You don't need a permit to transport a gun you own across state lines. You only have to make sure the gun you transport is not illegal in the state you are traveling through and stowed in accordance with the laws of each state you are driving through.

If it was in a zippered or locked case and unloaded he probably did not break any laws. Just stop and think of the whole story please everyone. Whole family living in more than likely a double bed at best one room hotel/motel trying to make ends meet. Who knows what part of town they were in, obviously he felt the need to have a handgun at the ready, he got careless or was tired and lost a child.

@stonepipe2:

You're so right! We should just let this guy go, no criminal charges, no personal accountability, just "Sorry to hear that you shot your baby dead. Try to be more careful next time, ya hear?"

NOT!

Sad

No J.P. it is called compassion. What the hell kind of punishment are you going to meter out that will equal just breathing air for the next 40 years?

The story says he was in town for a construction project. Sounds as if he traveled to keep making ends meet.

Maybe that's why he was packing heat. He was most likely in different parts of the Country many times a year and needed it for protection however, it seems he needed to protect himself, "from" himself....

"...across state lines..."

That's what annoys responsible owners. There isn't one standard and owners have to dig through the 'gotchas' of every state. He's not in immediate jeopardy because some states do have reciprocity agreements. This is all something that car operators, for instance, aren't forced to face.

jesus christ, what a story!

Yeah I know. It's the media's fault, or guns don't kill people do. You know the gun couldn't have had anything to do with it.

Three babies under the age of 3 and daddy playing with guns. He needs to be playing with condoms.

Please don't let the mother already have another one in the oven.

CD - enjoy reading your posts. You appear to have your facts before you post. Condolences to the Texas family. RIP little baby....

Annie jesus christ, what a story!

Its to late for jesus christ to help anyone now.

FYI: The number of firearm deaths now exceeds auto accident deaths in states like Arizona, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Michigan, Nevada and Oregon..the rate is equal in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

People often relate auto fatalities to gun fatailities. (Guns are made for killing, yet autos are made for transporting...go figure. No different than comparing a banana to sheet of paper. Both are irrelevent.) Deaths from accidental discharges of guns dropped from 824 in 1999 to 600 in 2009. Firearm homicides rose from 10,828 in 1999 to 11,493 in 2009, a 6% increase. In 1999, 87 people intentionally killed themselves through car accidents; the number increased to 104 in 2009, according to the CDC. In 2004, there were 11,624 gun homicides -- up from 10,828 in 1999. When the assault rifle ban ended, the numbers shot up to 12,632 in 2007 before slowly coming back down to 11,098 in 2010. The CDC found that vehicle deaths dropped by 21% from 1968 to 1991, while firearms deaths increased by 60%. In 1990, the number of firearms deaths was equal or higher than vehicle deaths in five states, and in seven states in 1991. In 2011, traffic deaths fell 2% to 32,367 from the previous year, making traffic deaths in 2011 at the lowest level since 1949 -- and a 26% decline since 2005, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. However, the first nine months of 2012 showed an increase of 7% in traffic fatalities over the same period a year earlier. Though officials have not conjectured about the increase, 2011 numbers show that fatalities were up 20% for large truck occupants, 9% for bicyclists, 3% for pedestrians and 2% for motorcyclists. Distracted-driving fatalities also increased by 2% in 2011.

Research is meant to prove a point, good or bad. It does not mean someone is against something they do research on. The outcome can be just the opposite of what they expected. A good example, while studying for my second bachelor's degree I decide to do some focus papers on Walmart. I always admired them as a growing Corporation. Well, all that research has turned my perception around about Walmart...I no longer praise Walmart, nor do I view them as an American Icon.

G White, thank you.

Your post is a perfect example of gun-aphobia and ignorance of the truth.

Why does the right to own a gun trump anyone's right to live - to walk down a street, to get diapers changed, to sit in your own living room and watch TV, to walk across a street, to watch a movie, to go to school, to buy some apples, to eat in a cafe, to kiss a friend in the park, to ride a bicycle, to open a door, to drink a glass of orange juice, to look out of your own window, to breathe....

Why turn the 2nd amendment into a father's right to shoot his own son?

Why do you people not see that no one is even trying to take your guns away?

We cannot stop the epidemic of slaughters with a domestic arms race.

AnIndividual,

The right to bear arms does not "trump anyone's right to live," etc. nor does it imply a father's right to shoot his own son.

@ The foreign interloper AnIndividual,

Why does the right to own a gun trump anyone's right to live....

Why turn the 2nd amendment into a father's right to shoot his own son?

What planet (foreign country) are you on? Because if you were an American Citizen you'd know that none of what you asked makes any sense because you'd squarely know they don't you dolt with an agenda!

We cannot stop the epidemic of slaughters with a domestic arms race.

But you and your buddies already know that don't you interlopers? Stir up the pot, that's your mantra, millions of Americans live day to day lives without even the slightest fear of being shot; but you live to have readers questioning that fact, you fear mongering scum of the earth.

Why do you people not see that no one is even trying to take your guns away?

Liars, your foreign agenda is clear, concise, and ever present! Why don't you see that we do not believe you and your comrades? Remember Tokyo Rose from WWII, your rants are a page right out of her crafted scripts, she was a heinous liar too!

Happy fear mongering dishonest interloper trolling!

@ Smitty the atheist foreign interloper,

Its to late for jesus christ to help anyone now.

Only believers get that benefit and Jesus loved innocent children more than anyone else. Believe what you choose to and reap what comes of it interloper. He would even forgive you if you gave him the chance; we all here know how that 'll go though.

Happy no Jesus having interloper trolling!

My thoughts exactly stonepipe. These extended stay faciliteis serve a great purpose for transient workers, but they also attract many questionable inhabitants. The gun was for his family's protection.

@ The foreign interloper cheetah,

"...across state lines..."

That's what annoys responsible owners. There isn't one standard and owners have to dig through the 'gotchas' of every state. He's not in immediate jeopardy because some states do have reciprocity agreements. This is all something that car operators, for instance, aren't forced to face.

Like you're a responsible owner of either a car or a gun, HA HA HA......that's rich. What a lame comparison, again with the vehicle (a privilege) and the firearm (a right). By the way interloper, if you move to, and live anywhere long enough, cars too becomes a quagmire of registration and licensing fees; something you'd already know if you were an American citizen, which you're not, HA HA HA.....!

Happy no car or gun having interloper trolling!

What a tragedy, I feel for these parents and they have my sympathies, and condolences.

I have posted this on other vines, but it seem appropriate here.

Unless otherwise noted, statistics in this fact sheet are taken from Child Maltreatment 2010 and refer to the Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2010 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2011). According to data from the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS), 51 States reported a total of 1,537 fatalities. Based on these data, a nationally estimated 1,560 children died from abuse and neglect in 2010. [www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/fatality.cfm]

More children die in a month from abuse, and neglect, mostly at the hands of those on welfare and drugs than by guns in a whole year.

Yet you people scream "Ban the Guns, Ban the Guns". And my guess is less than fifty people(and except for the rare instances, such Sandy Hook, zero children) are killed each year with a so called "Assault Weapon", yet this is what you go after?

So, all you commy, dope smoking, hippy, Liberals who want to save children's live, Why don't we start by making it easier, and more permanent to remove children from irresponsible parents? Like those women who spread their legs for any loser to come along, knock em up, and collect welfare? Kansas just passed a bill the requires drug testing of those on welfare, guess what, The Commie Liberal Dumbocrats in the state went Bat $#!* Crazy over it, saying it violated some Right or another. And I am thinking, "You are living in my house, under my roof"(so to speak), "You will abide by my rules, if you don't like it, get your own house".(i.e. you can pay your own way)

[usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/04/17181047-4-year-old-son-of-michigan-sheriffs-deputy-accidentally-shoots-and-kills-himself]

You can see the rest of my comments here, very similar story. And according to the statistics we can expect about 20 stories like these a years. (And out of 60 to 80 million gun owners, I would say that is a 'nothing' statistically speaking)

To all you lame a$$ liberals, show a little respect to the family. I am sure this man is grieving. I thought liberals were supposed to be the compassionate ones in this country, (Or at least you are always telling me you are) I guess your true colors are showing. What a bunch of lousy low life hypocrites. You people well and truly suck scum covered pond water.

