Are there railroad tracks near the school?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v122/T…

But we do blame the car...

Due to pedestrian deaths, bumpers need to be designed to toss people onto the hood/windshield instead of sucking them under the vehicle. Seat belts and/or airbags are required. Steering wheels are required to collapse instead of spear you. Headlights and tail lights are required. Additional safety has been designed into the product over time, with the government's involvement.

Guns? Not so much. In the case mentioned, there are no government approved safety designs to prevent negligent discharge. Same with integrated trigger locks, etc. Imagine the outcry from Trevor if the same approach we've taken to automobile safety was applied to guns... He really would not be very happy happy.

Yet another senseless gun death: cue the gun nuts!

Oh, if only there were some other--less deadly--penis substitute they could fixate on.

The Constitution gives us the right to bear arms...not merely guns. The point of this right was not to plug some guy trespassing on your cherry orchard. That much is a given.

The point was that private citizens could have parity with the Government, so that (as in the case of British rule) they cannot break down your door to collect taxes.

Ok, so given 21st century technology, what constitutes "arms" in terms of being able to defend yourself from those huns in Act of Valor.

Right...UAV, man. UAV.

Stupid people will be stupid and criminals will be criminals. I have yet to see a practical solution to these problems of human nature that doesn't compromise a constitutional right that some are quick to dismiss.

It is possible to be a (left-leaning) responsible gun owner despite what some seem to believe. I will continue to be one despite tragedies beyond my control, and whining/trolling from Goldy and others on slog.

Go Goldy, way to point out a straw man that was erected to argue against your cowardly hyperbole over a death of a child.

Lets bicker about constitutionally protected rights, that have a snowflakes chance of being changed without a super majority.

Meanwhile a repeal of suffrage is on deck for next year.

Binary faith based beliefs are the answer!

The only way to keep guns out of the hands of idiots is to keep guns out of the hands of everyone.

It's beyond dispute that one of the primary reasons, if not the primary reason, that the United States has the highest level of gun violence in the developed world is that we have the most guns. Since we have a lot of guns, they will inevitably get into the hands of idiots who purposefully or accidentally shoot people.

The real debate is between:

1) The right to bear arms or
2) The public health disaster of a large number of guns

Some people are willing to tolerate thousands of deaths a year in order to have the right to bear arms, while others would rather try to take away the guns (and reduce rights) in order to mitigate the ongoing deaths and injuries from handgun violence.

It's not an easy choice for a lot of people.

"so, the next time some parent lets their teenage kid load up the family SUV with their friends and then takes a turn too sharp and kills everyone inside, shall we blame the car?"

Yes. You can also blame the parents and the state for letting teenagers drive, which is a fucktacular idea. And you can even blame the teenager for driving like a teenager. But is it really such a bad idea to point out that dangerous shit is dangerous?

So if she forgot to put the parking break on her Subaru, and that car backed over her kid, naturally we need to ban Subaru's. Right?

I should probably read the other comments first.

You don't demolish a straw man by erecting one of your own.

The point here is that gun laws already were in place that should have prevented the woman in question from owning a handgun because she is a felon. This means that the problem here is not a question of gun ownership laws but rather their enforcement.

Punishing everyone in the community for the intransigence of a few, particularly when that intransigence is already illegal, does not make for good policy.

@8 The logical issue with the less guns = less crime mantra exercised by Goldy ( from his sarcastic posting title ) is that it doesn't pan out.

The UK has rigid gun control, and casual violence is staggering in comparison with the US, their government seriously considered banning pint glasses and chef knives. Yet somehow the UK has a similar per capita murder rate, without the assistance of firearms.

Its also convenient to ignore mexico where the narco violence is so devastating due to an unarmed population, mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world.

Gun Control, is a liberal safety fantasy that isn't supported by real data, most liberals who call for it are so obsessed with hysterical fear they refuse to embrace any real measures that would help issues like kids getting shot, mainly education. Its easier to villainize and turn weapons into forbidden objects that hold power over their imaginations. Which is exactly why children are attracted to them.

I will never understand this argument from people on the left who claim to be smart, if abstinence policy's don't work with drugs or sex, why would you assume they would work with guns?

oh, seriously, @13 ... and those narco gangs aren't armed to the teeth with police-issued weapons?

get real ...

@10, no, you require rearview cameras in all new passenger vehicles, starting with model year 2014. Seriously.

