E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Scott R. Galvin / AP
Mindy Morgan reads a note at the memorial where six teens were killed in a car crash on Park Ave. in Warren, Ohio on March 10.
An Ohio town was in mourning on Sunday after a single-car crash took the lives of six teenagers, the deadliest car accident the Buckeye State has seen in three years.
Around 7 a.m. local time, a sport utility vehicle carrying eight people in Warren, Ohio veered to the left, hit a guardrail and flew out of control, according to Ohio State Highway Patrol. The car came to rest in a pond, and only two of the teens were able to escape and find help.
A joyride in northeast Ohio ended tragically after an SUV slammed into a guard rail and flipped into a swamp, killing six teens inside. Two others were injured in the crash early Sunday morning.
Killed in the crash were 19-year-old Alexis Cayson, 14-year-old Andrique Bennett, 17-year-old Brandon Murray, and 15-year-olds Kirklan Behner, Daylan Ray, and Ramone White.
All the victims were from Warren, Ohio, about 60 miles east of Cleveland.
Brian Henry, 18, and Asher Lewis, 15, survived and were taken to a local hospital and later released.
Authorities say the Honda Passport was traveling at "highway speeds" when the driver hit the guard rail on a street where the speed limit is 35 mph. Some of the occupants were wearing seat belts, though it is unclear how many. The SUV only has five seats.
Tom Sheeran / AP
A Honda Passport that crashed into a guardrail and flipped over into a swampy pond Sunday morning in Warren, Ohio, killing six teenagers.
The teens were all friends, but investigators say it is still unclear where they were coming from or going to. At a press conference Sunday night, State Highway Patrol Lt. Brian Holt said, “none of the occupants of the vehicle had expressed permission to be in possession of the vehicle.” The car's owner lives in nearby Youngstown, Ohio, though the automobile had not been reported stolen. Police said it is unclear at this time what the connection is between the vehicle owner and the teens.
Police also declined to speculate on drug use or alcohol pending the results of a toxicology report.
As news spread of crash, mourners throughout the community visited the scene of the accident to grieve. Along with the grief came questions of how it happened and why the victims were out at the early hour.
A local school where several of the teens attended was opened to the community to come for counseling. Counselors will be on hand Monday as well as students return from the weekend.
“It’s going to be a rough week, a rough rest of the school year,” said Michael Notar, Warren school superintendent.
Leave a Comment:
A tragic loss of young life, lets hope texting wasn't involved.
Doesn't matter what was involved. These children are lost forever.
~35,000 motor vehicle transportation accidents in 2011
~11,000 homicides with firearms in 2011
(http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf)
3.7 Sandy Hook Shooting's worth of casualties every day from car accidents.
As a nation we are calling to reduce the death of children, how do we do this there? Do we ban cars? Do we ban vehicles with high capacity seating? Do we ban Assault Vehicles which have "cool" characteristics which make overcapacity more fun?
Can we educate the behavior that leads to all these tragedies out of our population? Can we enlighten ourselves to be safe, logical and responsible? Or must we restrict our children from the privilege of mechanized transportation?
If too many children are dying, how do we prevent this from happening in the future? What can we do to bring the number of dead children down to "just the right amount"?
NoLiberty
If we are intelligent, unselfish citizens we will work together to minimize unnecessary deaths no matter what the cause.
Anyone who believes that we should ignore gun deaths because there are more vehicle deaths is irrational.
The 11,000 firearm homicides do not include 15,000 other gun deaths .... suicides ..... many of which would not happen if a firearm were not handy. It also does not include accidental deaths, for example those deaths that occur when children play with the poorly secured weapons owned by their parents.
So the short answer, NoLiberty, is that all avoidable deaths should be the subject of public discussion and, where it makes sense, more regulation. We lose far too many children by granting the right to gun ownership to irresponsible people.
Ecclesiastes 3:2a.. Regardless of your belief, you can't change destiny.
Don97524,
Excellent response, thank you!
If we are intelligent, unselfish citizens we will work together to minimize unnecessary deaths no matter what the cause. - I completely agree, anything we can do to make the world safer and retain our liberties and happiness is worth putting effort into.
Anyone who believes that we should ignore gun deaths because there are more vehicle deaths is irrational. - Absolutely, its a two sided coin, we should not ignore ~2,460,000 deaths to focus on ~40,000 total gun related deaths, nor should it be the other way around. Every cause should be considered and addressed. Unfortunately the media and our politicians seem to miss this concept.
The 11,000 firearm homicides do not include 15,000 other gun deaths .... suicides ..... many of which would not happen if a firearm were not handy. It also does not include accidental deaths, for example those deaths that occur when children play with the poorly secured weapons owned by their parents. - I am not sure I agree about the tie you but between firearms and suicides. While I admit that from movies and such, killing yourself with a gun is very sensational, and yes most suicides reported to the CDC are using guns, I think it is still a bit of a stretch to say that suicidal people would not attempt to commit the act without a gun.
And yes, accidental deaths numbered 851 in the same year (2011). Its hard to meaningfully group accidents, homicides, and negligence into one number. For example, the CDC does not break down how many automobile deaths were homicides or suicides (in fact, homicide and suicide in that CDC report were grouped as either gun or not gun) not perfect statistics but the best we have to work with for now.
So the short answer, NoLiberty, is that all avoidable deaths should be the subject of public discussion and, where it makes sense, more regulation. We lose far too many children by granting the right to gun ownership to irresponsible people. - I agree, I would say that we lose far too many children by granting the right and or privilege of ANY ownership to irresponsible people. And acknowledging that, we can focus on firearms.
One caveat, we must also acknowledge that like our other RIGHTS (speech, security of persons and property, fair and speedy trial, and cruel and unusual punishment) the right to bear arms is a Right, and not a privilege, like driving.
You have identified, I think, three questions...
So how best do we prevent irresponsible people from killing themselves?
I have little to no personal experience with suicide. Other than being aware of the mood of your friends and family, showing empathy and trying to figure out how to be emotionally supportive, I don't know what to do. What do you suggest?
How do we prevent irresponsible people from murdering others?
I personally would like to see everyone take self defense from elementary school through high school. It will not prevent all murders, but will give the victims a fighting chance. As for repeat offenders, its more dicey, is this person reformed by prison, or still a threat. How do we judge this? And what about someone who hides their urge? How would we find the hidden killer before its too late?
How do we prevent irresponsible people from creating accident prone situations?
I would punish a person the same for letting a child die unattended in a pool, or a locked car on a hot day, or with a gun. Are these punishments severe enough? If you kill a child with your pool/car/gun, are you banned for life or x number of years from owning a pool/car/gun? A parallel punishment when a prison sentence is not the answer?
What are your thoughts?
Luther
That appears to be the opinion of someone lost in medieval religious belief. I could not possibly disagree more with that Old Testament passage.
NoLiberty
I have no doubt that you are just one more gun nut who wraps himself in the Constitution only because there has been a Supreme Court decision in your favor. If that same Supreme Court had rules as they could have that membership in an actual "well regulated militia" was necessary for gun ownership I do not believe you would be such a fan of the Constitution.
Furthermore, and I don't know your stance on these other issues, my experience is that those fanatical gun owners who cling to the rights guaranteed in the Constitution are really only interested in those rights that they themselves believe in. I find that most gun rights people are homophobic, many are racist and support Rand Paul Libertarian opposition to civil rights, and hate the ACLU for protecting the free speech rights of those with whom they disagree.
don, most people only support the part of the Constitution they like. The rest is government restricting the rights of people. Whether they be for or against the right to own guns there are parts of the Constitution they feel that restrict their rights.
Of course this has nothing to do with the story but there is not enough information for anyone to understand what happened here.
Hmmm... This is a very sad incident on many levels. As a former firefighter, I had to respond to many vehicle collisions and accidents similar to this - such as when a car left the road, hit a tree, and came to rest upside down in a creek with about two feet of flowing water.
Although it happened in 1967, I remember that one like it happened this morning. "Bobbie," the very pretty young girl - maybe 16 or 17 - was the passenger in a new Austin Healy, that was a graduation gift from his parents to the 18 year old male driver. Bobbie was thrown clear of the car. I ran to help her, but the Asst. Chief waved me off. She was dead upon impact with the gravel in the creek bed.
Speed kills, and the above accident was proof of that. That young driver tried to take a curve at 50+ mph, that was marked for 20 mph. The car became airborne and crashed into a tree, then fell into the creek. He was trapped inside, but somehow avoided drowning. Another firefighter and I had to use a fire axe and a Halligan tool, to chop and pry open the car door, so we could drag him out. All the time he was screaming for Bobbie.
Within two minutes, maybe another dozen firefighters arrived to assist at the scene. Our focus was to get the driver, who had multiple compound fractures in his legs and arms, into an ambulance and on the way to the hospital, while Bobbie was under a blanket.
No alcohol or drugs were involved, just speed higher than the posted limit.
Don97524
I have to say I was very disappointing to read your latest post #2.7 above, your prior post exhibited a much more respectful tone, content and arguments pertinent to the dialog we were having. I will try to answer the arguments you make, and ignore the personal attacks. Your comments in italics below,
I have no doubt that you are just one more gun nut who wraps himself in the Constitution only because there has been a Supreme Court decision in your favor.
- You have called me a "gun nut" which I take to be a derogatory term, and make an assumption about my view of the Constitution. I want to also assure you sir, that by writing this post I am giving an example of what I think of the 1st Amendment. I also want to cite the preamble for the Constitution,
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Source (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html)
And state that I wholeheartedly embrace these ideals - Justice, Tranquility and Liberty for all. I would be happy to debate any specific bits of the Bill of Right that you wish. In fact I would much rather share my opinions with you, than hear you assume my thoughts and feelings.
If that same Supreme Court had rules as they could have that membership in an actual "well regulated militia" was necessary for gun ownership I do not believe you would be such a fan of the Constitution.
- As a responsible gun owner who keeps his firearm locked in a safe at all time (except en route to a shooting range when it is on my person or secured in a transfer case), keeps his ammunition separate from his gun (which yes, makes it useless in home defense, but that's what my baseball bat is for) and his keys separate from the safe; and as someone who has also taken several firearm safety courses, received hours of instruction from certified and professional instructors, has practiced proper gun handling and follows all gun safety rules; and whom is ready to defend myself, others and indeed you (assuming you are a US citizen) should my country ever ask/demand that I do - I could argue that I AM a member of a well regulated militia.