Great post, FB.

stonepipe2

Who knows what part of town they were in

I do, they were in the Donelson area of Nashville. I live on the opposite side of the airport from them. Donelson is OK. Quite a bit nicer than my area.

I saw this on the local news last night. Not at all surprised it went national. I couldn't (and still can't) imagine how this scenario would've played out.

For those of you wanting actual figures on firearms fatalities, do your research.

Julieann has carefully cherry-picked the numbers she has posted above.

Firearms homicides peaked in the US in 1993 at about 17,000. Since then, they have fallen to levels low as 1962. This despite the fact that the number of firearms, and firearms ownership has increased.

DOJ/FBI Uniform Crime Report is released annually and may be accessed online.

Farm Boy....

I enjoy reading your thought out honest posts. Thanks for your input and have a nice weekend.

stonepipe, you have a nice weekend as well....

This is NOT a liberal versus conservative issue. This is a firearms safety issue. The NRA is doing a very poor job at encouraging safety but a very good job a encouraging sales, hysteria and false information.

Back at ya, CD.

NiteOwlett - you hit the nail in the bulls eye. Agree with you totally. I see more propaganda from the NRA than I do on firearm safety.

Accidents happen - unfortunately when they are fatal and involve an innocent child its just sad.

If your thoughts are not with the family and the poor toddler that did not get to see his first birthday then I don't really know what to say...... although I think you all are spewing out non positive vibes just to get an optimal reaction.

Liberals are the ones with compassion - you just got a few icky opportunists on this list today.

ZeivahFly: My heart ached when I read this headline. I cannot imagine how that father feels about now. I pray for them to be strong and stick together for the benefit of all of their children. This kind of thing can break up a family.

@ Niteowlett - Not true. The NRA has extensive safety training programs. You don't know about them because the media is only interested in demonizing them. They will never point out the good they do.

"Smitty-4183671

Annie jesus christ, what a story!

Its to late for jesus christ to help anyone now."

Really? Must have read a different story. The one I read only ONE person was dead.

@ Creek Dog

Farm Boy....

I enjoy reading your thought out honest posts. Thanks for your input and have a nice weekend.

stonepipe, you have a nice weekend as well....

#2.26

After coming back and rereading it though it does sound a bit over the top. My apologies to all. I am just getting sick and tired of repeating myself to those who seem incapable of understanding simple logic. It is like my brother says, "Nobody listens, until you start shouting."

You have a good weekend too and thanks for the compliment.

the family, from Texas, was at the Extended Stay America hotel near Nashville International Airport

Pretty much says it all. I had to travel for work. The company I worked for started having financial problems and got cheap on the hotels we were booked into. I had to stay at a Extended Stay in Minnesota. The cops were there every night arresting someone or breaking up domestic fights. The room I had at first had a bad ant problem so I made them give me another. After I week of it I called corporate headquarters and told them move me or I quit. I got booked into a much better hotel.

i like the way some of you feel sorry for the dad. who the hell cares how he feels! he got his 2nd admendment right and son lost his life ,who had no control of a idiot with a gun. I THINK they should put his ass under jail. I DONT know how many more kids have to die because of some idiot accident . before some of you get on your little high horse thinking i am advocating gun ban get over your selves thats not the case if you say its your right to carry or own its my right to demand you accept responsibilty for ever happens these weapons no matter what. Like i said before criminals are not the only killing with guns and if you dont want to accept the responsibility you dont have that right any longer. because if one of you so called law abiding citizen guns kill one of my family by accident or you are standing your ground thats the same ground they will lay you to rest as simple as that i will exercise my right thats also mean a school where you go a dumb as state like south dakota allowing teachers to carry guns, they might have all this education but thier a thing such as a educated idiot. just be ready when someone kids gets killed saying uh uh my bag just want do i no it want for me thats not a threat. a threat. mostteachers do a excellent job of teaching but they are not trained law enforcement. oh thats right ann couter said gun killing only happen in minority neighbor hoods, some of you believe this pea brained racist piece of trash. guns do not discriminate, racist people and idiots do the U.S are full of them. ALONG WITH GUN OWNERSHIP COME RESPONSIBILTY some are very responsible others should not own a water pistol.

You cannot cure stupid.

@ Leodis Green

i like the way some of you feel sorry for the dad. who the hell cares how he feels! he got (has) his 2nd admendment right and (the or his) son lost his life ,who had no control of a idiot with a gun. I THINK they should put his ass under jail. I DONT know how many more kids have to die because of some idiot accident . before some of you get on your little high horse thinking i am advocating gun ban get over your selves thats not the case if you say its your right to carry or own its my right to demand you accept responsibilty for ever happens these weapons no matter what. Like i said before criminals are not the only (ones) killing with guns and if you dont want to accept the responsibility you dont have that right any longer. because if one of you so called law abiding citizen guns kill one of my family by accident or you are standing your ground thats the same ground they will lay you to rest as simple as that i will exercise my right thats also mean a school where you go a dumb as state like south dakota allowing teachers to carry guns, they might have all this education but thier (there is such) a thing such as a educated idiot. just be ready when someone kids gets killed saying uh uh my bag just want do i no it want for me thats not a threat. a threat. mostteachers do a excellent job of teaching but they are not trained law enforcement. oh thats right ann couter said gun killing only happen in minority neighbor hoods, some of you believe this pea brained racist piece of trash. guns do not discriminate, racist people and idiots do the U.S are full of them. ALONG WITH GUN OWNERSHIP COME RESPONSIBILTY some are very responsible others should not own a water pistol.

#2.35

Just exactly what would have been your response if the kid had drowned in the swimming pool? Or some other accident had befallen the poor little chap? Or did you read my post at 2.22?

And turn your spell checker on, and learn to use the apostrophe for contractions. (I don't normally pull a "Grammar Nazi" on people, but damn, a lot of this post makes no sense)

Talk about educated idiots, of course that is assuming you are educated. And bigoted much? To stand on your soap box and berate a whole state's inhabitants as "dumb as(s?)" or "educated idiots". Then the hypocrisy shows up when you accuse others of being racist. I'll also take a shot in the dark here and guess that you are African American and can no way be racist, right?

I never heard Ann Coulter's quote "gun killing only happen in minority neighbor hoods", but my guess is she said "MOST 'gun killings' happen in minority neighborhoods", a common problem among Liberals is reading comprehension. And if you look at the data, this is in fact a true statement.

This comment comes in response to a comment made about the gun trafficking into Chicago from surrounding states: "If guns coming from other states cause the high crime in Chicago then why do all but one state have lower crime rates."

according to www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html

VIOLENT CRIMES 1 PER 100,000 POPULATION -- 2006 from lowest to highest.

Kentucky is ranked 40th, Wisconsin is 33rd, Iowa is 32nd, Indiana is 29th, (notice the huge jump) Illinois is ranked 13th (542/100k), and Missouri is ranked 12th (by a difference of only 9/100,00)

DC is (not ranked among the states) at 1508/100k, Maine is ranked 50th at 116/100k.

As an interesting side note, the ten states with the least violent crime, also have the lowest percentage population of minorities. I only bring this up, because so many of you try to compare the gun laws in Europe and Australia to the US. And what do the these 10 states have in common with Europe and Australia? A low percentage population of minorities.

If we are going to make comparative analysis of gun laws, then we need to include countries that reflect our population as well. And we need to include countries from Central America, Africa and else where.

You should know then too, that of the top ten most violent states, 8 of them have the highest percentage populations of minorities. Not making this stuff up. Just doing Google searches, and reporting the findings. Oh I know, I am a bigoted, racist homophobe just for pointing it out.

