The only way to stop a . . .

[finnbow]

Here's yet another example where a 5-year old shoots his 2-year old sister with his own gun.

A 5-year-old boy accidentally shot his 2-year-old sister to death in rural southern Kentucky with a rifle he had received as a gift last year, authorities said....(T)he boy received the .22-caliber rifle as a gift. He said the rifle was kept in a corner and the family didn’t realize a bullet was left inside it...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...946_story.html

At the risk of sounding like a callous prick, I don't feel the least bit sorry for the parents here.

[ebacon]

I have a big issue with the media irresponsibly advocating guns.

I grew up in military family and we were taught that guns are something you have, not something you talk about. The philosphy is something akin to talk softly and carry a big stick.

Today we have talk trash and carry an arsenal. It's palpably different.

[MikeG22]

You can own a gun for protection and it still be safe. I have a home defense weapon that has a combo trigger lock, 10 second removal, simple as that. Lock them up or have a safety device. With fingerprint locks and such becoming more affordable there is no excuse.

If a parent buys a kid a youth rifle, even a .22, why wasn't there a lock on it? That would be teaching the kid responsible ownership. There is never an excuse for one of these tragedies, simply poor ownership safety.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by MikeG22

Totally inexcusable and irresponsible. Want gun laws that would save lives, this should be criminal. Your gun, your responsibility. Maybe it will teach people to keep your weapons unloaded or locked properly.

You're right, Mike. Inexcusable is what I should have said instead of inexplicable. Could be I'm listening to too much LaPee-err. Every one of these accidental shootings could have been easily prevented.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by MikeG22

You can own a gun for protection and it still be safe.

Of course it is. However, those who buy into the notion that "guns don't kill people" are unlikely to take such precautions.

[MikeG22]

As much as I do not support the NRA the last thing they preach is have a loaded gun in your home. Like the NRA or not they preach gun safety and if their guidelines were followed thing like this would not happen.

[barbara]

Originally Posted by MikeG22

As much as I do not support the NRA the last thing they preach is have a loaded gun in your home. Like the NRA or not they preach gun safety and if their guidelines were followed thing like this would not happen.

Right. And if those guidelines are followed the gun owner is totally defenseless if an intruder breaks into their home unexpectedly.

Kind of speaks to the very reason why guns in the home are more dangerous than useful.

[ebacon]

In the 1980s the NRA was reasonable. They frequently reminded members that people are more likely to shoot a family member in a moment of passion than shoot an intruder.

Like everyone else, the NRA got bit by the greed bug during the 1990s. They haven't sweated the fever out yet.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by ebacon

In the 1980s the NRA was reasonable. They frequently reminded members that people are more likely to shoot a family member in a moment of passion than shoot an intruder.

Like everyone else, the NRA got bit by the greed bug during the 1990s. They haven't sweated the fever out yet.

At that time, they truly represented their shooting sports enthusiast membership. Now, they represent the manufacturers. FWIW, the profit margin and demand for AR-15's and similar assault weapons is significantly higher than for conventional sporting arms. That's what much of this fight is about.

[Wasillaguy]

Originally Posted by ebacon

In the 1980s the NRA was reasonable. They frequently reminded members that people are more likely to shoot a family member in a moment of passion than shoot an intruder.

They did? Frequently? I'm sure you could find some examples then.