight and regulation, could just help to explain the much lower rate of firearms crime/deaths in Canada.

A problem does arise when the "facts" alleged are simply false, or lovingly cherry-picked and spun to look like something they ain't.

[rd_kent]

194. Actually, it does happen in Canada

Canada has a very strict ban on most guns, especially hand guns (they allow true hunting rifles and shotguns) yet Vancouver, Edmonton and Montreal are having RECORD numbers of violent gun deaths, attributed to gangs and robberies. I see that as an example of how a gun ban WILL NOT WORK (aside from being unconstitutional).

[iverglas]

232. do you?

Canada has a very strict ban on most guns, especially hand guns (they allow true hunting rifles and shotguns) yet Vancouver, Edmonton and Montreal are having RECORD numbers of violent gun deaths, attributed to gangs and robberies. I see that as an example of how a gun ban WILL NOT WORK

I guess if you don't bother to mention the truths of the situations, you might see it that way.

A record number of gun deaths would be something like the 52 that occurred in Toronto in 2005. In a population of 5.5 million. A population that was outraged at the thing.

You know what 52 in 5.5 million is, as a per-100,000 rate? Less than 1.

Find me a major metropolitan area in the US that has had a rate of 1 firearm homicide per 100,000 in the last few decades.

Of course, then there's England & Wales, which recently had 52 firearm homicides in a population of 55 million ... orders of magnitude, eh?

[iverglas]

231. wonder why you keep repeating this bullshit

Wonder why this does not happen in canada or switzerland
both have armed populations but tiny fractions of this violence.

To acquire and possess a handgun in Canada, one must be a member of an approved sports shooting club and/or a qualified collector.

To transport a handgun in Canada, one must have a permit to transport, which will be issued for the purpose of transporting to and from shooting facilities/events or shows.

To carry a handgun on one's person in Canada, one must have a permit for that purpose. If you are employed to transport cash or securities, you will likely get one.

The population of Canada IS NOT ARMED.

About a quarter of the households in Canada possess firearms, a majority of them long arms possessed for hunting and/or rural purposes.

Firearm crime in the US is overwhelmingly handgun crime. (And no, that fact does not mean that there should be no regulation of any long arms.)

There ARE NO RELEVANT POINTS OF COMPARISON between Canada and the US when it comes to correlations between firearms possession and crime. There is a huge DISSIMILARITY, and that is the completely unequal access to handguns in the two countries.

Give it fucking up. If you can't win an argument without advancing falsehoods, you've lost.

[liquid diamond]

31. It must kill you that about half of the posters here support gun rights.

Every time a tragedy like this happens, you people try to exploit the victims with your pathetic political agenda of banning guns.

[joeybee12]

40. It must kill you that you can't do math...

...I support the 2nd amendment that allows reasonable gun control...and every time the NRA comes out with a lie, you try to foist that us on as if we're as gullible as you.

[Missy Vixen]

61. It must kill you that a two-year-old is dead

through no fault of his or her own.

Of course, we must not mention the victims. They're collateral damage. Who gives a shit about them? It's important to keep the Second Amendment, no matter who dies!

It's the gun fetishists again. You can practically set your watch by them.

:sarcasm:

[Pavulon]

70. Yep, you guys are like protesters at clinics

with posters of dead babies. Parade a dead body, it makes your point?

Lets ban alcohol because a whole lot more people die in dwi than in shootings. You support that right?

[Missy Vixen]

81. You know what?

I'll take the deletion.

Fuck you.

I am so sick of the gun fetishists at this forum that swarm any discussion at all of the latest victim(s) of gun violence, and your little NRA/RW talking points, which get trotted out in milliseconds after whatever's being discussed is being reported on. I'm not parading anyone's dead baby, and I never will. I'm sick inside that that child will never get to grow up because a group of adults can't admit that every adult in America shouldn't be able to own a gun. It is a topic that's up for discussion, whether YOU like it or not.

We all know what's important to you and your other gun fetishist buddies. The hunks of metal in your possession mean more to you than your friends, your families, your co-workers, and their lives. After all, they're collateral damage. How dare we suggest that your don't give a shit about them or anyone else, as long as you can own a gun?

BTW, keep it up with the "you're just like a clinic protester" rhetoric. I'm pro-choice. I'm not using NRA/RW talking points to defend my opinions.

[Pavulon]

85. I'm an adult, not a problem

however the logic stands. I can drink responsibly, I could do drugs responsibly if they were legal. I can own a firearm responsible. I am not in the NRA, never have been.

Every adult CAN NOT and SHOULD NOT own a gun. The stupid people who screw it up for the rest of us should NEVER own a gun. One violent crime, one bad act should end that for a citizen.

I REFUSE to pay the penalty for criminals who break laws that I obey. The last bastion of a position is to argue emotion. Empathy for a person does not mean I am responsible, and your emotional response shows a lack or reality.

Want to be useful, fix root cause. Mental health and drug law drive gun violence. Universal health care and restructuring the laws so that impoverished kids stop killing each other over product is meaningful.

I made my calls to support health care, i did my part to do something realistic.

[eqfan592]

225. Well said!!!! (nt)

[Lorien]

127. Well said Missy Vixen

:yourock: :applause:

[proud2BlibKansan]

179. +1000

[rd_kent]

197. -1000000 for VIXEN

"We all know what's important to you and your other gun fetishist buddies. The hunks of metal in your possession mean more to you than your friends, your families, your co-workers, and their lives. After all, they're collateral damage. How dare we suggest that your don't give a shit about them or anyone else, as long as you can own a gun?"

