Good four year olds with guns, of course. Proper gun handling, including how to take out dangerously armed children, should be part of every preschool curriculum.

Those four year olds had obviously been playing call of duty and were dangers to society, Dan.

But you are okay with it if the kids are Muslims?
Oh, sorry. "Islamo-fascists".
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Conte…

"It's all our fault, so we're just going to have to sit back and wait for New York City or D.C. or a big port city (like, say, Seattle or Portland) to disappear."

Advocating that people be killed because YOU have an overactive imagination is a problem.

@2. Not sure that 4 year old have developed the hand eye coordination or dexterity to play COD, they need to be at least 6 in my experience.

Well because they're children and don't yet know Original Sin, they can be neither good nor bad, which means that they fall beyond the purview of "good guy".

Interesting loophole...

First and second graders are about 15 years away from being able to work 50 hours a week for a major corporation for an insultingly low wage. Little wonder Republicans think they're expendable.

They aren't fetuses, so they don't have a right to life.

@9 FTW

If fetuses had guns there would be no abortions.

FU, if all you have is a lame attempt to change the subject, stop posting. Dan is just the messenger on this, the facts are what is on the table.

And the simple fact is that current American gun laws are untenable. They only serve gun manufacturers and fetishists. For the public at large, they are not only worthless, but the source of continued death. The fetishists will scream that outlawing guns is a horror. Except that's just more extremism from extremists, who only understand extreme solutions. There are plenty of solutions to try that still allow the fetishists to clean their glocks in their bunker and dream about "the bad people" while protected the public at large from pointless gun deaths.

They should have been taught gun safety at 2, obviously.

@12
"fetishists"
"fetishists"
"scream"
"horror"
"extremism"
"extremists"
"extreme"
"fetishists"

The point is that Dan is find advocating the death of families who do not hold the same views that he does.
As long as they're in a different country.
But he gets upset when someone is shot in America.

So it isn't the guns or the shootings.
It's whether the victims deserve to die because they are guilty of being born in a country that Dan does not like.

Yea, guns don't kill people, people kill people... So let's blame these deaths on the four year old children?

We have to take a written test in automotive rules and safety to drive a car (but not to buy a car, hm...) Why not a test in gun safety to operate a gun, if not to own one?

Things like "For f#$@ck's sake, keep it locked up where a child cannot get it" would be major questions; get this one wrong and fail the test.

We have so many car seat laws that kids are practically mummified when they are driven to Grandma's.

@7 And how many are dead? ZERO.

Yeah, getting stabbed hurts real bad and that sucks, but the 14 stabbing victims will live to see another day. Had it been an AR-15, we'd be talking about 14 fatalities instead. False equivalency.

Obviously, none of this would have happened if the 48-year-old and the 6-year-old had been properly armed.

@15

I suppose one would have to blame their shitstain parents for buying guns and keeping them where their children can get ahold of them.

sad as they may be, these occurences are revealing another flaw with the gun-nuts' position: proper gun ownership means keeping guns unloaded, locked up, and out of the prying hands of children; but conversely, what good is a gun for self defense if its unloaded and locked away? you're typical home intruder probably isn't going to let you call a timeout, while you retrieve and load your gun.

so proper self defense means you need to have your guns loaded and accessible at all times, which also means we're going to continue to have a whole lot of dead kids and moms.

The gun rights folks' spewing just gets more ridiculous everyday, yet they control the politicians in this matter. USA, USA, USA! Slaughtered 6yos are an acceptable price for FREEDOM!!

@4, 14 - So "Dan supported the Iraq war once, therefore don't trust him when he posts facts about gun violence!" is all you've got now? You should talk to the NRA, they could use someone of your... talent.

@23
Learn what quotation marks mean.
Or don't.
You're just making my point for me.

Dan is just fine advocating for the killing of people who were born in a country that he disagrees with.
But he wants to be sarcastic when there is an accidental death in America.
So it isn't about the deaths.

these aren't "accidental" deaths. they're negligent homicide - on the part of the "law-abiding legal gun owners", the most american americans that ever americaed.

or isn't "don't give toddlers access to your loaded weapons" covered in NRA safety courses?

@24 - So which of the people doing the killing in these two events are part of a well regulated militia?

The NRA also recommends that high tension power lines be put very close to the ground, so that we may all exercise our god-given right to electricity any time we need it. Danger? What danger? Responsible electricity users stay well away from live power lines!

@26
"So which of the people doing the killing in these two events are part of a well regulated militia?"

Since both kids in those incidents were 4 years old I would think that you would be able to answer that for yourself.
Which is why both incidents were accidents.

@Fairly Unbalanced -- while Dan's position in support of the Iraq war has turned out to be wrong, your characterization of it as "not caring if Iraqi civilians get killed" is equally wrong; Dan, like most of the liberal hawks, supported the war because he believed that fighting a war to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime would result, over the years following the war, in *fewer* killings and other atrocities against civilians, compared with the results of not fighting the war and leaving Saddam in power. Since Saddam's regime was responsible for unjustly imprisoning, torturing, and murdering hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians during his time in power, this was not an entirely implausible thing to believe.

In other words, Dan cared very much about Iraqi civilian deaths, and didn't think it made a difference who killed them, whereas the anti-war position, in his view, was that it didn't matter a bit if Iraqi civilians were killed, as long as it was their own government doing the killing. That characterization wasn't entirely fair, either, since some opponents of the war did care about Saddam's atrocities, but believed that the war and its aftermath would be even worse for the people of Iraq than the regime was, which has, at least arguably, turned out to be correct. However, the slogan "No to war, no to oppression" really was just as mindlessly self-contradicting as Dan made it out to be: war is often the only way of stopping oppression, and naive pacifism is an invitation to tyranny.