Furthermore, and I don't know your stance on these other issues, my experience is that those fanatical gun owners who cling to the rights guaranteed in the Constitution are really only interested in those rights that they themselves believe in.
- I believe in all the Rights granted by the Constitution, and would respectfully argue that without the 2nd Amendment, the rest of the Rights are not enforceable by the citizenry, is it historically abundant that disarmed populations have an increased risk of being oppressed - not always, and not causal. But I cannot think of any armed population that was easily overrun. And as I stated above, and am by example showing by writing these comments, I am interested in retaining ALL my rights.
I find that most gun rights people are homophobic, many are racist and support Rand Paul Libertarian opposition to civil rights, and hate the ACLU for protecting the free speech rights of those with whom they disagree.
- Can you support this argument with any evidence? I am not saying you are right or wrong, I am asking you to justify your statement. Also, I would ask if you found anything homophobic, racist, or anti-civil rights in my posting? And again, if you think I fall into this broad stereotype you have created, how exactly am I, right this minute, exercising my free speech against free speech? I am asking you to reply, I am seeing your opinion and evidence of your assertions. I am not trying to anger you, or dissuade you from responding. I am eager for you to use your Right to free speech in the process of furthering your conversation, in the hopes that a) you have agreement with what I have said, b) I am persuaded by your words and reason to agree with your viewpoint, or c) we part ways in mutual respect, but without a change of stance for either party.
Have I said anything insulting to you, or destructive towards the argument?
"If that same Supreme Court had rules as they could have that membership in an actual "well regulated militia" was necessary for gun ownership I do not believe you would be such a fan of the Constitution"
The "well regulated militia" is now,as it has always been, the armed citizens of this country .By the way-there have been 35 other SCOTUS cases besides Heller that have ruled that the 2nd amendment describes an individual right.
"my experience is that those fanatical gun owners who cling to the rights guaranteed in the Constitution are really only interested in those rights that they themselves believe in. I find that most gun rights people are homophobic, many are racist and support Rand Paul Libertarian opposition to civil rights, and hate the ACLU for protecting the free speech rights of those with whom they disagree"
Nothing like painting with a broad brush-I know plenty of gun owners that you would likely consider to be "fanatical"including myself-I am not opposed to any civil rights,or hate the ACLU for protecting free speech rights of anyone,nor am I a racist,
YOU however,seem to have issues with gun owners-who are you to decide who is a "fanatical" gun owner? Who are you to decide who I should or should not disagree with,whether or not I should support the ACLU,and for what reasons?
Looks to me like all you know about guns is what lies,half-truths,and obfuscation you get from anti-gun groups-from what you post-you do not know much about the history or meaning of the 2nd amendment-or you would have known that the militia is the armed citizenry,and that 35 other cases have supported the individual right to keep and bear arms.
NoLiberty
When I say "I find ......" it is clear that I am basing my opinions on personal experience. I justify it based on many conversations with conservative people where I lived in Montana. Those people who were most adamant about their gun rights were homophobic and racist. I specifically said that "I don't know your stance on these issues." If you wish to sympathize with those I was actually talking about, be my guest.
You consider the term "gun nut" derogatory, but bear in mind that I use that term only toward those who exaggerate the gun issue to the extent that anyone who advocates SOME additional gun control legislation is compared to sympathizers of totalitarian states who place a total ban on all firearms. It is your own inflammatory rhetoric that categorizes you, in my mind, as a gun nut. I assure you that I was no more pleased with your North Korea reference than you were at being labeled a gun nut.
Very sad story.
Whatever is found to be responsible for killing this 6 teens - should be made illegal. If it was not legal - these children would not have died.
If it only saves 1 life - it will be worth it
Don97524,
Your second point first - fair enough, I will agree that my comment about North Korea was an example by exaggeration about gun control in the US and apologize for it, and I accept what I believe to be an apology from you about stereotyping me.
As for your first comment, it is vitally important that we consider the both the nation as a whole when debating laws the affect the nation, and population based behavior. I cite gun deaths / total deaths / conservative estimates for gun ownership (by saying that the 4 million NRA members are the ONLY gun owners) to try to get a grasp on the magnitude of gun related violence in relation to violence in general. I would like to respectfully state that while your interaction with a minority in Montana is certainly capable of influencing your views locally, I would ask that you leave such influence behind when considering the majority and actions that impact them all.
I absolutely agree that there are people of questionable sanity that own guns, as there are people of questionable sanity that own product (insert your brand name here). But our goal with a gun control discussion is not to target people merely because they are prone to exaggeration, inflammatory remarks or even insulting language - the point of gun control debates is to determine how to target people who have/are planning on harming others. So any of those so called "gun nuts" out there that are being loud and NOT HURTING ANYONE, are fine in my book, because they haven't hurt anyone!
So what about the people out there who want to kill both of us and end up on television for it. What are your specific thoughts on how we can prevent or reduce this? Lets work together to find a solution.
Many adults can barely handle driving SUV's. Personally I loathe the damn vehicles. Teens driving one is worse. The feeling of invincibility in large vehicles like that and combine it with people who already think they're immortal is just a recipe for disaster.
A tragic loss of life (NEVER heard of so many teenagers/friends killed in one crash), but it DOES matter what caused it. Whether texting, not paying attention, speeding, overloaded car, etc, hopefully someone might learn so this doesn't happen again - to either one or two kids, or a whole carload.
Also, "NoLiberty" talks too much... (these kids and most others don't intentionally kill each other with vehicles).
Chris87654
I would like to recommend you try twitter feeds, as there are short limits on characters there.
Also, the underlying reason we don't like hearing stories like this is because people died. There are technical differences as to why or how they died, but they died nonetheless - our interest is in reducing these deaths right?
NoLiberty!...
I just find it beyond belief that you can take a sad story about the death of 6 teens in a vehicle accident, and turn it into a platform for your asinine firearms agenda! How dare you have so little regard for the friends and families of these youngsters who might be reading these remarks. This is not about you so get over your sorry self!!! Better yet, get a freakin life!
NoLiberty. ANYONE try to compare GUN DEATH and CAR DEATH is illogical and irrational. There are also about 30,000 Prescription drug deaths per year. Do we ban Prescription drugs? NO why? Is there difference between cars/medicines/guns? YES can you see the difference? Probably not.
So Let me point out some difference for you. Medicines are suppose to help the sick, cars are supposed to help people get from point A to point B. GUNS ARE SUPPOSED TO KILL. That’s it. KILLING IS THE ONLY THIING GUNS DOES. Nothing else. You are going to go with the self-defense argument and I already know that. But it is SELF-DEFENSE BY KILLING(offense).
Maybe this following example will make more sense to you. If I walk down a very bad neighborhood in Japan or China (where all guns are banned) I will be very comfortable with carrying Stun Guns/Tasers /Mace for self defense purpose. I would not need a gun. Why? Cause they all ban guns. Sure, the very very bad kind of criminals will have guns, but most criminals don’t. Most street gangs have BASEBALL BATS/ KITCHEN PIPES/ FLOWER POTS /CHAIR LEGS etc. Seriously….only their Mafia has guns. Not the average criminals. So when 99.99% of the population don’t have guns. I am very confident that Stun Guns/Tasers /Mace is more than sufficient for self defense purpose.
Also, not sure if you know….Mafia use their guns different than most criminals, they normally use that to kill one another but not average citizens. At least most of the time.
About 40,000 people die each year because they don't have health insurance. That's even more than car accident deaths, apparently. But not too many people seem to care about that statistic.
While I define myself as agnostic, I don't have a problem with the person that posted the passage from Ecclesiastes 3.2. If you actually pull up and read the section from verse 1 through verse 8, you'll find it's a pretty timeless summary of life. I don't think I'd specifically note only Ecclesiastes 3.2 (a time to be born and a time to die), as pointing out that verse alone is not comforting to someone that has just lost a loved one. This may have been written thousands of years ago but it still has value in the 21st century.
@JP-1410531, your comments below in italics
I just find it beyond belief that you can take a sad story about the death of 6 teens in a vehicle accident, and turn it into a platform for your asinine firearms agenda! How dare you have so little regard for the friends and families of these youngsters who might be reading these remarks. This is not about you so get over your sorry self!!! Better yet, get a freakin life!
JP, I sit here reading the news and am constantly bombarded by video from politicians, articles by news writers, and comments from people like yourself who compare me to the vilest of scum by making broad statements about how people who own guns cannot be trusted and they should have their property taken from them and taxed and banned.
So I apologize if in the heat of the beating my lifestyle is taking, I do what every person infront of a camera does, and using the death of others as an example of why I, who have never harmed anyone with a gun, should be left in peace.
Can you follow your own advice? From your second comment I take it you don't like firearms, which is perfectly fine, but you seem to be agreeable with a police officer coming into my home and taking my property by gunpoint. Can you defend that stance, without using either broad and ill defined reasons, or the death of children as a platform for your firearms agenda?
As for friends and family who are reading these remarks, I think preventable deaths are horrible, that is the entire point of my postings, to give perspective on leading causes of death, and generate calm and rational dialog on it. The last couple of sentences you wrote in the comment I quoted above seem devoid of calmness or rationality. Can we have a civil discussion please?
NoLiberty. ANYONE try to compare GUN DEATH and CAR DEATH is illogical and irrational. There are also about 30,000 Prescription drug deaths per year. Do we ban Prescription drugs? NO why? Is there difference between cars/medicines/guns? YES can you see the difference? Probably not.
- Gun deaths are targeted because they are perceived to be somehow worse (either in manner or numbers) than any other cause of death. I am trying to give perspective that they are NOT the only cause of death out there. If you read my posts I am also not calling for a car ban, in fact I don't want to ban anything, I want to combat deaths with education and personal vigilance, not laws and restrictions. Is educating people to be more self aware of speed/overdose/loaded guns bad?
So Let me point out some difference for you. Medicines are suppose to help the sick, cars are supposed to help people get from point A to point B. GUNS ARE SUPPOSED TO KILL. That’s it. KILLING IS THE ONLY THIING GUNS DOES. Nothing else. You are going to go with the self-defense argument and I already know that. But it is SELF-DEFENSE BY KILLING(offense).
