I can't imagine the pain that poor man is in, I hope he finds peace as well. That being said as a gun owner you ALWAYS identify the person and be sure of the target before you go and fire a weapon.

I can't imagine the pain that poor man is in, I hope he finds peace as well. That being said as a gun owner you ALWAYS identify the person and be sure of the target before you go and fire a weapon.

Yes. You would think as a police officer he would know this but like many people in his position they would rather shoot first and ask questions later. Now he has to live with killing his own son.

I cannot begin to imagine what it would be like to be a police officer who shot his own grown child. The horror of it had to have put him into shock. I cannot imagine what the first steps in coming to terms with it would be like, but it would probably seem unbearable for quite a while.

I hope he and the family can help each other thru the weeks and months ahead and that their friends and neighbors are there for them. ...and that the press gives them peace and space.

(No one is perfect and there is not one of us who has not made a mistake or has more to make, big or small...but to kill one's own child? Anguish would be all that was left of the dad.)

I absolutely hate guns.

TiGor~ Very well put, I couldn't say it any better myself. People HAVE become very complacent owning firearms and because of that we get horrific and sad instances like this. If you can't handle the responsibility and care of owning a firearm or weapon then you don't need to have it. Guns can and will kill people, not through the fault of the tool (the gun) but through the fault of the person behind the trigger; as such guns need to be treated with care, respect and with restraint.

Any parents worse dream, prayers for the family.

The story gives no information. Why did the COP think his son was an intruder? Did his son kick in the door? Was the son not expected, and surprised his father? Did the motel desk give the son a key card without the father's knowledge? I'm guessing the COP didn't intentionally shoot his son. And, why was the COP staying at the motel? The story says "Early Saturday." Was that at 2 am, after the bars closed? Or was it at 7 am, when the Sun was up and he could see who it was?

This armed man was in a position of authority over the public. That his judgement and his skill at assessing a situation were this poor is appalling to me. I'm usually the first to defend the police, but this guy should never again be armed and in a position of authority. Quite possibly, he never should have been in the first place.

And to those who say "have compassion-you don't know what happened" I say this: spend your compassion on whomever you choose, but I'm not spending mine on someone who, for all I know, insured and then killed his own son. That's the worst-case scenario, of course, but hey, as you pointed out, I don't know what happened.

Why was TiGor's comment "collapsed by the community"? Some good points.

The "town drunk" sounds like Otis on the Andy Griffith show.

I was wondering the same thing.

edited

@Susan Xmas I was just about to post the same thing you just said. His comment was well thought out, intelligent and the TRUTH but he gets collapsed ?? The whole thing sounds fishy to me.... any cop knows damn well you don't shoot until you've seen your target!

If guns were outlawed, would only outlaws accidentally shoot their children?
I can't imagine the horror this man faces. Why not? Because my semi-annual pistol training course involves identifying my target before pointing a loaded weapon at it. My daughter will never be in the current position of this poor officer's son. Her boyfriends? maybe, but not my family. My sympathies to his entire family.

This seems like an odd story, with to few details to judge what actually happened. I've stayed in a few hotels and motels, and I can't imagine shooting somebody who is not entering the room through force. I also cannot imagine that the police officer's son was a totally unexpected visitor. How would he even have found his father's hotel room if he had not been told where his father was staying? Whom else would tell him other than his father.

As usual, nbc.com has done another bang-up job or vaguely reporting an event.

Good work!

This is about the THINNEST of articles. Maybe the father wrongly shot his son. Maybe not. Either way he will remain hurt for the rest of his life. But to those of you who hate guns, or hate cops, I have to ask you...What in the hell in this sotry did you read that shows anything nefarious or irresponsible or callous or negligent?

Here's a thought...Maybe you should wait to know FACTS before you run off at the mouth about that which you, by your own admissions, do not know. What if, for instance, it were to turn out that the father was awakened to someone breaking into his room, that he told him to stop, that he warned him he was armed and a cop, and the perp kept coming? Would this death THEN be the fault of the weapon?

Geesus some of you people are simply bat-blank crazy. I'd rather wait to know SOMETHING about what actually happened here before I proclaim what should be done about it.

For all any of you know he shot his son on purpose and is using this lame excuse to get away with it.

Hey Jean,

I'm not sure where you've seen a framer write down his idea that the 2nd Amendment would mean only what you say, and so first I would love for you to indicate your source.

Second, guns are a terrible instrument if used improperly. But So are many other instruments we use, though not all can cause traumatic death. Still, like in all those cases too, we should look to benefits as well as costs before we decide what is best for everyone else. Anything less, really, would be an improper use of your democratic franchise. So, given this, do you concede at all that hundrteds of thousands of crimes have been prevented, whether entirely or before they were completed, by the presence of a firearm in the hands of someone not party to the criminal enterprise and not a cop.

If you do then I would be more interested in your conclusions if you had something to say about the hundreds of thousands of people each year you would insure become additional crime victims. I think I already know what you think about the much smaller number who are mistakenly killed by the improper use of a firearm.

In a small town not far from where I live, no one locks their doors, and as a result, occasionally the town drunk shows up in someone else's house by mistake. Should he just be shot for entering the wrong house? Hardly. He wasn't there to do any harm. They know he's harmless, and I think everyone knows him by name, too.

TiGor, SHOULD your Mayberry drunk you speak of be shot for entering the wrong house? No. Why? As you said, THEY KNEW HIM! But he COULD have been shot had the homeowner not recognized him. Entering a home without permission IS the threat! Had the drunk got shot, it would be his OWN fault, not the fault of the person whom he put in the position of having to make such a choice! I can't think of one time in my life that I ever "accidentally" entered the wrong home. A drunk entering a private home uninvited where he didn't belong isn't an "accident". It's an action driven by a careless choice, and careless choices have bad consequences! I'm not saying I disagree with your opinion that one should attempt to confirm there's a real threat before shooting, I'm just saying the 'drunk' story is not a fair comparison.

Rich: "What in the hell in this story did you read that shows anything nefarious or irresponsible or callous or negligent?"

Uh...how about the fact that he blew away his own son? That sounds pretty irresponsible and negligent to me.

Spud

Just wondering:

*The total firearms death figure above is a summary of the "Suicides," "Homicides" and "Accidents" subcategories. The Total excludes two categories: Legal Intervention and Undetermined.

That other firearm figure:

Firearms 776

Does that represent the Legal Intervention and Undetermined cases?

Seems a bit low if it is.

What could cause an "undetermined" situation? Or does that mean they couldn't determine if it was a murder, accident, or a suicide? If so shouldn't the undetermined figure be included in the Firearms (Total) number?

No political comment implied, just wondering.

Jean: I, too, grew up in a time when gun violence was much less common than it is today...but that doesn't mean guns weren't available to me. I could have obtained my father's weapons quite easily. Sure, they were locked in a gun safe, but my brother and I knew where the key was. Even so, although we did on occasion beat the snot out of each other, it never escalated to a gunfight. What's changed is that the youth of today have no regard for the value of a human life, no respect for anyone (including themselves), and a stupid macho mentality that makes them want to be the "baddest on the block".

freedom is a mixed blessing, depending on who is expercising the freedom - including freedom to own guns, in the context of Colorado shooting.

Hey HadEnough:

I agree with you. Though, I might add that there are far more weapons flooding America than when we were young guys. Added to the mix of the mentality of this younger generation is what we are commenting about now.

Hey HadEnough,

EXACTLY! Gun crime spiked in the mid-60s, but gun availability remained constant. It was the culture that has changed. When I went to HS, which was longer ago than I wish, but not really that long ago at all, many of us had firearms in our trucks and cars, particularly during hunting season. Fights happened, but no one, EVER, responded by getting their gun.

Our friends here posting about how guns are the problem have missed entirely the cultural shift that has caused people to devalue life. A debate down that road might lead to some very uncomfortable realizations for some people.

If only his son was armed this would have never happened.

@ Rich (1.26)

Although I would think the answer to the first part of your inquiry to me is obvious, I will spell it out:

The so-called framers of the 2nd Anmendment only knew the weapons of that day to be long guns or muskets and handguns weighting about 7 pounds (unloaded) and some 14 inches long by some four inches high. I dont know about you but to try and conceal such a piece under your clothing of that size would sooner or later pop your suspenders before very long. So, the other size of your implied argument would be that if you think they did preceive or envision todays much more compact, far more powerful propellants and projectiles way back then, you must also be saying that all the signers made a conscious decision, "Let's wait another 100 years before we let the people know we already have this technolog." Fact is, they never knew that back then and never thought in their wildest dreams killing technology would get to this point today.

As to the second part of your comment, guns are always used improperly when in the hands of the wrong people with the wrong intensions. That what we all are commenting about now. But remember, it's happening more and more as the rate of manufactuered guns increases.

IRESPOND-2315268

And this is just another casualty of guns. I realize that this man was a police officer, but how many times this has happened to regular folks? Or children shooting their friends or themselves?

Police officer or not, he should have identified the intruder before shooting, and maybe he had some psychological issues, who knows.

I guess that is the price to pay for having weapons so readily accessible.

How about the price of having cars so readily accessible? did you take a look at the statistics? I don't know if mandatory driving lessons would help, but it probably wouldn't hurt.

And here's the price for NOT having weapons readily accessible:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/07/beating-suspect-could-face-additional-charges-in-wwii-vet-death/

There is idiots who shouldn't own guns, no question about that (and when you see someone handling guns irresponsibly you should tell the police), but think mandatory training for gun owners would probably be a good thing (as opposed to banning guns altogether).

With anti-gun laws only criminals will have guns.

@jean

in the time that of the founding fathers there were small flintlock pistols capable of being concealed in a coat pocket or waistband, so saying that there were no small firearms and that they didnt know about them shows your ignorance about firearms and the period of our founding fathers

@TiGor above:

You miss the point of all the gun violence.

I'm not talking about gun violence here, I'm talking about people being negligent while handling them and a rule that's about as basic as a surgeon washing his or her hands before operating or an electrician shutting off the electricity before repairing electrical wiring.

But if you want to talk about violence, it's really very simple. We have too many criminals! Most are, of course, recidivists who shouldn't have been let out of jail in the first place, but sadly there are too many first time offenders who are prone to violence these days. It used to be most of the violent offenders started out serving time for non-violent or minimally violent crimes, and became violent after being released or paroled the first time. Too many kids grow up following the wrong role models before they've even been arrested the first time.

But this story is about a veteran police officer who apparently disregarded much of his training in handling weapons, the consequence of which was that he shot his son by mistake.

TiGor, SHOULD your Mayberry drunk you speak of be shot for entering the wrong house? No. Why? As you said, THEY KNEW HIM! But he COULD have been shot had the homeowner not recognized him. Entering a home without permission IS the threat! Had the drunk got shot, it would be his OWN fault, not the fault of the person whom he put in the position of having to make such a choice!

That's why we have juries. In other places, if he was shot, that would be the end of it, more than likely. The crux of this is that this has been going on for so long and everybody in that town knows about it and yet neglects to lock their doors. He generally sits down at the kitchen table and that's it. He's never entered anyone's bedroom, never assaulted anyone. I think he's past retirement age, too. I don't know him myself, so I don't know the specifics. But, given the circumstances, anyone who just shot him while he was sitting at the table (often passes out there, so I hear) is going to have some real explaining to do. If it's someone who's newly arrived in town, that might be their saving grace. But anyone who is a longtime resident there had better lock their doors if they don't want him slipping in, or else just ask him to leave or call the town constable to come and escort him out. Anyone who shoots the man runs a very high risk of being charged with manslaughter or maybe even second degree murder in this instance.

@ebonheart

You beat me to it. Yes, everyone, in that ancient world of 1776, handguns existed. Not only handguns, but small, concealable forerunners to the "Derringers" of the Old West. Many of them packed a walloping .50 caliber ball.

The framers of the constitution did not live in a bubble of their own delusion completely void of any capacity to predict the future. Firearms were being augmented and improved all the time-- including multiple shot capacity. Take this, for example:

James Puckle patented a revolving chamber gun in 1718. This gun, which had a 1.25 inch bore (30 mm), was tripod mounted, and the 11-shot cylinder was operated by a hand crank. It is often cited as the first machine gun.

So to suggest that the framers of our constitution were uninformed of the ongoing refinement of the firearm is to suggest a vacuous stupidity of their character unsupported by the extent documents they have left behind.

This incident is just very sad for all involved, nothing more.

@-Anna—

"How about the price of having cars so readily accessible? did you take a look at the statistics?"

Let's see, people use cars to drive to work, school, hospitals, shopping centers, vacations, sporting events....

People use guns to do what? kill something, whether it be self-defense or not. That is the only purpose of a gun.

Sounds fishy

Hey Jean,

ebon and WMG gave you two good responses. I'll elaborate on two issues. First, the framers obviously knew history, and knew the history of weaponry too. They had just fought a war against the most powerfully armed military on earth, and they didn't do it with sharp sticks. So the idea that they knew only those things that were available to them is true in the sense they could not predict exactly how guns would evolve, but that completely misses the point they knew they would evolve. So if their idea was to extend the right in the 2nd amendment ONLY to those kinds of weapons they had at that time, then for the smartest people on earth they sure poorly spelled out their intention.

No, you are simply wrong about all of this. Using your logic the internet itself could easily be banned without violating the constitution simply because the framers had no idea that computers and software and servers and the like would exist. Because they didn't exist then, doesn't prove your point. What the framers did give us is, seemingly, the last thing opponents of liberty want to employ--the perfecting article--in order to deal with guns they do not like.

Second, the availability of guns today is no greater than 50 or 100 years ago, and, per capita, is far lower than when the constitution was written. Mass murder might've been difficult with a muzzle loader back then, but a cannon or swivel gun could have done the job I suppose. And people did gather in large groups, making the opportunity available for someone intent on the crime. Yet it didn't seem to happen, at least not as we see today. There were thrill killers in the last century, but not many mass murderers (unless you want to go with mafia wars, or, later, drug and gang wars) until later. Something changed, and it wasn't gun availability, or even gun capacity. Machine guns were legal for much of the last century, and if the claim today is that a rapid rate of fire coupled to a large magazine is the problem, then why wasn't it before?

I think most people, and I would include you in this group to the extent I've read your words only, want to come up with what they think is a simple explanation but that has the weight needed in order to make sense out of something so bad. It's like a teeter-totter of reason to them. This much bad outcome HAD to be caused by this much bad input, how else is anything possible? So to the simple-minded guns are bad, and guns that can shoot 100 times are even worse. How else could it be different?

My point is that the conventional wisdom is wrong. The problem isn't the gun per se, the problem is the change in our culture that allows a person with warped values to go that extra step and actually kill people. Lots of possible culprits, and maybe a combination of them all. Governmental dependency, moral relativism in the modern sense, a public education largely devoid of moral absolutes, and so on. Killers are to blame for their own actions, but I think it's getting us no where to ignore the culture in which they were spawned.

