Imagine if this guy couldn't have obtained a gun for self defense? That would have been a tragedy.

Man Killed Daughter, 6 Young Grandchildren in Apparent Murder-Suicide in Florida: Sheriff’s Dept.
http://ktla.com/2014/09/18/8-dead-including-6-children-in-apparent-murder-suicide-in-florida-sheriffs-
The kids were 3 months to 10 years.
Lois

If the children would have had guns they could have defended themselves.
The problem is not that there are too many guns: there are still not enough. :-S

Wait, are you being sarcastic? If he wasn’t able to obtain a gun the kids would still be alive, which I’m assuming would NOT be a tragedy. The tragedy is that he was allowed to get a gun even with his criminal record evidently.
And gdb, if the kids had guns the family, and probably numerous others, would have been dead by accidental shooting awhile ago.
The true answer IMHO is that there was something in this guy’s life that had him so low that he’d not just kill himself but innocent children. I wouldn’t doubt if it had to do with money.

Wait, are you being sarcastic? If he wasn’t able to obtain a gun the kids would still be alive, which I’m assuming would NOT be a tragedy. The tragedy is that he was allowed to get a gun even with his criminal record evidently.
C'mon Cuth, you saw GdBs smiley. Of course he didn't mean it. This was a horrific crime carried out by a sociopathic criminal with a record of violent behavior. And we may never know what, if anything motivated him to kill innocent children. And no child should ever be armed. We just saw an example of that bad idea when a nine year old girl blew a range officer away with an Uzi she couldn't control. My question is how many more examples of lax gun control (the killer obtained a gun illegally) will the public allow before pressuring the state and national government to take action, close the loopholes and enforce laws already passed? Even if the NRA touts this incident as isolated, it's an example of ignoring gun control laws, especially in Florida. Cap't Jack
If the children would have had guns they could have defended themselves. The problem is not that there are too many guns: there are still not enough. :-S
Especially the 3 month old. In fact all the kids were under 10. Do you have kids? If so, can I assume they are fully armed with loaded guns immediately at the ready? Have you made sure that all the kids in your family from birth to adulthood are fully armed with loaded guns at the ready at every moment? If not, you are neglecting your family responsibilities. Kids can be shot at any moment. You can't be too careful. All kids of any age should greet grandpa at the door with loaded guns drawn, cocked and pointed at him . They should greet everyone who comes to the door with loaded guns. They should have them loaded and cocked at every moment inside and outside the house. Presumably that's what you do at your house. Excellent thinking and planning. You and your family must feel well protected. Lois
Wait, are you being sarcastic? If he wasn't able to obtain a gun the kids would still be alive, which I'm assuming would NOT be a tragedy. The tragedy is that he was allowed to get a gun even with his criminal record evidently. And gdb, if the kids had guns the family, and probably numerous others, would have been dead by accidental shooting awhile ago. The true answer IMHO is that there was something in this guy's life that had him so low that he'd not just kill himself but innocent children. I wouldn't doubt if it had to do with money.
You're right. Certainly one or more family members would have been dead in the family either by accidental or deliberate shooting. He had already killed his own son, a child, with a gun, and spent several years in prison for it. Too bad it wasn't or life. Yes, what we need is more guns. The reason he was able to get a gun is because there are so many of them. Anyone can pick one up at any time--even a felon who had kiled his own child. Lois

OK, next time I will use sarcasm-tags.

I really get fed up by those gun idiots who think the world would be better by making guns freely available for everybody. So I just brought their way of thinking to the extreme.

Yeah, give the 3 months old guns, so they probably can shoot before they can walk.

Clear now, Lois and CuthbertJ?
I have lived in countries where you are checked through and through before you get a gun allowance. That’s not bad. Better would even be when no civilian would be allowed to have a gun.