Why do you think guns are supposed to only kill? I have personally shot thousands of rounds out of my guns, and I have never killed or even hit any living thing. Are you saying that me and the millions of target shooters out there are using our guns in an excessively safe but incorrect manner? Also, whats wrong with killing? While I do not personally hunt, there are millions of hunters in the US, many of which use guns to kill their prey (and really, are guns any more cruel than a fishook? dead is dead right?). And yes self defense is on the list, and I will tell you what, while I hope neither of us ever has to fight for our lives, I would be happy to defend my life, and the life of my future wife and children with a gun against a drugged out 300 lb home invader, you are welcome to give your attacker every advantage you want. You can sacrifice your life to someone assaulting you, but you do not have the right to demand I do the same.
Target shooting, self defense, hunting, mass murder - one of these things is not like the other....
Maybe this following example will make more sense to you. If I walk down a very bad neighborhood in Japan or China (where all guns are banned) I will be very comfortable with carrying Stun Guns/Tasers /Mace for self defense purpose. I would not need a gun. Why? Cause they all ban guns. Sure, the very very bad kind of criminals will have guns, but most criminals don’t. Most street gangs have BASEBALL BATS/ KITCHEN PIPES/ FLOWER POTS /CHAIR LEGS etc. Seriously….only their Mafia has guns. Not the average criminals. So when 99.99% of the population don’t have guns. I am very confident that Stun Guns/Tasers /Mace is more than sufficient for self defense purpose.
And again it is totally your choice to do so, but why are you giving me a hard time for choosing a gun? Its not like I am going to skip down the street blowing people away, the same way you won't skip down the street tazing or macing people.
But I will tell you this, when I get attacked by the pipe wielding street gang member, I rather have the gun. You may not be aware of this, but a pipe to the head or face can kill you just as easily as a bullet.
- bottom line, you are free to use whatever you want, and I kindly ask you to please not cripple my choices, I want to make it home to my family! (not that I even carry a gun for self defense :P)
Also, not sure if you know….Mafia use their guns different than most criminals, they normally use that to kill one another but not average citizens. At least most of the time.
Yes, they are typically much more organized. Organized to the point they can import guns past blockades (think about drugs, prohibition and prostitution). Further, they can easily pay out of work machinists to manufacture guns out of steel stock - It has happened before and I will bet its going on currently ;) (guns are mechanically simple to make, average joe couldn't do it, but with a little training and some financial incentive, its probably easier than growing weed, and alot quicker!).
Interested to hear your response, but please lets keep it civil?
A stolen (didn't have expressed permission of the owner), overloaded vehicle (8 passengers in a car designed to hold 5) speeding (travelling at highway speeds (~75) in a 35 mph zone doesn't sound like it passes the legality test to me.
So they died because they were doing illegal things.
Thus the reason for the laws - speed limits, capacity rating, seat belts, and anti-theft laws. But laws only are effective when they are obeyed.
@ The thinker,
"Thus the reason for the laws - speed limits, capacity rating, seat belts, and anti-theft laws. But laws only are effective when they are obeyed."
Absolutely!
I wish the pro/anti 2nd people would take their debate to an appropriate seed. This seed is about dead teenagers who died tragically because a large group of teens in one vehicle is an accident waiting to happen!
Inattentive driving due to arguing over music, cell usage and just being a teen having fun. Now their parents have to clean up and cope. Many states have adopted "restriction" on young drivers have demonstrated good results regarding accident rates. So sad.
Natural selection at work...
Why is it that when something sad happens like this accident that we have to have all these gun nuts come out and say "maybe we should bad cars then" or other crazy stuff like that? What bearing does a car accident with teens have with gun control? Unless there were guns in the car or they were shot - none! To tell the truth, I'm to the point where I don't want a gun ban, I want a gun NUT ban. If you mention the 2nd amendment in a story that has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment, you get put in NBC purgatory and can't post again for a week.
They need to find out what these kids were doing, and why they had someone else's car. If that person who owns the car had anything to do with their deaths, then they need to arrest him or her.
NoLiberty - people make the comment that guns are made to kill things because that was their purpose when first made. Sure, now they're used in sporting reasons for target shooting, etc. I have no problem with that. But the gun wasn't first invented to go skeet shooting. The way I see it, when someone murders someone with a gun, they're using that tool for it's designed purpose. I don't think we should ban guns by any means, however I don't know how you can argue the purpose of said tool. A car if not used properly, or some other event happens can kill someone. Anything can kill someone if used incorrectly. I could bludgeon someone to death with a laptop if I wanted to. That's not what it was designed to do. A gun was made to propel a bullet out of it with the purpose of causing injury or death to the object it's being shot at. Simple as that. That's why making a comparison to guns vs cars or anything else is comparing apples and oranges, and why people sound ridiculous when they say "well we should ban knives or cars, or hands and feet" or whatever.
Also, I don't understand your reference to a police officer coming into your house and taking your possessions at gun point. What are they taking from you? I hope you're not one of those people who believe there will be some armed repossession of firearms in this country.
NoLiberty - please stay on topic.
Most gun nuts claim that they want their guns for personal protection. Some gun nuts with more imagination and energy say that they want their guns to protect themselves against the government and that they have the right because the 2nd Amendment says they do. Some very vague language about a 'well-regulated militia.'
Either argument is fine with me. I have guns. I'm a gun nut. I like to shoot stuff. I like the powerful kick of a good deer rifle, I like the sound of my .40 S&W, and I LOVE shooting clay skeet. I've never used a gun to protect myself, and I don't believe that the government is coming to take my guns.
My question, for those of you CCWs, or 2nd Amendment folks is, why don't you argue and yell and scream for the right to own ANY weapon? Why do you let the government, whom you obviously don't trust, tell you that you cannot own an automatic weapon, or a grenade launcher, or, heck, even an armored vehicle with a large gun?
NOTHING in our beloved 2nd Amendment says you cannot. And if you are really planning on taking on the government's army, you will not last very long without some pretty sophisticated weapons. You holler and scream for your semi-auto AR-15 assault weapons and your high-capacity magazines, but NOT ONE WORD is ever mentioned about the right to own an AK-47, or a fully functioning M16.
Why not? Are you little mice that only fight for the few crumbs that are given to you? Do you not want to be a true member of a militia, or would you rather be a weekend warrior running around the woods in Idaho with a little pea-shooter?
One word: DRONES
Your little camp outs where you and your family run around in camouflage and shoot at paper targets are going to come to an abrupt end if you ever really decide to fight the government. And on a side note, when do you decide that it's time to declare war? Now seems to be a good time. They are making you pay for health care for illegals. They are making you pay for educating those unhealthy illegals. They have given up protecting you from the scourge from the South.
I say, sack up and grow a pair! I want to see the NRA sponsor a new campaign whereby every member of the militia (which is everybody, right?) should be allowed to own and carry openly any weapon that they can afford to buy!
If you don't take this next step, then the government (and most of the rest of the country) will continue to see you as a bunch of little kids playing war.
Jeff (who may be either big or little)
The phrase "WELL REGULATED" in the 2nd Amendment allows us to decide who should be able to own guns, the type of guns and the rules governing those who have guns.
Really? You got all of that from two words? Nice.
By the way, when and where did you decide that I can't own an M16? You say, "...allows us..." So, did I miss the meeting? Can you also decide to keep some people out of the militia?
What I think you mean is that the government decided who should be able to own guns, the tytpe of guns and the rules governing those who have guns. Because, brother, that's the truth.
Jeff
And how many words and precisely what words in that 2nd Amendment got you thinking that there should be no limits regarding personal use and ownership of firearms?
I think of the government as we the people. I have no doubt that you think of the government as "they".
Well , since the 2nd Amendment is only 26 words long, there's not a whole lot to work with. The words most of us focus on are, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Let's just assume right away that the framers were not speaking about things with elbows and wrists.
Keep and bear arms. To me, that means any weapon. I guess it could even mean spears and swords, but we know they were talking about guns. Back then, the gun was basically a musket. Singly fired and needing to be reloaded in a time-consuming manner with ball, powder, and tamper and such. I don't think that they ever envisioned the arms we have nowadays.
But I think you missed my overall point. These 2nd Amendment defenders use the same vague words to mean to say that they can stockpile assault weapons and tons of ammo. I just carried their argument out a little further, using the same words and logic. I think I was trying to emphasize the craziness of the argument.
And to answer your question, there really are no words in the 2nd Amendment that set limits on types of arms we should have the right to keep and bear.
I just wondered why these people stop at semi-automatic. I'm perfectly happy with the guns I have. I keep them in a safe, and I only bear them when I'm going shooting. I don't expect to use them to defend myself in my home. I would have to move some shoes and a large sleeping bag to get to my unloaded pistol if something were to happen. I live in a nice neighborhood and for the last almost 50 years, have not had the need.
Jeff
I disagree with you. I believe that "well regulated" demands that we decide on the limits to gun ownership by democratic process. If the Supreme Court can decide that "militia" does not really mean "militia" I think that "well regulated also has a great deal of latitude.
Don (who may be Don or Donald)
Again, I must point out that you are missing my point. You actually agree with me.
My tongue-in-cheek call for all Americans to own military-grade weapons and ordinance was satire.
I do not, nor have I ever thought that we need unregulated arms laws. If anything, in light of the recent shootings, I think there aught to be much, much more regulation. Background checks for 100% of all gun sales. Mentally ill people restricted from owning guns. There are more, but I just wanted to make a point.
The NRA arguing against background checks, Republicans blocking the appointment of a leader of the ATFE, gun shop owners not required to keep inventory checks, unregulated gun show sales. THESE are facts that should scare to death any person with rational thought.
@NoLiberty!
So you’ve finally admit it….you target shoot 1000s of round for fun. Another word, you are gun enthusiast. Just admit it.
What if I am an explosive enthusiast? Why am I not allowed to blow stuff up for fun? Seriously, I want to go out and blow stuff up. Why is the current law limiting my option on this? Because ummmm….. explosive were designed to ummmmm kill like guns? At least they were designed to kill originally…..
Well said, Jeff!
@NoLiberty. Also...
sure esure...Kitchen pipes can kill too and I don't doubt that.