This gun culture is out of control... the only guns allowed should be shotguns or hunting rifles. The only people who should have semi-automatic or automatic weapons are the military or police officers. And the police officers should not have them at home when they are off duty. How many innocent people have to die before the gun nuts and the NRA wake up? Our Congress needs to wake up and clean up this country... it is definitely on a slippery slope. The only purpose for a gun, as one poster said, is to kill someone or something. I have lived in countries where guns are illegal and it is amazing how low the crime rates are in those countries. Yes, it will take a long time to clean this country up of all the guns out there but you have to start sometime. If just once, I heard of a concealed carrier STOPPING one of these horrendous gun crimes, I might start to believe it was worth it. And I too know of a 4th grade child who died playing cowboys with his idiot father's handgun. This whole gun culture shows how uneducated and stupid our society has become.

Let's see, people use cars to drive to work, school, hospitals, shopping centers, vacations, sporting events....

...and to flee robbery and murder scenes, smuggle illicit drugs, abduct children, stalk other people, travel across state lines to meet underage people they met on the internet for the purpose of 'getting physical' with them, and to aimlessly wander our neighborhoods while under the influence of intoxicating or mind altering substances, among other things...

People use guns to do what? kill something, whether it be self-defense or not. That is the only purpose of a gun.

Not counting, of course, participating in any number of varied bullseye matches (some of which are in the Olympics), various steel and action based silhouette courses, trap, skeet, benchrest competition, load development experimental test firing, historical reenactments, informal friendly competition between individuals, quality pa-and-son family time, 'plinking' with friends, study of historical specimens, I think you get the idea.

Police training is at the heart of this accident not guns. What more proof do you need that the way the cops are trained is to not use their brains how else could they do all the crooked @!$%# they do in this country.

I keep hearing Cons compare guns to cars. And they regurgitate it over and over and think it is a legitimate argument. LMAO! Its embarrassing hearing idiots say something they think is smart and logical when in fact it is dumb as sh*t. Its funny as hell how they come across smug too. HAHA

I just want to tell people like Anna up there in the thread this:

"Our Government made it so that you have to be a certain age, have insurance, drive a restricted speed and if you dont follow these laws then you will face punishment by the police. And by the way, YOU CANT BUY A TANK AND DRIVE IT DOWN THE STREET!! So dont sit here and compare me driving to work and the right for any psychopath to buy an AR-15! Do you know what VW stands for? Volkswagen-They make cars for driving. Do you know what AR-15 stands for? ASSAULT RIFLE-ITS FOR ASSAULTING. YOUR ARGUMENT IS SH*T AND YOU ARE STUPID"

Sadly, this was NOT an accident, but rather.... a father who made a bad choice [and being a cop, makes no difference]. Were I in his shoes, and having made that same fatal choice..... I would have used the remaining bullet in the chamber..... on myself!

I literally wouldn't be able to live with myself, knowing that I caused the death of my own child. His suffering is just beginning, and only he can put an end to it.

I wish him well........

IRESPOND-2315268 Comment collapsed by the community

And this is just another casualty of guns. I realize that this man was a police officer, but how many times this has happened to regular folks? Or children shooting their friends or themselves?

I guess that is the price to pay for having weapons so readily accessible.

Yeah? So how about all the knives in YOUR KITCHEN -- they are also deadly weapons that get used to kill people. Hell, kids even get their little paws on a knife and start to show their friends how "expert" they are with knives....and next thing you know there is a dead child. Are you going to throw out all the knives that just happen to be in your home now, or are you going to rationalize having them by claiming they're just "tools"?

It's just as well some of you death-wishing rabid antis don't own guns. I applaud your continued opposition.

descrs-1664846This gun culture is out of control... the only guns allowed should be shotguns or hunting rifles. The only people who should have semi-automatic or automatic weapons are the military or police officers. And the police officers should not have them at home when they are off duty.

Yeah, I decided to not quote your entire rant. Guess what, bubba -- criminals have been able to get guns for as long as there have been laws designed to keep guns out of criminals' hands. Yes, bubba, they even get their little grubbies on FULL-AUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS (which are Federally banned, and possessing one without a very specific permit is a FEDERAL felony). Hell, some even manage to find ways to get hold of EXPLOSIVES, which are supposedly available only to those who actually need to use them in the course of their job duties, such as mining and building demolition.

Your "the only guns allowed should be shotguns or hunting rifles. The only people who should have semi-automatic or automatic weapons are the military or police officers. And the police officers should not have them at home when they are off duty" idea is never going to work, bubba, because the people who are not allowed to have guns are always going to find ways to get them.

If just once, I heard of a concealed carrier STOPPING one of these horrendous gun crimes, I might start to believe it was worth it.

Okay. Here:

Elderly man w/ CCW permit stops attack in Walmart

CCW stops armed robbery at hotel

This might also tickle your pickle:

* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16]

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

So firearms are used to STOP or PREVENT crime anywhere between 989,000-1,100,000 times each year, yet they're only used to commit crime 8% of the time or 436,000 times each year. In other words, firearms are used more than twice as often by LAW-ABIDING citizens for protection of themselves or property than they are for actual commission of crime. Read more here:

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

YOU CANT BUY A TANK AND DRIVE IT DOWN THE STREET!!

Yes you can. There was a whole show about it on Discovery. Granted, the treads are hell on the roads and you can get fined buku bucks for repairs. But there's nothing inherently illegal about owning a tank, provided you can afford one.

Do you know what AR-15 stands for? ASSAULT RIFLE

FAIL. "AR" stands for the original company that manufactured Eugene Stoner's design-- Armalite. They sold the design to COLT and now they hold the copyright to the brand name "AR" of any numbered designation. (AR-15, AR-10, etc).

glowing62We don't have to be a brain surgeon to figure out that guns especially in the U.S.A need to be outlawed

Too bad for your opinion that in places where guns are outlawed, the outlaws STILL manage to find ways to get their hands around a gun. I guess THAT statistic just isn't to your liking, though.

Everything about this cops actions were wrong. Would he have felt more relieved to find out he shot someone else's child that was equally as innocent of committing a crime the same as his own son? It sounds to me that there should be a change in police policy. I find it disturbing that cops are taking job issued guns off duty to begin with. Off duty they should be just as required to have and carry concealed weapons permits and if they are going to carry weapons, then it should be their own private weapon and not a job issued weapon.

"Everything about this cops actions were wrong."

You got far more detail out of the six sentences than I did.

Agnon, just ask George Zimmerman what it feels like to kill an innocent teen; so he could be the neighborhood loser hero. Too many nut cases such as Zimmerman own guns! how many more casualties do we need? all the guns filtered into Mexico and South America come from the U.S. So much for the U.S trying to have respect for human rights. It's what I call double standard society only focused on killing everything on their path.

What I got was that he shot his own son. He evidently did not make sure of what or whom he was going to kill before pulling the trigger. What I also got out of it was that he used a police issued weapon that should have been checked in at the end of the day before he left for home but because it is currently a universal practice for cops to take police issued weapons off duty with them and this practice should be changed across the nation. Off duty they should be just as legally required to have concealed weapons permits as the next person and if they are going to arm themselves off duty, then it should be with their own private weapon.

He says,

"Our Government made it so that you have to be a certain age, have insurance, drive a restricted speed and if you dont follow these laws then you will face punishment by the police.

...and, our governments, federal as well as state, have made it so you must be at least 18 years of age to purchase a rifle or shotgun or ammunition for either a rifle or shotgun, and 21 years of age or more to purchase a pistol or revolver or the ammunition for a pistol or revolver. Various state laws prohibit the mere possession of firearms and ammunition by minors, especially handguns. Federal law has long denied convicted felons, addicts of illicit drugs, and those adjudicated insane by a court of law any right to possess a firearm. Federal law generally restricts anyone other than sworn law enforcement officers in the course of their employment from possessing weapons on any Federal government property or property under control of the Federal government, and state and local laws very much tell you where you may or may not possess and, especially, use your firearms. And the tell you how you can and can't use them, too. You may be required to register your firearm or have a permit to acquire or possess it. If you violate those laws, you will probably lose your firearms, your ability to have firearms, and quite possibly your freedom and a good chunk of money on top of it.

And by the way, YOU CANT BUY A TANK AND DRIVE IT DOWN THE STREET!!

More people than one would think do, in fact, own and operate tanks and other military vehicles. Most are registered and operated on the road. Tanks generally are trailered over the road and driven off-road, but they can generally be given permission to operate on a public street if the correct process is followed and the fees and taxes paid to the municipality which owns the road. A neighbor not two miles from me collects and drives military vehicles of various vintages. A company not two hours from me operates tanks that you can buy driving time in as well as hire them for exhibition purposes.

So dont sit here and compare me driving to work and the right for any psychopath to buy an AR-15!

A psychopath will have probably lost his right to purchase any firearm by the time he's old enough to legally do so in the first place. If he hasn't, it won't be too long after reaching adulthood before that happens.

Do you know what AR-15 stands for?

ArmaLite Rifle, model 15.

ASSAULT RIFLE-ITS FOR ASSAULTING.

'Assault rifle' - loose translation of German 'Sturmgewehr', or 'storm rifle'. That's military assault, i.e.: invasion, vs. guard duty in the rear echelons or defending an installation or static battle lines (such as trenches). 'Assault rifle' is a design concept, contrasted with 'battle rifle'. Both are service rifles, but have different fortes. The battle rifle is a full power rifle with an effective range of up to or over 1000 yards, where the assault rifle is a lightweight short rifle designed for the soldier on the move who is burdened with a pack and full field gear. It fires a reduced sized cartridge effective up to only a few hundred yards and was originally supposed to serve as a rifle, submachine gun, and squad automatic weapon all in one package - which, by the way, never really worked out as planned.

The only time anyone makes a weapon for criminal assault would be someone assembling a Molitov cocktail or fashioning a pair of brass knuckles or something else that is generally illegal in the first place. Firearms are designed and manufactured for the military, law enforcement, and law abiding citizens. The only time I recall anyone marketing anything even covertly to the criminal element it was such a piece of refuse that no legitimate user would buy one in the first place...and it seems to me the Treasury Department shut them down shortly thereafter.

YOUR ARGUMENT IS SH*T AND YOU ARE STUPID"

That guy took the words right out of my mouth as I was looking at his picture...

I said in an earlier post comenting on another article that most people are not qualified and/or emotionally stable enough to own and handle firearms, including members of the police force and military. I hate to have my words proven to me in this extreme manner. Best wishes to the father and the rest of the family.

outlaw spoons they make people fat , guns are outlawed in Mexico and only criminals have them and they use them daily

richardharrow

I mentioned cars because most people use accidents with guns as their main argument against guns. If you look at the statitics you will notice there is a LOT more car accidents then accidents with guns. This is my point. I'm sorry if YOU are too s****d to understand.

And just as some people don't know how to handle guns safely, many drivers don't know how to drive a car safely, and should not have a license. Also as TiGor mentioned, cars can also be used by people with bad intentions.

Your point about the AR-15 is irrelevant as even if they were illegal in every state, criminals would still find a way to acquire them (and any other illegal guns). What you should fear is not the guns themselves, nor honest gun owners who use the guns either at the gun range and/or for self-defense, it is the criminals who, whether the guns are illegal or not, will find a way to acquire them (and I cannot stress this enough).

Nobody forces you to own guns, but personally I prefer not to be defenseless if someone breaks into my house.

And great post WMG-21.

With anti-guns laws only criminals will have guns.

You gun nuts are so full of crap... you NEED a car to get around and go to work. It is unfortunate that so many lives are lost in motor vehicle accidents but the difference is the driver at fault is NOT intentionally killing you with his vehicle. A gun-toting @!$%# who aims a gun at you is TRYING to kill you so stop with the gun deaths versus vehicle deaths. It doesn't hold water except to an idiot

descrs. In case you are talking to me, you are still missing the point. Of course I am not saying we should ban cars, sigh ...

And you seem to have missed that I was comparing car accidents and gun accidents, not intentional murders committed with either, or we might as well throw knives, sticks, and anything else that you could kill with in the argument.

And chances are the gun-toting **** will go aim his gun at people where he knows they are most likely not armed and defenseless, this is why mass shooting happen for the most part in areas where people are not armed (schools for example).

You probably wouldn't like living in Switzerland ...

With anti-guns laws only criminals will have guns.

@ descrs - A gun-toting @!$%# who aims a gun at you is TRYING to kill you-- that's called a criminal , they don't care about gun laws

People use guns to do what? kill something, whether it be self-defense or not. That is the only purpose of a gun.

Not counting, of course, participating in any number of varied bullseye matches (some of which are in the Olympics), various steel and action based silhouette courses, trap, skeet, benchrest competition, load development experimental test firing, historical reenactments, informal friendly competition between individuals, quality pa-and-son family time, 'plinking' with friends, study of historical specimens, I think you get the idea.

Tigor, all of the activities you list above are secondary to a gun's basic purpose, which is, to shoot some living thing. Guns were not invented so that people could have something with which to shoot clay pigeons,or to provide a focus for family bonding. Activities like skeet shooting, historical reenactments, etc, while admirable in many respects are not essential to one's day to day existence. Hunting, while hardly a societal ill, is also a non essential activity for most Americans, and does not require use of assault weapons, or possession of a concealed carry permit.
Automobiles, however, which you use as a comparison, are necessities for most Americans. This dependency is baked into the structure of our suburban life style, where one's place of work may be 10, 20, 30 miles or more distant, in almost any direction, and stores, hospitals and schools are also no longer within walking distance, or distributed in a pattern conducive to mass transportation.
So, yes, I get the picture; you are attempting to compare apples and oranges with your analogy, and are hoping nobody will call you on it.

"What I got was that he shot his own son."

Period. You made up the circumstances to suit your political view.

With anti-guns laws only criminals will have guns.

...and in a country where gun laws are so permissive, and gun ownership so pervasive, there will always be guns available for the would-be criminal

Anna, how many of the guns possessed and used illegally were originally manufactured, marketed and sold legally? All of them?

Guns are as commonplace as gumdrops in our society, which makes them easy to obtain by any would be criminals, be they a pudgy, middle-aged professor, like Amy Bishop, a crazy ex-doctoral student, like that clown in Aurora CO, or your average, run of the mill, stick up artist.

...and you cannot compare guns accidents and incidents with accidents involving cars. For the majority of Americans, cars are essential possessions in today's society. Guns are not.

...and to possess and operate a motor vehicle, one must pass both a written and practical driving test. To possess a firearm, all you need to is pass a background check and wait 7 days.

You see the difference?