How dare you suggest that those of us that sees that THE CONSTITUTION GIVES ALL OF US THE RIGHT TO HAVE GUNS, are "gun fetishist" and that those guns "mean more to you than your friends, your families, your co-workers, and their lives." Fuck you and you emotional, uninformed, broad brush, stereotypical response. I have a gun because my friends, family and co-workers (most of them anyway) mean MORE to me than you will ever know. Just the thought that an asshole like the people in this story are able to take that away from me is gut wrenching. I do not love guns. I am not a gun worshiper. I am not a gun fetishist. Is that clear? Do you hear me? I want my gun because the Constitution says I can and because even if you took them away from all of us, shit like what happened in this story WOULD HAPPEN ANYWAY! Then what would you say? You would probably look at the root causes and realize that IT WAS NOT THE GUN, BUT THE ASSHOLE THAT USED THE GUN who is at fault.

If you want to have a serious discourse on this subject, you have got to stop painting all of us who want to exercise our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS as gun-nuts, please! We are on the same side. We want to see an end to the violence and the unnecessary and ILLEGAL use of guns. We are on the same side! DO you understand that? We are on the same side!

[Missy Vixen]

210. We'll never be on the same side

I don't need a gun to "protect" my family and friends. I also don't need a gun because I'm convinced I can't survive in this country without one.

Those who insist that their gun rights are paramount to the rights of those of us who may find ourselves caught in crossfire through no fault of our own are gun nuts and gun fetishists. They cherish this right to the exclusion of any other, and to the detriment of those of us who are sick of the carnage wrought by yet one more person with a gun who never should have had access to one in the first place.

If the shoe fits, cupcake...

[rd_kent]

222. That is unfortunate

I try to explain my point of view and how it CAN coincide with yours. I try to see if there is middle ground that will allow us to co-exist. But I guess I am only dreaming. Sorry you feel that way.

[eqfan592]

226. Wow, creationists and freeper pro-lifers shot out in agreement with your "logic" there.

Like you said, if the shoe fits, "cupcake."

[fascisthunter]

200. Very Well Stated

[gorfle]

206. Fundamental flaw in your argument.

I'm sick inside that that child will never get to grow up because a group of adults can't admit that every adult in America shouldn't be able to own a gun. It is a topic that's up for discussion, whether YOU like it or not.

I don't know of anyone who thinks that every adult in America should be able to own a gun. I'm all for background checks for all firearm sales, including private sales, so long as anonymous firearm ownership can be preserved.

We all know what's important to you and your other gun fetishist buddies. The hunks of metal in your possession mean more to you than your friends, your families, your co-workers, and their lives. After all, they're collateral damage. How dare we suggest that your don't give a shit about them or anyone else, as long as you can own a gun?

You misunderstand the motivation. Yes, the collective freedom of all is absolutely more important than my friends, my families, my co-workers, or their individual lives, even my own life. My owning firearms is not about me satisfying my own personal desire to own property. My owning firearms is about me collectively having the ability to protect ourselves from tyranny and oppression. Yes, there will be abuses of this liberty, and people will die because of it. Yet, as Thomas Jefferson said, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending a too small degree of it."

[Missy Vixen]

209. Oh, really?

>I don't know of anyone who thinks that every adult in America should be able to own a gun. I'm all for background checks for all firearm sales, including private sales, so long as anonymous firearm ownership can be preserved.<

We see the arguments here against even routine background checks when there is yet another random shooting, so you're just being disingenuous.

>My owning firearms is about me collectively having the ability to protect ourselves from tyranny and oppression. Yes, there will be abuses of this liberty, and people will die because of it.<

Oh, I see. You're all about "freedom". Those who have their freedom infringed on by nuts with guns, of course, will just have to understand that their dead loved ones are "the price we pay". At least you're truthful. Most gun fetishists will not even admit to giving the dead and wounded a passing thought. After all, they're not important.

[gorfle]

217. Cite an example, please.

We see the arguments here against even routine background checks when there is yet another random shooting, so you're just being disingenuous.

What you said was:

"I'm sick inside that that child will never get to grow up because a group of adults can't admit that every adult in America shouldn't be able to own a gun."

I have never seen a post here that said every adult in America should be able to own a gun.

Most gun owners have no problems with keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and insane people.

I have no problem with background checks for all firearm sales, even private firearm sales which currently require no background check, so long as firearm ownership anonymity is preserved. I have even created and posted (several times) my proposal for an opt-out national FOID system.

Oh, I see. You're all about "freedom". Those who have their freedom infringed on by nuts with guns, of course, will just have to understand that their dead loved ones are "the price we pay". At least you're truthful. Most gun fetishists will not even admit to giving the dead and wounded a passing thought. After all, they're not important.

Yes, those who die are indeed "the price we pay". The simple fact is our founders created a Constitution that enumerates our right to keep and bear arms as insurance against tyranny and oppression. I'm sure they were fully aware that people would abuse that right, and I'm sure that even in the founders' day people were murdered with firearms.

I request that you stop using the term "gun fetishist". It insinuates that my position evolves from some kind of unhealthy mental fascination with firearms, which I assure you it does not. If we are not allowed to use the word "hoplophobe" here on DU, as it insinuates some kind of mental issue relating to firearms, terms such as "gun fetishist" should also not be allowed. Thanks.

