Responsible Gun Owner Shoots His Family, Burns Down Home

[M14 Shooter]

You cannot walk around with guns over here. As a result, we have no mass shootings. Not like this tragic story. I am not surprised, though. This will happen more and more.

My extended family (grandpas, uncles, cousins, brothers, etc.) have owned guns for many, many generations and nobody in my family has shot another member of the family. I've own a firearm since I was 12 and have never even pointed it at a family member (or anyone else for that matter).

Quit being asinine.

These days, drugs (including and perhaps especially prescription drugs) and alcohol are far more to blame for violence and irresponsibility that guns are.

There are mass shootings every other day in America.....

Interesting that the only way you can make your point is to lie.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You cannot walk around with guns over here.

You know this is a lie, right?

You cannot walk around with guns here. Not on a public street,

Again, a lie.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You can outrun a baseball bat. Have yet to m.eet a human that can outrun a bullet.

I doubt that someone's family would feel a need to outrun a bat. But I guess he could hook a hose to a car exhaust late at night and get everyone while they're sleeping. Should we ban exhaust pipes? Kitchen knives? Ropes? Rocks? Fists? Axes? Etc.?

Blaming an inanimate object instead of the loon using it is asinine.

True. But saying America doesn't have issues when it comes to guns and crime is also asinine...

~300,000,000 guns
~8500 gun-related murders each year.
Thus:
~0.0028% of guns in the US are used to murder
It's a fracking epidemic!

 

[M14 Shooter]

But he sure deserved the right to own that firearm which killed his own family, eh?

Sadly, evil people have rights, too.

rights can be limited with respect to the abusive, criminal or mentally ill.

After due process, and not "just in case".

 

[M14 Shooter]

Involving gun possession:
It is indeed nearly impossible to determine whether someone is criminal until they do the crime

That's how it works in a free country. You'd have it otherwise?

However; it is reasonable to predict senseless gun deaths will reduce if we treat gun ownership and use like ability to use another potentially lethal weapon: cars.

Indeed!
You do not need a license to buy, own, possess, or store a car, operate in on private property or transport it on public property.
Same with registration.
Not sure you hou think you still have a point.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sadly, evil people have rights, too.

a baseball bat would do the same job!!!

You can outrun a baseball bat. Have yet to m.eet a human that can outrun a bullet.

^^^
A statement in dire need of relevance.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The very title of this thread is dishonest. No 'responsible' person kills his family and burns down his house. The guy is a nutjob. What is this? An attempt to say that there is no such thing as a 'responsible' gun owner? My dad suffers from PTSD and clinical depression, he own a glock and a civilian issue M16. Haven't seen him act in such a way. Pretty responsible gun owner if you ask me.

And what if that person with depression swallows their gun?

Simple question: Must we be a nanny state, Noomi?

 

[JoeB131]

The very title of this thread is dishonest. No 'responsible' person kills his family and burns down his house. The guy is a nutjob. What is this? An attempt to say that there is no such thing as a 'responsible' gun owner? My dad suffers from PTSD and clinical depression, he own a glock and a civilian issue M16. Haven't seen him act in such a way. Pretty responsible gun owner if you ask me.

And what if that person with depression swallows their gun?

Simply question: Must we be a nanny state, Noomi?

I think someone with PTSD and clinical depression shouldn't own a gun to start with.

It's actually pretty simple, really.

The problem with thinking gun ownership is a "right" instead of a "privilege" is that you don't exercise any common sense over who shouldn't have a gun.

 

[TemplarKormac]

 

[Luddly Neddite]

If his wife and two kids have been armed, dad would have never been able to do this......

I think its unlikely that any of them would have shot dad. If mom had shot him, the kids would be in foster homes. If a kid had shot him, he would have to live with having killed his own father.

Talk about a lose-lose-lose-lose situation.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Sadly, evil people have rights, too.

a baseball bat would do the same job!!!

You can outrun a baseball bat. Have yet to m.eet a human that can outrun a bullet.

I used to know a police dog trainer and the cops who worked with dogs.

They ALL said that same thing -

You can call a dog back but once you fire a gun, its done and you have to live with the consequences.

And, its seems we've lost the ability to recognize a situation where yelling or fists are more appropriate than blowing someone's head off. Walking with skittles, throwing popcorn, texting, loud music, domestic fights - people reach for a gun instead of walking away or just getting into a stupid fight.