Hey I got an idea, "Light Bulb", Lets put more guns out there. Hell, lets just give a gun to everyone, cause as we have seen over the past few weeks, guns solve everything. Population problem? No problem, just hand out a bunch of guns. You don't need a lisense or say maybe a psych test to make sure your mentally stable to own a gun, no! I think every Redneck should own one and if someone gets in your way.. don't try to work it out or verify that they are a real intruder instead of your own son. Draw on them and blow them away. Sort it out later. There is always the "STAND YOUR GROUND" ace in the hole to fall back on. Hell the cops won't even arrest you unless those pesky anti gun groups or a bunch of moms get the media worked up.

some of you people need to condense your gibberish ...when you get too frosty about your security and have a gun in your hand..this stuff happens easily ..when hunting you should never fire unless you can identify your target..dont shoot in the bushes or at something you think is a deer...same goes with this situation ..gota know before you shoot..

This is tragic, but not surprising in this violence happy, gun-toting, shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later culture in which we live. The gun nuts love the old cliche, "Guns don't kill people; people kill people." Well, it's the bullets that do all the damage. My wife and I do not own a gun and never will because the only purpose of a gun is to kill something or someone. The Founding Fathers never intended this to be the violent culture that it is due to guns. The Second Amendment was intended to protect State Militias from being disarmed by the fedeal government. It was never intended to be applied to individual citizens. Furthermore, the Founding Fathers never anticipated the types of guns we have today. When the Constitution was written there were only flint-lock weapons, single-shot muskets, and dueling pistols. The revolver was not invented until several dedcades after the Constitution was written. The tragedy in Colorado is just the latest incident in which we've offered up innocent lives to the almighty gun lobby. The gun violence in this nation is sad and pathetic. Just look at nations with strict gun-control laws and what their violent crime rate is like in comparison to ours. Canada, Britain, Germany, France, Sweden, the Netherlands, and many others all have significantly less violent crime and in most cases private citizens cannot own anything beyond a hunting rifle, and even those are difficult to obtain. It's time to join the civilized world and stop this insanity in American.

The whole argument of "No gun laws, because criminals don't follow the law" is very weak. You could just say "No murder laws, because criminals are going to murder people anyway". It's a very anarchist argument. Might as well have no laws at all, right?

I get the point of having a gun at your house to fend of a break in; but to carry a concealed weapon is just asking for trouble. For example, had Zimmerman not been carrying, he would not be in the mess he is in right now, whether he is innocent or not; the presence of the weapon made that situation a lose-lose scenario.

This story smells. Mr. Leach the officer was staying in a motel and shot his son thinking he was an intruder? Why didn't Mr Leach the officer lock the door of the motel room if he is as paranoid as he seems? How did the son get into the motel room if not by the front door? Anyone that has ever stayed at a motel knows that there is only one way in or out of the motel room. They also know that the room is so small that the door is always present unless they are in the bathroom. Was it dark when the officer shot his son and he was in bed? If so why was the door unlocked? It could have been anyone mistakenly entering the wrong room that could have been killed.

There's another side of the story. The officer could have been involved in illegal drugs and was expecting a hit on him but there again why was the door unlocked for anyone to enter.

As I stated before...this story smells and the whole truth is now being told. No police officer that has been properly trained would shoot someone without telling them to drop the the ground with their hands in the air and identify himself.

Let me add that I own guns...lots of them but the 2nd amendment gives the people the right to bear arms. Now the question comes in, just what does that mean. Well it seems to mean different things to different people. Just what arms are we talking about? A hand gun yes. A hunting rifle yes. A nuclear bomb? NO. The point is that there has to be a cutoff point to what was meant when the framers drew up the Constitution. Some weapons should be banned for public use.

Thank god this man shot his own son (so that only he and his family have to deal with the tragedy). Luckily this wasn't some unsuspecting hotel guest to whom the front desk issued the wrong keycard/room #....

And this is why "shoot 1st, ask questions later" is a terrible self-defense strategy...

DrowningGrover

Good point. The hotels I have visited in the last 10 years have key cards so it's not possible for you to leave the door unlocked. They lock as soon as the door is closed and a key card is need or someone has to open the door from the inside. So how did his son get into the room to be mistaken for an intruder without a key card?

Jeanvaljean... You're assumptions about increased gun violence due to increased gun manufacturing are bogus and irraneous. Yhe increase in gun violence is NOT due to increased gun manufacturing; it is due to an increase in popultation, an increase in disregard for human life, and an increase in the general population neglecting to teach their children the core values of life and how to conduct themselves in society. It is a proven fact around the world that where guns are just a part of everyday life there is less gun violence. As to your comment about the recent shooting in Aurora, CO-- 12 dead, 59 injured, 1 gun...do you seriously think that if someone else in that theater had a gun they would have just sat there and watched everyone be massacured? No! If someone else had a gun 12 people would still have their lives today, 59 people would not be in the hospital, 1 psychotic killer would be off the streets, and the taxpayers would have save hundreds of thousands of dollars that will now need to be spent on lengthy court cases and medical care for the victims; so where is your reprieve now jeanvaljean? Who will come to your rescue when YOU are staring down the barrel of a hot laoded .45? This is the problem with America today, its full of a bunch of whiney pussies ready to bend over for the government for a little "perceived" protection. FACT--Canada outlaws guns...gun violence drops, murder rate increases...yeah lets outlaw guns, seems to be the most logical thing to do. The way I see it, the people who do not own a gun and practice using it on a regular basis are complete idiots; the time will come when you will regret your cowardness of guns. Guns are the best thing that ever happened to this country, guns built this country and guns protect it; without them this country will fall divided.

Tigor, all of the activities you list above are secondary to a gun's basic purpose, which is, to shoot some living thing.

I'm starting to wonder just what the 'd' in 'dman' stands for. It appears you're trying very hard to prove that it stands for something that people don't call each other in polite company.

Many firearms manufactured are not at all designed to be nor intended to be used for personal protection or hunting of any kind. A target pistol such as a Hammerli or a Smith and Wesson Model 52 would be prime examples. Or a Winchester Model 52 target rifle. Yes, you could aim it at a person or an animal, pull the trigger, and injure or possibly kill them or it. But doing so in an efficient manner would be rather awkward and unwieldly in most cases, and there's a reason that service weapons and hunting rifles and shotguns are designed and built the way they are. Those are built primarily to inflict injury which could (service weapons) or should (hunting arms) result in death. Those firearms are built to be rugged, serviceable under adverse conditions, and effective for use as weapons. Fine finishes, match grade accuracy, fancy, infinitely adjustable sights and ergonomics customizable to fit the user's physical traits are not seen on firearms carried by lawmen, soldiers, hunters, security personnel, or anyone acting as their own bodyguard. But you would have us believe that someone would spend a significant amount of money, say, up to and over $20,000 for some of the really fine shotguns, to kill someone or some animal (that they have no intention of doing at all) when a firearm that will do that very well could be had for a few hundred dollars, or less?

So, apparently you like to paint things with a broad brush and make sweeping assumptions. Fine. Some people are like that. You're in good company. The boomerang and yo-yo were invented to be weapons, so obviously any child who has ever had one really was out to injure or kill their playmates or neighborhood animals with them and playing with them was merely secondary to the basic purpose of a boomerang or yo-yo.

And then you seem to think that none of the millions - billions - of miles driven every year are non-essential. I've got a fair number of miles driving a bus under my belt, and I can tell you that I know quite a few people who get by just fine without owning or driving an automobile for any purpose. If driving was all about getting from 'point A' to 'point B', how come vehicles have evolved so considerably since the days of the Model T Ford? Why does anyone have cruise control, air conditioning, six way power adjustable seats, sound systems, and all those other 'creature comforts' that are now standard equipment in virtually all modern vehicles. Just get where you need to go and get out of the car when you get there. Or ride a horse! Between horses and trains, most people a hundred years ago got around all right, even it it took them a bit longer. They were still able to make those necessary trips. The automobile was devised to be a tool to assist someone in getting from one place to another, not as a means of entertainment, which it has definitely become to many, if not most, people through the century since it debuted. The only people I know of who buy a vehicle for the express purpose of making necessary trips are people in such condition they shouldn't be operating a vehicle on a public road anyway, or else they belong to a strict fundamentalist religious sect that allows automobiles of only the most basic form, in a dark color, and with no chrome, accessories, or non-essential equipment.

So, yes, I get the picture; you are attempting to compare apples and oranges with your analogy, and are hoping nobody will call you on it.

Hardly, and if you were half as smart as you think you are, you'd recognize that. But I knew that someone out there who is 'fruit loops' would see it as apples to oranges nevertheless. I just relish the opportunity to lay it all out for the enjoyment of everyone else.

dman,

Hunting, while hardly a societal ill, is also a non essential activity for most Americans,

Tell that to the families whose entire supply of meat for the year is based on what they get from hunting. I know several of my friends that this is the case for them. They rely on what they bring home from hunting to eat all year long, so dont tell me that hunting is not essential, just because most americans rely on the market to supply their meat, doesnt mean everyone else does.

Ebenezer:

As to your comment about the recent shooting in Aurora, CO-- 12 dead, 59 injured, 1 gun...do you seriously think that if someone else in that theater had a gun they would have just sat there and watched everyone be massacured? No! If someone else had a gun 12 people would still have their lives today, 59 people would not be in the hospital, 1 psychotic killer would be off the streets

That assessment is incorrect. The killer was wearing body armor, a helm, and a neck protector. If you had shot at him; you would have just ensured your own demise.

sounds like this is mostly because of the unaccountability of and too much power of police in our country. if the officer was accountable he wouldn't be shooting people unless he made damn sure that the one one he was aiming at was a threat. hold the police to the account of the people and things like this will stop happening.

I'm starting to wonder just what the 'd' in 'dman' stands for. It appears you're trying very hard to prove that it stands for something that people don't call each other in polite company.

Oooh! Such searing wit! Somebody call the burn unit.

Many firearms manufactured are not at all designed to be nor intended to be used for personal protection or hunting of any kind. A target pistol such as a Hammerli or a Smith and Wesson Model 52 would be prime examples. Or a Winchester Model 52 target rifle. Yes, you could aim it at a person or an animal, pull the trigger, and injure or possibly kill them or it.

Well, Tigor, as I'm sure you are often told, you have missed the point entirely. The fact that some firearms are neither designed nor manufactured for personal defense, military use or hunting is not in dispute. What is in question is your comparison of firearm injuries to automobile accidents as some sort of justification for lax and permissive gun laws: the old "Why don't they ban cars?" argument.

To cite target pistols, target rifles or collector edition shotguns as examples of the core uses of firearms is as inaccurate as citing Formula-One race cars as examples of the basic function of automobiles.

The auto industry did not evolve into a major American industry so that people would have something to drive around and around in circles for 500 miles once a year in Indianapolis, and fire arms were not invented so that people would have something to fire at paper targets, or to indulge the hobbies of wealthy collectors.

Automobiles were primarily developed for transportation and firearms were primarily developed as a weapons, and, to a lesser degree, for use in hunting.

Automobiles are a necessity for the majority of Americans, and their use require licensing through a process which demonstrates both knowledge of the law, and competence in operation. For most Americans, guns are not a necessity and, in most states, require no more than a seven day waiting period to own.

Perhaps you can see the difference?

Perhaps not.

You like to put arguments in the mouths or your opponents:

But you would have us believe that someone would spend a significant amount of money, say, up to and over $20,000 for some of the really fine shotguns, to kill someone or some animal (that they have no intention of doing at all) when a firearm that will do that very well could be had for a few hundred dollars, or less?

The boomerang and yo-yo were invented to be weapons, so obviously any child who has ever had one really was out to injure or kill their playmates or neighborhood animals with them

Again, with fading hope of your comprehension, I am not claiming that people buy expensive, collector-edition guns with the intent of committing murder, or that a child's toy boomerang is an instrument of murder and mayhem. But I do say that neither a child's toy boomerang, nor a $20,000 shotgun, intended for display in a showcase, represents the basic purpose of either guns or boomerangs. Firearms were not invented so that somebody could have an expensive piece of artwork to display next to their jewel encrusted diving helmet, and boomerangs were not invented so that children could play with a bent piece of wood or plastic.

And then you seem to think that none of the millions - billions - of miles driven every year are non-essential.

Again, I did not say this. I said that for most Americans, automobiles are a necessity. They commute to work in patterns unsuitable to mass transit, and there are no grocery stores, doctor's offices, post offices, etc., within easy walking distance. I'm sure that many Americans also use their cars for non-essential travel, such as recreation or to visit relatives, and if those were the only purposes of car ownership, your argument might carry some weight.

If driving was all about getting from 'point A' to 'point B', how come vehicles have evolved so considerably since the days of the Model T Ford? Why does anyone have cruise control, air conditioning, six way power adjustable seats, sound systems, and all those other 'creature comforts' that are now standard equipment in virtually all modern vehicles.

Why have cars evolved? You know this as well as I, because the old Modl T's were inefficient, slow and less safe or comfortable than the models which followed.

Why do people have cruise control, air conditioning, six-way power adjustable seats, sound systems, etc? Hmmm....

One might with equal logic, ask why, if the basic purpose of houses is to provide shelter, do people have central air, recreation rooms, back yard decks or in ground pools, or why, if clothing's basic purpose is to protect oneself against the elements, people buy designer jeans, hand-tailored suites and leather shoes (canvas and rubber is much cheaper).

People embellish on the necessities of life. That is a part of what makes them human. But because some people drive 911 porches, or live 5000 sq foot. luxury homes, or dress in expensive, stylish fashions, does not mean that personal transportation, shelter and clothing are not necessities.

Guns, by contrast, particularly those designed for concealed carrying, or for military-style combat, are, at best, elective purchases for most people.

Just get where you need to go and get out of the car when you get there. Or ride a horse! Between horses and trains, most people a hundred years ago got around all right, even it it took them a bit longer.

Boy, somebody's clock has stopped.

A hundred years ago, central heating was virtually unknown, as was indoor plumbing and electric lighting.

A hundred years ago, the majority of Americans still lived on small farms. A hundred years ago, few people lived more than a few miles from their place of employment. If they did, they lived near a train or trolley line and used it to travel to work, to reach shops or to go visiting. Today, most Americans live 10 to 20 miles outside of a major urban area, and many of them do not commute in to the city, they commute to some other point in the greater metropolitan area, which may be north, south, east or west of their residence.

I hate to break it to you, but American society is not about to transition back to the year 1912, crowd back into urban areas, start riding horses and live without electric lighting, central heating or indoor plumbing.