[eqfan592]

223. I'm game.

No, fuck YOU! I'm sick inside because people like you stand in the way of solving the ACTUAL problems behind crime in this nation. You distract from the issues of poverty, urban decay, poor education, unemployment, and instead promote this backwards, freeper lite ideology that somehow a basic civil liberty is what's too blame for this crime, and nothing else.

Every time you distract from these issues, more blood is placed on your hands. And you'll noticed not a single fucking NRA talking point there either. But I'll take their talking points over the VPC's and the Brady Campaigns any day, because those two REPUBLICAN organizations have proven to be without anything even resembling integrity.

[liquid diamond]

142. Mention away, but I don't agree with exploiting them for political gain.

Keep up your crying, but guns are here to stay!! I'm off to the firing range next weekend. Yippee!

[Missy Vixen]

182. So let me get this straight --

Any mention of the victims of gun violence in our society is "exploitation". In other words, the constant reminder that you, and others of your ilk, have NO regard for those who die because of your extra-special toys is unacceptable to you.

Tough shit.

In the meantime, weeeeee! I'm going to spend the weekend as far away from gun fetishists as possible!

[Lorien]

124. Look in the mirror. nt

[No Elephants]

167. Posters don't kill me. RW trolls are annoying, but I get over it.

[Liberal_in_LA]

7. This recently happened in LA: Security guard charged with firing gun, hitting woman a mile away

firing guns randomly can be dangerous


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/security-guard-prosecuted-for-firing-gun-and-wounding-sleeping-woman.html

A security guard in Long Beach has been charged with two felonies stemming from an incident last month in which he allegedly fired his gun in the air to break up a fight and wounded a woman a mile away as she slept outside her home.

[TreasonousBastard]

12. But, but, but, Mythbusters proved...

absolutely that you can't be hurt by a falling bullet.

(Maybe they just proved you can't be killed by one-- it was long time ago I saw it.)

[JonLP24]

20. That isn't true

Results: Busted , Plausible, and Confirmed

In the case of a bullet fired at sufficiently close to a vertical angle to result in a non-ballistic trajectory, the bullet would tumble, lose its spin, and fall at a much slower speed due to terminal velocity and is therefore rendered less than lethal on impact (the Busted rating). However, if a bullet is fired at a lower angle allowing for a ballistic trajectory (a far more likely case), it will maintain its spin and will retain enough energy to be lethal on impact (the Plausible rating). Because of this potentiality, firing a gun into the air is illegal in most U.S. states, and even in the states where it is legal, it is not recommended by the police. Also the MythBusters were able to identify two people who had been injured by falling bullets (fired from approximately 1 mile (1.6 km) away, and hence at a lower angle), one of them fatally (the Confirmed rating). To date, this is the only myth to receive all three ratings at the same time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2006_season)#Episode_50_.E2.80.93_.22Bullets_Fired_Up.22

[baldguy]

21. If the bullet remains in a ballistic trajectory, it remains lethal.

When they're fired straight up, they start to tumble.

[gorfle]

207. Stuck in the roof of a car.

A friend of mine was standing right next to her car when she heard a loud BANG. Embedded in the roof of her car, right up to the base of the bullet, is what looks to be a 9mm FMJ. It punched a hole in the metal but plugged it. It appears to have entered nearly vertically.

This may not be lethal, but I would not want to be hit with it.

[AtheistCrusader]

144. Straight up sure.

But he didn't hit her a mile away by firing straight up, and having the bullet fall back to earth at its terminal velocity.

[Realityhack]

204. Mythbusters seldom prooves anything.

Few of their tests are remotely scientific. Fun as heck to watch but not scientific.

[TreasonousBastard]

214. Ya know, since that sarcasm thingy showed up...

everyone expects you to use it.

(And I stopped watching after they got really wimpy about blowing things up-- if you're gonna blow something up, blow it the fuck up.)

[Realityhack]

216. Sorry. Sometimes I miss sarcasm

Sorry about that.

Didn't they accidental shatter a whole bunch of windows relatively recently?

[rocktivity]

14. My aunt found a hole in her window and blamed her 10-year old son

He protested his innocence, and a closer look at the hole make her realize that it was too high up to her son to have done it and that the crack was on the outside. A search of the room revealed a spent bullet. And did I mention that she lived in an 11th floor apartment?

:headbang:
rocktivity

[Liberal_in_LA]

22. wow.

[TreasonousBastard]

8. If you outlaw guns...

only wedding crashers will have guns.

Or something like that.

[Liberal_in_LA]

10. lol n/t

[valerief]

51. LOL. nt

[defendandprotect]

13. "Guns don't kill people" .... Obviously, the gun didn't matter here -- !!!!

:sarcasm:

[Pavulon]

17. Enough stupidity..

Who here is so fucking stupid they think this is a gun thing. A person acted violently, unless someone drops a gun it is not a gun problem.

This is about stupid fuckers doing stupid shit.

What is the end game with this guys. You want what, a ban? Ban for stupid people?

Or fix root cause.

This cycle of every shooting gets an open debate never goes anywhere is silly.

[polmaven]

23. Sure, 'cause

if guns weren't used, an 18 month old girl might have been accidentally stabbed in the head by a stray knife blade.

[Pavulon]

30. Or DWI accident, or dead from eating mommy's drugs

this is about stupid people. See the thread about the wrong way driver, killed 8 people or so. No gun involved. Did you know it is illegal to drive the wrong way? Illegal to drive drunk?