And if a teacher can be trained to be a teacher, can they not also be trained to be a security guard. Or at least trained enough to safely handle a gun. The trouble here is that South Dakota has one of the lowest crime rates in the nation, why do they need to let teachers carry guns in schools? Maybe that is one of the reasons they have such a low crime rate, they let people carry guns.

But since you have never had an accident, I will let you continue to throw stones.

No, Dennis, you surely can not. And there seems to be a great deal of it in this country these days.

I believe in the 2nd amendment. Not NRA believe, but rather, the militia against too much government believe.

That said, I think you need to be capable of being in a militia and therefore needing a modicum of intelligence. Perhaps a psych eval and IQ test should precede a gun license.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Well Regulated Militia. The first use of such a militia was by President Washington during the Whiskey Rebellion. Conscripted militiamen were ordered to show up with their own guns to put down a rebellion against the government. This is why guns are a right. Not to fight against the government, but rather to fight for it.

You know what leodis freakin green, accidents happen! I can't imagine any worse punishment than losing your child at the hands of yourself. It happens!

I can't imagine the horror of having this accident enter into the lives of my family, and I can only feel compasion for this man. he was obviously a family man who was trying to do good for his wife and children. Accidents like this DO happen. For those of you who don't have the depth in your soul to find a nugget of compassion for this man and his family at a time like this, I FERVENTLY HOPE you ALL fry in the hottest depths of hell. You should all take a good long at yourselves in the mirror and then go drown yourselves. Nothing but a bunch of self righteous a-holes.

My prayers are with this man that he might find gods love and some peace somewhere. I pray that his wife can get beyond this to still maintain a strong family and that his children do not have long lasting problems from this unfortunate accident.

On another note, I wonder when this ACTUALLY happened. There is no date of reference for this article. The reason I say that is because the related articles share a story that happened to a policeman over a year ago. Is this possibly a rehash designed to generate more support for the anti gun freaks at a time when support is so low?

yes, accidents happen. Like accidentaly dropping buttered toast on your kid's forehead. That's an accident. Accidentally SHOOTING someone means that several things had to happen before the accident. he had to load the weapon. he had to have it pointed at the child, and he had to, in some way, pull the trigger. negligence is the word that comes to my mind.

You are soooo right. Negligence not an accident.

This is a most unfortunate set of events, but to call this an accident is ridiculous. A bolt of lightning hitting a tree and killing someone is an accident. A father who cannot operate a gun safely especially in front of his whole family is just plain stupid and negligent. This fool doesn't need to be incarcerated but he needs to feel the pain that he has caused every day of his miserable life. Holding his hand and saying "there there" isn't going to bring that baby back.

This creature represents why the gun control advocates are probably going to get their own way eventually because no one wants to take responsibility for anything and prefer to call it an "accident"

Gun controls don't work by the way, its the culture of the people who own them.

This why all states should require background checks, plus gun safety courses for people who purchase firearms (IQ testing might be a considered as well). People are not born knowing about guns and gun safety, all states require some kind of testing prior to giving people licenses to drive.... does this mean that these kinds of stupid "accidents" will stop? Of course not, but if it helps prevent even 1%, it would be well worth it!!!

Now there. You see if this 10 month old had a gun, OH. I guess it does not matter now.

My bad.

You're right, the type of gun is irrelevant. All guns should be banned, regardless of the type.

So you see, guns should not only be kept out of the hands of the mentally challenged, but also out of the hands of stupid people. I can't count the number of times I have been in a gun shop only to have the guy to my side point the muzzle of a gun at me. When I tell him not to do that I get, "Whats your problem its empty." Yeah right. Like the time some old kids were loading revolvers with live rounds at a gun show. To the well trained a gun is NEVER empty. And "Your honor, I did not the gun was loaded." is never a defense the court will buy.

Jennifer is right, there is absolutely no need to mention "semi-automatic" in the description. It jumped right out at me when I was reading the article. Of course the average, bed-wetting anti-gun person buys into the utter cr@p about semi-automatic firearms having the capability to "spray bullets", so that's why they threw it in there. Nothing like generating more hysteria among an already willfully uninformed group. Sheesh.

Oh, and perhaps we should outlaw snow-plows as well. Back in December in Wisconsin, a man was plowing his driveway after heavy snow, his 4-year-old son had made a "snow fort" close to where his father was working, and the father was aware of it. Long story short, the father accidentally ran over the child, killing him. Funny how stories like that, as common as they are, don't garner anything close to the headlines anything pertaining to firearms do. More propaganda from those who want to control -- everything.

Accidents happen. This is an absolute tragedy, no question about it. The father was utterly careless in handling his firearm, YES. But here is the reality; human beings do careless, stupid things. That is exactly what happened here. May be first one posting a comment here who is perfect raise his/her hand... yep, just what I thought. Crickets.

jennifer, revolvers are pistols too. this is simply to signify a clip loading gun. all guns should be regulated and have required training that is normally only required if you're trying to get a concealed carry and they should require even more training for a concealed carry permit.

Foxy you are wrong about a gun not being a toy !! They are actually an adult dangerous toy and rarely they are actually needed for anything but something to play with.

Jennifer,

Umm, the media "has" to have an opinion or it wouldn't be news. Right?!

Hater,

Hmmmm, one of your more rational posts.

Ron46,

"Very" good post. I was at a dude ranch with my wife a few yrs back and this guy put a loaded 12 gauge down on a bench with the barrel facing my wife and I at the range.

I asked him to place it in the gun rack (pointing the barrel upwards) where it belonged and his reply was, "Don't worry, the safety is on".

I mean, what a totally moronic thing to say. I mentioned it to the instructor who immediately grabbed the gun, emptied all the shells and gave the guy a rash of @!$%# telling him if he can't live by the rules, to leave and never come back. Fk'n moron....

Creek.

When I said the NRA needs to get out of gun sales I was talking about the Lobbyist's as you know.

I have never said anybody should not own a gun. I have owned many guns in my life. I don't care if any gun I had is regulated, I really think registration and background checks would help the gun death problem we have. You are right it is my choice to own a gun. It is also a responsibility to use it safely.

"When it comes to guns, the United
States is exceptional. The U.S. has the highest civilian gun ownership rate in
the world, with 89 guns per 100 people, according to the Geneva-based Small
Arms Survey."

With that many gun owners, how can it be safe? We do need tougher laws! We don't live in the Wild West anymore, people.

me steady All idiots should be banned.................

Then your than the first to go!

justhefax-2437807:

Yeh, I've heard of the so called Geneva Small Arms Survey. Thats the one that takes into account all firearms manufactured in the US since the Civil War, & only now excludes those purchased by our military & others exported.

Grandpa posted:

It is also a responsibility to use (a gun) safely.

I would like to see posters to that effect put up at gun counters at Wal-Mart, Fred Meyer, Bi-Mart, and other places were guns and ammo are sold. How ever, I'm sure that there are those who would howl that the statement on the poster is evil and against their own personal bill of rights.

How about all idiots should be banned from owning guns? I think an IQ test and a psychological exam should be given to anyone wanting to own and/or carry a firearms. I mean they make you take a test to see if you are competent to drive, yet any idiot can buy a gun and as in the case of Wyoming, carry it around loaded, without a permit.

Here are some sample questions that should be given to those wishing to own a gun.

1. Have you ever verbally or in writing (such as on Newsvine) threatened to shoot someone of another race, religion or political persausion? If so NO GUN FOR YOU!

2. Have you ever threatened to shoot someone for belittling or humiliating you in front of others? if so, NO GUN FOR YOU!

3. Have you ever threatened to shoot someone if you caught them sleeping with your wife or girlfriend? if so, NO GUN FOR YOU!

4. Do you enjoy torturing and killing animals for fun? If so, NO GUN FOR YOU!

5. Have you ever played with a loaded gun around your infant? if so, NO GUN FOR YOU!

6. Are you so paranoid that you feel the need to carry a loaded firearm with you where ever you go? if so, NO GUN FOR YOU!

7. Do you think "a well regulated militia" means you have the right to take up arms against your own government simply because the opposing party won the election? if so, then NO GUN FOR YOU!