The only people I know of who buy a vehicle for the express purpose of making necessary trips are people in such condition they shouldn't be operating a vehicle on a public road anyway,

Well, I won't speculate on what type of people fall into your circle of acquaintances, but people buy a given car for a multiplicity of reasons, some practical [such as making necessary trips], and some related to emotional or recreational needs. But the core reason why most Americans buy a car, as opposed to spending the same $20,000 on a designer shotgun, is a basic need for transportation. They may embellish it by buying a convertible or a 4 wheel drive off road vehicle, but most people need a car to exist and live in our society. Most people do not need a gun

Hardly, and if you were half as smart as you think you are, you'd recognize that. But I knew that someone out there who is 'fruit loops' would see it as apples to oranges nevertheless.

Yes, and some people are so stupid that they cannot gauge their own lack of intellectual ability; they frequently end sentences with a preposition, [like that]

Later dude. Make sure you're pointing the right end of your gun at the target.

this story reminds me of some of the idiotic macho posts you seee on gun tpo[pic, "Anyone comes into my house they're going to have to deal with Me, Mr. SMith and Mr. Wessson. THe cop reallly should have known bettter but, then again, he might have been drunk.

Thanks to dman, everyone who has passed through my office this afternoon got to laugh so hard their eyes were watering when reading post 1.83. More than one person has mentioned the similarity of the post to the concept of a 'circular definition', and four have made mention of 'sore loser'. All first asked, 'what the...?' first, though. Everyone wants to know just what it is he's trying to hide. It was when they got to the end and saw the last few lines, though, the result was definitely worth the time they took to read through it!

Oooh! Such searing wit! Somebody call the burn unit.

"Damn, that was original!", LeRoy said.

Well, Tigor, as I'm sure you are often told, you have missed the point entirely.

It was readily surmised that you're sure of an awful lot of things in this world that are anything but sure. Everyone here wondered how the hell a person can't understand that the reason something was devised a long time ago, and in the case of firearms, by a person or persons who have been dead over a thousand years, does not have to, and often does not - period - have anything at all with someone else's reason for acquiring an object or using it in any given way. One of my colleagues described a fishing pole he has, though he's never caught a fish in his life and never plans to. It was obviously invented, manufactured, and sold with the idea that the end user would use it to catch fish. Except that this guy felt no obligation to use it in that way at all, keeping it in a case with a variety of grappling hooks, magnets, and some unknown sticky stuff he could fix to the end of the high test line on the reel. He's the guy we call when someone loses something into an unreachable place, such as a keychain down in the storm sewer. He agrees that it would be secondary to a fishing pole's basic purpose, and he adds, 'So what?'.

What is in question is your comparison of firearm injuries to automobile accidents

And this is where they all started asking, in not so many words, "WTF?"...

To cite target pistols, target rifles or collector edition shotguns as examples of the core uses of firearms is as inaccurate as citing Formula-One race cars as examples of the basic function of automobiles.

Most any of the many people involved in the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile Formula One World Championship would hotly dispute that. To them, personally, it is a very core use of the automobile. The fact that it isn't to virtually anyone else in this world means little to them. Perception is everything, and it's a big deal to them. Given that most of that activity is in Europe, it would be a very fair bet to guess that some of those involved in very extensive development and construction of a Formula One car do not own a motor vehicle themselves and do not drive regularly, if at all. When your involvement in automobiles is pretty much only to the extent of your employment in a laboratory developing hardware exclusively for the use of a Formula One team in their chassis or engine (which they are required to build, not buy), then as far as you're concerned, Formula One IS automobiles to you. Just like there are plenty of people out there to whom the world of firearms is only what they use them for, and nothing else is of interest to them, regardless of what they may have originally been intended for. Each of us operates within our own frame of reference. It's part of being an individual.

and fire arms were not invented so that people would have something to fire at paper targets, or to indulge the hobbies of wealthy collectors.

And the competitive rifle and pistol shooters of the world and the collectors of both great and modest means would all ask, 'So what?'. If they never intended to acquire their firearm(s) for use as a weapon, then that guns were originally meant as weapons means about as much to them as the origins of of the boomerang as an Aboriginal weapon of war and hunting meant to any grade-school kid who came into possession of a Nerf Boomerang when they came out 30 years ago. Absolutely nothing.

Automobiles are a necessity for the majority of Americans

So the majority of Americans think. And I know a great many people who did until they lost their automobile and were unable to replace it or unable to drive one even if they could afford one or maintain the legal privilege to operate it on public roads. They adapt quite well by adjusting their lifestyle out of necessity. I know because I've worked with and lived near people like this for as long as I can remember. Automobiles are a necessity to most like cigarettes are to a smoker, until he or she quits smoking and then lives without them.

and their use require licensing through a process which demonstrates both knowledge of the law, and competence in operation.

So, tell me, just how is it that between thirty and fifty thousand people per year die in motor vehicle accidents? THIS is the heart of MY POINT, which you miss entirely. ACCIDENTS happen when one or more people DO THINGS they have been told were dangerous and they KNEW they shouldn't be doing, but went ahead and did anyway. They broke rules that were made very clear to them at some point in time during their lives, usually shortly before they were issued their first drivers' license.

Really, it doesn't matter what the machine or situation is; if it involves anything that chemically or mechanically affects human physiology in an adverse manner, failing to treat it with respect and handle it in a responsible manner is likely to lead to injury or death. The men I've been watching dig a trench and bury a fiber optic cable across the street are at risk of injuries that crush parts of their bodies or cause them to lose large amounts of blood if they make a wrong move. Hell, given the heat out there today, they're at risk of dehydration and heat stroke if they don't watch out. I feel quite confident that every man on that crew, from the foreman to the lowliest laborer knows the risks. I'm also quite confident that at some point, either today or in the future, at least one of those guys will get hurt on the job when either they or someone they're working with does, or fails to do, something that they all know they should or shouldn't do. That's the stuff that accidents are made of, and they are all preventable as long as everyone follows the rules. Just like with miners, loggers, factory workers, machine operators, energy transmission workers, anyone involved in flight operations, or anyone who operates a vehicle of any kind. Or handles a firearm.

Here you accuse me of:

You like to put arguments in the mouths or your opponents:

...only to turn around and say:

What is in question is your comparison of firearm injuries to automobile accidents as some sort of justification for lax and permissive gun laws: the old "Why don't they ban cars?" argument.

I challenge you to quote where I said that because people being careless with any kind of machine is justification for lax and permissive gun laws or where I argued that cars should be banned.

You can't.

That's because you read my posts in the same manner I dished back to you by illustrating your brand of logic with spurious examples (much to the enjoyment of everyone here, I must say). If you don't like having attention drawn to that, and Kathy over here points out that you must not because your reaction to it makes you seem embarrassed (women's intuition, I'm sure), then I'd suggest you don't jump to conclusions about people because it's convenient for you and fits your agenda.

People embellish on the necessities of life. That is a part of what makes them human. But because some people drive 911 porches, or live 5000 sq foot. luxury homes, or dress in expensive, stylish fashions, does not mean that personal transportation, shelter and clothing are not necessities.

Guns, by contrast, particularly those designed for concealed carrying, or for military-style combat, are, at best, elective purchases for most people.

People in here slapped their foreheads when they read this. You say,

Boy, somebody's clock has stopped.

when I point out that the 'original invention', or the intent thereof, behind devising another mode of getting from one place to another besides walking there is a great distance away from the form of entertainment that a considerable amount of vehicle use eventually became, only to demonstrate that you mentally are still stuck sometime prior to the 1960's or so. Because since approximately that time, people didn't just embellish or improve their real and personal properties, they purchased extra real and personal property with which to attempt to fulfill themselves. Yes, there are a few people who drive a Porsche day in and day out. But there's a whole hell of a lot more people who drive a Ford, Chevy, or Toyota every day but get the Porsche, Corvette, or whatever other special car they've got out on mild weather weekends. They bought the things for fun. They never planned to drive it to work or to get groceries with the thing, especially if it's an exceptional specimen, and they'll often RENT a car to drive while their primary transportation is in the mechanic's shop before they'll drive their prized wheels in rush hour traffic or in inclimate weather. The very same thing is true with a great many firearms. If they're highly specialized or valuable in any way, the fact that they're a firearm and firearms can be used to shoot a person or an animal is a moot point. The vast majority of people who own firearms such as these will firmly tell you, 'Ain't gonna' happen!'. It isn't going out in the field to hunt anything, especially if it has an ultra fine finish or is an unfired specimen. It sure as hell isn't going to be fired at a person for any reason because then a very valuable unfired specimen would lose a good share of its value forever and it would have to be taken into police custody as evidence and be examined and probably fired yet again in the crime lab. They're firearms, but they're not weapons. If there's any hunting to be done, another run-of-the-mill firearm will be bought for the purpose...and not everyone is going to do that. Such as in the case of people who collect but do not hunt, and there are many. I have coins that are legal tender, but far too valuable to be spent as money at their face value. I'll spend other coins or currency that's in my billfold instead, and while collectible coins are assets, I certainly don't count them as money when it comes to listing cash-on-hand. It doesn't matter what it was created to be all those years ago; the reality today is that they won't ever be used for that original purpose, I never planned to when I acquired them, and they may have just as well originated as works of art because I'm as likely to drop them into a cashier's hand somewhere as I am to offer up a painting or sculpture at a sales counter. That's the difference.

A hundred years ago, the majority of Americans still lived on small farms.

I hate to break it to you, but American society is not about to transition back to the year 1912, crowd back into urban areas

Okay, you got me. How is it the majority of Americans still lived on small farms but would crowd back into urban areas if we reverted back to life the way it was at the turn of the 20th Century. Greg would really like to know, but I can't master your unique logic...

Well, I won't speculate on what type of people fall into your circle of acquaintances, but people buy a given car for a multiplicity of reasons, some practical [such as making necessary trips], and some related to emotional or recreational needs.

Gee, you mean just like people buy firearms for for a variety of purposes, many of which do not at all involve pointing it at a living organism, let alone discharging it in the direction of anything alive? And as far as speculating on what type of people I am acquainted with that you referred to, there is no need for you to speculate. Just look around, you'll see them. They can barely function in everyday life, and probably need full time supervision for their own safety, but they'll stubbornly resist any suggestion that they park the car for good and hang up the keys. If they need to buy a car, it will only be to get to the grocery store and maybe to church on Sunday. Those, and some ultra conservative religious folks, are about the only ones left who don't spend a very large amount of time and money using their vehicles for what is little more than entertainment, pursuant to some type of recreation or enjoyment, be it going out on Saturday nights, road trips, meeting friends, going to movies, or whatever other purely elective things a person can do that they can use a car for. This is just like how most people who purchase a firearm also will be using it only for things that are not the weapons the earliest guns were meant to be.

Yes, and some people are so stupid that they cannot gauge their own lack of intellectual ability; they frequently end sentences with a preposition, [like that]

Gloria and I howled when we saw read this line. While it appears that you have some acceptable insight about yourself, you misidentified 'that' as a preposition. It is a pronoun. Then you proceed to address me as 'dude'.

I rest my case.

Thanks to dman, everyone who has passed through my office this afternoon got to laugh so hard their eyes were watering when reading post 1.83.

Ahhh, your office...

And then you seem to think that none of the millions - billions - of miles driven every year are non-essential. I've got a fair number of miles driving a bus under my belt,

Would that be on the bus you drive, or is that the restroom at the bus station.

You cannot even keep you own story straight.

But, lets look at your points, one by one, and see what can be made of them, besides a load of rubbish.

Everyone here wondered how the hell a person can't understand that the reason something was devised a long time ago, and in the case of firearms, by a person or persons who have been dead over a thousand years, does not have to, and often does not - period - have anything at all with someone else's reason for acquiring an object or using it in any given way.

Well, to start with, firearms were invented in China, in the 12 century, that means during the years between 1101 and 1200 A.D. I've no idea how you do math in your, ahh, office, but where I come from 2012 - 1101 = 911 years, not any number over one thousand.

Stepping aside from the deficiencies of your math skills, let's see if we can pose you an easy logic problem, if a gun's purpose is to either a) be used as a weapon, b) used as a hunting instrument, c) used for sport, or d) as a collector's item, how does it constitute a necessity for the majority of citizens under any of these uses?

If tomorrow guns were unavailable to citizens for potential protection, for shooting game, for shooting at targets, or to hang on the wall of their dens, life would continue with out a hitch for the vast majority of Americans. But if cars disappeared tomorrow, the degree of economic, social and health safety upheaval would be massive. Millions would be unable to commute to work, shop for groceries or even visit a doctor.

To compare that to the need for guns in our society is ludicrous, and I suspect that few people outside of the bus station you call an office would believe otherwise.

People in here slapped their foreheads when they read this. You say,

Boy, somebody's clock has stopped.

when I point out that the 'original invention', or the intent thereof, behind devising another mode of getting from one place to another besides walking there is a great distance away from the form of entertainment that a considerable amount of vehicle use eventually became, only to demonstrate that you mentally are still stuck sometime prior to the 1960's or so

You must work in an interesting office, one where 2012 - 1101 = "over a 1000", and where people have so little to do they stand around slapping themselves on the forehead [which might explain your mental acuity] and sharing internet postings for each others edification or amusement. Even in a bus station, I'd have thought people did more actual work.

"...the 'original invention', or the intent thereof, behind devising another mode of getting from one place to another besides walking there is a great distance..."

I give up. A doctoral candidate in English could not derive any meaning from such gibberish and Groucho Marx at his best could not devised a more twisted example of meaningless double-talk.

To remind you, what you actually said was...

Just get where you need to go and get out of the car when you get there. Or ride a horse! Between horses and trains, most people a hundred years ago got around all right, even it it took them a bit longer.

"Or ride a horse!" Good advice! Who could say automobiles are a necessity when all one has to do is arrange shelter and food for a 1000 lb animal, and resign yourself to a work commute which takes up more than half your day?

Yes, there are a few people who drive a Porsche day in and day out. But there's a whole hell of a lot more people who drive a Ford, Chevy, or Toyota every day but get the Porsche, Corvette, or whatever other special car they've got out on mild weather weekends.

[insert audible sigh here] The point which you steadfastly refuse to see, is that some manner of car is a necessity the "whole hell of a lot more people", of which you speak, and also for the more well to do, who may drive a Lexus, a BMW or a Cadillac. People who have limited means may drive Honda Civics, Ford Fusions, or such. People who can afford them drive more expensive cars.

But almost all of them need a car.

Very few of them need a gun.

Well, I won't speculate on what type of people fall into your circle of acquaintances, but people buy a given car for a multiplicity of reasons, some practical [such as making necessary trips], and some related to emotional or recreational needs.

Gee, you mean just like people buy firearms for for a variety of purposes, many of which do not at all involve pointing it at a living organism, let alone discharging it in the direction of anything alive?

What I actually said was...

Well, I won't speculate on what type of people fall into your circle of acquaintances, but people buy a given car for a multiplicity of reasons, some practical [such as making necessary trips], and some related to emotional or recreational needs. But the core reason why most Americans buy a car, as opposed to spending the same $20,000 on a designer shotgun, is a basic need for transportation.