How should this impact you automobile ownership?

[JonLP24]

42. You got a point

Jesse Ventura said "You can't legislate stupid." in response to a question on The View when one was asking what about DUI if marijuana is legalized which he advocates for.

[No Elephants]

175. Like a tree, only God can make a moran. The same is not true of guns, though.

No offense to Jesse, but that argument was not on point.

[polmaven]

55. Well, quite clearly all motor vehicles

should be BANNED!, because they have absolutely no other purpose than to be used for killing!

[Pavulon]

67. When you are bleeding out your ears after a kid on a phone hits you

how will you be more dead than from a gunshot? Purpose does not negate the body count.

[polmaven]

77. Again, like I said!

we clearly need to get rid of all motor vehicles. They serve absolutely no useful purpose!

[Pavulon]

86. Beer too, tried that, what a fuck up that was(nt)

[No Elephants]

176. A kid on a phone hits you?

[Pavulon]

228. Like that song "halo"

when you are leaking spinal fluid and blood it makes a halo on a bandage. That means you are pretty well dead. Car accidents and gun shots both can leave this trauma.

[No Elephants]

170. Right, all that crap about gettting your and your stuff where you want to go is

nothing but pro-car propaganda.

[Scout]

208. so since we can't eliminate STUPID PEOPLE maybe we should eliminate the guns n/t

[Stand and Fight]

52. I'm a guns right advocate, but that comment....

I may be a guns right advocate, but your comment was short, succinct, and smart. :yourock: Point taken.

[undeterred]

24. It is a gun thing.

People drink at wedding receptions. Emotions flare. If a violent person is not armed with a gun they're not likely to kill a toddler.

What possible reason is there to bring a gun to an event like this?

[Pavulon]

28. None, Not legal. Against the law already

it is against the law in this state to consume alcohol while carrying a weapon. So this idiot already broke the law. A person who is willing to break the law, a felony here, will respect a new law?

[proud2BlibKansan]

33. Yet this little girl still got shot

Yep those laws are really effective, aren't they?
:sarcasm:

[Pavulon]

56. Sorry, every time some ass kills someone drunk, I dont think

about a ban on french wine. Some drunk asshole does not impact my legal right to own a weapon, yet. If the law was to change i could probably get by. Since I am not poor I could afford to buy a permit in NYC or socal by donating to the correct persons re-election fund. Funny how the bans work in those places.

You can parade all the corpses you want and not change reality. This is not an emotional contest, it is a common sense thing. There are common factors in violent crime, these are not addressed in gun control.

[rrneck]

82. You'd have to ask a stupid person. nt

[Tangerine LaBamba]

74. Enough selective stupidity - on your part

This is about stupid fuckers with guns doing stupid shit with guns.

Without the guns, there's no story. No child with a bullet in her brain..........

[Pavulon]

83. So ban it, like booze

you have two realistic choices. You can pray to God to miracle every gun away. That has a better chance of happening than amending the constitution and federal law to ban ALL firearms. Gather and destroy them all, make it a 20 year felony to own, posses or make. Sounds like coke law, no one ever makes that shit. It would take at least two calls to find coke.

A PERSON put that metal there. They bought it, they OWN it. I get drunk and kill you with my car, you are still dead. I actually do less time for DWI murder than if I shot you.

Dead is dead.

This is a done topic politically. The days of people so stupid they believe a gun ban will stop crime is OVER. Time to fix root cause.

That logic covers why Greenwich CT, Zurich, and Telluride have very different crime rates than Camden NJ, and Oakland. Fixing that requires real work however, easier to ban something.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

84. Banning guns?

I'd love that.

Listen, a hint for you here: When you have to use that many words to defend the indefensible, and when you've been told that your position is viewed as untenable and unappealing, the more words you use, the weaker your position appears..........................

[Pavulon]

89. Short and sweet

tried it with booze and dope failed. Fix root cause win. Ban guns, impossible. No party will EVER pass that law. EVER. If they did they would cease to be in power.

Smart people consider supporting your points with logic acceptable. This is not being compiled, so no one wins a prize for fewest executable lines.

[Missy Vixen]

101. I can hardly wait to read what Ms. LaBamba comes up with, then

>Smart people consider supporting your points with logic acceptable.<

She's a lawyer. She debates for a living. This'll be child's play for her.

In the meantime, a two-year-old lies dead. She's just more collateral damage in America's shooting gallery.

[Pavulon]

104. Though she wrote g code

thats what i do, design turbines parts and manufacturing procedures for jet engines. People value less code there, not a big deal in verbal discussions on the internet. Most lawyers I payed have never debated much.

Yep people break laws and kill people. They use cars, drugs, guns, knives. Seems the magna carta and other historical documents discussed those who break laws and commit crimes against the rest of us.

How EXACTLY is a criminal act my responsibility if I did not commit it or conspire in it? Unless god miracles all guns away we need a smarter approach.

Changing the motivation to carry out a crime is where the root cause is. that is harder to accomplish than passing some toothless law that results in the loss of political power.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

108. Honey,

give it up.

Your spelling is suffering, your position is untenable, and you're doing the online equivalent of sputtering.

Who, exactly, are you trying to convert?

Persuade?

Impress?

Get your rest, dear..........................

[Pavulon]

116. My position, you would actually have to make an effort

to try and respond with content to have a discussion on position. Just empty meaningless words so far. Just bored and amused by people who think they can support some silly political position by grasping at every bad act. I am doing this while working, so this is actually billable time.
Generally when people respond with attacks on grammar and spelling they are pretty much done.