EXCEPT the Japanese murder rate (by all weapons) is 0.4 (per 100,000 inhabitants)
while the United State's is 4.2 (per 100,000 inhabitants)
Another word, you are 10x more likly to get kill in a murder (by any means) in the US when compare with Japan (where guns are not allowed)
@Zorloc
NoLiberty - people make the comment that guns are made to kill things because that was their purpose when first made. Sure, now they're used in sporting reasons for target shooting, etc. I have no problem with that. But the gun wasn't first invented to go skeet shooting. The way I see it, when someone murders someone with a gun, they're using that tool for it's designed purpose. I don't think we should ban guns by any means, however I don't know how you can argue the purpose of said tool. A car if not used properly, or some other event happens can kill someone. Anything can kill someone if used incorrectly. I could bludgeon someone to death with a laptop if I wanted to. That's not what it was designed to do. A gun was made to propel a bullet out of it with the purpose of causing injury or death to the object it's being shot at. Simple as that. That's why making a comparison to guns vs cars or anything else is comparing apples and oranges, and why people sound ridiculous when they say "well we should ban knives or cars, or hands and feet" or whatever.
My argument is not that guns were designed to kill (both people and animals) but that I keep hearing their only purpose is to kill, a different argument.
I also agree it IS hard to compare different objects, but the point I am trying to make is that the majority of gun owners do NOT use their guns to kill, and do NOT use their guns to kill millions of times a year. We have several sports built around NOT killing people with guns, we have a way of obtaining food from nature WITHOUT killing people with guns. We have the threat of death to put some small measure of fear into criminals as they select targets. So many uses for guns, which are used everyday NOT to kill.
There, I compared guns to guns :D
Also, I don't understand your reference to a police officer coming into your house and taking your possessions at gun point. What are they taking from you? I hope you're not one of those people who believe there will be some armed repossession of firearms in this country.
I would like to say that no I don't believe there will be mass confiscation, but quite a few folks commenting on this site as well as our politicians are sure edging that way. The assault weapons ban they are working on right now in congress would prevent the transfer of assault rifles between individuals (unless I am mistaken, without exception), this means that parents cannot pass their property to their children, when a parent who owns an assault rifle dies, the police come and confiscate that property from the estate.
@JP
So you’ve finally admit it….you target shoot 1000s of round for fun. Another word, you are gun enthusiast. Just admit it.
Well of course I will admit it, its very relaxing, yet at the same time requires a delicate concentration to be really accurate. I will never be as good at it as I want, but hey, its a nice way to blow $40 on ammo!
Do you have a problem with me being a gun enthusiast? Does the fact that I go to the range and fire metal through paper into dirt somehow offense your sensibilities?
What is your point with this comment?
What if I am an explosive enthusiast? Why am I not allowed to blow stuff up for fun? Seriously, I want to go out and blow stuff up. Why is the current law limiting my option on this? Because ummmm….. explosive were designed to ummmmm kill like guns? At least they were designed to kill originally…..
You can go blow stuff up, get some fireworks! Sure you cannot go out and just buy C4, the same way I cannot go out and buy a belt fed automatic weapon, or a tank, or a missile launcher.
I am not sure what the intent was with the earliest explosives... but they are currently used for decoration (fireworks), demolition, construction (digging holes/tunnels), and yes for war and to destroy material (such as tanks and factories). Interesting how explosives have so many non-killing uses too! Did you know that the primer in my ammunition is an explosive? The powder actually burns, it doesn't really explode, but the primer is a mite more reactive ;) gunpowder doesn't care about a firing pin.
Anyhow, enjoy your fireworks, and I will go enjoy my range time :D
@JP
sure esure...Kitchen pipes can kill too and I don't doubt that.
EXCEPT the Japanese murder rate (by all weapons) is 0.4 (per 100,000 inhabitants)
while the United State's is 4.2 (per 100,000 inhabitants)
Another word, you are 10x more likly to get kill in a murder (by any means) in the US when compare with Japan (where guns are not allowed)
Do you think they don't kill each other as much because they have no guns? Or because they are nicer to each other? I don't know the answer, I only know that I have guns and my murder rate is 0
@NoLiberty
The city where I live does NOT allow discharge of any fireworks, period, even on the 4th of July. The nearest place I can buy and discharge fireworks is 40 miles away (an Indian reservation land). (and most fireworks can't even kill like guns does)
If you are for targeting shooting only, why you won't support laws that allow guns ONLY AT SHOOTING ranges like the fireworks does now? (I know some countries does this and they also have much Lower murder rate) Is it because…..umm….you are such a gun "enthusiast" that must carry guns with you all the time?
I may be explosive "enthusiast" but I am no explosive "nuts". If the law does not permit it, I simply will live with it. I have no need to carry explosives with me or store explosives at home like some gun "enthusiast" want to do with their "guns". And no, you will not see me fighting for the right to discharge even the lightest of explosive (fireworks). Because after all…I am fully aware the danger of explosives and while I may like to DIY on fireworks. I will learn to live with the fact that I should let the professional handle it and just seat back and enjoy the fireworks that are set off by the professionals every 4th of July. (My friends and I use to spend hundreds of dollars every year on 4th of July before they ban it. One of the neighbor use to spend thousands of dollars every 4th of July on fireworks. But since the ban, none of us play with fireworks anymore. We have learn to live with it. )
And if I am truly bored, I make take the 40 miles drive to the Indian reservation to blow up some stuff. Unlike some gun "enthusiast", who will fight for the right to discharge their guns outside of the shooting range. I am totally ok with the fact that I have go to certain areas to discharge "fireworks" (which probably isn't even considered explosive by some) LOL
Where is the follow up to this story? The one where the car owner reported his vehicle as stolen by this group of teen criminals?
@JP
Sorry to hear about your firework conundrum, if my vote mattered where you live I would vote for you to be allowed to have fireworks, and would hope that you would be responsible and careful with them (as most people who use fireworks are).
if you are for targeting shooting only, why you won't support laws that allow guns ONLY AT SHOOTING ranges like the fireworks does now? (I know some countries does this and they also have much Lower murder rate) Is it because…..umm….you are such a gun "enthusiast" that must carry guns with you all the time?
FYI, while I have a CCW permit, I don't carry. There are too many "gun free" zones in and around the places I go that its not practical, and as a law abiding gun owner I leave it in my safe rather than go against the legislation of my city.
That being said, just because I don't personally carry, or hunt, does not give me the right to demand that others only use their guns at shooting ranges.
Bottom line, I encounter police (who are armed), unknown to me CCW folks, and other who own guns, I have never been threatened by a gun, and have never seen these folks acting irresponsibly with theirs. Therefore as the overwhelming majority aren't hurting ANYBODY, I see no problem with the laws as they are. Criminal punishment for offenders is another argument entirely ;)
I may be explosive "enthusiast" but I am no explosive "nuts". If the law does not permit it, I simply will live with it. I have no need to carry explosives with me or store explosives at home like some gun "enthusiast" want to do with their "guns". And no, you will not see me fighting for the right to discharge even the lightest of explosive (fireworks). Because after all…I am fully aware the danger of explosives and while I may like to DIY on fireworks. I will learn to live with the fact that I should let the professional handle it and just seat back and enjoy the fireworks that are set off by the professionals every 4th of July. (My friends and I use to spend hundreds of dollars every year on 4th of July before they ban it. One of the neighbor use to spend thousands of dollars every 4th of July on fireworks. But since the ban, none of us play with fireworks anymore. We have learn to live with it. )
I feel the same way, if there was a total gun ban tomorrow I would turn my guns in and "live with it", do I like the idea, NO, its why I am on here trying to defend my Right.
As for your choice not to fight the fireworks ban, that's YOUR CHOICE, and who am I to dictate how you live and what property you own? YOU have not hurt me, you have given me no reason to think you are any kind of a risk to society - so please go and do whatever you wish, and keep on not hurting people :D
I like my guns, despite the fact that I haven't taken them out of my safe in months. They are detailed bits of machined steel, with intricate moving parts and able to take a brutal beating of the detonation of ammunition - high quality tools! I like them for the same reason I like my fancy pizza cutter, my drill press, and my home computer, they represent modern luxury trappings available to the lower middle class (which is me).
Do you have any problem with me liking my "stuff" as long as I am not hurting anyone with it? Why do you attack me so?!
@NoLiberty
I'm not going to hang around for a reply, but you can feel free to reply so readers will have your answer. You said you are a member of a "militia" which thus gives you the right to a firearm. If so, who is your commanding officer, where is your militia based, where does it train, and under what branch of the military does it answer to in a time of war? All of these things are present in a "Well-regulated militia".
The fifth amendment specifies that the militia is an entity, and not just a untrained, unregulated mob of anarchists. Therefor the second amendment specifies that gun ownership is a right entrusted to militias and their members.
You actually branded yourself as a gun nut by resorting to the time honored way of distorting facts for your own benefit. Let me explain. When you said 35,000 people die from automobiles while only 11,000 are gun-related homicides, you stated two separate facts as if they were related, but they're not. How many of those 35,000 deaths by automobiles were actually intentional homicides? I'm talking about events where the person intentionally got behind the wheel of a car with the desire on hitting someone else with that car. Now how deaths were the result of someone putting a gun in their hands with the intention of shooting someone else. I bet you wouldn't post those numbers if you had them.
When you fire at your paper targets with your metal bullets, are you training for a target shoot, or are you really training for a day you hope happens, a day when you finally get to shoot someone? Are you not just another murderer, waiting for a legal chance to take someone's life? You have a concealed carry permit but don't carry? I don't believe that. You got it for a reason.
I suggest it should be taught before getting a driver license, the basic rudiments of driving. Young people should know that you should not turn a curve doing 50 miles an hours, or speeding, especially going around a curve, or giving a car more gas when descending a hill. Maybe if we go back to the basic, such accidents would occur lest. More young people should use the speed control when driving. I hope this help.
Eight people in this vehicle? Not enough restraints to go around. Sad.
I had a tough time getting past the first few words of this article. SUVs usually only have one occupant at any one time. (Sorry, just watched "Over the Hedge.")
What are you talking about AG99? SUVs have a backseat as well.
