Speed reading must not be your forte either. I copied & pasted the article exactly as it was written. And provided the link so that anyone who may have doubted that could check for themselves.

You have your opinion on guns and I have mine. I'm sure that you can agree that we disagree. I respect your opinion, however I don't agree with it. I can respect that you don't agree with my opinion.

Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not. - Thomas Jefferson

I don't own a gun but sometimes I wish I did. I will not submit to someone else because they DO have a firearm and I do not. The founding fathers of this country realized this.
Plenty of people own illegal firearms, doesn't stop them from using them.

Guns should NEVER have been invented. But it's too late for that. This is tragic. An all too common example of the carelessness of people. But it's the people at fault, not the inanimate object.

I assume, in that case, that your house has *zero* doorways for you to hide behind with a bat. And if you think your bat swing is less accurate with someone half a foot in front of you than your firearm aim is at someone several meters away in the dark, I think you are crazy. You are more likely to connect with someone is a meaningful way with a bat than you are with a gun from that distance.

Plus, many gun owners *do* keep their guns unloaded and locked away for safety. I don't think you should be giving *yourself* as an example, but the average gun owner. You seem more responsible and knowledgeable about such things than the average person, I would assume.

And again, I contest that trust people to "be responsible," to o "educate themselves," and to "do the right thing" is asking way too much.

I don't believe that *you* believe that if there are less guns in homes, less guns in those homes will find their way into the hands of children. In your own words, if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Like I've said before, probably *less* outlaws will have guns. What's more, normal, law-abiding homes won't have guns, so the instance of children getting their hands on guns would be less.

Really, you just seem to be reinforcing my argument...

Yeah, freedom's a b1tch, ain't it?

YES, but seeing as this thread *started* with a child killing another child accidentally, that is *without malicious intent*, I would have guessed that you'd have understood my point. When it comes to guns, it's much easier for people *without malicious intent* to kill others *accidentally*.

Not reiforcing your arguement, disproving it.

Probably's and maybe's just don't cut it.

but let's follow your line of thought.

suppose you did get your way and we wake up tomorrow with a total, out and out gun ban..

what do you do about the millions and millions of previously legally owned firearms and the billions of round of ammunition people already have??

how do you enforce your new law?

keep in mind there are no registration rolls, so no way of knowing who has guns, what kind they have, how many, or where they live...

I've read this kind of thread several times. I do notice a difference of opinions with the city folks and people outside of the city.

funny that no one is remarking upon the fact that the gun was STOLEN. It was an illegal gun in the first place. No law is gonna stop illegal possesion of guns

if the kids stole a skillsaw and chopped off his arm would we be banning skillsaws?

no law is gonna stop people with bad intent

Right, freedom to be dumb can get annoying. No one is saying that we should by law force people to be dumb though. Some of us are saying we should then *educate* people. Well, I say that this takes more resources than we have and that banning guns would solve more problems than just *educating*. Even educating may not even do such a good job at solving the problem, since it's small children, who tend to be clumsy and not mindful, who often are the victims of these accidents.

I mean, if the government cared so much about freedom, it'd be doing a lot of other, much more important stuff, differently. Freedom to bear firearms is not the issue for the government, even if it is the issue for you guys. It's the lobby groups and the tradition.

So very true, Winx. I grew up in an area where at one time people drove around with a gun rack in the back window of their pickup. Guns are a way of life here where I live. Children are taught from an early age how to handle them properly. That they are off limits when an adult isn't around. The only time anyone gets shot around here is when it's intentional. On the rare, very rare occassion someone maybe shot in a hunting accident.

In order to even obtain a hunting license, which is required to go into the woods and even shot a gun, you have to go thru a hunter's training course, even children who go hunting with their parents are required to take this course.

this isn't about the city-mouse v country-mouse paradigm.

it's far deeper than that. the reason this country exists to begin with is a direct result of men and women who had the deeply seeded beliefs, stood up to a tyrranical government, fought for and won their independence.

We used to be a nation of riflemen. Now we're a nation of people who insist that someone be there to wipe our tushies..

while they maybe manufactured/produced for a specific use - things (sh!t) can always happen - accidents are just that unexpected actions/events.

I for one use a butter knife as a screwdriver when in haste

there will always be a what if - I say what if we were all careful, educated and accepted the fact that when in possession of a weapon or firearm we are liable for things/events/accidents that occur - more would be responsible.

Does this mean banning guns - No

I am just saying that I've read many of these threads over the past year. I do see a difference of opinions by location.

Maybe I'm just dumb or over-zealous. I still don't see how you disproved my logic.

You said, "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!" Okay, so if it's only the outlaws that have guns, that means that homes have fewer guns. This means Objective #1 is satisfied: Homes have fewer guns.

Thus, you have reinforced the first part of my argument.

The second part of my logic - the part about less outlaws having guns - was not really helped by your argument, I admit, but that's okay. That one is pretty self-evident: if guns are harder to get for criminals, then less criminals will get them.

Also, I speak in "probably"s and "maybe"s because one) I feel it's a little easier on the ear, and two) I don't KNOW for a fact what would happen. Even if I KNOW how things went in one situation, I often still don't KNOW how they'd go in another situation. Especially when things come to real life situations, there are often too many factors to see...

The issue of rounding up everyone's firearms is something to consider should a ban ever come into place. The way I'd do it is to ban the sale and trafficking of firearms and ammunition, thus the flow of new firearms into the market would be stemmed a bit. This means that sooner or later, all 100% law-abiding citizens would eventually be fresh out of ammo. No ammo means any guns still in homes pose zero threats to children.

As for the black market, well...guns would be more difficult to get for the poor, which is most criminals, especially drug dealers. Casual ownership of guns by poor teens in gangs would decrease a bit, thus lowering firearm fueled gang wars (knife, of course, would still happen, but they happen now anyway). Also, now you have more reason to book criminals who might also be dealing in other contraband.

I doubt the kid killed his friend on purpose. Plus, I think the gun was *stolen* from somewhere else or someone else's home, not that it was contraband to begin with. I didn't read the article closely enough, though, to say that for sure.

Actually I did on page 1.

You live in a fantasy land...

Children suffer the neglect of their responsible guardian. Period.

You're right, freedom to bear arms isn't an issue for the government because the government was founded on certain rights, THE RIGHT TO OWN A FIREARM being one of them. That part is settled and is irrevocable. The issue these days is with people who don't understand that right. Had the kid accidentally stabbed the other kid with scissors would you want to ban scissors? Had the kid accidentally drank bleach instead of Kool-aid would you want to ban bleach? People are to blame here. Not steel.

Please watch and listen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EdiTK4PRJM