[rd_kent]

198. Why are you so condescending?

He is trying (and successfully, I think) to make his position clear. He is giving a viable alternative to your approach (banning guns) which is not realistic at all. Sure, in your utopia we could ban guns, but the cold, hard reality is that banning guns is not realistic, ever.
I think he is trying to propose that we look at the issue from a different view and find out and fix the ROOT CAUSE of these tragedies. You feel banning guns would prevent it, he feels it would not. That point is moot now, as banning guns is not an option. Perhaps instead of defending a solution that is unrealistic, you could channel that intellect into forming a solution that IS realistic that we cal ALL agree on.

Or will you just shit on me too?

[Tangerine LaBamba]

106. Hiya, Trampy Name -

I just threw that one a bone and sent him home.

Nothing there. He worked so hard to try to tell me that my opinion was wrong, and when I pointed that out to him, he did a "So's your mother" retort, and now it's over.

Damn it. No good fight in that one.................................

[mbperrin]

112. How about the option I prefer? Make possessing a gun during the

commission of a crime, any crime, misdemeanor, felony, shoplifting, armed robbery, drunk in public, any crime at all, a capital offense?

Low burden of proof - take the blood alcohol of this ass, for instance, drunk in public, crime, show he possessed a gun, guilty of that capital offense.

In due course, after all appeals, execute him.

And every single other person who commits a crime,not even necessarily using the gun, but simply possessing it, and any kind of gun, .22, you name it.

Now I know some people are going to argue the death penalty is not a deterrent. But those who have been executed are sufficiently deterred from committing another crime of any kind to suit me.

I have a pet theory that there simply are not enough executions, that they are so rare that they are not a deterrent. Several a day for years may have more impact.

Worth looking into.

No sarcasm of any kind intended or implied. See? There was another option. You think too small.

[Pavulon]

119. Dial it back a notch, cool. The NFA

works because it is severe and enforced. I have no problem with regulated firearms. Guarantee these idiots are not legal to own.

[mbperrin]

150. Gosh, upthread, you were arguing that nothing at all could be done.

Well, here's one. Argue the merits. Why do you feel it's too much? Because it might work?

[Pavulon]

152. I promote ideas that work..

making the penalty for wounding someone in a crack deal gone bad is a great idea. Making guns unavailable to violent felons, ever works. I NEVER argued doing nothing. Gun control is nothing. Ban some cosmetic shit, nothing, no criminal cares. Ban whatever, that is opt in.

Most of the current laws just put minorities in prison. That is easier than addressing poverty, drug laws, and failed communities. That takes real work.

To your post, it will not work because like a total ban it can not be made to law or enforced.

[mbperrin]

189. What's the bar to making it into law? The death penalty can be enforced

and often is, right here in Texas.

[JonLP24]

136. What if you're innocent?

I'd rather give 1,000 truly guilty people life w/o parole then chance 1 innocent person getting executed. What scares about living in a death penalty state is being caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, being railroaded by police and prosecution and losing my life due to a decision by 12 complete strangers who weren't there.

There are so many problems with the death penalty but people's answer to that is extend it. What scares me is these people are voters and if I could afford it I'd move to New Mexico where there is no DP.

[mbperrin]

149. Either you believe that the system of appeals and review works, or you

don't. I do.

I just thought I'd add a little thought beyond the usual guns don't kill people and you can't regulate stupidity arguments.

Just hadn't seen this idea proposed. Makes sense to me.

[JonLP24]

151. You're very trusting of the system especially when one lives in Texas

Leonel Torres Herrera appeals didn't work for him. Basically he had new evidence that shows he was innocent, enough to be afforded a new trial at least but was denied by state court of appeals and eventually went to the supreme court of the United States where the majority basically said his claim of actual innocence is not a bar of actual execution. Dissenting Justice Blackmun wrote: "The execution of a person who can show that he is innocent comes perilously close to simple murder."

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-7328.ZO.html

Though that may not be enough for you to cast doubts on our system of appeals.

Witness Clears Man Executed In Texas for 1985 Slaying

HOUSTON -- A decade after Ruben Cantu was executed for capital murder, the only witness to the crime is recanting and his co-defendant says Cantu, then 17, was not even with him that night.

The victim was shot nine times with a rifle during an attempted robbery before the gunman shot the only witness.

That witness, Juan Moreno, told the Houston Chronicle for its Sunday editions that Cantu was not the killer. Moreno said he identified him at the 1985 trial because he felt pressured and feared authorities.

Cantu, who had maintained his innocence, was executed on Aug. 24, 1993, at age 26. "Texas murdered an innocent person," co-defendant David Garza said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/21/AR2005112101384.html

No physical evidence, no confession, only the recanted statement. I'm not done with this case.

Sam Millsap(Prosecutor who "won" the Ruben Cantu case. You know you have a problem with the death penalty when a prosecutor asks for a death penalty and wins, then years later says he was wrong and then opposes the death penalty)

Among many notable prosecutions, Millsap prosecuted Ruben Cantu for capital murder; Cantu was executed in 1992. In December, 2005, as a result of investigative reporting by the Houston Chronicle, serious questions were raised concerning Cantu’s guilt. Millsap, acknowledging that he made an error in judgment when he decided to seek the death penalty on the basis of the testimony of a single eyewitness, has assumed personal responsibility for Ruben Cantu’s execution. Millsap is the only former elected major metropolitan prosecutor in America who has prosecuted capital murder cases and is now an opponent of the death penalty. Millsap has campaigned against the death penalty throughout the country and will speak at the United Nations in October.

http://www.itij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=32

Many other articles about him but that one just has the relevant info summarized. I can go on with so many cases because Texas unfortanetely has so many to choose from like the man with no trace of an excelerant used on a house fire.