It was a reference to the movie "Over the Hedge." It's an animated film about wild animals raiding suburbia for food. They walk by an SUV and one of them says, "Wow, look at the size of that! I wonder how many humans it holds?" The smart-ass animal answers, "Typically, just one." It was a crack at how inefficient SUVs are as basic transportation.
It has nothing to do with the article, even less so now you've made me explain it.
I also thought that the vehicle may have been overloaded. I checked, the Passport normally sat 5, some models sat 7. Definitely overloaded. Sad.
So why did you even post your first statement if it had nothing to do with the article, AG99?
Ry the stunner,
Back seat is for groceries, while the trunk is for all those old BigMac wrappers,
And the passenger seat is for the Iphone.
Don't you know anything ;)
no need to worry about the dangers of texting when you're going at highway speeds in a 35mph zone.
and i suspect alcohol played a role in deciding how fast to drive
Proof positive you can't fix stupid.
Thanks Rondo. Six dead children and you manage to work a nasty crack in on the five who died that weren't behind the wheel. We're all so glad that you're here today to lighten up our lives and bring some intelligence to the community conversation. Thanks for comming.
But there were 7 others in the vehicle and unable to convince the reckless driver to slow down?
Let's hope that one of the survivors was the driver. That way there is somebody to hold responsible.
AG99, if your comment had nothing to do with the article, then why mention it?
How often do these comments really have to do with the article?
Usually goes to gun control or illegal immigrants.
5 passenger SUV, Stolen, then 8 kids get in to tool around for a joy ride. They were probably going to wreck it anyway, then get out, laugh, and leave it for the owner to "deal". Except the driver didn't have the skills he thought he did. highway speeds in a posted 35. So he killed himself and 5 of his friends. Teen car thieves do not deserve to die for their crime, but on the other hand, those of us who do overtime trying to teach our kids not to do these things don't necessarily feel like we need to hold a vigil for them either. They were not little angels. They stole some guy's wheels. Maybe he needed that to get to work ! There are kids out there doing the right things and some of them have trouble (health probs, victims of crimes, etc). Let people do something to worry about the kids doing it right.
Tragic day for their families. So sad when preventable accidents take lives such as these. Condolences to all affected.
Where are all the people screaming about children and adults being killed in vehicles, more people are killed in vehicle accidents they are buy guns, where is Obama and his puppets Sen. Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi.
why turn a tragedy like this into your right wing political BS. I notice not one word of sympathy.
Very sad and tragic for the families loosing a child. Condolences to the family
@!$%# you
Could you possibly be a bigger a**hole? People like you turn my stomach.
Jim
Your anti-social comments are not welcome here.
Crissy, Crissy, Crissy! You really, really, really need to learn how to construct a correct, coherent, and properly punctuated sentence before you come hear and spew your meaningless, incoherent drivel. You should try to resume your previously failed effort to earn a GED, and also try not to get so drunk so early in the day. No, paying someone to take the test for you will not improve your writing skills one iota.
" You really, really, really need to learn how to construct a correct, coherent, and properly punctuated sentence before you come hear..."
Live buy the pensil, dye bye the pencle.
You mean, "where ARE Obama and his puppets...?" The rest of your post is even worse.
Please use correct English grammar.
Now, you can go back to being a puppet for the party of your choosing.
Cheetah, the correct spelling is PENCIL. Nice try and failure twice.
I heard Obama was driving. Just ask the illterate knuckledraggers who post on Newsvine.
Shame on you. Politicizing the death of children. There's a special place in hell for you.
Mymomdidnotraiseafool - I agree with your overall statement, but perhaps you could use a refresher course in spelling.
The Lazaro - uh, that would include you since you posted on Newsvine.
Unfortunately, spelling auto-correct has a way of substituting inappropriate words as corrections for misspelled words, and that one got by me (as have many others). I don't normally extensively proof-read my posts, as they are pretty much stream of consciousness ramblings.
Dude, take it outside. Nobody cares. Left, right or center. Really. Most folks don't have the time for angry and uneducated. The majority of the left AND right on this newsvine usually have at least one legitimate thought of the day. You just failed another pop quiz.
How sympathetic should one be to those that were joy riding in a stolen overloaded speeding vehicle? Most people are real sympathetic to criminals. Yes, even the passengers were criminals.
Shut. Up. You. Stay on topic. This is not about gun bans. This is about an automobile accident. Try to keep up.
NoLiberty said everything that needs to be said (and even more) about gun bans on this article.
Watching... Cheetah was being sarcastic - telling mymamadidnt that s/he used the wrong form of hear/here. :)
Thinker, even criminals have families who are most often law abiding, especially in the case of teens. Those are the ones who need the sympathies. I think there were like 6 families that lost kids.
So at what age of the criminals does the family also become criminals?
Inexperience and an overloaded vehicle is a disaster waiting to happen.And in this case that is exactly what happened.
How do you know if it was overloaded? My extended cab trailblazer held eight people, all with seatbelts.
What a tragedy! I have teenagers and truly feel for the families receiving the phone calls or officers at the door. Keeping the families in my thoughts and prayers!!
jules69
Show us one that seats more than 5. http://autos.aol.com/honda-passport/ That means more than 5 seat belts not how many can squeeze in to seats and cargo space.
Good call cleaning lady. A Honda Passport has the same frame is the same as a Honda CRX.
trust verify and JBAbbott,Thank you.I guess we three know our automobiles.
Just a cleaning lady,
Know your automobile... or just know how to use google, amazing how many times peoples come here and post their ignorance for the world to see while it would have been a lot quicker to just use google and check for themselves.
Jules69: the article above said there were 8 kids in the car and 5 seats. Do the math - that's 3 kids without seats or restraints.
How utterly sad. That explains why there was such a large gathering of grief-stricken people of all age groups at the Emergency Room entrance to the Trumbull Memorial Hospital in Warren this morning and afternoon. May God grant them peace which passes all understanding under these terrible, terrible conditions. No pain is greater than that suffered at the sudden loss of a child; this pain being magnified at least six fold. Have some compassion, America.
Just can't wait to hear the outcry from the Dems on "automobile violence." We kill just over 50,000 each year but those benevolent, lifesavers are just silent on that issue. Guess they don't really care about death and injury, but are focused upon taking the tools we use to protect ourselves....
Are gas chambers and cremation ovens far behind?
notafan
There are too many auto deaths DESPITE THE FACT THAT WE REGULATE THE AUTOS AND THE DRIVERS.
Do you fail to understand that without those regulations that there would be a great many more vehicle deaths?
Don't you realize that when you say that "Dems" "don't really care about death and injury" that you are making a completely ignorant and unsupportable, not to say biased charge against people you neither know or understand?
Why are you so callous that you would take the opportunity of the death of several people in an auto accident to promote your paranoid feelings about guns?
When you compare those people who dare to work towards public safety to Hitler and the Nazis, is it any wonder why more and more of us have less and less use for the opinions of "my way or the highway" gun freaks like you in matters of guns and public safety?
One thing is certain .... I am "notafan" of you. You "couldn't wait" for a "Dem"'s opinion. Aren't you glad you waited?
don--You're wasting your time with notafan his head and ears are stuffed with @!$%#.
Some people will agree with this moron .... watch for the numbers.
notafan - possibly you are too young (and ignorant of the facts), but if it weren't for the dems, who seem to understand the need for pertinent regulation, our cars wouldn't be as safe as they are. Can you imagine car manufacturers actually spending the research and money on their own - without being forced - to make cars safer? Yeah, me neither. And your comment about gas chambers is just stupid. Go away.
And another useless right wing a**hole is heard from. Crawl back under your rock you turd.
Deborah Cox- most safety regulation came from the hands of the insurance companies protecting their bottom line.
In both gun and auto fatalities, education is key. Young, inexperienced drivers account for a high percentage of accidents. Some states mandate new drivers drive alone for the 1st year of driving
@don97524, your text in italic's.
There are too many auto deaths DESPITE THE FACT THAT WE REGULATE THE AUTOS AND THE DRIVERS. - exactly, regulation of devices and people has failed to give us an "OK" amount of deaths.
Do you fail to understand that without those regulations that there would be a great many more vehicle deaths? - completely correct, yet even with these regulations there are more accidental automobile (35,000) deaths than accidental gun deaths (851) and even gun murders (11,000) (source http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf).
Don't you realize that when you say that "Dems" "don't really care about death and injury" that you are making a completely ignorant and unsupportable, not to say biased charge against people you neither know or understand? - absolutely, lets all leave personal attacks out of these arguments and have evidence based and reasoned assertions.
Why are you so callous that you would take the opportunity of the death of several people in an auto accident to promote your paranoid feelings about guns? - Everyone looks at a mass death as an emotional example of why their views are correct. You are doing it now just by posting you opinions here, in the comment section of a mass death.
I am doing it as well. Is it the right thing to do? Probably not, I am trying to offset the tear-jerking use of these incidents with some actual data (hence my CDC reference) while at the same time replying to our role models (politicians) by using stories like this as testimony about why my property shouldn't be confiscated, the same way our politicians use stories like this to argue why my property should be.
It is my hope that readers of this will realize the futility of citing one or even several emotional stories as hard evidence for their cause, while ignoring all the actual hard evidence for or against them.
Also, what is a "paranoid feeling about guns"?
When you compare those people who dare to work towards public safety to Hitler and the Nazis, is it any wonder why more and more of us have less and less use for the opinions of "my way or the highway" gun freaks like you in matters of guns and public safety? - First, Hitler and the Nazis's were sincere in their efforts to make the public more safe by purifying the races. Do I or you or likely anyone who will ever read this post think their path to do so was right? NO! But do not mix sincerity with righteous.
I see two clear ways the government can increase safety, 1) is the path chosen by places like North Korea and Iran, the government can FORCE the people to behave in manners which it deems are safe. Or 2) the government can promote EDUCATION of the people, such that they self police and are safer for it (i.e. am I driving the right speed? Is the road condition poor? Is my gun loaded? Did I fully cook that meat? Am I too absorbed by my texting while crossing the street?) etc... as examples of self-policing.
One thing is certain .... I am "notafan" of you. You "couldn't wait" for a "Dem"'s opinion. Aren't you glad you waited? - not sure how this furthers the argument.