8. Do you watch Fox News? Do you believe President Obama is a secret muslim sleeper agent from Kenya bent on destroying America? Do you think the South should have won the civil war? Do you have any Swaztikas tatooed on your body? if so THEN NO GUN FOR YOU!

And no soup for you!

Ah you caught the "soup nazi" refernece! You may own a gun then!

Well I am off to check on the boys to make sure they are actually earning the $45/hour that we so kindly pay them for overtime. I will answer the hate-mail from Fox-bots when I return to my office.

deprogrammer, I think similar exams should be given prior to allowing people to have kids or vote too. Hell, more damage is done in peoples lives by unprepared ignorant people reproducing than guns will ever cause.

in the middle: I agree but the potential for abuse of a system like that is extreme, we know this because our government has already abused it with the indigenous peoples of this nation and the freed slaves. Perhaps instead we should make sure we have a well educated population and all forms of propaganda that distort the truth should be outlawed. If everyone recieved the same well rounded education that was based on truth (not on fairytales) and everyone has access to valid sources of news and information that were based on truth and not propaganda, then maybe a test to have children, vote, and/or own a firearm would not be necessary.

Grandpa,

Received.

Have a good weekend...

in the middle-2260511: A test to vote? You have heard of the Voting Rights Act of 1965

"My question to all you Liberals is this, "If you don't like our society, the way it is, why don't you move to somewhere more suited to your likes, such as, Canada, England, or else where in Europe, where they have guns laws "that work", "Free" Universal Healthcare, Pensions and Welfare?
Why must I (we) change to fit YOUR Ideal and Ideology?" No one is making you stay here.
One thing about a free country, is, you are FREE to LEAVE when ever you want."

I do not say it is easy to pack up and leave. My question is, since there are already places on this planet that have most of what you want, why not go there instead of changing (ruining) my Ideal? Why not clamor to the Government, "We don't like it here, help us leave."? There is nowhere else on the planet for me, or those like me, to go. My kind (Conservative, Capitalist and Self Reliant) came here, over the last couple hundreds of years, to get away from those things they didn't like, it was not easy. All I am saying is perhaps it is time you (liberals) use the same strategy.

DumbFarmBoy, you sure live up to your name. Seems to me there are a whole lot things about this country that conservatives don't like... abortion, gay marriage, large govt, taxes, etc. In your narrow mind, it's "your" country and anyone who disagrees with conservative politics should just leave. Seems to me the blue states generate the bulk of jobs and money for this countries economy, so I say it's the liberals country if anything. You don't like it? Don't let the door hit you on the way out. I am sick of dumb, country bumpkins clinging to your 1940's notion of society holding the rest of us back.

@ Steven G...

DumbFarmBoy, you sure live up to your name. Seems to me there are a whole lot things about this country that conservatives don't like... abortion, gay marriage, large govt, taxes, etc. In your narrow mind, it's "your" country and anyone who disagrees with conservative politics should just leave. Seems to me the blue states generate the bulk of jobs and money for this countries economy, so I say it's the liberals country if anything. You don't like it? Don't let the door hit you on the way out. I am sick of dumb, country bumpkins clinging to your 1940's notion of society holding the rest of us back.

#3.22

All right numb nuts, you want to play? First off, where does your food come from city monkey?

You do realize that the only reason there are cities is because of the agricultural industry, don't you? Granted, today the farming industry relies on city people to furnish the implements and energy they need, but that is only to produce food for you miserable miscreants that have no respect or appreciation for what they do. There really is no other need for them to produce more than they can live on, and they could (with some small difficulty) revert to farming by hand or with horses as they did a century ago, and they could survive just fine. No so much for you city dwellers.

Secondly, these are liberal ideals, (conservatives don't like... abortion, gay marriage, large govt, etc.) and they are all contrary to the Constitution. So once we get rid of you dumb ass liberals, we can go back to a Constitutional Government, that is not overridden by a corrupt SCOTUS. Don't believe me, go look it up. Read a little history numb nuts, and you will realize that all this stuff is a fabrication that came with the rise Progressives in the early part of the 20th century. It wasn't until the great Fascist himself, FDR, stacked the SCOTUS and started pushing this leftist agenda, that we ended up with the load of crap we have to deal with today.

And where am I to go? Huh? just where exactly do I go that has those things I desire? Like I said they already have the things you seek in Canada, Europe, Japan, China and else where. Are you suggesting that me and mine go invade another country, take over there government, and establish a New America? I am sure the UN would just love that. Given the fact that you liberals aren't very happy with us Conservative, Capitalist and Self Reliant types for doing that in the country that you 'Love' so much.

“I think our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries; as long as they are chiefly agricultural; and this will be as long as there shall be vacant lands in any part of America. When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe." -- Thomas Jefferson

"The intelligence of a people is inversely proportional to the size of city and the length of time spent there in". Robert Reedy 1980

"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups". –unknown

“To paraphrase Chairman Mao: Freedom and Oppression are dispensed from the END of a gun. Which END are you on?” Robert Reedy 2008

And just exactly what is wrong the 1940's notions? But I prefer 1900's notions better. There was actually less violence, less poverty and less Government.

From 1918 until 1934, any one in the US could order and have shipped through the USPS, a fully automatic sub-machine(Tommy Gun w/30 or 50 round magazine), BAR (High power machine gun w/20 magazine) or even a M2 .50 cal. Belt fed machine gun, no questions asked. Where were all the spree shootings then (other than criminal gangland)?

It was not uncommon to walk into a local hardware store and buy a case of Dynamite to remove tree stumps. If easy access to deadly weapons is the measure of a deadly society, why were things like the "Bath School Disaster" not regular occurrences?

NO, the only thing that has changed in the last 50 or so years is the Secular Progressive agenda has wove its tentacles into society. Family is irrelevant. Dads are irrelevant. Males, especially white males, are irrelevant or even 'need' to be marginalized. Morals and Personal Responsibility are irrelevant.

My point is, since the 60's and the Liberal Progressive march toward hedonism in this country, with the rise of the welfare state, abortion and easy divorce, discipline in this country is gone. There are no consequences. No longer are men being raised by fathers. And how do you become a real man, if you don't have one to show you the way? Granted it isn't always successful, but it seemed to be more successful than the alternative.

And if you look at our history. There is a direct correlation between the rise in violence and an increase in the frequency of the attacks like Sandy Hook, and the Civil Rights Movement (that included "protection" of the mentally ill), Social Justice, and Government Social Programs. Some of which started with the first "Social Engineering" project called Prohibition, and continues with the ineffective 'war' on drugs.

I no longer live on a farm, hence the "Dumb" part. The worst thing I ever did was get a Degree in Mechanical Engineering, move to the City and have to live in and amongst bigoted, myopic, inane morons like you.

Can't ban guns, that's unconstitutional. Can't ban idiots, that's just silly. But maybe we can find a way to ban Idiots from getting Guns. It's the combination of the two that's the problem here.

Yeah, that would be my assessment. What reason did he have to have it out and loaded in a room with three small children? I've been around three toddlers of those ages - it's complete chaos and utterly unsafe for firearms. My father cleaned his guns after every use, and then they were put away. And my ex had a cheap little plastic case for his gun - it was easy to open and cushioned the gun so that there was no chance of an accidental misfire, even when it was loaded. It was never out of that box unless he was cleaning it or checking the ammo. At night it sat on the shelf above our bed - he never had to actually open the box (no children involved so we weren't worried about kids accidentally stumbling across it while we slept). I know people fall on hard times and sometimes slip up due to exhaustion, but if you're going to have a gun around your children, take the common-sense precautions.

I'm just so sick of crap like this. I support gun ownership rights, but all of these accidents happen because a gun owner has relaxed their vigilance and gotten careless. I don't buy "accidents happen." If you choose to have a deadly weapon, you don't get to let "accidents" happen. They're not cars. They don't serve another vital purpose beyond inflicting damage on another living thing or involve interactions with thousands of other people and distractions when you handle them (at least not off a battlefield).