Firearms, especially handguns, belong in only two places: (1.) on the person (or in the immediate personal control) of a responsible, sober adult who knows gun safety, or (2) securely locked up where it can't fall into the wrong hands.

In all these recent tragic cases, this basic rule was grossly violated. Yes, you can't legislate against stupidity, but you can at least make clear what society's expectations are. The basic rule I've outlined should be put into law by the Legislature at the earliest opportunity.

@13: I'm basically with you, but in order to be completelty satisfying, your argument would have to explain why Canada (for instance) has so many fewer violent deaths than the United States. The most obvious reason is that we have a lot more guns, that the mere presence of guns increases the death rate. But maybe there's another reason. I don't think I completely buy the "if all the idiots didn't have guns they'd kill each other just as effectively with pointed sticks" argument.

The large number of guns here must be a contributing factor to the higher violence rates, right? How many guns deaths are worth tolerating for greater freedoms? Is there a limit?

Now what happened was a terrible tragedy.

Goldy and Tyler leaves out that as a multiple felon the mother was FORBIDDEN BY LAW from owning firearms. News flash: criminals don't follow laws. Gun control only serves to disarm law abiding citizens putting them at the mercy or criminals, both elected and otherwise. After all look at the incidents of state sanctioned mass murder that have happened in every other county were filthy communist denied the people their inherent right to armed self-defense of themselves and their loved ones.

@3
Most gun manufactures do incorporate safety features to allow their guns to be sold in the state of California, these include integrated locking devices, not being able to fire with the magazine removed, and being drop safe. The problem is people often don't use them. The magazine lock out tends to cause problems with he pistols functioning and is usually removed, I have owned several guns with integrated locks which I never used, I also will not buy anything that is not drop safe. However I would re evaluate my choices if i had small children involved.

The handgun involved in this terrible incident was most likely a variant of the Colt 1911, a design that is over 1000 years old and prone to both negligent and accidental discharge, especially when carried in a backpack. I own one and do not carry it because I feel it to be unsafe for that application. Had it been a modern polymer pistol with integrated safety features this incident could have been avoided.

Ultimately the responsibility lies with the parent for illegally owning the gun and letting her child take it to jail in the first place.

Well Goldstein seems it is your straw man argument which has been beat to death again and again, but whats new there?

You're complaining about straw men?

With headlines like "because guns make us safer?"

You begin with a headline that editorializes every report implying an argument against an fringe extreme opinion. And that's a-ok argumentation?

Guns are dangerous. No sane responsible person argues otherwise. It makes the most sense to treat guns like we do other dangerous technologies that people WANT that also kill people, aka cars. Deal with making the technology inherently safer AND demand a higher bar of responsible use (via drivers license.)

If it's guns explain why Switzerland, Canada, and other countries that have a fairly high number of guns in citizen possession don't have close to the same violence problems we do. Americans treat guns like they do everything else. They buy shit and expect it to magically imbue them with special powers and solve problems with no extra effort. Just like ab rollers and vitamins. But they don't. Americans are lazy as shit.

Look. I grew up with guns. I hunted. My father was career military. I taught self defense for nearly twenty years. I worked with LEOs and with defensive firearm instructors. Not once in my life have I ever heard anybody in those communties who wasn't a complete joke or crank state that guns make you safer in any but a very narrow set of special circumstances. Circumstances you have train for. The extremists at the NRA, like these idiots who let thier kids get guns, only represent a tiny minority of gun owners.

Fine. If it's guns, then argue to make guns safer. Otherwise stop playing coy. Just come out and say you want handguns banned, so all the accompanying problems of prohibition can be laid bare, and we can argue with a modecum of intellectual honesty.

Look, the possibility of marriage equality was scoffed at until less than 10 years ago.

There IS a tipping point at which the rising number of stupid accidental deaths will cause a majority of people to say "enough—let's restrict gun ownership."

You want a straw man? Here's a straw man. The $3 trillion or more in past, current, and reasonably anticipated costs of the Iraq/Afghanistan war would have funded a gun buyback program paying $10,000 for each returned and melted firearm (ignore the obvious abuse/fraud potential for now), up to 300 million guns, which is at or near the estimated upper limit of U.S. gun ownership.

Given that the very first people in line would be drug addicts and the economically desperate, including a lot of irresponsible parents, such a program would do a lot more good than harm long before it began to reduce the number of crimes theoretically prevented by responsibly gun-toting "responsible citizens."

What's a life worth? At the low end, maybe $100,000 in unpaid ER bills, lost productivity, life insurance payouts, sloppy sentimentality, whatever.