So in deference to you, here it is, once again, in small, small words...

Most people need some form of car to exist in today's world. Most people do not need a gun.

Got it?

I doubt it.

Who, exactly, is the "community" that collapses comments here? I have seen some of the best, most thoughtful comments on this site "Comment collapsed by the community". ?

The perp here was in a motel. Was he drunk? This would be my guess and his son was looking for him. If he was drunk, then this would be yet another alcohol related death. Ethanol is 10 times more dangerous than any gun in existence. It's effects, both physical and mental, contribute to more violence and unnecessary death than even war, afflicting essentially all cultures at all times in a constant daily toll of victims. It contributes to 'fun' by shutting down the very psychological systems that make 'civilization' for an otherwise murderous population of communal monkeys possible. Blame guns, but take out all cases where any alcohol at all was involved and I suspect that the rate of gun violence would become very low.

"Guns don't kill people, alcohol does." In all manner of ways. There should be a limit for blood alcohol in anyone possessing a gun much as for anyone owning a car. That limit should be .00.

That said, this poor man's life is over. I can not imagine how anyone could recover from such as this. I seriously expect the headline "Officer who killed son commits suicide" to come along sometime in the future. There can be no 'healing' from such an act however inadvertent it might have been. The profound sadness that life on Earth can be...

This is what happens when you let the NRA tell you that there is a killer behind every door. Hey Gun owner the killer is you. Now you have to LIVE with the fact that you murdered your own son! You just live with it.

dman -

It's been an interesting back and forth to read. I have to raise an issue, though. Let's assume, for the moment, that you are correct and guns should be eliminated in the United States.

How will you do it?

This is the same difficulty I find with people arguing to deport all illegal aliens. The idea might be pretty, but the reality is not. I do not believe that a concerted effort to outlaw guns will be successful any more than prohibition was successful. People will gain access to them and that access will be completely uncontrolled.

I know the argument Anna has been throwing out,

With anti-guns laws only criminals will have guns.

has been well rehearsed, but I have yet to hear a logical counter to it. Were I a criminal, I would like nothing better than the knowledge that any law-abiding victim I choose would be highly unlikely to have the means to defend themselves from a firearm.

Furthermore, I believe that the attempt to outlaw weapons attempts to resolve a symptom, not the disease. People don't generally kill other people because guns are available. They do it for a myriad of reasons, from inexperience to criminal intent.

Target the disease. People murder people because they're angry, desperate, unstable, or some combination of the three. Congenital or physiologically derived mental illness can be addressed with psychological evaluations. Financial and social stresses that lead to desperation and instability can be addressed with counseling and community support. Consider who joins gangs - kids with little family support and a belief that no one else cares. The outreach to change this mindset exists, but it has to be stronger and more concerted.

Give people a sense of self-worth and support and the murders will ease. Above all, the mentality that we're in it for ourselves has to stop. It was always a myth anyway. What we do affects everyone around us.

It's been an interesting back and forth to read. I have to raise an issue, though. Let's assume, for the moment, that you are correct and guns should be eliminated in the United States.

Richard, I did not make any such argument. My response was directed at tigor, who for reasons he [or she] has never been able to explain [to me, at least] believes that guns and automobiles occupy the same status in terms of being necessary for the functioning of our society.

As to Anna's [and your] contention that if all gun ownership were made illegal, only criminals would have guns, I would say there is a grain of truth to it. What is missing from the causal relationship you and Anna theorize about, is availability. Any potential criminal, or psychotic has a greater opportunity to obtain a gun in our society becasue their use and ownership is so common.

Of all the guns used in the last year for a criminal purpose, how many of them were originally manufactured and sold illegally? Very few, I imagine. Discounting illegal imports from outside the country, I expect that 99% of the guns used by criminals were orginally manufactured and sold legally. They may have changed hands illegally since, either through illicit private sales or outright theft. But they did not just appear in somebody's hand in response to a criminal's wish.

If one looks at Western Europe, where gun ownership has been tightly controlled for generations you see evidence of this factor. I'm sure that a criminal in London, England is just a desirous of having a gun as one in East St. Louis, MO. But obtaining a firearm is not so simple an act as it is here. Some still do obtain one [or more], like that Norweigan racist who killed 60 or 70 of his countrymen in an effort to start a race war. But in all Western Europe one hears of such spree killings once every year or two. In the U.S., such killings occur two or three times a month, although seldom on the scale seen in Norway last year.

So, I'm not hell bent on ridding this country of all guns. But I do tire of the tired arguments used by gun-ownership enthusiasts to support their position:

1. Guns don't kill people, people do. Yes, but a person armed with a gun kills far more people than one armed with a knife, ask Amy Bishop.
2. If guns were illegal, only criminals would have guns. Partially true, some criminals would still obtain a gun, but fewer would if there were not so many guns in our society.
3. An armed citizenry is necessary to maintain our political freedoms. Why do western european democracies persist without an armed citizenry? How did Spain and Portugal transition from totalitarian rule to democracy in the 1970s without a shot being fired?
4. And my favorite: More people die in car accidents every year, why do we not ban automobiles. I've already responded on this point to the full extent of my patience, and to a greater degree than this argument merits.

Proponents of untrammeled gun ownership have little to worry about. The Second Amendment may be obsolete, but it is clear and emphatic and is still a part of the constitution, and most politicians realize that approaching the subject of gun control [and the Second Amendment] should be done with same deliberation one would use in poking a sleeping bear with a short stick. Politicians [of all ideologies] may not be the brightest of God's creatures, but they are generally gifted with a preternatural instinct for self-preservation, and they leave sleeping bears alone.

I may not agree with your viewpoint, but I do appreciate your efforts to discuss the issues in a civil manner. If more people use similar restraint, it would make for a higher level of discussion.

@Vince

My wife and I do not own a gun and never will because the only purpose of a gun is to kill something or someone.

See some of the arguments against that above. This summer we have the Olympics. Rifle teams have been assembled. Are they intent on shooting someone?

The Founding Fathers never intended this to be the violent culture that it is due to guns.

You're right. They felt very strongly that guns were an indisputable good. The violence caused by criminals were treated as the aberration that it was. They tended not to muddle the tool used by the criminal with the criminal's act. Guns were also more prevalent in their era during day to day interactions and dueling was legal. To some extent, their culture was more violent than our own.

The Second Amendment was intended to protect State Militias from being disarmed by the fedeal government. It was never intended to be applied to individual citizens.

Wrong. See here: http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Specifically:

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

Continuing on:

Furthermore, the Founding Fathers never anticipated the types of guns we have today.

They were incapable of speculating on the advancement of technology? That is a strange assertion, especially considering the fact that the first machine gun was invented in 1718 by James Puckle.

When the Constitution was written there were only flint-lock weapons, single-shot muskets, and dueling pistols. The revolver was not invented until several dedcades after the Constitution was written.

All wrong (again). The first revolver (that we know about) was invented in 1597, nearly 200 years before the constitution was written. It was designed to be an improvement over "pepper box" firearms. It seems that the whole thrust of your argument is predicated on inaccurate assumptions about the advancement of firearms.

Just look at nations with strict gun-control laws and what their violent crime rate is like in comparison to ours. Canada, Britain, Germany, France, Sweden, the Netherlands, and many others all have significantly less violent crime and in most cases private citizens cannot own anything beyond a hunting rifle, and even those are difficult to obtain. It's time to join the civilized world and stop this insanity in American.

You know in Sweden that neatly every adult male is required (by legislation) to maintain a firearm, right? And that Britain's violent crime rate is higher than the US (though their murder rate is, and always has been, lower than the US)? Kind of throws a wrench in your argument... I mean, not that it wasn't already riddled with problems...

I really feel that HISTORY is a topic that most people seem to know nothing about, yet they insist on speaking with such authority about historical subjects... sad, really.

You know in Sweden that neatly every adult male is required (by legislation) to maintain a firearm, right? And that Britain's violent crime rate is higher than the US (though their murder rate is, and always has been, lower than the US)? Kind of throws a wrench in your argument... I mean, not that it wasn't already riddled with problems...

Actually it is Switzerland, not Sweden, where all adult males [of a military age] are required to maintain a firearm in their home; they are also all required to be reservists in Switzerland's national army, so they have actual training in the use of the guns in their homes.

In Sweden, to own a gun requires a specific license, which is granted in response to a demonstrable need. http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/sweden

I have never seen good sound evidence for your claim that violent crime rates are higher in England. All of the figures I have seen show just the opposite. Please source your claim.

When the Constitution was written there were only flint-lock weapons, single-shot muskets, and dueling pistols. The revolver was not invented until several dedcades after the Constitution was written.

All wrong (again). The first revolver (that we know about) was invented in 1597, nearly 200 years before the constitution was written.

Perhaps technically correct. But the only firearms in general use in 1776 were single shot, muzzle loaders, and I doubt seriously that our founding fathers, intelligent as they were, could imagine the degree of lethal power available in a side arm or rifle by the 20th century.

I certainly agree with your assertion that the Second Amendment is clear and emphatic in its guarantee of the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms. But I am also quite certain that this amendment is as obsolete as the guns in use 200 years ago. The dangers of Indian attack or of invasion by the armies of some European power have not been present since at least 1900. It will never happen, but the Second Amendment should be repealed.

dman-

I don't disagree with you. The 2nd amendment was created to ensure that the citizens of the fledgling United States would be well equipped to form a militia and defend the country. This is not something required of average citizens anymore. It's why we have the rather extensive defense budget that we do. Still, it's a longstanding tradition that has defined this country for a long time. And there are good arguments for self defense for circumstances in which depending upon the police is unrealistic. Home invasions spring instantly to mind.

I maintain that severely limiting gun rights is pointless. Should we outlaw, or severely curtain, access to guns, an underground movement will provide the market. It's better to regulate a legal market than to pursue an illegal one. The crimes committed in support of black market alcohol were bad enough. The prospect of crimes committed in support of black market guns make me nervous. Would fewer guns find their way into the hands of criminals? Probably, but I suspect the instances of gun violence would be worse ane more difficult to control.

I agree - I do not think that there is a realistic effort to meaningfully restrict gun rights. Obama just publicly stated that he will not pursue gun control legislation before the election, and based on his record as President, I expect that any legislation he might advance should he win the election will not attempt to do so either. I suspect the NRA has been using the boogey man of gun control to keep the money rolling in. There is no credible effort to my knowledge that would meaningfully control access to firearms.

The pity is that I think there should be. They are far too easy to obtain. People who want a weapon for non-criminal reasons should have no trouble jumping through a couple hoops - time is usually less of an issue. I would like to see extensive training on gun use, care, and storage. I find it odd that we have more stringent government requirements to own, drive, and maintain a car that we do a firearm. The goal is not to deter people from gaining the weapons, but to weed out people likely to misuse them. It's a balancing act between personal liberty and public good.

I may not agree with your viewpoint, but I do appreciate your efforts to discuss the issues in a civil manner. If more people use similar restraint, it would make for a higher level of discussion.

On that note, we also agree. I make an effort in every debate to find common ground and to argue with reason rather than feelings.

I find that even when debating people advocating diametrically opposing positions, there is usually more room for agreement than one might think.

I don't disagree with you.

I do not [entirely] disagree with you. But I would suggest that trying to "weed out" those who are likely to misuse guns is an unworkable solution. Who would make such a determination, and on what basis?

Those with known criminal records, or documented mental problems, such as a prolonged stay in a psychiatric hospital are, I believe, already excluded. But how would you spot people like this Colorado shooter, without also excluding people who are merely eccentric, or depressed?

No, I believe that at some point society will have to either bite the bullet and decide that certain types of weapons, such as assault rifles, and certain types of gun use, such as concealed carry permits, are too dangerous for society as a whole, or resign itself to continual outbreaks of violence, such as just occurred in Colorado.

I suspect that the choice will be "Plan B", the do nothing option. It is the easiest [and safest] path for most career politicians to follow.

I do entirely agree that civil discussion, as opposed to slinging insults, is both more productive and more interesting. One should always be willing to test one's beliefs by defending them against other opinions in a rational manner.

I generally do not start mud fights. But when somebody starts off on that note...

I'm starting to wonder just what the 'd' in 'dman' stands for. It appears you're trying very hard to prove that it stands for something that people don't call each other in polite company.

...I'll generally respond in kind.

But happily our discussions have avoided that quagmire.

Time to go earn a living. I wish you a good day, and a better weekend.

I have never seen good sound evidence for your claim that violent crime rates are higher in England. All of the figures I have seen show just the opposite. Please source your claim.

Okay:

Assault:

UK: 2.8% of population, ranked 2nd of reporting countries
US: 1.2% of population, ranked 11th

Rape:

UK: 0.9% ranked 6th
US: 0.4% ranked 13th

Total Crime Victims:

UK: 26.4% ranked 3rd
US: 21.1% ranked 15th

From: www.nationmaster.com

And if that doesn't suit you, try this on for size:

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.

Rate of violent crime per 100,000:

UK: 2,034
US: 466

And thank you for the correction vis a vis Sweden vs. Switzerland. My fault entirely.

Perhaps technically correct. But the only firearms in general use in 1776 were single shot, muzzle loaders, and I doubt seriously that our founding fathers, intelligent as they were, could imagine the degree of lethal power available in a side arm or rifle by the 20th century.

I have to disagree with that. That's like saying that you or I, because we cannot build one, are incapable of conceiving of a hand-held directed energy weapon (a laser rifle or phaser, for example). I could believe you if we were talking about a nuclear weapon, something that concerns science far beyond their comprehension at the time, but firearms? I don't think so. The general movement of firearms has always been to make reloading faster-- that's a pretty obvious evolution no matter where in the history of firearms you look. That has been the preeminent occupation of gunsmiths from day one.

This is a trained expert, who at 59 years old, I would think woul have a wealth of experience. So I think something is fshy here. We might also have to explore the psychology of guns.

Guns can get Psychotic? Weird. We should look into this.

I am one of these 'douchebags on here bitching about guns.' It's interesting how you go on to talk about the necessity of respect for each other as humans - after telling us we are douchebags.

Nice way to ignore a very valid point. Someone trained and with a long career of handling guns couldn't tell the difference between a good guy and an intruder - with fatal results. And the solution we are offered is, "If only there had been someone there with a gun who could answer this murderer."

So tell us again about how the son also having a gun would have helped? Or anyone else?

About 32 people get shot and killed every day in the US. Situations like this are not at all uncommon. We are only hearing about it today because we have suddenly become sensitized to the excessive amount of firepower surrounding us.