 

[Rocko]

You cannot walk around with guns over here. As a result, we have no mass shootings. Not like this tragic story. I am not surprised, though. This will happen more and more.

Not for nothing but nobody cares about Australia.

You mean America doesn't care. America is so wrapped up in itself your citizens are too dumb to find Australia on a map.

If you feel that way maybe you shouldn't post on USMessageboard.

 

[whitehall]

To paraphrase a popular democrat politician "never let a tragedy go to waste if you can make a political point". The perpetrator might have legally possessed a firearm (or not) but where does the assumption of "responsibility" fit in? Is the concept of "responsibility" just another left wing knee jerk cliche or is it real? Here's an example of responsibility for the low information left: today Obama's Veterans Administration secretary testified that he "takes responsibility" for the negligent deaths of hundreds of V.A. patients but we can't even get him to resign much less be prosecuted.

 

[Darkwind]

First, contrary to what you may believe, one can not own or buy a firearm freely at any age. For long guns, the general rule in most states that I am aware of requires an individual to 18 years of age. For handguns, to the best of my knowledge, the age for owning or purchasing in most states is 21. And, just like a car, some under the designated age will get their hands on one. That's called a lapse in responsibility by the owner, be it a car or a gun...


But to your broader question as to why we do not regulate firearms as we do cars, the short answer, the one you will get from anyone who would answer your query, is this:


The right to bear arms in protected by the Constitution, driving and owning an automobile is not.


You may not like the answer, you may think it trite, but there it is. Any deficiency you find with that answer is your problem...

A few years ago, I was at the sporting goods counter in wally world. In front of me was a couple and and a very young boy. He was instructing them what ammo to buy. Even though there was a sign over his shoulder forbidding underage kids from buying certain ammo, the clerk said nothing, the woman paid for the shells and handed the bag to the child.

The woman who cleans for us has an 8yo boy who she says can hardly lift the "long gun" he uses.

If reading here is any indication, more and more brain dead adults are handing guns over to children as a form of screwy defiance that the non-existent "gun grabbers" can't tell them what to do.

Um...I am not questioning the 2nd amendment per se...just gun enthusiasts who ignore the "well regulated" part...
Does this mean that they do not recognize and respect the potential lethality and power of guns and the need for reasonable regulation to deal with that...like we do with cars?
People do die in car accidents, but could u imagine the carnage if there were no requirements for training, licensure, and rules of the road?
Recognizing that guns are AT LEAST as potentially lethal as cars, Why shouldn't gun ownership require weapons safety and use training and gun registration and licensure?
Of course that wouldn't "solve everything"...but it would sure cut down on irresponsible gun use and deaths.
...And for u 2nd Amendment and Constitution mavens out there...it would do justice to the "well regulated"part...


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Perhaps you should read the 2nd again. The 'well regulated' has nothing to do with regulations or laws.

A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms

 

[Darkwind]

And what if that person with depression swallows their gun?

Simply question: Must we be a nanny state, Noomi?

I think someone with PTSD and clinical depression shouldn't own a gun to start with.

It's actually pretty simple, really.

The problem with thinking gun ownership is a "right" instead of a "privilege" is that you don't exercise any common sense over who shouldn't have a gun.

I think that it is a right because it actually IS a right.

 

[Spoonman]

You cannot walk around with guns over here. As a result, we have no mass shootings. Not like this tragic story. I am not surprised, though. This will happen more and more.

then again, even when you had guns you didn't have mass shootings.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I don't think we know all the facts on this, yet. Were his family wearing hoodies? Were they threatening the father, and he was standing his ground? Did they lock themselves out of the house, and were they breaking back in? Was any of them in the process of committing a felony?

 

[S.J.]

And what if that person with depression swallows their gun?

Simply question: Must we be a nanny state, Noomi?

I think someone with PTSD and clinical depression shouldn't own a gun to start with.

It's actually pretty simple, really.

The problem with thinking gun ownership is a "right" instead of a "privilege" is that you don't exercise any common sense over who shouldn't have a gun.

It's not a privilege, it's a right, you ignorant #%#$^.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Thank you for helping to prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[JoeB131]

Thank you for helping to prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Gee, I think it has a lot more to do with listening to you gun nuts fantasize over all the people you just can't wait to shoot.