If you want to own a gun, extensive classes and testing should be required. And if someone dies because of your carelessness (even if it's your own kid - because they're not chattel), it is not just an "accident" - it's your responsibility, and you should be prosecuted for it.

I agree, kind of, but a non-accident would require intent, which is sounds like was ruled out. Until stupid becomes a crime, we can't punish it.

I dunno. People get criminally prosecuted for reckless homicide or vehicular homicide when they drive carelessly but without any intent to harm someone. Any person with a brain in their head would think that perhaps handling a loaded and unsecured weapon in a hotel in the presence of multiple toddlers would be a bad idea, at least if they were properly trained in how to take precautions with a firearm. And if there were classes and testing requirements, maybe someone that stupid wouldn't actually be allowed to have a firearm.

I don't have a gun because I don't feel like dealing with the grave responsibility that comes with that ownership. Somewhere along the line, the "right" to bear arms became more of an unadulterated entitlement, with far too many people assuming that there are no responsibilities or obligations attached to that. We have the "right" to vote - but see, if someone is careless with their right to vote, it doesn't result in the immediate deaths of innocents.

@ hunter,

This wasn't an accident. Handling a semi-automatic in FRONT of a BABY is not an accident. Its complete negligence!!!

In your opinon perhaps! You, as did Bob earlier, have made arrogant assumptions based on limited knowledge of the circumstances herein. Nothing was said in the article about the children acting out, you made that up to suit your agenda. Nothing was said, nor was it indicated that this individual did anything criminally wrong, you made that up too to suit your own agenda.

Happy anti-gun interloper trolling!

@ jrzworld,

I don't buy "accidents happen." If you choose to have a deadly weapon, you don't get to let "accidents" happen. They're not cars.

How on earth does anyone let accidents happen? In case you have not heard, more people are killed with those deadly weapons called cars everyday than there are by firearms by a long shot (no pun intended). Accidents are always unintended outcomes, like this father wanted to shoot his infant child, there was no intent. You take care in your world and the rest of us will attempt to do the same.

Good thing being stupid isn't a punishable crime as was brilliantly (no sarcasm)suggested by In The Middle.

Accidents happen through carelessness, generally speaking. Guns do not fire themselves. This guy chose to take a loaded weapon out in a room full of children. Guns do not fire by themselves. He may not have intended to fire it, but he made the accident possible.

People die in car accidents every day. When one operates a car there are thousands of other people on the roads around you and even more distractions. You can't guarantee that you are driving in optimal conditions. Unless you are under immediate threat, however, you CAN ensure that you are handling a weapon in optimal conditions. That means if you are traveling with it you have the gun in an appropriate case, you only handle it when you know it can be handled safely, you don't leave the safety off, you don't point it at anyone, etc. This man was handling a loaded weapon, and he had three children in the room with him. And one of those kids got shot. Don't tell me that wasn't preventable through basic common sense.

I remember when I was 7 years old and my father let me hold his rifle. It was unloaded and I inadvertantly pointed it at him when I turned around. I got reamed out pretty good, let me tell you. That pretty much brought all the key points of gun safety home to me.

Yes, accidents DO happen. They happen in all aspects of life. But unless you are in the act of USING a gun - as in hunting or defending yourself - there is NO REASON for an accident to occur. You don't rush with it. You don't handle it carelessly. You don't leave the safety off or a round in the chamber or whatever. You don't fiddle with it when you're in an enclosed space with children all around you.

Unless you are in the act of USING the gun there is no reason to allow the conditions that would permit an accident to happen with it.

It's an accident, as he didn't intend it to happen. But, that doesn't mean it isn't a punishable accident, such as when you kill someone in a DUI.

@ Katy M,

It's an accident, as he didn't intend it to happen. But, that doesn't mean it isn't a punishable accident, such as when you kill someone in a DUI.

Really, this was a DUI shooting? Apples and Oranges, he wasn't drunk, they called the police immediately and they were there in three minutes. Something like that would have come out right away but it didn't. Let it go, it was an accidental shooting; sadly, it happens and this man will live with it the rest of his days for heaven's sake.

"Citizen Frank

@ Katy M,

It's an accident, as he didn't intend it to happen. But, that doesn't mean it isn't a punishable accident, such as when you kill someone in a DUI.

Really, this was a DUI shooting? Apples and Oranges, he wasn't drunk, they called the police immediately and they were there in three minutes. Something like that would have come out right away but it didn't. Let it go, it was an accidental shooting; sadly, it happens and this man will live with it the rest of his days for heaven's sake."

It's called negligence and child endangerment, so no, the answer is NOT to just let it go. In case you don't get it: There is a DEAD human being here!! Doesn't mean much to you, but I have different values.

The second amendment states that people can bear arms. It doesn't say that they won't be held responsible for using those arms to kill innocent people. If you say guns don't kill people, people kill people, then you can't turn around and say that it was an accidnt and it's the gun's fault. You can't have it both ways. You just can't.

My sister was in a horrible accident in 2000 and she sustained a traumatic brain injury. After her surgery, she was in the brain injury ICU. In the bed next to her was a firearms safety instructor who had shot himself in the head while servicing a revolver. I'm sure there are situations where a firearm may seem necessary for protection, but be aware that the mere presence of a firearm increases the odds of someone getting shot. This tragic story of the child being shot is a prime example as is my story about the firearms "expert". I have no desire to deny anyone a gun for protection, but be aware of the risks.

I live in TN, the area of this long stay hotel is actually pretty safe. To be honest, in my experience, the people who feel it is necessary to carry tend to be a bit paranoid, and paranoia tends to impair judgement - just an observation.

Stop being a azz. Once the U.S. Constitution is gone, you can kiss your free azz good bye..Then i am going to laugh at you...Just make sure you are ready in the near future, civil war is going to hit America. that is my opinion..

paragus Once the U.S. Constitution is gone, you can kiss your free azz good bye.

Where is the Constitution going? Why is it only the right who think of this crap? I'm laughing at you right now. Be sure to take your paranoid pills by the way you sound you forgot to take them this morning.

typical atheist....always pushing an agenda, but has no clue.

@ atheist

Too bad you weren't in that hotel room in front of the gun instead of the baby.

@ Smitty the interloper,

Where is the Constitution going? Why is it only the right who think of this crap? I'm laughing at you right now. Be sure to take your paranoid pills by the way you sound you forgot to take them this morning.

What grade did you drop out of in school; or worse yet, are you still there as an adult?

To answer your rhetorical question, most Americans embrace the Constitution for what it is; not what it can become! Whenever any moment, be it left, right, or whatever, seeks to transform its meaning to suit their agenda, regardless of how noble they may believe it to be, Americans will resist with force if necessary!

Of course there is a multitude of people, nations, and even religions that would love to have a hand in facilitating just that. Laugh while you can; it's good for the soul!

Happy interloper trolling!

in the middle-2260511

typical atheist....always pushing an agenda, but has no clue.

Now that's some funny $#it. Never mind all the churches/mosques/synagogues, etc. around the world, with their huge power structures, and franchises, who basically own the governments and people in their respective countries, but OH YEAH, it's JUUUUUUSSSSTTT like an atheist to be "pushing an agenda"... no real centers of power or mass propaganda like theism, but oh yeah. Who OWNS the freakin' word "evangelize"?!?!?

He violated the number one gun rule

Isn't "no abortions" the #1 gun rule??

No Sir William, Good Knight of all that is True, Liberal and Just (unless of course facts are involved) that is called a comparison, it is in the dictionary or floating above us in the innertube machine satellite I am sure.

that is called a comparison,

An imbecilic one for sure.

Ever hear of "Apples and Oranges"??

Now William that was not very nice, you hurt my feelings.

stonepipe2, and your parents violated the law of survival of the fittest by letting you be born. Although, I guess someone has to grow pot and clean toilets. you are a fine example of the GOP.