Kind of funny how the name calling people defending guns and their right to bear arms on this post are the ones who probably own the guns and shouldn't own a gun. These same people won't think twice at blowing someone away once their primitive brain kicks in. The animal in you takes over your better judgement when you are angry and losing all sense of logic, carrying a gun is like carrying the devil with you at all times. Have you all noticed how the more civilized a society claims to be the more uncivilized they tend to act and re-act. GUNS NEED TO BE OUTLAWED.

@ dikdialook frank, you sound like an idiot, along with every other douchebag on here bitching about guns. but the psychology of guns?

No; Frank is not an idiot, having a gun changes the way one acts (and not in a good way). I don't care (at least as far as what happens to the shooter) what happened, this jerk should never be allowed to have a gun again and should spend some time in jail really thinking about what he did.

GUNS NEED TO BE OUTLAWED....Hey, glowing62, If all Guns are outlawed, and murderers start killing us, by bashing our heads in with baseball bats, Are You going to go on a rant, about how baseball should be outlawed??? or at least the BATS?

Outlawing guns is not an effective solution to the problem, anymore than locking your doors will solve the burglary problem. It would keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding people, just as locks keep honest people honest, but are those the people who cause the problems in the first place?

If outlawing guns is the answer, can somebody please explain the amount of gun violence in Chicago, where guns are outlawed?

Humans will kill each other, they always have.

Th difference guns bring to the table is lack of "intimacy" and "convenience".

To use a bludgeon of whatever sort (fist, rock, hammer, baseball bat) or a stabbing implement you have to get real close to the victim and engage in a certain amount of personal risk. You have to make the murder personal. A gun kills at a distance and that personal intimacy is lost and with the loss of that personal touch is also lost any possible empathy that comes with feeling the flesh and looking into the eyes of the victim. Killing anything up close and personal is always more difficult than shooting it at a distance.

The convenience aspect is that all a gun takes to be lethal is pointing and pulling a finger on a trigger. One finger!

With a bludgeon or knife you can strike or stab once and the victim can live. With a gun, one shot is all it takes and more often than not the wound will be lethal.

I have no problem with guns as tools in the hands of competent and trained owners.

I have a huge problem with the fact that our culture does not manage them effectively at all. We license and test every driver for competency before we allow the on the roadways in order to lower the risk of causing a lethal accident. Why not with guns? As it is, in most places anyone with the cash can walk into a store or attend a gun show and walk away with as many high powered weapons and ammo as they can carry, no questions asked.

Does anyone actually consider this reasonable?

I have lived in Mexico for 2.5 years moving-finally in October. Normal folks (citizen or not) can't have guns. Needless to say that's working "splendidly". I'm pretty sure you hear about the mass murders with guns here daily.

You'd think that Police are following rules of combat rather than rules of domestic law enforcement. When did this shoot first then let God sort them out take over?

Police are not in a war zone here. Every person whom they have the least inkling or gut feeling about is not the enemy!

Srich your post gave me an idea. Maybe if all the folks who have a problem with one of our constitutionally protected rights would just move to mexico we could stop listening to them whine and they could live in a country where only the criminals were packing just as they would like it.

If it's our right to own guns, then why don't we issue firearms to people when they are born? Why don't 5 year old children have drivers licenses? Maybe we should look at who is mentally capable of responsibly owning guns and come up with a way to test people at their own expense to see if they are stable enough to own guns and then if they are, make sure that they take classes to ensure they are qualified to responsibly use them.

Oh yes... let the idiots compare the death threat of a kitchen knife or baseball bat to an AR-15. I seriously doubt if this lunatic in Colorado had run into the theatre with a baseball bat that 12 people would have been killed an 58 others injured. Your comparisons are truly weak and insulting to anyone with a brain.

Tdub-3088600 yes, smart thinking : )

Timothy McVeigh blow up a federal building using fertilizer which killed more people, sick minds will figure out any way to cause destruction. I have respect for guns and i don't think banning them is the answer, training is the key along with knowing how to shoot, handle and field strip them. But again any sick minded individual will use anything available to use as a destructive weapon

the NRA and GUN OWNERS can become part of the solution, had better become part of the solution, or the ground swell will erase the 2nd.

either fix it or we will be banning and destroying them all!!

you have been warned.

Paul, wow good luck on desroying anyones guns, what the hell is a ground swell? erase the 2nd? man you are one twisted commie. Maybe you should stay in your basement and live out your little fantasy hitler

Srich, that's a drug war. You can't tell me that allowing people to have hand guns or even automatic rifles for that matter would make that situation any better. You think the cartels are going to be afraid to shoot because the population is armed? That's BS. The result would be all out civil war with full on massacres on both sides. It didn't help in Colombia, why would it help in Mexico.

Yes, I'm familiar with a drug war, it's all around me. Civil war is coming in this country, it does a couple of times each century. There are several "Independence Days" celebrated here each year. Do I think the honest merchants gunned down daily because they either don't have or refuse to pay their monthly "maintenance" to Los Zetas might stand a better chance if they have their own supply of weapons? You say only let the bad people have the guns because if the good ones have them they might actually defend themselves and a civil war might begin? Cartels aren't afraid of anything, least of all dying. Columbia escalated and then improved. Mexico is a complete $hithole now. Now I call BS.

Right. Shoot first, ask questions later. What a mentality to have towards others.

One of the very scary aspects of this incident that it reminds us that even though as a cop this guy was trained to know when to shoot and, more importantly, when NOT to shoot, and he still made a fatal mistake. Think of how many untrained, but very well-armed people are out there, ready to shoot and lacking any clue about the necessary restraint they should practice.

Owning guns isn't the issue. Everyone should own a gun. It's our right. But the real issue is knowing how to use it properly. Would you walk into a surprise party and start firing at your "unexpected" guests? No. The world isn't a perfect place, but that doesn't mean we should automatically approach fear with violence.

Lee

Those of you who think that guns are the solution can always think of excuses to arm yourselves and you are ripe for the propaganda spread by the NRA to scare you into having more weapons, more firepower, bigger clips, etc., etc., etc. You will ignore any statistic that discourages gun ownership, such as the fact that if you have a hand gun or assault weapon in your home you are more than 20 times as likely to be a gunshot victim than people in homes without firearms.

And think that if you talk your daughter out of owning a gun and learning to shoot and someone breaks into her apartment and rapes her, and/or kills her.

What if your daughter mistakes you for an intruder and shoots you? You never fire your gun if you don't know what you're shooting at. It's one of the most basic rules of gun safety that anyone who's not a complete idiot knows how to follow.

Far far more people are raped and killed every week because they had no defense than people who are shot by accident.

Most rapes are perpetrated by someone the victim knew and trusted. Try again.

Being off-duty doesn't mean he isn't a trigger happy gun nut, which he clearly is. Did he see a gun in the hand of the "intruder" ? No. It could have been a maid bring him towels. The mentally ill shouldn't have guns, and that's what he is. He deserves whatever anguish he gets.

xb70A

Anyone who believes that shooting a gun is the solution before determining that there is a problem is, in my book, a gun nut. Lots of cops are gun nuts, no matter what the definition, and this off duty cop demonstrated by his own actions that he is trigger happy. How can you dispute that?

don is right. Live by the sword, die by the sword. For those victims of violent crime who happen to own a gun, was it handy at the time of the crime? Unless they have a concealed carry permit, probably not. Over 16,000 people are accidentally shot every year, with 680 of those being fatal (2008). Some people shouldn't own weapons.

Lee Blake (#4.3): I'm not saying you are wrong, because I think it's perfectly okay to own a gun. I just want to point out that different precautions can be taken to ensure you aren't shooting an innocent person, like in this case. Granted, this man was in a hotel room, but at your own residence, well, that's what alarm systems are for, and other things as well. Someone you trust that can come and go from your home as they please would have the code. And if it isn't an actual alarm system, then there are individual window alarms and other things (such as props in the sill that make it impossible for someone to slide the window open, and they would really have to BREAK the window to get in - clearly, sinister in intent) that would alert you to a REAL intruder, and not a trusted person. There is also such a thing as calling out to the person that it's you, so he or she doesn't become alarmed and attack you. That said, I, quite frankly, think that such precautions only narrow the possibilities, and still think a gun for my own daughter's protection would be preferable to rape and/or murder. The precautions would simply aid in her proper discernment of the situation, and rightly so.

First of all, my condolences to the slain ones family. That really sucks. Second of all, he should have been more than sure BEFORE he pulled the trigger. He obviously was not. Complete and total idiocy on his part. That is like the biggest no-no in the book. ALWAYS be sure before you pull the trigger. Third of all, blaming the NRA is ridiculous because they advocate gun safety very seriously. This man did not think before he shot. I have to agree he seems like a nut to not even identify who he pointed a loaded weapon at. People like him give responsible gun owners a bad name.

This does sound fishy. I have been in that position and not shot my sons or my next door neighbors. Something is wrong here.

Member NRA and proud of it.

I wonder what this mans son was doing in the first place? Why did his father have to shoot him?

The son must have been doing something that caused his father to fear him, this is just a sad sad event that cannot be taken back and the father will be reliving this for the rest of his life.

The gun wasn't at fault period. Lets wait to see what comes out later on this story as somethings not right imho.

I am sure more will be revealed. There MUST be more to this than what has been written. But of course, instead of waiting for more info, MSNBC puts it out ASAP just to get people fighting about gun laws or the lack of. There is no way to know what really happened yet, but, I'm sure we'll find out in the days to come. Seems to me MSNBC is very biased on certain subjects. Look at the Zimm/Martin case. Need I say more?

DON- if you DON'T have a weapon in your house, your chances of being screwed if an intruder comes into your home are 100%. i don't think im even proud to be from this country anymore....

dik

If being "proud to be from this country" is dependent on other people choosing whether or not to arm themselves you have a very strange concept of patriotism.

@Don

Such as the fact that if you have a hand gun or assault weapon in your home you are more than 20 times as likely to be a gunshot victim than people in homes without firearms.

First of all, your statistic is not a "fact." The actual statistic, which has been criticized and excluded from many scholarly reviews on the subject, states that one is 3 times more likely to be a victim, not 20. But the statistic is criticized as flawed because it fails to take into a count a number of factors. JustFacts has this to say about that particularly unreliable "fact":

* "In homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost 3 times more likely to occur than in homes without guns."[12] [13]

* Reasons for elimination: This statistic is based on a three-county study comparing households in which a homicide occurred to demographically similar households in which a homicide did not occur. After controlling for several variables, the study found that gun ownership was associated with a 2.7 times increase in the odds of homicide.[14] This study does not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility because:

1) The study blurs cause and effect. As explained in a comprehensive analysis of firearm research conducted by the National Research Council, gun control studies such as this (known as "case-control" studies) "fail to address the primary inferential problems that arise because ownership is not a random decision. ... Homicide victims may possess firearms precisely because they are likely to be victimized."[15]

2) The study's results are highly sensitive to uncertainties in the underlying data. For example, minor variations in firearm ownership rates (which are determined by interview and are thus dependent upon interviewees' honesty) can negate the results.[16] [17]

3) The results are arrived at by subjecting the raw data to statistical analyses instead of letting the data speak for itself. (For reference, the raw data of this study shows that households in which a homicide occurred had a firearm ownership rate of 45% as compared to 36% for non-homicide households. Also, households in which a homicide occurred were twice as likely to have a household member who was previously arrested (53% vs. 23%), five times more likely to have a household member who used illicit drugs (31% vs. 6%), and five times more likely to have a household member who was previously hit or hurt during a fight in the home (32% vs. 6%).[18])

So your "fact" is based on an unreliable study that has been discredited. I don't bring this up to be argumentative, but rather to educate you. People who are knowledgeable of the subject will discount your opinion when you parrot data with known flaws.

For more info on firearms in America from an unbiased source, see here:

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

DON- if you DON'T have a weapon in your house, your chances of being screwed if an intruder comes into your home are 100%. i don't think im even proud to be from this country anymore....

Please stop with the fear-mongering. If an intruder comes into your home, your chances of reaching for a phone and dialing 911 are the same as your chances with a gun. The difference between reaching for a gun and a phone is that with a phone, you KNOW that help is going. A gun isn't going to stop a bullet from someone who shoots first. And an intruder is going to shoot anyone they see who is holding a gun. If you are not holding a gun, you might have a better chance of not getting shot.

Wow Byron... that's a pretty pathetic victim mentality you have there.

"Maybe if I don't fight back, he'll let me go."

You know how many people are killed because of that mentality? Effectively, your response to danger is the equivalent of wishing on a lucky rabbit's foot. Don't get me wrong, you should definitely call 911 in an emergency, but if you have the means to fight back-- do it.

Consider this woman's case:

Okla. Woman Shoots, Kills Intruder: 911 Operators Say It's OK to Shoot (link)

Should she have just complied with her home intruder? Hoped he went away?

Should she have just complied with her home intruder? Hoped he went away?

The difference between her and the cop in this article? She knew what she was shooting at before she pulled the trigger.

Absolutely agree, lolfatty. There's more to this story that what's been reported here, I think. The problem is that Byron makes no differentiation between instances where lethal force is an appropriate response, versus instances like what has been reported here. This cop is either a grade-A moron, a premeditated killer, or otherwise impaired in judgement (alcohol? Stress? Mental illness?). There's a number of scenarios I can imagine, but I won't speculate until more information is available.

As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse. (Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 185)

A gun is an "equalizer." Ask the teenaged widowed mother, living in a trailer park, when two junkies broke into her trailer looking for drugs left over from her dead husband. She shot and killed one of the intruders, while on the phone to 911, the other ran away but was apprehended later. Be a pacifist, be a target for crime. If you've been a victim of a crime, if able, you're probably armed.

Have any of you watched "Bowling for Columbine"? I have, this posts brings out a lot of paranoid people who have to own their guns because they are afraid of the Boogie man. This gun happy society sickens me, how many more people have to die by gun shot?

Byron: Seriously? You'd rather be shot by an intruder while reaching for a phone (that MAY bring help in time) than to have a chance to defend yourself with a gun? You can't defend yourself or your family with a phone! The last time I checked, a phone is not going to stop a bullet, either!

How many intruders are going to stand by and let you make that phone call anyway? Or maybe they planned ahead and cut the phone lines before entering your home?

Hey, glowing...

We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

this posts brings out a lot of paranoid people who have to own their guns because they are afraid of the Boogie man. This gun happy society sickens me, how many more people have to die by gun shot?

Huh... that's an odd way to think about it... Let me ask you this: do you have car insurance? What about a fire extinguisher?

Why do you have those things? Are you afraid the boogie man is going to crash your car or burn your house down?

Of course not. You have those things just in case. Do me a favor and watch this video. The individual is well-known in the firearms community and he lays out some valid points that I think you should take note of:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGYf9AZlSyU

Particularly his adamant warning that if you're getting into firearms "to feel macho" or something equivalent, to not bother-- because it's a dangerous attitude to have when using firearms and gives legitimate gun owners a terrible reputation. The man in the video knows his stuff and he's an admirable spokesman for the firearms-owning public.