Thank god for warriors like DA Craig Watkins but please realize not every city has prosecutors like him but this should just show with cases of people looked up for 26 years for no reason. Many don't stay in prison that long to escape the DP.

---------
Dallas DNA, an unprecedented reality show on DNA exoneration, premiered April 28th on the Investigation Discovery Channel. The show features Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins, who has created a stir since taking office in 2007. Watkins is the first Democrat elected in Dallas County in 20 years and the first African American prosecutor in Texas history. The historic nature of his election aside, his leadership has resulted in a major overhaul of the DA's office. He has facilitated the release of 10 wrongfully convicted prisoners, created the country's first ever Conviction Integrity Unit to examine convictions in Dallas County, and advocated for sanctions for unethical prosecutors.

The first episode featured recent exoneree Johnnie Lindsey, who was convicted in 1981 for aggravated rape and spent 26 years in prison until DNA testing proved his innocence. Linsdey maintained his innocence throughout the case. At trial, his boss testified as an alibi witness to explain that Linsdey had been at work at the time of the offense and even produced his time card as corroboration. Despite this, the jury convicted Lindsey based on eyewitness identification resulting from a photo lineup that police mailed the victim a year after the offense. Unfortunately, what occurred in Lindsey's case is hardly uncommon. Faulty eyewitness identification has been responsible for approximately 80 percent of wrongful convictions. Lindsey's release, as well as his public defender, Michelle Moore who pursued post-conviction DNA testing, are highlighted in the premiere of the series.

Critics have questioned the ethical issues posed by airing such sensitive material including the potential exploitation of victims and exonerees. Others have argued that the show is a sign of Watkin's political ambitions and his appetite for the spotlight. Regardless of the criticisms of show, Watkins' efforts to evaluate the validity of convictions is commendable. He has re-examined hundreds of petitions of prisoners seeking DNA testing, many of which were opposed by his predecessor, Bill Hill. Other prosecutors have decried his approach, but despite being dubbed the "The Exonerator" , Watkins' conviction rate is comparable with those who preceded him. This six part series airs on the Investigative Discovery Channel on Tuesdays at 10 p.m. ET.
http://www.examiner.com/x-7429-San-Jose-Criminal-Law-Examiner~y2009m5d7-Dallas-DNA-Reality-show-featuring-DNA-exonerations-raises-controversy

Appeals only work if you can show errors such as a prosecutor improperly excluded black women from serving on the jury. But they are very time consuming and often times rejected. They do work sometimes but not EVERYtime which is the problem.

[mbperrin]

188. Oh, I'd agree they don't work every time. Nothing does. How many little

girls shot dead are you willing to accept as the price of the current approach not working?

I grew up here, in the rougher part of the state. All kinds of religious types knock on your doors with a plan to "save" you, Mormons, Jehovah's Witness, Baptists, you name it, they're around. My dad very nicely turned them away, although if they became insistent or insulting, he had a tongue on him. He had three old maid aunts, a Lutheran, a Catholic, and a Church of Christ member, who all hauled him to church every time the doors opened somewhere, so he felt like he had served his time.

But there was one exception, a nice older couple who were Seventh Day Adventists, vegetarians, great gardeners (like my mom), gentle and forgiving, actually living like, well, Christians. They'd come over a couple of times a month just to visit and swap produce, that sort of thing.

My parents both passed away, but the Greenes lived on. They'd help strangers in need, give money for gas, feed people. you name it. Finally, at age 93, the sheriff's department found their bodies in their own bed, shot 10-12 times each with a large caliber handgun. Mr. Greene's wallet and Mrs. Greene's purse were missing. They never found anyone to arrest for the crime.

How many people like the Greenes are you willing to accept as the price of the current approach not working? Nothing's perfect.

[rrneck]

78. Hey maybe you're onto something there.

Banning stupid people would be easier than banning guns and it would make life a lot better for all of us.

[Pavulon]

92. They actually tried that too

eugenics. also failed. we are stuck with the 10%. However there are lots of constructive things we can do to prevent violence.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

25. Never miss an opportunity to turn someone's tragedy into your personal political soapbox.

[TheCowsCameHome]

66. Pot, meet kettle.

:rofl:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

71. You really need to learn some history.

[TheCowsCameHome]

75. Like you've never posted multiple links on the subject of guns.......

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

80. Again you post in ignorance.

The phrase, "Never miss an opportunity to turn someone's tragedy into your personal political soapbox." was used repeatedly by gun grabbers against my defensive firearm posts. So I started doing likewise. What's good for the goose and all.

[OwnedByFerrets]

69. SO, by your logic, we shouldnt speak of the 1 million plus

who were killed in Iraq because its someone's tragedy? Try again.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

72. Who is telling anyone not to speak out?

[Pavulon]

73. Yes, but you should not use that number though..

because people who know how it was created will make its absurdity the point of a conversation rather than your point about our pointless war in Iraq. If you use IBC you get a horribly high number aren't undermined by an invalid figure.

Lost of people like the ring of a million but it just falls apart when you look at the methodology.