I am very pro gun, but I realize that if you take the personal responsibility to own a gun, you must take the personal responsibility to handle it safely. Unless this gun malfunctioned somehow, this guy did, in fact, break the first and second rules of gun handling. It's very sad too. It's so basic. Treat every gun as if it's loaded and never point the gun at anything you are not willing to kill or destroy. Everyone knows these rules. Even people who don't own guns probably know these two rules by now.

I've had an "unloaded" gun discharge on me. It was handed to me and went off as I was in the process of cycling the bolt to see if it was unloaded. (I didn't touch the trigger. I think the sear was partially tripped already.) Fortunately, I had it pointed in a safe direction and no one was hurt and nothing was destroyed. The owner of the gun learned a valuable lesson about making sure unloaded guns are really unloaded especially after I reinforced the lesson by chewing him a new @!$%#. I also learned a lesson about asking the person who hands you a gun to open the action before handing you the gun. I noticed he didn't, but I didn't say anything. I should have.

Remember Always:

Treat every gun as if it's loaded at all times.

Never point a gun at anything you are not willing to kill or destroy.

Always know where the barrel is pointed.

Never have ammo present when you clean your gun. (Sadly a lot of people ignore this rule.)

Never put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to shoot.

Know your target and what lies beyond. Fire only if it's safe to miss. (Some people wonder why police or other people don't automatically fire at someone shooting at them. This is one reason why.)

These are the most basic rules. These are like the commandments engraved in stone. Break these at great peril to yourself or someone else. If you do, you have to live with whatever the results are for the rest of your life. Do you want to have to go through life with the same experience of this man's family?

Foxy-seal. What???? Any time, any place.

Foxy, that is no law, but only a theory proposed by Darwin and similar minded thinkers. The laws of life are found elsewhere.

I do need some clarification on one point you tried to make. "grow pot and clean toilets" confuses me. I thought all Republicans were fat cat, rich and evil white guys who do neither of those things. Your description appears to be more fitting for a Democrat....and I'm really not trying to be funny.

Is it me or do I see a trend here on a large group of men being pro-gun and anti-abortion? (What does abortion have to do with this discussion again?) Could it have something to do with egos, or shortcomings maybe? Oh, I could be wrong though. I am not against gun ownership, but against the idiot that shouldn't have one. I am however much against some retard telling me what I can do with my body. That should only be discussed between the 2 people it involves. I don't go around telling people to get vasectomies (even though it would be the solution to many of abortion issues)

@ Foxy-seal the interloper,

stonepipe2, and your parents violated the law of survival of the fittest by letting you be born. Although, I guess someone has to grow pot and clean toilets. you are a fine example of the GOP.

Americans can't legally grow pot; regardless of oppositional state laws. Oh wait, criminals still do it though, hmm, what a dilemma, maybe another law would help to end that for good? The left seems to think new legislation is the cure all when in fact it's nothing more than a distraction with a short life span; much like the past ban was.

Do you have a problem with people who do janitorial work, people who clean up after you? People from both parties do this kind of work; of course if you were an American you'd know that already and understand how prejudicial and demeaning your comments are to all Americans. Ah, you overall intent I'm sure.

Happy interloper trolling!

Nothin' to see here. Just another dead kid from a gunshot wound. Happens all the time. What's the big deal? We need guns. Lots and lots of guns. More guns and easier access could only make this better.

@ sullyness the interloper,

Nothin' to see here. Just another dead kid from a gunshot wound. Happens all the time. What's the big deal? We need guns. Lots and lots of guns. More guns and easier access could only make this better.

Nothing to read here, just another brain dead interloper with a sarcastic agenda to incite, divide, and disarm America!

@Gneisenau: Best words I have seen posted yet. These are the lessons that I learned and reviewed before I even picked up a pistol to learn how to use it (at a range). My instructor was a firearms and explosives expert, who was retired from the CIA. He used examples for all of those points you made - incidences where someone was killed or injured because those rules were not followed. He also used an example of another firearms expert who shot himself in the hand because he got too relaxed and thought a firearm was not loaded. I learned to shoot with a ".22 semi-automatic Reuger handgun" - the same type of firearm as the one in the article. (I was not offended by the reference.) I still own it, and a .22 rifle, which are both kept unloaded and in a safe place that is not accessable by children or anyone else but me.

The next truest words I heard spoken from my instructor, who learned from experience that with personal safety and protection there is NO substitute for prevention. He said: "If you are going to spend $500 on a 9mm Barretta handgun, take that $500 and put better locks on your doors and windows, and get yourself a well-trained dog. That is much more effective personal protection than a handgun." That is what I have done, and why I do not feel the need to keep a loaded handgun in my nightstand. Too often - every year at least - when I was growing up, I heard of kids I knew who were injured or killed because they were playing with a loaded firearm they found in a nightstand. Better locks and a well-trained dog is a much more palatable option.

And no, "Citizen Frank", I am not an "interloper," even though I do not share your views. The Constitution that both you and I cherish allows, in the First Amendment, for the freedom of speech. An "interloper" is one who "intrudes without license," or who "thrusts themselves into the domain and affairs of others." The issues of the meaning, effect and reach of our Second Amendment, the right to "bear" arms for a "well regulated militia," and the likelihood of being killed or injured by a firearm; and related issues, is the "domain" and "affairs" of everyone who resides in the United States, whether or not they are a "citizen" like you. The sheer number of firearms in this country makes it everyone's business, because even if they do not own one, they probably know or live near someone who does. Just because someone does not agree with your viewpoint does not make them a "foreigner" or an "interloper" or a "troll." This is not a "pro gun" blog. As you aptly point out, this is a free country, and people of differing opinions do have a right to express them.

Really? Movie shooting, elementary school shooting, where did these things happen? Hmmm? Try making a fact based argument, instead of an agenda based lie.

Accidently shot at GUN SHOWS....now that's kind of hilarious.

That's freekin amazing William you're post at #8 directly contradicts your post at #9

No kidding Fitz.....I was going to point out the same bs from Willy, or whoever he is. He flip flops so much, I bet he's typing these from the oval office right now.

Good job, Fitzs, tell the hubby he is a lucky one.

Being a transient worker staying in an extended stay suite, that is probably the truth. Don't be so mean.

And that is not a particularly good section of Nashville, a high crime-rate city.

Not so much ironic, as sad and criminally negligent.

@ mpa the interloper with an agenda,

And that is not a particularly good section of Nashville, a high crime-rate city.

Not so much ironic, as sad and criminally negligent.

What a piece of work you are, your agenda couldn't let you leave it a "sad" could it? Push on you heartless coward and I'll be in your face the whole way!

@ In the Middle, I appologize for snapping at you earlier in these threads; your subsequent posts have put you in a better light, I bid you a good day!

Wow, Frank. So you don't think it was criminally negligent? And what is my agenda, tough guy? I support the second amendment, and responsible gun handling. So?

Troll.

Ah, at last a trolling interloper with moxy! I'll ablige you with a response as it takes you away from your agenda which is to incite, divide, and disarm America.

@ mpa,

So you don't think it was criminally negligent? And what is my agenda, tough guy? I support the second amendment, and responsible gun handling. So?

No it wasn't criminally negligent and how did you know I was a tough guy? Apparently you support selective aspects of the Constitution because in no way are you promoting that this man is innocent until proved guilty or the process that would require prosecutors to bring this man to trial. If you were an American you'd already know this and would respect the fact that there was no evidence to support what you're so cavalierly professing as a fact. So? (Such mockary is so childish; I really need to do something about that.....NOT!)

Happy interloper trolling!

You might look up the definition of criminal negligence. Seems the fellow confessed.

Don't bother to reply - I really don't believe in feeding the trolls.

Bingo, the money quote.

I feel an interloper group hug coming on!

Rule #1) Don't own a gun, especially if you have kids in your home.

Rule #2) Don't own a gun, especially if you have kids in your home.

Rule #3) Don't own a gun, especially if you have kids in your home.

Ad infinitum....

Not quite the correct protocol.