Move out of the ghetto where you live so you won't have the need to own a gun,

Rank
Countries
Amount

# 1

South
Africa:

31,918

Crime in South Africa

# 2

Colombia:

21,898

Crime in Colombia

# 3

Thailand:

20,032

Crime in Thailand

# 4

United
States:

9,369

Crime in United
States

# 5

Philippines:

7,708

Crime in Philippines

# 6

Mexico:

2,606

Crime in Mexico

# 7

Slovakia:

2,356

Crime in Slovakia

# 8

El
Salvador:

1,441

Crime in El Salvador

# 9

Zimbabwe:

598

Crime in Zimbabwe

# 10

Peru:

442

To quick to pull the trigger

the cops i've met are some of the worst people on the planet.self absorbed, insecure, and selfish.they are only out to serve themselves. looking for an angle to right you up a ticket to keep the money coming in. to protect and serve is no longer part of the job description.in no way would i be surprised if it was an isurance deal or his son was a burden on his finances.maybe son was there to bust him for cheating on his mother.cop guy sees his pension getting cut in half via divorce.offs kid he never wanted.add a few tears.voila.problem solved

Dirkdialook, sounds like you need to move out of the red neck crap hole you live in. Must be a bitch to live in a ghetto because you can't afford a better peaceful place to live.

''it is our right to own guns''. well,.............that right can also be taken away. very easily.

either fix the problem (gun owners, the NRA) or the non-gun owners will. and we will take ''your rights'' away SO WE CAN ALL BE MUCH SAFER. after all the non gun owners have a right to feel safe in our own country!! and safe from being shot sitting alone in our living rooms.

how is it other countries can live without guns and still get through their day just fine??? but this country can't?? i thought we were all the same on the inside? oh, that's right, we are ALL THE SAME!!!

so i think we will get along just fine without guns, like our neighbors in other countries.

and we(YOU) will be living without guns if this problem isn't fixed, and soon!!!

if we can't feel safe in our own homes, you will loose your right to fire your toys at will.

and from where i sit, it is long over due.

Thanks Paul that makes perfect sense, never-mind that Timothy McVeigh blew up a federal building using fertilizer killing more people than any gun could, or how i can google on plans on making a pipe bomb that can cause more destruction. I feel so much safer now thanks to you

This man is going to be traumatized for a long time to come. I feel sorry for him. That being said, i just applied for my handgun purchase license. Many people here seem to thing that gun ownership is a bad thing....well not so! Yes things happen....but gun ownership would help in the event of a real breakin! Imagine NO guns...robbers would have nothing to fear! I support gun ownership 100% and although this was a sad case of mistaken identity, accidents happen from riding a bicycles!

PAUL in chicago-1569139

''it is our right to own guns''. well,.............that right can also be taken away. very easily.

either fix the problem (gun owners, the NRA) or the non-gun owners will. and we will take ''your rights'' away SO WE CAN ALL BE MUCH SAFER. after all the non gun owners have a right to feel safe in our own country!! and safe from being shot sitting alone in our living rooms.

How safe would you feel when ALL citizens are restricted gun ownership...but yet criminals can ALWAYS get black market guns (probably supplied by our government directly or due to turning a blind eye). First of all...this man was a cop and used a department issued gun! Not a civilian gun! Secondly, while 100 (innocent) people may be killed with a gun....300 million people werent! Oh, BTW, Switzerland is issuing an automatic gun for EVERY citizen in its country, and providing training for use....AND they have one of the lowest crimes rates period!

Recently two robbers went into store to rob it....a 71 year old citizen, shot at the one of the robbers (dont know if he was hit, but from the secutiry camera..it seems so). The robbers fled, no one was robbed, no one was hurt...(no innocent person anyway)

Another scenario...just the other day in Colorado....gundman opens fire in a theater...14 dead. Had there been people in there with a gun...he would have been stopped. Maybe no deaths, maybe only a few!

You have been fed, or taught that taking gun ownership away from citizens is good....because our government doesnt want to have to defend itself while they run this country amok! They allow banksters to steal, ruin 401k, commit fraud....yet they are hardly ever brought to justice. Eric Holder can be exposed in the fast and furious, and the government laughs at us all....because they are above the law??? because they dont have to answer to us! Now people are waking up, realizing that this government is just a bunch of corrupt politicians who have been securing their futures, by catering to the lobbyists, while giving the rest of us the the finger! With things like Occupy, they try to defame it, as a negative, and even blacklist it from the media as to make people not aware of the situation....but these movements are growing...and the gov is aware...therefore, they want to disarm the citizens, because people are starting to realize that this is a tryannical goverment, and they are out for themselves, and there corporate sponsors!

Gun ownership is more important than ever, and should NEVER be taken away. First because it is our right, secondly, because it is essential to selfdefense and protecting yoru family incase of a home invasion!

@Paul in Chicago

non gun owners have a right to feel safe in our own country!! and safe from being shot sitting alone in our living rooms.

Then you should consider the fact that you are far more likely to be assaulted and killed in your living room in a country with a ban on firearms:

Statistical comparisons with other countries show that burglars in the United States are far less apt to enter an occupied home than their foreign counterparts who live in countries where fewer civilians own firearms. Consider the following rates showing how often a homeowner is present when a burglar strikes:

* Homeowner occupancy rate in the gun control countries of Great Britain, Canada and Netherlands: 45% (average of the three countries); and,

* Homeowner occupancy rate in the United States: 12.7%.

Kleck, Point Blank, pg140.

Less firearms does not equate to a decrease in violent crime. In many instances, the reverse is true. An unarmed victim is preferable to an armed victim, to the mind of a criminal.

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

If he hadn't had a gun, I'm sure he would have killed his son in some other way!

Or maybe his son would still be alive and well. What makes you think that he wanted to kill his son in the first place? There is no indication that the son was doing anything out of the ordinary.

I think Patrick's point is that guns make thoughtless killings much more likely. If you don't have a gun, it's much harder to kill someone accidentally.

Tumbleweed also misses the point. The bystander considered shooting, but correctly restrained himself and avoided a potentially fatal mistake. Tumbleweed's objection is immaterial. It doesn't really matter whether or not the gun was actually drawn, does it?

Tumbleweed: Don't be so fast to condemn someone as a liar. Makes you look stupid and reactionary, just like the NRA. There was a man reported to have been in a store buying cigarettes who was armed. I believe his name was Joseph Zamudio. He claims to have had his hand on the butt of his gun, prepared to shoot until he realized that the gunman had been subdued.

Ozzie, if someone with a gun tries to rape or murder my daughter, I will shoot them. You will do what, try to stab them with a kitchen knife if you can even get that far? Who is safe with you? Nobody.

Lee

If your daughter is ever raped, and I hope that never happens, the chances that you will be present are extremely remote, and the odds are much greater that your daughter would be shot by that same gun by someone in your household.

Ozzie, if someone with a gun tries to rape or murder my daughter, I will shoot them. You will do what, try to stab them with a kitchen knife if you can even get that far? Who is safe with you? Nobody.

And what if the guy with the gun is a better shot than you? Or faster than you?

Everyone is safer with Ozzie because Ozzie can reach for a phone and dial 911 as fast as you can reach for a gun. I will take 5 cops with guns outside my door in 5 minutes over any vigilante.

I will take 5 cops with guns outside my door in 5 minutes over any vigilante.

In 5 minutes, you could be dead.

You seem to believe that 911 is the same as a gun-- it isn't. A firearm immediately counters the threat. A 911 call requires several seconds, if not minutes, to describe the emergency and then several minutes for someone with a gun to respond to that emergency. The two means of defense are not alike. One is effective within seconds, the other within minutes at best. In rural areas, you're even worse off. 911 response may take 20 minutes or more.

Byron: IF you live those five minutes....and you've got a better chance of having a pizza delivered before the cops arrive! 911, as well as those people do their jobs (and I applaud them for it), is nowhere near the immediate response you seem to think it is.

Don't be too hard on AZweeds. He don't know no better. He thinks Limbaugh, Coulter, Beck and those other douchbags are being honest and sincere. He doesn't realize they say what they do for ratings.

and if there were no guns you wouldn't need to worry about someone outside your door trying to shoot you!!

Paul..if someone was outside my door with a gun i wouldn't be dumb enough to let them in!! And criminals never use any other type of weapon to harm you, never huh paul...idiot

If the person in the theater did pull his gun, and then found his target, and recognized he was being subdued already, then the armed bystander made a smart decision and stood down, realizing that at that point, the gun was not needed. He stopped, he found his target, recognized the target was not a threat, then stood down. His training (be it personal experience or practice, or professional training) kicked in and followed the rules of engagement. Stopped, identified, analyzed and acted accordingly.

It just so happened there was another brave soul to stop the shooter, albeit with the shooter with 2 glocks, all he had to do was pull one and start firing into the guy wrestling him. Not trying to knock his heroism, because he certainly is one, because it's similar to throwing yourself on a live grenade.

Exactly, and why have any laws at all since criminals will just break them anyway?

Patrick.....nothing like using absurd exaggerations to lend validity to an otherwise invalid and stupid argument.

Answer this, moron: If fewer guns are the answer, then why is it that states and cities with the strictest gun control laws like Chicago, DC, Los Angeles, etc. also have the highest crime rates? Why is it that every state which has looser gun laws and has enacted concealed carry permits has seen a reduction in violent crimes?

I swear you anti-gunners will use every inane arugment and all the false logic you can to further your desire to disarm law abiding citizens.

Gun control laws would not have stopped this accident.

The obvious answer is that we need to go around and actually destroy the millions and millions of guns that are floating around out there. That's the answer. People's lives are more important than your right to make up for your tiny penis by waving a gun around.

Exactly, and why have any laws at all since criminals will just break them anyway?

Ah, the illogical leap. One of the most amusing types of replies one gets on newsvine. (And I understand the sarcasm).

We have laws to protect the rights of others. When you infringe upon their rights, you are in violation of the law. Say, for example, by killing them-- thus depriving them of their right to live. Obviously a criminal act. If you steal from someone, you are depriving them of their right to property. Again, a criminal act. If someone quietly smokes some dope in their own house on the weekend? It's a technically a crime... but whose rights were violated? If the basic premise of law is to protect the rights of others, why is an act that violates no one's rights considered criminal? It's a question worth asking-- and the history of American drug policy is an interesting one.

edub-3853225 - If fewer guns are the answer, then why is it that states and cities with the strictest gun control laws like Chicago, DC, Los Angeles, etc. also have the highest crime rates?

Maybe because they don't?

The reality is that states which have stricter gun laws tend to have a far lower rate of firearm deaths:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/

Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).

@edub: part of your entire argument is invalid, due to a very bad assumption on your part. You by asking why "few guns aren't the answer", but you tried to back it up with stats about cities with strict gun laws. Those two items are very different, and should not be compared.

I think we can all agree that criminals are going to continue to get guns. Unfortunately, that is the nature of the beast. Assuming that there is a 'wonder solution' to crime that will fit everywhere in the US and the World is silly. It will take a long and comprehensive approach to solve this issue, and it can't be done in a response on NBCNEWS.

The obvious answer is those who propose to strip others of their rights, their lives are worth nothing. Your life is worth nothing to me, Patrick.

Me thinks you've already used lots and lots of drugs and need no more.

Guns always make things safer ??? You have to be kidding right ? Ask the people in the theater if they felt safe when the guy with a gun started shooting. If guns always make things safer, why are so many people dead in Colorado tonight ? I will feel much safer when we get control of the people who have guns !

shoot first and ask questions later.

duh!!!! the american way. and the only way to live, it appears.

@Skrekk

There seems to be some discrepancy in the data from the article you linked to. The Brady Center lists California as their highest scoring state (81 points) for their gun control laws, yet their firearm homicide rate is actually higher than the 3 states with their lowest score (Arizona, Alaska & Utah; all 0):

Homicide by Firearm Per 100,000
CA 4.82
AZ 4.54
AK 2.58
UT 0.93

(And my apologies for posting incorrect data on another post in another thread-- I had posted the overall homicide rates for these states rather than the homicide rate by firearm. This earlier mis-post, however, did not negate the premise-- the data was slightly inflated, but the ratios were identical).

So, apparently, stricter gun laws don't necessarily have any bearing on the homicide rate. Clearly culture, demographics and other regional factors play a much greater role in determining not just violence by firearms, but also their overall violence.

So basically, what you are saying is that the entire country, including California has really poor gun control laws. You have only proven that partial gun control laws do not work.

Countries with real gun control, such as most of West Europe, and Japan, have orders of magnitude lower gun-related deaths than the US.

Countries with real gun control, such as most of West Europe, and Japan, have orders of magnitude lower gun-related deaths than the US.

Ah, but then you have examples like Mexico, with pretty much identical laws as those in Japan and some west European countries, which are in chaos. You cannot legislate morality. Embedded culture trumps legal response every time.

40 Reasons for Gun Control

Reason #5: We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

Japan kills the pieces of shyt that open fire on innocent citizens, the USA coddles them so they don't get their rights infringed upon and blames the victim. Too many liberals ruining America.in the old west, these people that open fire on crowds wouldn,t see sunset.

Hey WMG... where do you think the guns in Mexico come from??? You got it... the good ole USA!!!

and if we just rid of guns we wouldn't need to worry about someone not seeing the sun rise or set. oh, wait, that is tooooooooooooo simple.

get rid of the guns and you will get rid of these stupid shootings!! give the idiots something else to do with their hands.

just try and shoot a baseball bat! you can't.

and you can't use a baseball bat on soneone from 300 yards away, either.

we don't need stricter gun laws.

THE ONLY GUN LAW WE NEED IS, THERE WON'T BE ANY!!!

so we just need to get rid of all the guns and ammo. NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wow paul you are hell bent on destroying the 2nd and the american way arent you, good luck with that commie

how do you propose to get rid of every gun in existence? This oughta be good...

Paul,

The problem with abolishing the 2nd Amendment is if we do that what is to stop us from getting rid of any of the other rights in the bill of rights? Freedom of Religion, right to remain silent, Freedom of Speech, etc..., do we really want to go down that road!!!

We have already started down that road with ObamaCare, now the govt can make us buy anything they want or suffer a tax penalty for not buying, Freedom in the USA is DEAD!! and we quietly sit here and debate about taking away more of our freedoms! Nice Job Paul, let's just change from a republic to a Communist State overnight, would that make you happy!!!!

@ks1971 you turned this into a rant on Obamacare? really? but hey, since I am bored...didn't the gov't already penalize you if you didn't have auto-insurance? they do here, not sure about where you live.

don't we already pay a penalty for those not carrying health insurance, via higher health-care costs that are passed on to us?