Every time this topic comes up I am going to ask how *exactly* those who would like to gun violence reduced by "getting rid of all the guns" plan on doing that. Seriously. Without name calling, or what have you. How. Are. You. Going. To. Do. It.

To be clear, dear Lissa, I don't believe my thought experiment @20 is workable, and I'm perfectly OK with anyone who's either suffered a violent assault, or fears one due to their present circumstances, carrying a concealed weapon.

I just think we can never stop re-evaluating the question.

@21 is right. It's really kind of a pointless discussion. Additionally, I don't understand why we can't blame both the violence on guns and the failures of child welfare and judicial systems. There's no reason we can't blame all of the causes.

Canadian Bacon: The Colt is a 1000 years old? If only the Aztecs would've had them.

I no longer own a gun. I don't hunt anymore. I don't live in the hood anymore. I don't train with one any more. There's simply no need. But I'd like the option open. I certainly think about 90% of concealed carry out there is completely unjustified. So id like to see much stricter controls. But I am mystified by the emotional knee jerk anti-gun sentiment on the left. Not only in terms of consistency with regards to civil liberty but also the pure principle of power disparities. If we ban guns the rich and powerful will STILL have them. Just like everything else.

sit on a big dildo theoretical people

tougher gun control laws would prevent tragedies like this. fact. that doesn't follow that we need to be a nanny state though.

@Will in Seattle I enjoy that during a discussion about making more laws in relation to firearms, you use the example of people breaking laws to own them as proof that more laws are needed...

@17 Canada does actually have more guns per capita than the USA. With two HUGE differences and one minor one. Gun ownership is not a right , which leads into the second difference, in order to own a gun you have to take endless education courses on the responsibilities of having guns around. So you end up with a population of enthusiasts who are very motivated, and highly educated.

The minor point would be, Canada is a country of slightly less fearful people than the us, they aren't spoon fed hysterical STORY AT 11 ARE YOUR WALLS KILLING YOUR CHILDREN TERROR! stories in the same way.

@25: Well, as long as you say it's a fact. That clears up everything.

@20 Yes. The culture has shifted dramatically in the last 40 years in regards to gay rights. But that was an issue of extending rights the majority have with a minority.

Do you really think nearly 200 million Americans will want to give up a right? Because thats how it will be framed in 50/50 electorate.

Sure the travesty of the Iraq and Afghan wars have sapped the treasury from doing all sorts of better things, but a gun buy back? People are buying MORE guns, not less. There is litterally no indication of a cultural shift of the magnitude you speak.

And most of the anti gun arguments on places like SLOG, which are almost exclusivly vapid emotional appeals, hardly are equipped to convert anyone.

I'd love to see the disproportionalte power of extremists like the NRA gelded. But feeding them a ban on hand guns will do exactly the opposite.

@25 saying FACT after your opinion doesn't make it more valid.

The people in most of these cases weren't allowed to legally own firearms, so making that super extra illegal doesn't improve that.

@25 And, FACT: warp drive will get us to Alpha Centauri in mere minutes!

You ever heard of the "presenting facts not in evidence" fallacy? Not to mention the "vague generalities" fallacy?

@26 nah, I'm a realist. If you lived in the mountains of BC or AK you might have a reason, but ...

The only people worrying about converting people are those who want to take us back to the 800s, 1700s, or 1400s, quite frankly.

@26: I don't know either way, but I'm surprised to hear that Canada has more guns per capita than the US. I guess I'll poke around on the interwebs and see if I can find any stats that look legit.

Chicago is a war zone right now and it's one of those cities that bans the carrying of handguns for anyone. How can that be hysterical gun haters?

@32 Canada doesn't have more guns than we do. If you factore in the 70% of guns up there that are unregistered it's about the same or slightly less.

I'd also point out that it's kind of amusing that the very same people who tend to really distrust law enforcement also seem to be the ones who want to hand law enforcement officers a monopoly on firearm possession. I suppose in an ideal world you could harmonize the two ideas, but keeping weapons out of the hands out the citizenry really does seem like handing police departments a privilege they haven't really earned. I kinda like the idea that police have to be careful about how they approach situations. It encourages them to think twice before running in guns-ablazing.

Until recently when the NRA challenged it Chicago even banned the OWNERSHIP of a handgun unless it was grandfathered before 1982. How could they have so much gun violence then? Handguns were banned. Problem solved right?