[No Elephants]

168. What methodology do you suggest, when our government overthrew

the existing government and never counted any casualties but our own. In fact, what methodology do you suggest, period? While you're at it, de-bunk the one about a million Iraqi refugees, too.

[Edweird]

26. Hmm

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3987326

[proud2BlibKansan]

27. But if she had been armed . . .

Yep, more guns. Just what we need. :eyes:

[Pavulon]

32. Cars, if you want dead people add cars

that and tired doctors. Kill a whole shit ton more than stupid people with guns. This all comes back to bad decision making.

Unless you destroy ever single firearm in the US, there is no regulation for this. It is already illegal. Unless you make it double dog illegal that show is over.

[proud2BlibKansan]

36. I have no problem with destroying every single firearm in the US

Wouldn't bother me at all.

[Pavulon]

44. Someone would make more..

even if you could actually amend the constitution and remove every firearm, someone would just make more. Not a complex thing to do.

So you would really take my legal ownership of firearms away because of what some drunk asshole does?

[valerief]

54. Well, if you're not gonna use it so we can get universal health care, what good is it to us? nt

[Pavulon]

62. That would actually be a good thing to do with political power

mental health is a major problem. If you are not insured you get none. 50% of gun deaths are suicides.

Rather than some stupid pointless law that only people who follow laws obeys we could help fix the problem.

Passing stupid gun control laws will ensure we no longer have the ability to pass health care reform.

[proud2BlibKansan]

110. If it saves the life of a child, yes

Silly me. I put the rights of a child to be safe above your right to own a gun that could harm a child.

[Pavulon]

118. How?

do you plan to amend the constitution then pass a federal ban on all firearms in the us regardless of type or function. There is no grey area allowing legal ownership. That is what we have, criminals opt out of these rules. You have to destroy all of them.

How will this happen??

[eqfan592]

224. Yet you ignore the children protected by guns every day.

How shockingly shortsighted of you.

[hack89]

93. What other civil right are you willing to give up to be safe? nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

111. I am not giving anything up

I don't own any guns. No do I plan to.

[Pavulon]

117. I don't plan on an abortion or needing to plea the 5th

but I respect your right to those. So right to privacy (abortion) should be worthless to those who do not "need" it? (male issue, not morality)

[proteus_lives]

145. Yeah, you are.

You're giving up the choice.

[hack89]

153. So the only civil rights that are important are the ones that you personally exercise?

Interesting - an ala carte Bill of Rights.

[TheCowsCameHome]

37. Did they get to stay for the cutting of the cake?

Bad timing, if not.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

65. See Post #4

Best. Response. Ever..................

[benld74]

45. Guns dont kill/hurt people, Hoosiers with guns at receptions kill/hurt people

[Lorien]

131. A gun is manufactured for one purpose; to take life

It has no other purpose. None. Pretending that it's a Holy sacred symbol of freedom and American patriotic goodness that needs to be cherished beyond human life and NOT a tool for taking life is just delusional.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

139. That's idiotic.

[valerief]

46. Yeah, these concealed weapon laws are working out great, huh? nt

[Pavulon]

64. I bet you $200 dollars cash

this person was not a CCW holder. Want to take that bet?

[Indydem]

98. I will not, but I'll add $1 to the pool.

There is no way this scumbag was legal.

[proteus_lives]

148. I'll throw in a pocketful of change.

No way in hell he was a legal owner.

[baldguy]

158. But the person he stole it from was...

Another "responsible" gun owner who can't (or won't) bother to secure & keep track of his guns.

[Pavulon]

163. That would make them unreasonable.

guns should be secured in a safe, if stolen reported to police. Need that to make an insurance claim..Straw buy is a felony.

[proud2BlibKansan]

180. +1

[Divine Discontent]

90. sounds like gang violence.... that poor innocent girl.

[proteus_lives]

146. That's what I thought too.

"It's a gang thing."

[MadMaddie]

105. Here is my thought on the gun issue...I believe the gun

manufacturers and the NRA are making sure weapons find a way to the streets illegally. I have no doubt in my mind.

Think about it, how can the gun manufacturer guarantee increased sales to legal gun owners? Flood the streets with illegal weapons, increase the fear factor among the general law abiding public and voila....massive increased gun sales.

Don't be fooled I also have the feeling that the are behind the big push that "Run to the gun stores cause Obama is going to take your weapons"!

The more police remove from the streets the more that become available.

I have no problem with people owning legal firearms for sport or for protection.

I hope this little girl recovers.

[Pavulon]

113. You missed profit.

they would not profit from dumping weapons. If you saturate the market then no one buys products.

They do profit from people buying guns, that is their business. They try to sell a better product to the same person.

These companies make their money selling to police and governments. Ever tried to send a repair to a company like SIG or Glock. Pain in the ass, these are high end weapons, but the customer they are trying to please are governments and police departments who buy millions at a time.

[Jennicut]

159. Actually, if they did dump weapons then they could use the argument

that gun control won't work if everyone can still get them illegally. But maybe I am just being paranoid...

[Pavulon]

160. Modern inventory control

traces parts from the block of metal they are machined from (stamped in this case) to a final product with a serial number. Given a vast conspiracy sure they could make weapons that have no serial numbers. I am sure they do this for other reasons for military customers. However if those hit the streets it would be a red flag.

Guns can be traced with serial numbers and a conspiracy to "flood the streets" would be obvious on the books. Like the pharma folks who flooded the market with oxy because of poor controls on distribution.