@Deborah Cox, your comment in italics
notafan - possibly you are too young (and ignorant of the facts), but if it weren't for the dems, who seem to understand the need for pertinent regulation, our cars wouldn't be as safe as they are. Can you imagine car manufacturers actually spending the research and money on their own - without being forced - to make cars safer? Yeah, me neither. And your comment about gas chambers is just stupid. Go away.
- Cool to know that democrats were the driving force (pun not intended) behind automobile safety, do you have any cited sources so I can read up on this and better appreciate their efforts? Also, your argument seems to imply that there are no parallels to safety in the firearm industry, and I can assure you there are. Firearms are built to withstand the forces of ammunition detonation thousands of times. They have clear and concise text about what ammunition to use, how to safely store and handle firearms, and proper shooting discipline - an owners manual for the gun if you will. Further they are all equipped with a variety of safety mechanisms, be it actual safety switching which prevent the guns from firing, to specials hand guards to shield your body from the cycling steel mechanism, to various wooden or plastic stocks to insulate you from the heat of combustion, deaden recoil and allow you to grip a firearm more securely (and thus be safer firing it).
This site (http://www.childdeathreview.org/causesaf.htm), admittedly not a perfect source, cites risk factors which are mostly centered around user errors leading to accidental child deaths with firearms (easily accessible, no adult supervision). These are not flaws in the design of guns, they are flaws where users fail to ready the safety information and follow very simple rules to prevent these occurrences.
I think that ANY accidental death, by ANY means, should have comparable penalties to those responsible. If your child bakes to death in a locked car, or shoot himself with your gun - same penalty.
I am just unsure why firearms, which account for such a tiny percentage of deaths per year, are so often targeted and called "major killers". I fully realize that mass shootings are very sensational and entertaining to the public, but while you watch videos of cops running around schools, and debate gun laws in the months between shootings, you need to realize that people are still continuing to die, in greater numbers, everyday from things totally unrelated to firearms. In 2011, ~2.5 million people died, that's a rate of about 11 Sandy Hook Elementary shootings every HOUR, for EVERY DAY, for the WHOLE YEAR.
I am not saying firearms are not involved in deaths, of course they are - as are every object known to man. But I am asking for some perspective based on statistics and logic. My question is again, do we FORCE people to be safe, or do we EDUCATE people to be safe?
Thank you.
NoLiberty
Your North Korea example is as ignorant and over-the-top as was the moronic Nazi comment from notafan. Whenever anyone talks about reasonable gun legislation, such as universal background checks, some of you gun fanatics always turn it into a complete gun ban administered by a totalitarian state. From my point of view it is like a parent trying to have a discussion with his nine-year old child who exaggerates every normal rule or disciplinary action into "You NEVER let me do ANYTHING!!!!! WAAAAAA.
Don97524
I would like to respectfully state that while my North Korea example is the end result of a long period of increasing government power over the populace - which is not the current state of affairs in the US.
I would like to defend my comment by saying that when we talk about regulation of people and property - specifically of imposing new and broad laws to millions of gun owners, of which only a tiny fraction of ever commit a crime (lets say (using very conservative numbers) that the ~4 million NRA members are the ONLY gun owners in the US, and that 40,000 people a year are killed using a gun (accident + suicide + homicide) and that EACH said gun owner only kills 1 person, then 1% of gun owners are statistically likely to kill a person, which means 99% of them will NOT.) this means that the burden of additional laws are now subjected to the overwhelming majority of people who already obey the laws AND do not hurt anyone.
These additional laws include taxes (how much do YOU think it would cost me to do a private sale background check?), confiscation of property (ok, you grandfather the firearms I have, but do not allow me to transfer them on to my children - estate confiscation), and "messing with my past-time" (I can only hold 10 rounds in my gun instead of 15, this makes it so much safer!).
Whats even better is that a) these laws restrict me even though I have not harmed anyone!
and b) if I fail to obey gun laws (such as having 11 rounds in my gun), the police get to send SWAT to come arrest me - with GUNS!
Now, if you want to have a conversation about background checks, and narrow the discussion to that, please lets do so!
While its a pain, I am fine with having a background check done when I buy a gun from a dealer. I am even OK with the idea of doing it for private sales, so you know that the person you are selling to is not a fellow. But here are my concerns!
1) how do you enforce private sale background checks?
2) how would a private citizen even do one? i-phone app? on their home pc? go to a gun store and pay $20 to get them to do it? (TAX).
3) I have heard alot of comments on C-Span about our CURRENT background check system not being properly populated with convicted felon / mentally unstable data. Can we get this system working before we burden it with more queries?
4) how do you get criminals to comply?
5) how does it stop insane kids from murdering their parents and just stealing guns like they sometimes do?
What is the specific target of universal background checks? What criminal element are you trying to reduce and how will universal background checks reduce it?
NoLiberty
One very important reason why your North Korea comment is ridiculous is that we do not live in a totalitarian state. Whatever rules we decide are applicable to gun ownership and use are done through a democratic process by elected representatives. This is the kind of flawed thinking and exaggeration that causes people like me to classify people like you as gun nuts.
You make the same silly criticisms as your fellow gun nuts about suggested gun legislation ..... that any law that won't stop every gun death is useless. If you can't figure out that the intent of universal background checks is to keep guns out of the hands of the people we have decided should not have guns you are entirely hopeless. Those background checks will be done in the manner prescribed by law and if a tax is necessary to get the job done, I am in favor of that tax. Why should the rest of us pay for your guns?
You fail to understand that the guns you feel you need to be safe makes a substantial number of citizens feel unsafe. Those who want to expand conceal carry means that those of us who believe lots of guns in more places carried by people we do not trust to make good decisions feel less safe. We do not agree with the boneheads who believe the solution to the occasional campus shooting justifies allowing students to carry guns on campus. In short, we do';t agree with gun nuts.
Don97524, your comments in italics,
One very important reason why your North Korea comment is ridiculous is that we do not live in a totalitarian state. Whatever rules we decide are applicable to gun ownership and use are done through a democratic process by elected representatives. This is the kind of flawed thinking and exaggeration that causes people like me to classify people like you as gun nuts.
- Go ahead, call me all the names you want, its your Right even if it doesn't further the argument
You make the same silly criticisms as your fellow gun nuts about suggested gun legislation ..... that any law that won't stop every gun death is useless.
- I believe I was trying to point out that a) correct you can't stop all murders b) guns are a small piece of the pie and c) any laws burden non-criminals as well, but I am willing to discuss specific ideas for legislation - as there may be meaningful idea out there!
If you can't figure out that the intent of universal background checks is to keep guns out of the hands of the people we have decided should not have guns you are entirely hopeless.
- I tried to list specifics about how how current non-universal do not do this, and that relying on an "honor system" for private sales is likely to be ineffective. How would you implement Universal background checks? Please tell me your solution! ( I really mean it, I want to know)
Those background checks will be done in the manner prescribed by law and if a tax is necessary to get the job done, I am in favor of that tax. Why should the rest of us pay for your guns?
- Last comment first: you do NOT pay for my guns. For I have never, nor will I ever commit murder with them. First comment: I am personally not a fan of taxes, I like deciding how my hard work gets spent. BUT if you give me a reason to believe Universal background checks will help - some examples for instance maybe? really just SOMETHING other than saying they do like its self evident! then I could change my mind. (I am begging you to use your words to convince me, instead of to attack me)
NoLiberty
I certainly do pay for your right to bear arms. Do you believe that background checks are free? In addition, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that there is more death and more crime and more serious crime because we have so damn many guns in this country. There is a huge cost attached to the right to bear arms and all you nuts do is complain because you can't have more of them with fewer inconveniences and responsibilities.
Don97524,
I think it can be safely said that everyone pays state and federal taxes for services they do not use. So if by "pay" you meant taxes already in effect, I am certain there are services you use, which I pay for.
Your second argument again equates legally owned guns to crime and death and serious crime. Again I take offense because I legally own firearms, and do NOT use them in crime or to kill, I think myself and the ~99% other law abiding gun owners would appreciate it if you do not group us with criminals. By parallel, if you happen to have any drinking alcohol in your house and own a car, I will not go around saying that its because of cars and booze that we have so much darn manslaughter in this country.
I think from my prior postings its clear I am a responsible user of firearms, and I would agree that not everyone follows the code that I do. So what is your solution? You spend the bulk of your posts insulting me, throwing around stereotypes and making general statements that make guns sound like Sauron's One Ring. But you have yet to tell me HOW you wish things to change, specifically!
Let me present an idea to you for legislation,
1) Mandatory "safety class" as part of K-12 schooling. Students learn such things as to how to cross a street properly, swim without drowning, basic first aid/cpr, safe gun handling, preventing electrical shocks, basics of diet and nutrition and cleanliness to avoid spreading illness. The content of the class will scale in detail based on the grade of the students. (preventative)
2) On the current background check form, a box will be added asking "have you taken any formal training in firearm safety", (this is in addition to the schooling they get k-12), regardless of what they check, if they appear at a court hearing because they are the owner of one of the ~900 guns a year which are used to accidentally kill, they will be asked in open court to demonstrate, verbally, gun safety rules. If they fail to do so, a mandatory punishment will be levied against them. (punitive)
3) For any private firearm sale or transfer, the seller is required to ask the buyer for these same firearm safety rules, and may not by law sell or transfer the gun if the rules are not fully articulated by the buyer. (preventative)
I am trying to think of how to enact a private sale version of a background check, without making is to much of a hassle that people would not do it. Do you have any ideas?
Don97524
"Why are you so callous that you would take the opportunity of the death of several people in an auto accident to promote your paranoid feelings about guns?"
Why are the anti-gun groups and anti-gun politicians so callous that they would exploit the Sandy Hook shootings to advance their agenda to ban ALL guns,and/or for political gain?
Sen.Feinstein has had an "Assault weapons" ban in her desk,in one form or another since her and Clinton's '94 AWB was allowed to sunset due to the fact that the difference in gun crimes was so negligible that it was not possible to measure.
Even Josh Sugarman crawled out from whatever rock he has been living under since he coined the use of the term "assault weapon" in modern anti-gun use back when he worked for Handgun Control Inc-when he realized that a handgun ban just wasn't going to happen-as he said,and Sen. Feinstein agrees-"the public is easily confused about the difference between an M-16 and an A-R-15-if it looks like a machine gun-it must be a machine gun"
The media showing photos of a Browning belt-fed .50 cal. machine gun,and calling it a rifle didn't help with the public's confusion either. That is factual information-so you can stop your bullsh*t about paranoid right wing gun nuts etc.