I have lived in countries where you are checked through and through before you get a gun allowance. That’s not bad. Better would even be when no civilian would be allowed to have a gun.
Point number one is doable here and should be done immediately. Point two will never happen as long as people are made to be paranoid about a "government take over" and that's an easy lie to believe as it's been ingrained in our political culture since we declared independence. The NRA's been fanning that flame for years with Charlton Heston's "cold, dead fingers"speech. After all, how will ever defend ourselves from (fill in the blank here) if we aren't well armed? Cap't Jack
Point two will never happen as long as people are made to be paranoid about a "government take over" and that's an easy lie to believe as it's been ingrained in our political culture since we declared independence. The NRA's been fanning that flame for years with Charlton Heston's "cold, dead fingers"speech. After all, how will ever defend ourselves from (fill in the blank here) if we aren't well armed? Cap't Jack
I think this second point needs some re-examination If you look around the world today armed citizen majorities are not using their weapons to protect themselves from tyrannical governments. Instead what is happening is that in countries with an armed citizenry minority ethnic groups are using the disproportionate power that those arms give them to topple majority supported governments. Its not a far reach to imagine some right wing zealots armed to the teeth using their weapons to create a violent revolt even in our own country. I think the odds of that happening are higher than the odds of the government assuming absolute power over the people.
OK, next time I will use sarcasm-tags.

I really get fed up by those gun idiots who think the world would be better by making guns freely available for everybody. So I just brought their way of thinking to the extreme.

Yeah, give the 3 months old guns, so they probably can shoot before they can walk.

Clear now, Lois and CuthbertJ?
I have lived in countries where you are checked through and through before you get a gun allowance. That’s not bad. Better would even be when no civilian would be allowed to have a gun.


Glad to hear it. It’s often impossible to tell the difference between sarcasm amd serious responses from you. :roll: I hadn’t noticed the smiley.
Lois

I have lived in countries where you are checked through and through before you get a gun allowance. That’s not bad. Better would even be when no civilian would be allowed to have a gun.
Point number one is doable here and should be done immediately. Point two will never happen as long as people are made to be paranoid about a "government take over" and that's an easy lie to believe as it's been ingrained in our political culture since we declared independence. The NRA's been fanning that flame for years with Charlton Heston's "cold, dead fingers"speech. After all, how will ever defend ourselves from (fill in the blank here) if we aren't well armed? Cap't Jack
I disagree with one thing. It's not that the American people are intrinsically frightened of a government takeover, but that the NRA uses such scare tactics as an argument for the availability of guns. Scare tactics suit the NRA agenda. People would not be nearly so frightened of a government takeover if it weren't for the NRA spreading fear and lies. I suppose people believe that their guns could keep the US military at bay. They've all been watching too many Grade B (and lower) movies and listening to "survivalists" who are as dumb as bucket of rocks. Lois
Point two will never happen as long as people are made to be paranoid about a "government take over" and that's an easy lie to believe as it's been ingrained in our political culture since we declared independence. The NRA's been fanning that flame for years with Charlton Heston's "cold, dead fingers"speech. After all, how will ever defend ourselves from (fill in the blank here) if we aren't well armed? Cap't Jack
I think this second point needs some re-examination If you look around the world today armed citizen majorities are not using their weapons to protect themselves from tyrannical governments. Instead what is happening is that in countries with an armed citizenry minority ethnic groups are using the disproportionate power that those arms give them to topple majority supported governments. Its not a far reach to imagine some right wing zealots armed to the teeth using their weapons to create a violent revolt even in our own country. I think the odds of that happening are higher than the odds of the government assuming absolute power over the people. Armed right wing zealots, in theory, could create a violent revolt in this country and kill a lot people, but how long do you think they could keep the US military at bay? How much chance Do you think they'd have with their guns to avoid being annihilated by US military tanks, bombs, missiles and fighter jets? do you think the US government will just throw up their hands in surrender and say, "OK, you win, there are too many guns in the hands of civilians and we are no match in the face of such weaponry"? Lois
Its not a far reach to imagine some right wing zealots armed to the teeth using their weapons to create a violent revolt even in our own country. I think the odds of that happening are higher than the odds of the government assuming absolute power over the people.
I disagree here Mac. We do have our fair share of armed wingnuts but they are too divided and scattered to be any real threat to the government. Besides, they're being carefully monitored by the FBI and other agencies to be any real threat. That's not to say that they aren't dangerous either. The wannabe they're currently chasing for the sniping death of the Penn. police officer is a classic example as well as the hundred ISIl recruits from here who have found a cause célèbre to rape and murder. I'm also not advocating the reverse scenerio of a complete government blitz to disarm the public. No American political leader would touch that idea; it would be political suicide. The best solution currently is to strictly enforce the laws of ownership and use and keep our fingers crossed that Pinker is right. Cap't Jack

And what did We The People expect when we demanded every household needed to have weapons in every room… :down:

Glad to hear it. It's often impossible to tell the difference between sarcasm amd serious responses from you. :roll: I hadn't noticed the smiley.
:lol: Of course, in reality I do not believe in free will at all. Hope you get it... And by the way, I have two kids, and in real life I have only seen a hand gun three times. And only one of these times it was used to threaten somebody in the street. My eyes nearly felt out of my skull. Yep, in this respect the most parts of Europe are paradise!
Man Killed Daughter, 6 Young Grandchildren in Apparent Murder-Suicide in Florida: Sheriff’s Dept. http://ktla.com/2014/09/18/8-dead-including-6-children-in-apparent-murder-suicide-in-florida-sheriffs- The kids were 3 months to 10 years. Lois
This guy could have obtained a gun in any way, shape, or form, because he's a criminal who lives in Florida. Your attempt at clever sarcasm fails.

The “revolution has begun” a right wing zealot armed to the teeth using his weapon to attempt a violent revolt in Pa. shot two state troopers and killed one.

Isn’t gun control just one variable in death rates?
There are numerous other factors such as poverty, education, etc. Which affect what a population does.
Thus to single out gun control, ONLY, seems to be unrealistic in resolving the issue.
For example, in places where I have lived, the death penalty is used to successfully lower crime, but the experts
there themselves admit it is used together in cohesive system to work. Many of them are opposed to bringing their
laws into other areas uncritically.

Isn't gun control just one variable in death rates? There are numerous other factors such as poverty, education, etc. Which affect what a population does. Thus to single out gun control, ONLY, seems to be unrealistic in resolving the issue. For example, in places where I have lived, the death penalty is used to successfully lower crime, but the experts there themselves admit it is used together in cohesive system to work. Many of them are opposed to bringing their laws into other areas uncritically.
The death penalty has been shown not to lower crime, which is why all civikized countries have ended it. In Victorian England pickpockets were hanged. Crowds would gather to watch the public hangings. Pickpockets were rampant in the crowds watching the hangings. So much for deterrence! The US has the death penalty, and the murder rate in the US is among the highest in the Western world. How do you explain that? There are states that have ended the death penalty that have lower murder rates than states with the death penalty. If the death penalty lowers crime, how do you explain this? Please offer some rational statistics that the death penalty lowers crime. Lois
Isn't gun control just one variable in death rates? There are numerous other factors such as poverty, education, etc. Which affect what a population does. Thus to single out gun control, ONLY, seems to be unrealistic in resolving the issue. For example, in places where I have lived, the death penalty is used to successfully lower crime, but the experts there themselves admit it is used together in cohesive system to work. Many of them are opposed to bringing their laws into other areas uncritically.
The death penalty has been shown not to lower crime, which is why all civikized countries have ended it. In Victorian England pickpockets were hanged. Crowds would gather to watch the public hangings. Pickpockets were rampant in the crowds watching the hangings. So much for deterrence! The US has the death penalty, and the murder rate in the US is among the highest in the Western world. How do you explain that? There are states that have ended the death penalty that have lower murder rates than states with the death penalty. If the death penalty lowers crime, how do you explain this? Please offer some rational statistics that the death penalty lowers crime. Lois Thanks for the comments Lois. Insightful Just to clarify though. 10 years before the Victorian era, the death penalty began to be reserved for only murder. Criminology edited by Chris Hale, Keith Hayward, Azrini Wahidin, Emma Wincup page 36-37 http://books.google.com/books?id=laqcAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=the+bloody+code+1830s&source=bl&ots=HPihxHybye&sig=G46UsTcevtibIhuKjjl48AvY5bQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eIgnVIyrO8uOyATs6YDYCw&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBTgU#v=onepage&q=the bloody code 1830s&f=false With regards to the death penalty, I said there needs to be a system with it. If a country just decides to implement ONLY the death penalty as their change, then that is stupid. The same goes for gun control or any other laws. If you want to know the criminal justice systems that do work well as a whole, then check these out http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/ (The first results for next two links) https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&tbm=bks&q=transnational+and+comparative+criminology+most+scholars+arabian+crime&oq=transnational+and+comparative+criminology+most+scholars+arabian+crime&gs_l=serp.3...1720.2431.0.2523.6.6.0.0.0.0.76.374.6.6.0....0...1c.1.54.serp..6.0.0.VrupkWsr0nU https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=if+we+want+to+study+and+compare+the+crime+rates&gws_rd=ssl