Rule #1) Treat every firearm as if it were loaded and always keep it pointed in a safe direction. These two can't be separated.

Rule #2) Any time you pick up a firearm, the first thing you do is check to see if it is loaded, while simultaneously keeping it pointed in a safe direction.

Rule #1 for the ignoramus that are still members of the NRA: Treat every firearm as if it were loaded and always keep it pointed in a safe direction. Your child is considered a safe direction.

Rule #3) Treat every person who makes idiotic comments like post 13.3 with total disdain and disgust.

mr strady The most of your posts are filled with "total disdain and disgust".

Smitty, you are right... total disdain and disgust for stupidity.

Gee, Mr.Steady, you must have a real conflict of interest when you look in the mirror. Go ahead, be disgusted, who cares what a thoughtless, mind controlled, NRA bullied idiot has to say about himself.

tex, I have more of my own thoughts and opinions than you could ever dream of comprehending. I am not even a member of the NRA, yet you let your mind be controlled by everything the gun grabbers tell you about the NRA. Your insult and ridiculous assumption in 13.3 that I directed my response towards just shows how immature and incapable of rational thought that you actually are.

In fact, just about every post I have seen by you is nothing but insults and stupid comments with no substance whatsoever.

I have a Glock w/light/laser & specialty holster that it is in (and that no one can grab when I am wearing it & have jacket on). When it is not in holster it is a 500-lb safe which requires a key and a combination.

In order to fire a bullet, not only does a magazine have to be inserted in my Glock, but the slide has to be pulled back (another very conscious act) for a round to even be in position for a trigger pull to make it fire. And even then, you still have to pull the trigger. And that finger should never be anywhere NEAR the trigger (preferably above it in a straight line pointing in the same direction as the barrel -- the direction being a safe direction). I'm also real particular about making it safe (removal of magazine, and making sure there is no round left in it after magazine is removed)

My Glock is never going to "just go off". .

Mr Steady: Tex is like a seagull. He has nothing intelligent to contribute; he just flies in, craps on people, then flies off.

@ Mr. Steady,

You were just netted by the troller dogly, reeled in by his dream date smitty, and you foiled their illegitimate child tex who was attempting to put you in their hold with your insightful reply.

@ Paganponderer, I couldn't have explained it any better, I smile and tip my hat to you!

Happy interloper trolling, better luck next time.......NOT!

NRA: 0

The Facts: 2

They got two propaganda stories in one day!

When in your mind does the truth become propaganda??

J.P., as much as you want it to be about the NRA, they have absolutely effing nothing to do with either of these stories. One story is about parent irresponsibility and the other is about parent irresponsibility, but I repeat myself.

When in your mind does the truth become propaganda??

When a news agency such as NBC prints every story they can find about firearms incidents and blatantly make their position known where they stand on an issue. If you haven't figured out yet what their position is, there is nothing I can do to help you.

WilliamOfRites

They got two propaganda stories in one day!

When in your mind does the truth become propaganda??

When it makes your side look bad.

As much as you want it to be about the NRA,

Or just as much as you DON"T want it to be about an organization that fights tooth and nail against any and all reasonable gun restrictions that could prevent this type of imbecilic tragedy in the future.

Whichever.

More like - 'out at the plate!' for the NRA...

Or just as much as you DON"T want it to be about an organization that fights tooth and nail against any and all reasonable gun restrictions that could prevent this type of imbecilic tragedy in the future.

Whichever.

Which "reasonable" restriction proposed would have prevented this tragedy? Other and an out and out ban none would and an out and out ban is not reasonable.

The real problem is that MOST (Not all) of the gun restrictions put forward are simply not reasonable. Most are stupid, feel good, do nothing to advance public safety restrictions that the NRA should fight. The bad ones tend to get thrown in with any good ones proposed and it's a vote for all or nothing so you get nothing. And of course the NRA gets the blame for that - which is @!$%#. You would get more reasonable laws passed if you passed them one at a time but that won't happen because then none of the crappy laws would get passed and their authors just can't have that.

Which "reasonable" restriction proposed would have prevented this tragedy? Other and an out and out ban none would and an out and out ban is not reasonable.

Required gun safety training. Required lock-up of guns in locations where children are present. Those might help.

@ Mr. Steady, one an accident that probably wouldn't have made the news and the other is certain to be gang related and common place for Southern California; agenda propaganda.

As defined, Propaganda: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause

@ dogly the interloping wunder dog (wundersome indeed) and tex the minion interloper, How inciteful of you to bring up the NRA for no reason at all dogly and the baseball reference out of left field was equally without any humor value. Sadly, you both get a big fat 0 for creativity.

@ Culheath the interloper,

When in your mind does the truth become propaganda??

When it makes your side look bad.

What's your point Einstein, that's the purpose of propaganda? What a bunch of maroons!

FraaAank........... Be nice now. ;-)

It is the people who think they need a gun to go to work, go shopping, or enjoy leisure activities that are the problem...not the guns! The guns are inanimate objects that only cause harm if you have one in your hand or pocket, or have a loaded one lying on the kitchen table when your kids get up in the morning.

Fanatics are going to find someway to cause harm to their families no matter how much they are educated. It is the natural way of evolution. Otherwise the majority of Americans would embrace the NRA propaganda and the NRA would not need to make up more lies and obfuscation or have a draft dodger run that organization.

as long as Americans need guns to get to work, go shopping or enjoy leisure activities

WTF?! I've been in some pretty sketchy area, and never have I felt the need to be armed to merely experience life.

Common sense precautions are all that is necessary to stay safe. (At least statistically speaking. If you follow basic common sense precautions you are more in danger owning a gun than not owning one.)

And just to clarify, I'm nor against guns per se, but I'd never have one in a home with kids, and some restraints on ownership are reasonable.

NEWSFLASH: Americans don't need guns to get to work, to go shopping or to enjoy leisure activities. In fact, over 97.5% of the population prove that you don't need to ever carry your guns around with you.

I'd say that's a pretty strong endorsement for not needing to carry guns around with you all the time.

The work, shopping and leisure comment is a joke - get a sense of humor anti-gun people. A very good joke by the way. The sad thing is there are people who can't work, shop or relax unless they're packin'

Well we can't help it if some people are too dense to understand that a gun does not kill, nor does a bullet. They are the tools that are used by people to kill. They are no different than a knife, a shovel, a rake or any other tool. None of these objects get up on their own to perform any tasks. They do not have the capacity to do anything without help. The common factor in these and other deaths with inanimate objects is people. People kill, not the tools that they use.

A gun is always involved because those are the deaths that they are reporting. Not every death involves a gun, it isn't even the majority of all deaths that involve a gun. How many people in the last year were killed with knives? How many people in the last year were killed by drunk drivers? How many people in the last year were killed in vehicle accidents? How many kids in the last year were killed by being left in a sweltering car for 8 hrs while their clueless parents were in their nice air-conditioned offices?

Unfortunately this was an accident. Would you be just as outraged if this father killed his child in a drunk driving accident? How about in a texting and driving accident?

Donna P, spot on!! See post 5.11.

Would you be just as outraged if this father killed his child in a drunk driving accident? How about in a texting and driving accident?

Exactly! Why does anyone NEED a phone capable of texting? Isn't that the logic??

Not every death involves a gun

Who said it did? Are you trying to avoid the obvious facts in this case?

What we are realizing (those of us who can think clearly without the phony excuses put into the brains of the weak-minded by the NRA propaganda machine) is that when a child is killed by someone using a gun, a gun IS involved. The only use for a gun like this is to kill people and in this sad story, the wrong person got killed BY A GUN improperly used.

When it is an accident like this, it is clear to us that if the guy had not purchased a gun to protect his family then the child would not be dead. The biggest mistake the guy made was the purchase of the gun.

Question 1 to all NRA members: Would this child be for or against better regulation of gun sales?

Question 2 to all NRA members: Was the purchase of the gun that killed the child made easier or harder by NRA lobby efforts?

Question 3 to all NRA members: Do you think the guy who just shot his child still thinks that NRA weakened gun regulations make us safer?