People like Gov. Cuomo have even suggested outright gun confiscation-yet you think gun owners are paranoid?
Stop drinking the far left's Kool-Aid,and the anti-gun Kool-Aid-look at the facts,look what is really going on,not just the lies,half-truths,and obfuscation put out by the anti-gun groups,and politicians-it's not all rainbows and unicorns,despite what the left,and the liberals/progressives believe-there are truly evil people in this world-and you can not legislate evil away-the SCOTUS has ruled that the police have no obligation to protect individual citizens-they are just here to draw the chalk outlines of the bodies,and do the investigation-NOT to protect you-
I choose to use MY guns to protect my wife and children,and my property-that is a RIGHT guaranteed to me by the Constitution-and self defense is a right that has been around ever since people started living in villages,towns,cities-the right to self defense is a right guaranteed to me,as is the right to keep and bear arms-
the "keep and bear arms" part of the 2nd amendment means to keep and bear arms of the type in use by current military and law enforcement-the object is that the citizens have the right to the same arms as the government-with some REASONABLE restrictions-banning so-called "assault weapons" is NOT reasonable-
the root cause of the "gun violence" problem is mentally ill people-let's get better access to mental health care-that is a start.
Lets look at gun laws-Conneticut has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the U.S.-they also had an "assault weapons ban" in effect-Adam Lanza killed his mother-then went to the school and killed the kids he believed in his warped mind that she loved more than him-Mrs. Lanza followed all the gun laws-her son needed mental health care-had he gotten it-this tragedy would have never happened-we do not know if she had the guns properly stored-or if her son killed her to get to the guns. The "assault weapons" ban did NOTHING to prevent this crime-nothing.
Look at Chicago-again,some of the most restrictive gun laws in the U.S.-yet one of the highest rates of gun crimes-most of which are gang-related shootings,yet Chicago still has it's handgun ban in effect,although several courts,including federal district court have ruled that the city must allow handguns,and enact laws for concealed carry-and get the system in place,and start issuing permits within 90 days (that was a couple months back,so the 90 days is almost up)
What's the problem here? The gang-bangers do not get locked up for gun crimes,they keep getting arrested and charged with having weapons under disability-(prior felony conviction)-and the prosecutors do not follow through and lock them up-they just drop the charges in plea bargains.
Make committing a crime with a gun a mandatory 10 year sentence-kill someone with a gun-automatic death penalty-with expedited appeals process-no lounging around in prison watching cable TV for years and years-1 year max for appeals-then it's the needle-electric chair-gas chamber-firing squad-hanging-whatever-1 year to think about what you did-then you get the death penalty imposed.
THAT would stop gun crimes.
By the way-why is it all of the politicians,and anti-gun people want to ban "assault weapons" when the fast is the more people are killed with blunt objects hammers,baseball bats etc. than are killed by ALL types of rifles? Just like Josh Sugarman,and his buddy Sen Feinstein said-if it looks scary-we can ban it-the public will support the ban because they think these are military weapons when if fact they are not-attachments like bayonet lugs,flash suppressors,folding or adjustable stocks make the gun look more scary-so it goes on the list of guns to be banned.
When's the last time there was w rash of killing by bayonet?
You just want to ban guns because the anti-gun people tell you it will stop gun crimes-if that were true-Mexico would be the safest country in the world-private citizens there can only own a gun if they show the government good reason-then if they get approval-they must buy their gun from the ONE SINGLE gun store in the country-owned and operated by the government,open whenever the government feels like opening it-sometimes one day a month.
Larry
You say we exploit ..... I say Sandy Hook is a good example of how assault weapon serve the needs of one of the few groups of people who actually benefit from having an assault weapon - mass murderers. And mass murders would not have assault weapons if they were not demanded by those of you who demand them .... calling yourselves "law abiding citizens" over and over again until the rest of us are tired of hearing the expression.
Mass murders and other criminals have exactly the same kind of weapons as the general public. Criminals no longer have machine guns because it is almost impossible for the general public to have machine guns. Mass murders and other criminals would not have large capacity magazines and assault weapons if the general public (meaning gun nuts) did not demand them. The gun nuts probably did not intend for mass murders and other criminals to have assault weapons and large capacity magazines, but they were not smart enough or did not care enough to realize that mass murderers, drug traffickers, gang bangers, terrorists and other criminals were going to have those guns if they were part of the gun culture in the United States.
Gun nuts have also fought all laws aimed to regulate gun responsibility. Therefore, we continue to have an easy flow of guns from the general population to the criminal world because background checks are weak, licensed gun dealers are under-regulated (and a major source of guns for criminals), straw purchasing laws are weak, the ATF is underfunded and has no permanent chief (for six years).
Criminals have too many guns and too much firepower and the gun nuts of this nation are accomplices in that dangerous and unnecessary situation.
Don97524
I think I need to give up on you, every time I try to steer the direction towards a solution you switch topics. I talk about all aspects of gun control, you insult me and tell me to focus on Universal background checks, I make suggestions about how to enact them, and you switch to "assault weapons" (whatever those are) and standard capacity magazines. I give you example of how I safely own and store my firearm, and you make these blanket statements about criminals buying all their guns from people like me.
I urge you to go back through our posts, and count the number of times you use a stereotyping term against me, or make an assumption about my intent. Then go through my post, and see how many questions I ask you, and how many time I seek your opinion on details about how to lower gun violence - asking for solutions, and providing some example, while you just ignore them.
You are not on here to have a calm conversation and find a possible solution
You are here to blame people like me, Law Abiding Citizen (because in the United States, we believe in innocence until guild is proven, if you don't like that, there are plenty of other countries out there that would love to have you as a citizen) for every death caused by a murderer or other criminal.
No matter how responsible, calm, reasonable and willing to talk I am, you will always hate my existence - your posts have said nothing but this. That is your Right, and no matter how many times you attack mine, I will never lift a hand against yours, because I am an American in name and spirit.
Good day,
NoL
Maybe it would be good for you to pay attention. My "switch" to assault weapons was in response to Starvin'Larry's ignorant statement "Why are the anti-gun groups and anti-gun politicians so callous that they would exploit the Sandy Hook shootings to advance their agenda to ban ALL guns,and/or for political gain?" You could tell that I was addressing Larry because my comment started with "Larry".
One of the main Sandy Hook issues, since Larry brought it up, is assault weapons. My point is that assault weapons are very desirable for mass murderers because they shoot lots of bullets in a short time span, allowing them to kill lots of people. The only reason mass murders have such weapons is that the general population (meaning gun nuts) demand those weapons. If the general population did not have assault weapons and large capacity clips, criminals, including mass murderers would not have them.
Don,
There is no such thing as an assault weapon. What you are talking about are semi-automatic guns (identical in function to the pistols cops carry, or to any hunting rifle that is not single shot) that has "scary looking features" like a pistol grip or a bayonet lug. Service rifles such as used by the military have the capability to be fired fully automatic, along with other "military characteristics" such as the ability to fit an RPG launcher. These features currently ARE restricted from public use. For a semi-auto the only "because they shoot lots of bullets in a short time span" is related to finger velocity of the shooter.
Here is an example of a practiced shotgun marksman using a semi-auto, its a fantastic skill this man has. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L_M8C7GNmI
This is not a fully automatic shotgun, the man is just very experienced at staying on target and pulling the trigger.
Now sure, I will grant that so called "assault" rifles have some pretty grip or a red dot scope or a laser beam which can make hip fire a bit easier, but trust me, this assistance is marginal at best and still requires good shooting discipline. Despite all these touted "amazing aids", most of these mass murders miss more than they hit (source http://www.nycrimecommission.org/initiative1-shootings.php) - thank god they don't practice more!
And, not all of these mass shootings are committed with a rifle! pistols are used as well!
There is also this "high capacity clip" issue, which is really a factory capacity clip. The use of "high" is a subjective number. But sure, I will agree that less bullets in the gun make you reload faster. But with multiple clips, revolver speed loaders, and a little practice, these challenges are totally mitigated!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAFxgQmxbGI (some annoying music in that one)
So sure, we can ban magazines over 10 rounds, but why not ban them over 9, or 5, or ban anything but single shot? If you argument that less bullets means less dead, then lets ban it all! If going from 15 rounds to 10 rounds saves a single life, then doesn't this mean going to 5 rounds saves two lives? Why are you choosing 10 rounds? Some faithfulness to the metric system? Exactly what is the magic behind 10?
So I have discussed background checks - you have not replied, will you?
Now I have some arguments about the use of the term "assault" rifle, do you have a reply for this?
Any justification on the specific 10 round limit?
NoL
I am talking about guns that shoot lots of bullets in a short time span. Gun nuts are fond of criticizing non-gun nuts for misuse of gun jargon. I'm guilty of misusing gun jargon because I am not a gun nut. But I think we both understand that the same characteristic we didn't like about machine guns is the same thing we don't like about what I (maybe mistakenly) call assault weapons ...... they fire lots of bullets in a short time span.
High capacity clips are a problem for the same reason. Personally, I think 10 is too many ..... others disagree.
I am not qualified to discuss the details of background checks, but I do know that in order to teach school I was subject to a background check for which I paid $50, and did not complain about the cost. I know that when I sell my car to someone else that has to be reported. The technology exists. I am not the best person to decide how it gets done, but as a citizen I have a right to expect an effective system.
Don,
To your last point first, maybe neither of us are qualified to discuss details about background checks, but why don't we try to figure out something that makes sense? We don't need lawyers to type for us if we are trying to make "common sense" choices. I really DO want to hear your opinions! I have had background checks myself, and am fine doing them to buy guns (all the guns I have ever purchased were done with a background check).
To your first point, I am trying to respectfully point out that there are 3 types of guns.
Single shot: you need to manually load a bullet everytime you pull the trigger
Semi-automatic: the gun will continue to shoot 1 bullet for every trigger pull until the magazine is empty
Automatic: the gun will continue to shoot bullets with the trigger held down, until the magazine is empty
Each have various factors influencing the speed by which they shoot. Single shot is purely based on how fast you are at reloading the gun. Semi-auto is based on how fast you can move your finger, until the mag is empty. Semi-auto is based only on the speed of the gun cycling, until the mag is empty.