You have to remember these companies make the majority of their money now from government purchasers. They have no reason to upset that by breaking the law.

[Jennicut]

183. True...there are serial #'s.

Thanks for pointing that out.

[No Elephants]

171. People still buying TV's? Computers? Telephones? Some jerks are proud of how

many guns they own. They'll keep buying.

[Aristus]

122. I see the concealed carry thing is going over extremely well.

Never know when you'll have to pop a toddler acting up at a wedding reception...



:sarcasm::mad::grr:

[Pavulon]

126. $201 dollars to you if he was legal ccw..

want to take that bet? Reality was he was a felon by concealed carry before he was a felony murderer.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

138. Do you have some proof that he was a CCW permit holder?

[Aristus]

181. Calm down, guys. I'm sure he was a "law-abiding gun-owner."

Aren't they all?

[slackmaster]

191. Only prohibitionists make such foolish statements

:nuke:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

195. There are millions of illegally possessed firearms in this country.

[Aristus]

199. Yeah, but for God's sake, let's not do anything to halt the proliferation.

n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

229. I'm all for taking steps to stop criminals from obtaining weapons.

[proteus_lives]

147. Fear, Fear, Fear.

The knee-jerking never ceases to amaze me.

I wouldn't part with my right to bear arms anymore then I would my right to free speech or freedom or religion. What makes people believe that our rights are disposable? (I wandered this when they passed the patriot act too)

Is happened to that little girl a tragedy? Yes. Is banning guns the answer? No. Some asshole wiped out 8 people on the highway today but I don't see the calls for a car ban. As far as I know no-one has ever been able to eliminate criminal behavior or accidents.

I obtained my firearms legally and have CCW legally. And I am law-abiding citizen who has not abused his rights. The government can engage with honest debate and pass sane laws on the types of weaponry that is allowed to the public but an alright ban? I wold call that the reason for the second American civil war.

No one is forcing you to own, carry or even look at firearms. We "gun-nuts" (I wonder if people ever get called free-speech nuts) aren't protecting firearms, we're protecting the choice to own them or not. And if you don't own a weapon or ever plan to, guess what? We're protecting your rights too.

We should be talking about cultural behavior, the economic reasons behind crime, better care and protection for (and from) the mentally ill. Not about blaming inanimate tools for human behavior.

So fuck fear, fuck collective blame and punishment. Punish and imprison those who abuse their rights (always in a court) and remember that our rights are not disposable.

I'll choose freedom over safety everyday of the week and twice on Sunday.

rant off.

(BTW, if that POS from OP is a legal owner, I'll eat my sandals.)

[liberal N proud]

154. Shot gun wedding?

What other reason would there be to bring a gun to a wedding?

[Blandocyte]

155. It's well past time we had a gun ban

It would get huge numbers of guns out of circulation. "But only from good guys" is the refrain. But taking those guns out of the supply stream so they can't be sold used or stolen will help.

[slackmaster]

157. Let me take a wild guess here

You want to take guns away from everyone except governments.

[Pavulon]

164. Be sure to model the weed ban and booze ban..those are (were) stunning

in their abject failure. Just for purpose of discussion how do you propose to remove every firearm from circulation and prevent the manufacture of new ones. Consider a dude in pakistan can hand make an AK (machine gun not replica ak you hear about here) in his garage.

[Gin]

169. another line needs to be added to the invitation......NO guns please!

g

[Vinca]

172. And the gun lovers will say "if everyone had a concealed weapon

they could have shot the attacker." What a tragic story. What the hell has happened to this country?

[slackmaster]

185. Oddly enough, only gun ban proponents ever say that

In reality.

[No Elephants]

177. Gun tthreads, Confederacy threads and affirmative action threads here seem

to attract the most trolls and contain the dumbest posts.

[Blue_Tires]

178. who in fuck's name goes to a wedding armed, anyway??

they were expecting (or planning to start) some trouble from the very start

and of course, the update proves me right...the numbnuts showed up looking for a fight from the moment he walked in...
http://www.indystar.com/article/20090727/NEWS02/907270347/3+held+in+melee+in+which+18-month-old+girl+was+shot

[slackmaster]

186. Two kinds of people do that

People legally carrying a weapon for self-defense, and people who are looking for trouble.

[Fumesucker]

187. I would say that both are looking for trouble..

At least in the sense they are expecting it.

[slackmaster]

190. Do you keep a fire extingusher in your home?

Is everyone who does so expecting a fire?

[Missy Vixen]

202. Fire extinguishers don't routinely kill people

Fire extinguishers typically aren't operated by those enjoying an open bar and typically in the midst of some significant stress and family turmoil, either...

[Fumesucker]

211. There is a fire extinguisher here..

I didn't put it here and I don't carry one around with me.

BTW and FWIW, I'm a Marine who qualified Marksman once and Sharpshooter twice so I'm neither unfamiliar with nor afraid of firearms.

I can also shoot groups half the size of my son in law who is also Marine who qualified Expert, that frankly surprised the crap out of me. Actually I think I pissed him off because he won't shoot with me any more. :)

[fascisthunter]

201. wannabe John Waynes

who never feel secure without them.

[Blue_Tires]

203. edit: i forgot to mention the three were crashers and not ill-behaved relatives

[knixphan]

213. I need to rent 'Columbine' again...

[X_Digger]

227. I suggest..

Bedtime Stories- I'm not normally an Adam Sandler fan, but it's a much better comedy than 'Columbine'.