@32 I think Canada used to have more per capita when you factored in long guns. But they never had more hand guns than the US. It's irrelevant though. Becuase the gun violence rate is so much less that even though they don't have as many hand guns the number of guns still can't account for the lower rate of violence.

So again we get to culture. America has a violent culture. Seriously. I've lived in war zones with less individual to individual aggression than is common in many places in the US. and maybe that's reason enough to restrict guns. But it seems to me we should examine the cultural issues first or any legislation we attempt will be doomed. IE: Prohibition.

#18 Agree with your points, especially on the 1911. Just pointing out, however, that we don't mandate safety into gun design the same way we do with cars. You would think that given the number of negligent discharges that occur, but for the NRA and 2nd amendment, there would be a different regulatory approach with regards to design.

And with respect to the Bremerton discharge, even a striker fired pistol might have discharged - assuming the gun was loose in the pack without a holster and something snagged the trigger.

Last time I checked, during some hysterical gun thread about a year ago, Cananada has about a tenth the population of the U.S. And, per capita, the same homicide rate.

Question for Tyler, though: you point out all the reasons that that cracker mom shouldn't have had a gun. What about the cop? The one with the unsecured handgun his daughter used to kill his other daughter? The cop who, we assume, was highly trained in handgun safety? Who was, we assume, acutely aware of the real and immediate deadly effects of a handgun? The cop that just fuckin' should knowed better? What about him?

@24
derp 100 years old
Although Cortez rolling up on 10,000 screaming, painted Aztecs all of whome are armed with 1911s would be pretty badass. Too bad bullets dont stop smallpox.

@38
Yea I agree, no loaded pistol should ever be just thrown in a backpack. Espessially not a single action with a hair trigger. I definatly thing there needs to be great improvements in gun safety. Guns are like any other power tool and deserve a tremendous amount of respect.

Being as there are as many guns as people in the USA I think gun safety should be taught in schools.

How many lives could be saved by teaching everyone:

1. Treat every firearm as if it is loaded.
2. Always point the muzzle in a safe direction.
3. Keep your finger outside the trigger guard until ready to shoot.
4. Be certain of your target and what’s beyond it.

As well as teaching children:
If you find a gun, don't touch it and tell an adult.

If people followed the above, we would see a great reduction of unintended tragedys.

@37
Check Canada's rate of hunting accidents and missing persons.

@40 gun safety was taught in schools as late as the early 80's and probably later in rural schools. Wait, can you imagine the hysterical panty wetting on the "progressive" left if you wanted to teach respect for GUNS of all things in schools now??!

This progressive believes in facts and rationality, not panty-wetting stupidity. That's for teabaggers and wingnuts. School shop classes teach safety around tools, why not teach firearm safety?

Okay guys, you want another straw man? It's the relentless attack on me in the comment threads of these gun posts, accusing me of wanting to take away your 2nd Amendment rights and/or imposing stricter gun control. In fact, to my recollection, I have never used these posts to advocate for stricter gun control.

(I wouldn't mind seeing stricter gun control, and I'm not particularly fond of the current bullshit overly broad interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but that's not what these posts have been advocating.)

What all of my "Guns Make Us Safer" posts actually have attempted to do is refute the myth that guns make us safer, when in fact it is the opposite. The biggest risk factor for being killed or injured by a gun is having one in the house, and your handgun is much more likely to be used on you than on an intruder.

But because the data supports my assertion, nobody chooses to engage me on it. Instead, you argue as if I am advocating for gun control, when I never have. And that, my friends, is a classic straw man argument.

@43, sir, haven't you ever been warned about feeding the trolls? It seems to me that your post and its entire comment thread is troll chum.

Or was that the point?

@42 I voted a straight D ticket in 2008 douchebag so I don't know who you're talking to.

@43 your the author of the post, in which you attempt to prove some loosely related point via sarcasm? I am not buying it. You didn't think out your knee jerk post and now you want to take your toys and go home.

Again logic and data throws your premises into disarray, I have seen lots of posts on SLOG about pit bulls, guns and the dangers of people with conservative viewpoints but I have never see a post question if cars are worth the convenience of running to the store despite they kill 30k people a year.

You got beat up via email and lashed out, you got called out on it, take it like a author/editor, and not a defeated bully.

@43

TLDR version.

I'm not for gun control, I just think that guns are bad and people should not be allowed to own them.

BTW your "having a gun in the house makes you more likely to get shot with it." argument from your fellow lying idiots Brady campaign is very skewed considering they included SUICIDES in the statistics. Kind of like when they include violent teenage gang bangers in the "innocent children killed by guns" stats.