Therefore, the "guns that shoot alot of bullets in a short time span" like machine guns (which are automatic) ARE automatics, which are currently very very RESTRICTED.
So called "assault" rifles are guns which have cosmetic features which do not alter the above definitions of speed.
As for magazine capacity, how many bullets do you think is ok?
reading about this on cnn, article says it 'appears' that no one was wearing a seat belt.
That would explain the high death toll.
bus driver,Not wearing seatbelts makes this makes their deaths even more senseless although there wouldn't have been enough to go around.
Many states have restricted the number of teens in a vehicle when operated by a young driver. Maybe we should further restrict the number of young folk in any one vehicle with no adults? So very sad, the loss of so many youths! When you get a large number of young people in one car, inattentive driving always rears it's ugly head!
As sad as this is, these are teaching moments for our kids. They just don't think like adults but yet have the power to drive a deadly machine. I'm for not allowing children under 17 drive without a licensed adult, as their brains are not fully developed yet.
Actually it was already restricted to the number of seatbelts in the vehicle, and that did not stop them.
I agree that the requirement for getting a driving license are really well below what I'd like to see.
I agree Woodsy. However, I don't think a law would have prevented this since they weren't stopped by police before the accident - if they had been, we probably wouldn't be reading this article right now. Some people have no sense of limits or common sense. In Michigan there are restrictions on a teenagers license, including one that pertains to occupancy and curfew.
I feel terrible for all families involved. I hope they can eventually find peace, somehow.
whether they werent wearing a seat belt, or if they were texting, or suv,s arent safe vehicles, ect, these young kids wont be back and thats the sad thing. I think about my two kids everyday having an accident and they dont come home. One thinks hes a race car driver and really needs to be on a race track instead of these streets, but to get that call or someone knocking on your front door, I dont know if I could answer it. Many prayers go out to all these families.
tlc,sacramento,ca.,your one child who thinks that he is a race car driver should have his car keys revoked by you his parent so that you do not get one of these horrible phone calls.My mother worked for the DMV and you bet that all five of her kids drove safely or else we'd be walking.
How sad this is. There is little information in the article so that we don't know the ages of the 2 survivors. Maybe one of them is an adult and the driver. So many here assume the driver was a teen and he/she was texting. I see no information like that here.
All were and are teenagers. They overloaded the vehicle, the driver exceeded his ability and 6 people are dead. It never ends because teens are so completely stupid. They think mothing will ever happen and rules are only to be broken...
So very difficult for the families and friends involved. Hard to imagine how a small town will cope with such a loss (and probably an unnecessary one, at that). Our condolences to all.
Wish there were safety classes or something required when SUVs are licensed. People don't seem to understand they just don't handle like most cars. Most accidents here in southern AZ involve SUVs (w/occupants NOT wearing seatbelts). And why aren't all states mandating maximum of one passenger in cars driven by teens. That really seems to help in other states. This is IMPORTANT, legislators.
And why were eight people piled into a car that only seats five?
are you sure Ohio doesn't have a teen occupant maximum? either way teens don't follow those rules anyway, and in this case they may have been doing something fishy anyway
The news is now saying the driver was 19, so those provisional licenses wouldn't be at play in this situation, even if Ohio has them.
Don't tell the federal government about this, they'll bump the minimum driving age to 40.
Moronic statement. But thanks for playing anyway, Jim.
Please don't make fun of little Jimmy. His parents only let him use the computer when he doesn't soil himself, which is so rare that it is a treat for him. He doesn't get out of his dog cage very often, and even then, they keep him on a really short leash so he doesn't bite his siblings or the postman.
Kids that age are sometimes slow learners. They think they are immortal. Early Sunday morning also usually means that alcohol was involved.
Tragic for the parents of the dead.
The crash occurred at 0715. I doubt that alcohol was involved.
We must ban SUVs. Especially those that carry teenagers. SUVs kill too many people each year. Also, if the authorities find that texting or cell phone use was the cause...we need to ban cell phone also. It the cause was a wet road, then we need to ban wet roads as well.
.
We need to ban stale comments. Say something fresh, Chris; your right to be stale has just been infringed upon.
The word is REGULATE. No one is trying to ban anything. Jeez, you can't have an adult conversation with a gun nut, can you? Banning wet roads is the dumbest thing I heard of, but regulating the tire industry so that they produce tires that handle well on wet roads, does make sense. Can any of you gun nuts tell the difference between regulate and ban? I guess not.
Well, gee I don't know. Why don't we ask Dianne Feinstein?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blXkl9YVoHo
I hate to reply to stupid, but maybe Chris can tell us how many people die in automobiles because the driver intentionally wants to kill someone, vs how many people are killed by guns because the person with the gun wants to kill someone.
Wow, yet another unrelated thread taken over by gun nuts. Yes, that's NUTS. This article is not about guns, the second amendment, whether you should have firepower equal to the feds or anything. Yet they are here, and they hijack the conversation. If you want to know why you are a nutcase, look at your post above.
Grieve the loss of the teens, but please ignore the a$$wipes that think this is about taking their guns, they do not deserve comment.
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/25/17089961-deaths-among-beginning-drivers-on-the-increase-research-shows?lite
Wheres the outcry? Oh, they didn't use a gun. So that makes it okay as far as morons are concerned. After all, it was spread out over 6 months. Carry on.
Bo Hica,Great post.The gun politics on every thread is wearing a little thin in my opinion.
@ The Lazaro, how many of those beginning drivers intentionall wanted to kill someone or themselves? How many people with guns intentionally wanted to kill someone or themselves. You have about 20,000 intentional deaths by handguns, and hardly a dozen intentional deaths by automobile, if that.
1. How old is/was the driver and how long had he had his license? Do the laws in Ohio allow a driver of that age (whatever it was) and with his driving experience carry that many passengers?
2. Were any of the people in the vehicle wearing seat belts?
3. Did those who died die from impact or from drowning?
Okay, here we go:
http://www.wkbn.com/content/news/communitynews/warren/story/UPDATE-6-Dead-2-Injured-in-Warren-Crash/0uFCT73wuEeHBgV_0GCtiQ.cspx
Five victims were removed from inside the SUV. A sixth victim was ejected and was located under the vehicle. Two of the victims died at the hospital from trauma related to hypothermic drowning. No one was wearing a seat belt.
STUPID, STUPID, STUPID! Wear your seat belts, people!
I'd like to know what the driver was doing when he hit the rail. Were the teens screwing around? Was he texting, looking at passengers in the back seat, changing a CD?????
ALSO, this vehicle can only seat FIVE people! What the heck were they thinking piling eight in that car? If the driver is one of the ones who survived, I hope he is charged with vehicular manslaughter.
The driver's sister (from the link posted above):
"She was loving. She was silly, and she was a clown. She liked to make everybody laugh even when we were sad," said Cayson.
I hope she wasn't screwing around while driving. There's a time and a place for silliness and clowning around.
My condolences to the families of these children. To the two that survived this horrible accident, your road to recovery will be difficult; at times it will seem impossible , but keep on keeping on because you were meant to be here. You and the families are in my prayers.
I drive the highways(90,490,71,422,480) 2 x daily and people need to understand what speed limit means. If the speed limit is 60mph, that is the LIMIT, not the minimum. If state troopers were more visible or even if they erect those digital speed signs that you sometimes see on the highway, I believe accidents would decrease because I see people slow down when these are present.
Ellen56,Better parenting by not allowing your young teens to be a passenger in an automobile driven by another teen would stop these type of deaths.Our tax dollars do not need to be spent educating drivers,young or old when the DMV tests in each state tells people what a speed limit sign means.
Ban cars because they kill people.
I feel terribly about this tragic loss of life but don't blame any item that causes death because of the person operating it. Yes guns do have insane people behind them when used for taking lives but is it any different then a drunk driver? Guns don't kill people . People kill people. Just like cars don't kill people but insane drunk drivers kill people.
Pray for these young lost lives.
Sorry, but why? What possible good will "praying for these young lost lives" do? First, they're dead, so I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by praying at this point. Second, pray to which imaginary god? You didn't specify, but I can assure you, it won't matter because the prayers will be equally useless.
I know it sounds callous, but it's no more so that these empty "praying for the victims" post that are just useless and self-serving.
The rest of your post was just as stupid and pointless as the last sentence, by the way.
-Think.....(what a misnomer!)
The rest of your post was just as stupid and pointless as the last sentence, by the way.
240 Teenagers 16 and 17 years old were killed between January and June of 2012. Texting and talking on cell phones was responsible. Might as well blame the NRA. After all we only focus on guns. That is because the worthless Parents are just as guilty. Texting and talking and driving. So we only need to focus on Guns. Their will be little outcry over this. Only Newtown. After all that is different. 28 were killed all at once, so it doesn't matter if its spread out over 6 months. We can ignore that. The illiterate cell phone users will keep a low profile. They will be the first ones screaming about the NRA, all while driving, texting, and talking on cell phones. What did they think their kids would do when they get behind the wheel. I have no sympathy.
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/25/17089961-deaths-among-beginning-drivers-on-the-increase-research-shows?lite
such a tragedy; my sympathies to the families
Very sad story.
Whatever is found to be responsible for killing this 6 teens - should be made illegal. If it was not legal - these children would not have died.
If it only saves 1 life - it will be worth it
Probably The NRA's fault. They control cell phones. Just ask the Gun Banners.
The Lazaro
Another irrational gun nut comment. You do your cause no good when you demonstrate such illogical and biased thinking.
It's a clear example of someone being obsessed.
Every news article revolve around guns, every person on the left want to ban gun, every issue has to be compared to guns, and every article that does not involve guns is a conspiracy to downplay the usefulness of guns, guns guns guns guns.
Crowded SUV, early morning driving (when there could be mist, fog, weary drivers and maybe morning Church traffic), roads not always well maintained and speeding.
Mmmm...when will they learn...when will they ever learn?
Condolences to the family...I notice I have been sending a lot of those lately.
that's way too many people in a car like that. It comfortably seats 4.
Just more young people that learned too late.
discouragedinMI,It's another example of young people who didn't learn at all otherwise they wouldn't have crowded eight into a vehicle meant for five with a 19 year old behind the wheel.