Question 4 to all NRA members: How is it that you can justify the ban on sawed-off shotguns and not on military type, high capacity, assault weapons? Hint: sawed-off shotguns make better home defense weapons than assault rifles.

Q 1-3: The death of one particular child is no more relevant than whether or not it made sense to rebel against the English in 1776 because someone might get killed. I'm pretty sure at some point nearly every single freedom we have has cost a life or more.

Q 4: The issue behind sawed off shotguns being illegal is concealability, not rate of fire. One would rob a store with a sawed off shotgun or a 38 handgun, not a Barrett M-95 sniper rifle. There is a lot of concern about barrel length.

2007 data on childrens' accidental deaths:

Motor Vehicle: 6,683

Drowning: 1.056

Fire/Burn: 544

Poisoning: 972

Suffocation/ strangulation: 1,263

Firearms: 138

What gets all the press?

Donna P,

I beg to differ, in this case I doubt the father would have killed the baby with "a knife, a shovel, a rake or any other tool". Sorry I just don't see that. And the comparisons with the cars? People need cars to get from point A to point B. You don't need a gun for that. As for drunk drivers: it is illegal to drive drunk. It also is illegal to leave a baby in a hot car. It is not illegal to own a gun. Guess who goes to jail when somebody gets killed? Apples and Oranges.

@tex

Hint: sawed-off shotguns make better home defense weapons than assault rifles.

While shotguns are good home defense weapons an AR-15 with a 16.1" barrel (usually referred to as M4s) make fine home defense weapons too.

Gun grabbers are under the impression that you can't miss with a shotgun or that you don't have to properly aim a shotgun. That is completely false.

For example the shotgun I own, a tactical 12-gauge pump action (has a much shorter barrel than a hunting shotgun), would be worthless to a woman I know. Her arms are too short to the hold it properly while being able to cycle the next round with the pump. It also kicks/recoils too much for her to stay on target. If she had to rely on my shotgun for self defense she would be out of luck.

By comparison an AR-15 is extremely easy to aim & shoot. There is hardly any recoil at all, after all it fires a .223 caliber round barely larger than .22 caliber pea shooter. It is very easy for a woman, small framed man, or even a young kid to shoot effectively.

BTW, sawed off shotguns are illegal.

Your post is a perfect example of why we need gun control.

@ Grandpa

Gun control = hitting your target the 1st time, every time.

There are already more than enough gun laws/regulations in this country that criminals will never follow. That's why they are called criminals.

Law enforcement could try enforcing some of the existing firearms laws first & see if that reduces gun crime in this country. What good does passing more laws do if they don't even enforce many of the existing laws?

"They are no different than a knife, a shovel, a rake or any other tool."

Yeah, I remember that fateful Thursday when my neighbor's shovel went off accidently killing the family dog. Fido accidently knocked it over when he ran by. If only he had leaned it up against the shed with the safety on. Remember, when you're finished digging, unload those shovels and keep them locked them up.

What gets all the press?

mpa only because guns have proliferated this country so, find anyone NRA gun-nut and he'll proudly tell you there are like 3,000,000,000,000 or some crap like that in this country, and because of guns we ALL should try and stay alive. Isn't that why you guys have guns....so someone don't kill you?

Actually now that you mention it, we do take away one's ability to drive for a period of time when caught driving drunk. I personally am not asking for a ban on all guns (I don't think anybody here outside of JP is)...but responsible gun control should be a must...responsible gun owners should be in favor of these safe guards since they most assuredly should be able to comply. The only people who should be against it are pro gun lobbies because their interest is to sell more guns to as many kinds of people as possible with as little background checks as possible...it's all about the $$$$.

What safeguards should we have? Well how about mandatory gun training, yearly gun and serial number checks with failure to provide your gun resulting in fines (in which gun owners have to produce their guns to a government personnel who makes sure the gun is indeed in the person's possession and the serial number isn't sawed off), and background checks on all purchase (getting rid of the gun show loophole). If we fined people for not being able to produce their guns on a yearly basis, that would cut down on proxy purchases and people would take greater care of their weapons (with less being stolen).

Why these simple things that could be easily implemented are frowned upon by responsible gun owners, I will never know. Wouldn't responsible gun owners want other gun owners to have to be responsible as well? A lot of people like to use the Car comparison...well you have to get a license, get it renewed, get insurance, get the emissions testing, get the license plate sticker renewed annually etc...so yes, driving an automobile is a right, but no, it isn't unregulated. To think that guns (whose sole purpose is to injure/kill) don't need any regulations is just plain idiotic.

We don't confiscate or restrict everyone's use of vehicles because drunks kill with their cars. This is what the gun control crowd feels is necessary for their 'safety' in terms of firearms. How silly is that? Very!

Concealed carry holders pretty much have a mandatory firearms safety training requirement built into the application process. Training is already mandated. I know so, I had to comply with the mandate myself.

We already have safeguards in place, however we cannot control every action of every single person in existence, so mistakes will be made. This does not necessitate the restriction or removal of everyones' constitutional right to bear arms when mistakes are made or random nut jobs go crazy.

Crazy nutjobs shouldn't be allowed to have guns...sane, responsible gun owners should...do you understand the distinction? And yes, we do restrict people who prove themselves unworthy to drive in there ability to obtain a license...and we arrest people who drive on suspended licenses while levying exorbitant fees on them. Please re-read 20.1 because what I am proposing isn't taking away gun rights from responsible gun owners (so the taking away all cars because of a few drunk drivers analogy doesn't fit), what it is is proposing common sense safeguards to make sure that as few guns as possible end up in the wrong hands...

If only the infant had been carrying as the NRA advises.

and the chances of you shooting someone in your own family go up 100%

when there's a gun in your house, the chances of having a gun in your house goes up to 100%. The other odds the two of you predict are totally bogus. We've had guns in our house and our ancestor's houses for the last 150+ years and no one has been shot by them... not in the house, nor outside the house, not in the family, nor outside the family. Do you have a formula that predicts the likelihood of that anomaly? If you can't find a fact, just make something up, eh, godless and fringeamericaman?

bagdadjoe-1347766d

You seem to have some difficulty in math, logic, and statistics. The statement by Middle America Man: 'the chances of you shooting someone in your own family go up 100%' means that the chances of your shooting someone in your own family doubles. There have been studies that show in those cases where a person buys a gun for home protection, if it is used to kill someone, the chances are more likely that it will be a member of your family rather than an intruder. What this tells us is that it is a myth to think that buying a gun for home protection makes your family safer.

We've had guns in our house and our ancestor's houses for the last 150+ years and no one has been shot by them.

That is totally irrelevant when we are talking about odds. What happened in your family does not add or detract from the statistical reality of the odds of whether your family will be better served with or without a gun in the home.

"What happened in your family does not add or detract from the statistical reality of the odds . . . "

Of course it does. Not a math major were you?

I think what Tex is saying is that one example of a persons family on newsvine isn't a large enough sample size to completely discount the stats listed by the other posters in this thread. When talking about statistical odds, yes one group does have an impact on the numbers, but that one example can also be an outlier...I prefer a statistical analysis that includes a large sample size with minimized variables.

sat -

not really interested in what they meant to say.

almighty: "goes up TO 40%" - that would indicate that 4 of every 10 households has an accidental shooting . Bull.

tex: chides others for not understanding math/statistics and then makes the comment he made.

If you are going to misquote numbers/statistics, you should be prepared to be corrected for your BS.

The 'odds' you speak of are negated by responsible handling and full training of every individual who lives in the house.

Negligence, complacency, ignorance and recklessness are the causes of firearm related accidents. This is one of the examples.

The firearms don't fire themselves, it takes a person to do that.

Statistics - schmatistics. Here's one, the chance of you you shooting someone in your family if there is no gun present is 0%. Nil, nada, not possible for those who are math impaired.

That's right, because "guns don't kill people, yada yada yada..."

We need more people who can be armed without making dumb mistakes like the example in this story.