From RKBA.org:

“A gun in your house makes you less safe.”
There is a highly publicized study that claims that a gun in the house is 43 times more likely to be used to kill
someone that lives there than to kill an intruder. This isn’t completely false, but it is very misleading. The
vast majority of those “43 times” deaths are suicides—tragedies, but not what most people think of when
they hear this. If someone in your house has a drug or alcohol problem, severe depression, or a short temper,
having a gun may not be wise. But for most other people, a gun in the house isn’t particularly dangerous.

This “43 times” claim misleads in another way as well. When decent people use a gun for self-defense—and
there are between 108,000 and 2,450,000 such uses a year—they almost never kill the criminal. The threat of
a gun makes the criminal submit to arrest, or remember an urgent appointment elsewhere. The correct
measure of whether a gun in your home makes you safer isn’t the number of criminals that decent people
kill. The correct measure is how many criminals decide that breaking into an occupied home is too dangerous.

http://rkba.org/research/cramer/FourFact…

@46
The Slog also never runs stories on the amount of alcohol related deaths per year, 75,000.

@ 43, if you're not including the following words in each of these posts...

"Guns are alleged to make us safer. How's that working out?"

... then it's your fault if no one is getting the point.

My guess is that "forgetting" to say that, or saying that you said it once before and that should be enough (hey, it works for Dan, right?), is your motive to generate these "attacks" so you can feel butthurt and indignant. Alcoholics do this all the time, because it gives them an excuse to go get blitzed. I wonder what it is you need this excuse to do?

@43: I agree that guns ultimately do more harm to their owners and their families. Every gun accident is a tragedy, especially those involving children. Studies on this do back you up, which is why your use of anecdotal evidence is puzzling. Surely there are many stories out there in which a gun has saved the life of the owner or a member of the owner's family. Would pointing to such an incident be a compelling argument for more widespread gun ownership?

What is the point of the original post, if not to criticize the laws on the books or advocate for some policy change? To remind everyone that guns are capable of harming people?

@8 - yes. Everybody else shut up, for god's sake, or I'm turning this car right around, and nobody gets ice cream.

Yes, I have turned into my father.

@41 No doubt it would resemble the Right's hysteria over sex education.
Shall we agree that clinging to political ideology is a really bad way to solve problems then?

@5: The point, actually, was for the State to have a body of reserves that it could draw upon if necessary to defend against foreign threats or keep the peace. It's right there in the 2nd Amendment, with the whole "well-regulated militia" phrase.
@13: Mexico may have strict gun control laws. What it doesn't have is the capacity to enforce them.
Also, you are lacking in facts. The homicide rate in the USA is nearly 4 times that of the UK, for example (source).
@18: If only felons are banned from owning guns, how are law-abiding citizens being disarmed? And seriously? The old "criminals break laws, therefore laws are useless" line of argument? I suppose we should get rid of our laws against murder, since they CLEARLY don't prevent murders from happening. I really hope you're trolling and not just anencephalic.
@26: So...we'd be better off as a nation if prospective gun-owners were forced to demonstrate that they knew how to be safe around firearms. So shouldn't the government regulate firearms then?

Personally I am in agreement with those here advocating for more education regarding gun safety and perhaps testing and licensing for gun owners. I don't think there is a single person here that doesn't understand that guns can be deadly. I think Goldy is being disingenuous and I'll ask him directly what he thinks should be done.

Well, Goldy?

@53, I think that people should be educated that when it comes to homicide, suicide, and accidents, statistically, guns don't make us safer. And that's exactly what these posts have attempted to do.

For commenters to call me disingenuous is bullshit. I'm not shy. I speak my mind. If I wanted to make a policy argument for stricter gun control (like, you know, how about a licensing process that required proof of safety training and proficiency?), I'd do it in a strong and compelling manner. But that's not what these posts have been about, and any insistence that they are is merely a straw man argument to divert attention away from the fact that there is a clear and convincing statistical correlation between access to guns and your likelihood of being killed or injured by one.

"Yet somehow the UK has a similar per capita murder rate, without the assistance of firearms."