Obamacare as you call it basically boils down to two key points for most people.

1. Should citizens have access to healthcare even if they cannot afford it?

2. How does it get paid for?

Most people think that your ability to get basic healthcare should not be dependent on your income, or lack thereof. There are some who feel that we can somehow magically put the genie back in the bottle and make healthcare cheap again, but that ain't gonna happen. Given that, is it better to have the poor wait until they are really sick and visit the ER's around the country, or allow them to have insurance and get both preventative and early-sickness care? So again, it boils down to how to pay for it.

Here is a quick fact. If the Republicans don't like this policy, why didn't they do ANYTHING about healthcare in the last 50 years, instead of stalling and basically forcing the Dem's into doing it?

IF most of the people want the 2nd to go away it will. that is what decomcracy is all about.

as for the rest of the amendments, if the people want them to go away they will, can or should. but i am not worried about that ever happening.

but the 2nd should be shaking in it's boots though!!! i'm sure we are at almost 50% for getting rid of it.

when we are at 60%, guess what happens next????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzQnBE3mYZg

IF most of the people want the 2nd to go away it will. that is what democracy's is all about.

Paul , last i heard Chicago like the rest of the U.S.A is govern by a REPUBLIC , unless i missed something with all this change going on that friggin obama.

@dscrs

Hey WMG... where do you think the guns in Mexico come from??? You got it... the good ole USA!!!

Some, yes. But many more are soviet stock filtered through Venazuela and Columbia. You'd be daft to think that all firearms in Mexico came from the US. It's much easier to smuggle firearms north into Mexico, than south from the US. There is a TON of old military ordinance in Latin America.

And just so you know, a good deal of the Cartels' firearms are sold to them directly by the Mexican government. Corruption is rampant.

@Paul

but the 2nd should be shaking in it's boots though!!! i'm sure we are at almost 50% for getting rid of it.

when we are at 60%, guess what happens next????

You don't get out much, dude. Gallup's 2011 poll on the issue showed that you (and you're anti-second-amendment stance) are in the minority, with just 26%.

http://www.infowars.com/support-for-second-amendment-at-record-high/

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/8074-polls-show-gun-ownership-and-second-amendment-support-up

In addition to the increased support for the Second Amendment, a recent Gallup poll shows a massive increase in the percentage of Americans who own guns. According to Gallup,”Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property

Just a little bit overconfident, aren't cha! You really ought to get out more. Sunshine. Birds. Y'know?

Your sarcasm is endearing...

And when you leave the military, your brain is scanned and that qualification is removed?

lordy lordy - apparently you know NOTHING of the military. Not everyone in military is highly trained and/or skilled in firearms; although ALL skills in the military are noble and they all have a place that should be respected. Furthermore, ALL of them protect your right to spew such nonsense. Sad as it was (presuming it was not deliberate or a result of a drunken stupor or drug induced haze), the person did not use his training. Lastly, it **WAS** a police officer - albeit a sheriff - or did you bother to read the article?

Tumbleweed, spoken like a true troll, not a good one, but a troll none the less. Hope you stay in Arizona.

I love how you assume he's married.

I thought Arizona made a good point. Why should art expect a 37 year old to be protected by his mother?

piglizard,

spoken like a true anti-gun liberal without a valid argument so you just resort to insulting others without offering a shred of support to lend credibility to your view.

That's because wannabe fascists like you have no arguments that actually make sense, and mockery is the only response that you deserve.

What in hell, was he doing at a motel in the middle of nowhere with his gun. Why would his SON seek him out.

Does anybody give the cop the benefit of the doubt? He may have been doing his job in a certain part of town, and his son wanted to get in touch with him. What is so difficult to understand about that?

@Patrick -- apparently you were eager to prove edub's point valid? The irony that you proved his point with a statement that attempted (and failed) to ridicule his argument is actually pretty funny.

I agree, this story needs more information - or should I say actual information. All of what is printed is only teaser information. Enough to incite further questioning though not enough details to give the full story. Why was this guy, at age 59, staying in the motel. If that is where he lives, was his 37-year-old son staying with him? If so, did the son have a key or card to enter? Again if so, and the dad was scared of the entrance enough to shoot and kill, this would not only be a horrific incident, it would be manslaughter.

Eerily similar to Marvin Gaye.

the 'son' being 37 years old. maybe pops shouldn't be handling anything more lethal than a donut!

Thanks Paul, your comments are more ignorant than words can describe

He's a police officer, I'm assuming he would always have his weapon.

instead of trying to ''bag'' someone, oh, i don't know, maybe fire a shot into the floor (of your house, not a motel or hotel) first and see if the intruder keeps coming toward you!

i would much rather repair my antique wood floors than have to deal with having a dead person hauled out of my house and having all of the cops in there, looking around, touching my things.

when i moved into the last house, i had laminated windows installed. besides preventing 99.9%UV sunlight, and being very, very quiet, blocking most all of the ambient noise, you needed a sledgehammer to break them. certain a brick through the window would not allow entry. and for $99 got the home alarm. and for $3000 more got a commercial grade, heavy,HEAVY solid, steel door with special ball bearing hinges (the door was used, got if from a building being demolished.). it weighed about 1/2 ton. unfortunately, i forgot to make sure it was locked half the time. but i never had a problem with intruders, with the door locked or unlocked. maybe just lucky. i don't know. but i have never had to shoot someone.

if i ever had an uninvited guest, i always said, i would help them carry whatever they wanted out to their car. and i would cheerfully show them where the good things are. and i would even gift wrap whatever they wanted. the idea was to be as friendly as possible and as little of a threat as possible.

NO ONE NEEDS TO LOOSE THEIR LIFE OVER STUFF. NOT EVEN MINE!!

AB1981, I cannot agree more. I am a pro-gun person, but I'm also a RESPONSIBLE pro-gun owner. This reeks of stupidity. Talk about a man who should not own a gun.

but everyone has a gun or several in their house. and they are all quaking in their boots at the slightest noise. reaching for their pea shooters, with the slightest reason to fire, they do!!!

how about 'who is there?' no, shoot first and sort it out afterwards.

in an earlier incident that involved firearms in a movie house, just this very weekend, someone said, 'no parent should have to bury their child'. well, how about some plain talk here? this did not need to happen. and the father is in pain, well, i guess he should be!!! he cause this!! he killed his son for no good reason. other than having an itchy trigger finger.

''i have a gun and i am going to use it, at the very first opportunity!! i'll show everyone what i am made of.'' well, he sure did do that! didn't he???

next time, pops, try, "who goes there!!!" it is free, doesn't cost a thing and takes but a second or two at most, literally, to say! and you need an IQ of about 80 to do it.

hopefully this person will never be allowed to pick up a gun ever again. after he gets out of jail. i hope he does prison time. taking a life like this, deserves prison time.

Paul, couldn't agree with you more than I do. Well said.

Paul, only one thing I disagree with. Not everyone is like that. There are responsible gun owners out there, believe me, I'm one of them.

Heroes save lives cowards take them, to quick to shoot

rfaber9

of course there are responsible gun owners. no one doubts that.

but they seem to be vastly out weighed by these kooks----- like the one in the movie theater just this past weekend. or this 'sheriff' killing his own kid. it happens all the time. day after day.

55 people a day are killed by guns in this country! A DAY!! which works out to over 20,000 a year!

just of recent memory we have the zimmerman shooting in florida, the movie theater shooting this last weekend and this sheriff killing his son. and almost forgot the 2 year old shooting itself in the head with grandpa's gun.

it certainly seems like there is a problem!!

i doubt we can get through next weekend without another story like these making the news.

one side advocates more guns as the solution to this issue. and the other wants to get rid of ANY AND ALL guns and ammo.

seems only one of these stances will really work and stop this senseless slaughter!!

Paul,

but everyone has a gun or several in their house

Again you are showing how stupid you are. I have ZERO!! Guns in my house! I do know how to use them, being a Disabled Veteran and all, but I choose not to have any in my house. Does not mean I advocate destroying America more than Obama already has by outlawing guns, I just choose to not have them in my house.

ks1971 getting rid of guns will somehow destroy America??

really? gee, it seems rather destroyed already. or on the way to hell, in the proverbial hand basket. it seemed, to me, homeland security and all of that after 9/11 surely sped things up. considerably. but if you think guns somehow make america stronger or better, well, i don't understand how anyone could say that. all of these needless deaths are somehow good for the country? it makes our country better? how?

if more than half the people want to get rid of the 2nd, that it has lived it's usefulness, then so be it. certainly in anther 500 years, do you think that won't be ANY changes to something written in the 18th century.

when more people want to get rid of guns, then they will be gotten rid of. all we need are a few more theater shootings, and motel sheriff shootings and the scales will tip into our favor. and not a minute to soon, imo.

PEOPLE ARE SO TIRED OF ALL THE GUN VIOLENCE, THEY WILL DO ABOUT ANYTHING TO GET IT TO STOP.

THE CHANCES OF NO CHANGES IN THE CONSTITUTION IN THE NEXT 500 YEARS ARE ABOUT OR LESS THAN ZERO!

AND I BET THE 2ND WILL BE THE FIRST TO GO!!

all we need are a few more theater shootings, and motel sheriff shootings and the scales will tip into our favor.

In the wake of these sorts of incidences, firearms ownership increases.

Also, as I posted elsewhere, the 2011 Gallup poll shows American support for the second amendment and an ALL TIME HIGH.

Your opinion is just that-- and it happens to be a minority opinion.

if you think guns somehow make america stronger or better, well, i don't understand how anyone could say that.

Deterrence to invasion. With somewhere around 300 million private firearms in circulation in the US, "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass" -- sufficient deterrent to any potential invasion of our homeland. This has been a matter of historical pride, until recently. Now everyone seems hellbent on skewing the positive attributes of private firearms ownership in favor of sensationalizing every single violent incident possible, despite the fact that FBI's crime statistics show that violent crime has been decreasing while, simultaneously, firearms ownership has been increasing. That's a sad state of affairs.

"Minds are like parachutes,they function when they open !!" Go to the NRA web site & look up the "Armed Citizen ". you'll see news from around the country of guns saving lives. Also read the Book "More guns less crime " by John R .Lott jr. Very well researched conclusions in this book. does that statement "their gun is much more likely going to be used against them" apply to on duty military & Law enforcement personal too !!

EffortPA

It amazes me how people still don't understand that if they own a gun, it is much more likely that gun is going to be used against them or against a family member than against an actual intruder. But, nooooo, they have their guns because that is their constitutional right. Idiots! If you own a gun, don't go looking for sympathy when someone you love dies because of it. Guns kill people, but not always the people you intended.

Actually that myth has been debunked years ago, but people still spew it as though it means something.

EffortPA, not saying your wrong, but, post a credible source for us, please.

xb70A, Gee "go to the NRA website. . ." But of course, that would be a great place to get unbiased news about guns, wouldn't it. That would be as meaningful as watching Fox News to get my information about the any political issue. Or relying on news from the Vatican regarding birth control and abortions. Yeah, that makes sense!

EffortPA

Be sure you want what you asked for. Look at what happened when Australia banned gun ownership by private citizens in 2008. Almost all violent crime is up, especially against the weak and elderly.

candaceclayton100.wordpress.com/2009/01/02/australian-gun-law-update/

Check it out.

From the article:-

(NB: the law-abiding citizens did turn in their personal firearms, the criminal element did not and thus criminals in Australia still possess their guns)

Sounds like they didn't know what they were doing. It's not just sufficient to pass a law. You have to enforce it as well.

Byron Raumm

Enforce what? All of the "law abiding citizens" turned in their guns. Since when did the bad guys ever obey the law? That's why they're called "criminals". The criminals will NEVER obey the law no matter what law you pass or what you do. They do not obey ANY laws!

Ever heard of Positive Identification before pulling trigger?

No.. Pulling the trigger is just wrong. You're supposed to squeeze the trigger.

Breath Relax Aim Squeeze Shoot.

B R A S S :-)

It amazes me how people still don't understand that if they own a gun, it is much more likely that gun is going to be used against them or against a family member than against an actual intruder

Are you Canadian ? Helter Skelter would have had a happy ending if Sharron Tate owned a judge loaded with 410 shells in reach at the time of her attack .

Guns kill people, but not always the people you intended.

Really an inadament object is able to shoot all by itself without any other force acting upon it first! I dont think so, guns do not kill people, People using the guns do the killing. I am so sick and tired of hearing people say that guns kill people. There has to be some sort of energy released by someone or something that is not inadament (meaing not able to move by it self) before a gun can shoot and kill someone. Therefore banning guns is not the answer, teaching and enforcing gun safety is, as well as actually having severe punishments for the criminals using guns that will actually act as a deterrant to gun violence!

Heavens

You are exactly the kind of person who does not possess the good judgement to qualify for gun ownership. This incident is yet another example that family members are far more at risk than intruders when guns are present in households.

Oh please! That was nothing short of pathetic.

So your point is that if he had more ammo (and he probably had 15 rounds) he would have walked around the motel killing other people? That is your point?

The proper point is that this guy is a cop - do any of you believe that any gun law would ever exist that would not allow a cop to carry his gun off duty? He made a terrible mistake, and shot his own son. A tragedy. The issue is not gun control, it is more likely screening/tesging, often, those who are or want to become police officers.

the point is had the sheriff missed the first time, he would have kept shooting. and since the bullets have to go somewhere other guests in the motel were at risk of being shot as well.

THAT IS THE POINT!!!!

and you own a gun????????????????????????????????

He did mean to do it, he thought he was protecting his family from an intruder that our lax legal and judicial system would have just turned back out on the street. The man lives first hand what has become of this country because people now vote with their hearts and not their heads, because the entirety of society listens to the perpetual whiners and noise makers and goes against what they know is right and that is on so many levels.

The NYPD will shoot ANYONE these days!

Dentist won't even allow a police man to bring his weapon in to their examination rooms. There has been a history of cops being disoriented from the novocaine or laughing gas used and have killed the dentist.

That is an interesting little tidbit of info there b.l. frazer. And the interesting part for me is that i have never heard that before. You wouldn't happen to know how often that has happened in the last 50 years or so, would you?

dentist office killing cause of Novocaine? wow Ive never heard such an ignorant comment about gun control than this one or a story on this ever happening, please provide a link because that's actually absurd

I have a loaded Glock 45 in the night stand. Problem is I don't have a crashing 747 to wake me up.

I had never heard about the story of dentists being killed from police officers due to being disoriented by the laughing gas either, until a prominent NY dentist who I was working with, told me about the past instances. You people think I made that up just to have a comment for gun control? Just because you never heard something before, doesn't mean it isn't true. That's called learning something new. But, maybe you are a dentist and know everything about the history of dentistry. I'll give you what you refused to give me, and that is the benefit of the doubt.