Wrong. The United States murder rate is more than 4 times higher than the United Kingdon. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cou…

@56

The UK despite its draconian gun laws, has the highest violent crime rate in all of Europe, higher then the US and even higher than South Africa. All the murder rate proves is that guns are more effective than knives, which is not really news. However it disproves that guns are the cause of crime, and in fact a society without guns can be more violent than a armed society. As Heinlein said, "An armed society is a polite society." I kinda think this ia why the Westcoast is pretty relaxed, we come from a society were everyone use to carry a gun, and many of us still do, therefore we are pretty polite, but not friendly. People will take less risk when they know they can be shot, or like wise, I don't go around, causing problems and getting in fights because it ends with me shooting someone, so I avoid conflict. Of course this relationship between more guns = less violence fails to hold true in the 3rd world so we will leave Detroit out of this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/l…

@55
>If I wanted to make a policy argument for stricter gun control I'd do it in a strong and compelling manner.

No, you would write a bitchy half baked rant full of emotional appeals exposing the fact that you have the politics and reasoning of a spineless trust fund college communist.

You already did it, you cant pull the, "This isn't my real argument, my real argument would be all thought out and reasoned with facts and stuff, and it would be way better than yours."

Quit acting like a child.

The homicide rate in Canada (with its stricter gun laws) is also one-quarter the homicide rate in the US. Rates of violent crime are lower across the board in Canada.

I don't know what's affecting the violent crime rate in UK, but I'll bet it won't be helped by allowing everyone to carry guns.

@57: My my, what an incoherent post, proceeding by leaps and bounds to conclusions unsupported by data or reason. What a delightful use of a reporting of three-year-old figures, without even referencing the study from which such numbers were derived. I'm all verklempt now, so guns must clearly help society!

@59
Once again, lower homicide rate, higher rate of violent assault. Also Canada's per capita crime rate generally only slightly lower than America's, they generally parallel each other and Canada's is higher in some areas. http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.co…

@59
From the guy who thinks that is morally OK for religious figures to fuck little girls. I just start on the attacks now since that is the only place you ever go with your limited reasoning ability and total inability to accept facts.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/crime-j…
Has crime in the UK has taken such a drastic drop in 3 years? Nope. keep in mind that British Crime starts are skewed due to being a cap of 5 reportable crime per person per year and rape being separate from violent crime. Also most crime goes unreported.

Don't you have some muslim/communist dick to suck?

The first part of my post was for @58.
My apologies.

I like how Goldy erects a straw man to defeat a straw man, then fabricates another straw man or two in order to distract us from the original.

@46 I kind of wish Goldy would take his toys and go back home. He's almost as inane as Erica C. Barnett was in her heyday.

@60: Please point out where I condoned child-fucking by religious figures. As I recall, I pointed out that Mohammed DIDN'T actually fuck a 6-year-old or 9-year-old, whatever the claim may be.
Now, as far as the actual data linked to and obliquely blathered about, I can't tell what you're trying to say. (Please observe this.) What point was that supposed to make?

@55
The plural of anecdote is "anecdotes", not "evidence". If your point is that "statistically" guns don't make us safer then just point to that actual statistical evidence and don't try to bullshit us with your bullshit. Have a nice day.

So we have Tyler and Goldy, but I don't know which is the pot, and which is the kettle.

Tyler's straw man is no different than pointing out the most irresponsible gun owners in the country and holding them up as representative of all gun owners, which is the only argument you ever make Goldy.

I can't believe the sheer hypocrisy escaped you on this one.

These gun nuts seem to pull "facts" out of their asses. I've read in these comments that the homicide rates are similar in the UK and Canada to what they are in the US? That is entirely fabricated. They are much, much higher in the US.

Clearly, a gun nuts are full of shit--don't believe any of their "facts."

@64, Do they teach you that rhetorical technique in troll school? I mean, honestly, how many times do I have to link to the same research at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center before people will stop demanding that I link to some "evidence"...?

Statistical study after statistical study finds that access to guns increases the incidence of gun injuries and deaths. Argue all you want that it's worth the risk, but as for me, as much fun as they are at a shooting range, I know better than to keep a handgun in my house.

@68
You are confusing HOMICIDE rate with VIOLENT CRIME rate, yes the US has a higher HOMICIDE rate, but a lower VIOLENT CRIME rate than either the UK or Canada.

@63
Oh she was 12 instead of 6 that is way better, it isn't my fault that your head is too far up your asspie ass to figure this out.

@Cascadian Bacon

I don't believe that. And I don't believe allowing more people to have guns will do anything except RAISE the homicide rate.

@69: We really don't know how old Aisha was when she and Mohammed consummated their marriage. All we know was that she was betrothed as a child but was not married until she had at least passed puberty. Quit banging the "Mohammed was a pedo" drum.

@70
Law abiding citizens are all ready allowed to purchase all the guns they want as long as they pass an FBI background check to make sure that they are a US citizen who is not a felon, not the subject of a restraining order, have not been convicted of domestic violence or been the subject of an involuntary psychiatric hold. If purchasing a handgun in the great State of Washington one must also receive and OK from the the local law enforcement and a state application to transfer a handgun. There is also a 5 business day waiting period if one does not have a concealed pistol license.

Despite a huge rise in the number of guns, gun owners and the sunset of the federal assault weapons ban, crime and homicide have been steadily dropping since the 1990s.There is no evidence to suggest that more legal gun owners leads to a rise in crime. In fact the cities with the highest homicide rates tend to have the most restrictive gun laws, DC, LA, and Chicago for example.

The solution is to enforce the gun laws all ready on the books. In almost all instances of gun crime the shooter was already precluded from owning the gun used. When a felon or other prohibited person is found with a firearm they need to be sent up the river to the fed pen rather than slapped on the wrist and released.

The other solution is education, people need to be trained in the safe handling of firearms, most firearms accidents are the result of negligence and ignorance as to the operation of firearms. The classic example being removing the magazine and not knowing you must also remove the round in the chamber. WA state does offer free firearm safety training through its Hunter Safety Education program, the course also includes handling and live fire. All hunting license applicants born after 1974 must take this course to get a license. Since the programs implementation hunting accidents have declined to almost zero. I am not going to argue that guns are not dangerous, they fire a projectile at supersonic speeds, and needed to be treated with the utmost consideration and respect.

@71
You want to refresh me on when puberty starts genus?
Oh, that's right, it is around 12 years old, that age when muslim girls are sold into sexual slavery, er... I mean "betrothed." 60 year old man fucking a 12 year old girl, sounds a lot like pedophilia to me.

"Law abiding citizens are all ready [sic] allowed to purchase all the guns they want "

Right. And the murder rate in the US is four times higher than it is just across the border in Canada. And you're fine with that.

@73
Yes, because the over rate of violent assault is lower in the US than canada and I chose to live in an area with a low homicide rate. The murder rate widely varied from place to place in the US. For example Chicago, where guns are banned, has a murder rate of 16 per 100,000 residents. Where as Missoula Mt, where residents have an average of 20 guns per capita, has a murder rate of less than 1 per 100,000 residents. Of course there are many more factors besides gun ownership, including over population, population density, level of education, racial diversity. But the data does point to the fact that number of firearms has little to do with crime rate. http://www.chicagonow.com/chicago-muckra…
http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statisti…

Most sources that I can find show that the United States has 3 times the murder rate of Canada, but assuming that your information is correct, the US would still have double the homicide rate of Canada when you delete gun crimes from the data. So even without a single gun the US would have twice the homicide rate (1.5 time the homicide rate based on the statistics I can find-). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Ca…

The only conclusion I can come to is that the US has very different demographics than Canada.

Also the Canada gun registry has been shown to have no effect on crime. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/20…

Crime comes from many sources, but guns do not cause crime anymore than pens cause spelling errors.

overall rate

@72: Did I not just remind you that historians DO NOT KNOW how old Aisha was when her marriage to Mohammed was consummated? Some say 10, some say 20, most say somewhere in between. I really don't know where you're getting your zany ideas about Islam promoting sexual slavery...
By the way, since you brought it up, my genus is Homo. I'm straight, though.

@74: Does Chicago have a crime problem because guns were banned? Or were guns banned because Chicago has a crime problem?
I'd say the latter. Unfortunately, the flow of illegally-acquired weapons from areas with laxer firearms sales laws has made it very difficult to keep guns off the streets in this city.

@78
DO NOT GET A BUSHMASTER! They have always had QC problems, even more so since they were bought out by Remington/Cerberus. Colt makes a quality product, but you will pay more than if you got a comparable product from someone else

My advice is to build your own, you will get a better product for less than half the price, and assembling an AR lower only takes about 30 minutes.

Companies I would recommend are Bravo Company USA (BCM) and Spikes Tactical, if you are on a budget DSA and Palmetto State Armory both make quality products.

Make sure your barrel is either chrome lined or has a nitride treated bore (DSA is the only company I know that offers nitride). Stay away from low budget unestablished companies.

The most important part is your bolt carrier group. Go with LMT (Lewis machine tool) they are the company that makes bolts for Colt and the US military.

Also Magpul pmags are the best magazine out there and probably the biggest improvement to the reliability of your rifle, why they just nailed down a huge govt contract. They make some nifty accessories too.

Most importantly have fun and happy shooting.

@79: So...the most important thing for a prospective gun owner is to have fun. That's funny. I would have said "Most importantly, be safe."

If the people in the story are such tragic morons, then isn't that an argument in FAVOR of having a system of regulation where such tragic morons wouldn't be able to get a hold of guns?

Pointing out that a dimwitted ex-con with no gun safe and an emotionally unstable child was perfectly free to purchase a gun and leave it lying around the kitchen table does not really convince me that our gun laws are strict enough already.

The fact that guns don't literally come to life and slaughter people on their own isn't a very convincing argument against regulating how easily "people [that] kill people" should be able to get guns.

@80
I think Safety has been pretty well covered in this thread, besides if you are not safe with guns, you wont be having fun.

That said I would recommend that all gun owners do purchase a blow out kit.
Something like this http://www.amazon.com/S-T-R-M-Operator-I…. Make sure it that has a hemostatic dressing. Hopefully it will never need to be used.

It is good to keep one in the car too, after all the automobile is the #1 cause of trauma.

@81
She was already legally prohibited from gun ownership. How will more laws solve the problem when we are failing to enforce th agun lows on the books?

@67 Oh! You LINKED to a site that listed the top line results of some literature reviews and studies that are vaguely related to your point. Meanwhile you rhapsodize and draw unfounded conclusions based on your spin on a very specific case and set of circumstances. Sorry. Right. You're a public health genius and the very model of empirical inquiry. My bad. And, for the record, adding ad hominem to your fallacy toolbox is a nice touch.

82: For instance, if there were better limits on quantity, it would be harder for gun-runners to sell guns so easily to people like her without raising suspicion. They could also enforce standards of safety (better safety mechanisms than a simple safety switch) that all guns must pass in order to be legal. Those are just a couple examples, but the point is that the idea of passing laws that would increase the enforceability of current laws is nothing new.

People bring this up all the time: they say that a mass murderer isn't going to avoid shooting people because possession of the gun is illegal. Well no shit; that's never been what gun control advocates are arguing. They're arguing that if it's illegal to own certain types of guns, then many shooters can be arrested for THAT crime before they have a chance to actually commit the murders.

There are several factors (gun design, sale, possession, transport, etc) where a law can serve as a hindrance to gun-related violence or accidents. It's irrelevant whether it removes the criminal's desire to commit the crime. By that logic, there should be no laws against murder itself, since anti-murder legislation clearly isn't stopping people from wanting to commit murder.

This isn't blaming the technology of guns. It's being pragmatic: we can chalk every act of gun violence up to some sort of inevitability that the law cannot address, or we can figure out what laws and safety standards would reduce gun violence.

You mentioned cars in your last post as an analogy. Well guess what we do with cars? We require seat belts, brake lights, brakes themselves, and a long list of other safety standards. We require people to pass tests and reach a certain age before they can drive. We have countless traffic laws. We require people to drive sober. We don't just ban the worst offenders from driving and dismiss all the other dangers by arguing that "cars don't crash; PEOPLE crash." And while people disobey every law related to cars, we don't see that as an argument against the existence of these laws, or against their improvement.

So why would we do that with guns?

@84 This is EXACTLY what I've been saying in every one of these threads. At last another cogent gun regulation statement.

The problem is that the Strawman framing of these posts by Goldy have been totally incredulous. He keep arguing against a non-present extreme. But NOBODY (outside of a minority of deluded nut jobs) is saying an unlimited unregulated supply of guns devoid of context and training will make society safer. And then he has the balls to whine HE'S being strawman-ed?

And few of those deluded nut jobs are going to come to SLOG, follow Goldy's link and think "Hey, this guy is right. Me pack'n a 9mm 24/7 without knowing the first thing about guns might be a bad idea?"

Anybody with brain realizes that if you own a car you're more likely to get in car accidents. People know guns carry a similar risk. This is not a startling revelation and doen't further much of a discussion on the subject because it assumes 100 million people are functionally retarded when it comes to accessing risk.

So who is Goldy talking to? 90% of the Choir in liberal Seattle who think guns are evil, that's who. Two thirds of the responses in these threads have been people talking about banning hand guns. Which is ridiculous. Goldy complains we're holding him to that argument - when THAT is precisely the argument his framing fosters and he knows it. Not a nuanced statement like 84.