Uncle accidentally shoots 2-year-old niece in the face while trying out new Christmas gift

Lord Foul wrote:

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Because I grew up in a high-crime neighborhood and it makes me feel safer to have one. I have no idea whether I could kill someone with it, though I doubt it would have to come to that (warning shot?). I freely admit that it's mainly something to make me feel like I could protect myself if I had to. I'd happily submit to any and all regulations on it, if only we could have some ...

Fair enough. It's hard for us to imagine, as over here it's kind of rare, for someone "ordinary" (non gang member, non-hunter etc) to have a gun.

non gun owners are not "ordinary" they are aberrant.

and I object to being considered in the same category as a "gang member"  
the worst kind of association fallacy.....

like lumping veggies with pro life bombers


grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

eddie wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

non gun owners are not "ordinary" they are aberrant.

and I object to being considered in the same category as a "gang member"  
the worst kind of association fallacy.....

like lumping veggies with pro life bombers


grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

I mentioned hunters too grumpy bollocks

Lord Foul wrote:

eddie wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

non gun owners are not "ordinary" they are aberrant.

and I object to being considered in the same category as a "gang member"  
the worst kind of association fallacy.....

like lumping veggies with pro life bombers


grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

I mentioned hunters too grumpy bollocks

pffft...you included me in the "gun nut" category by default by claiming that ALONG with gang members....hunters were not "normal"

sniff...

Lord Foul wrote:snigger.....

Eilzel wrote:A gun's primary use is to kill.
A car's primary use is to get from A-B fast.

utterly irrelevant since the end result is the same  the above is just a deflection and ignoring the inconvenient truth


Nobody 'needs' a gun.
Some people need a car to get to work.

true however if they didnt qualify via criminality or any of the other good reasons to disbar ...why do you have a worry...?? the honest decent upright citizen with no criminal background, no domestic violence history and of sound temprement would get a licence just the same as the above would get his/her gun licence

So to have car ownership subject to the same restrictions as gun ownership would potentially be limiting job opportunities for some and make the lives of others extremely difficult.

only those who's lives deserve to be tough and limited   or do you think the serial rapist deserves a car to ply his trade ? the thief a car to carry away his ill gotten gains...
presumably you are happy that the habitual drunk or drug user is free to get his licence back after a minor inconvenience of a year ban??
that the violent thug with no self control is able to go out and terrorise the area at will?


No one is asking for an outright ban (though I wouldn't be sad at the idea, the system we have in the UK works well enough), but you can't honestly think the ease people can get guns, as described by Ben, is a sensible situation to have.

Eilzel wrote:A gun's primary use is to kill.
A car's primary use is to get from A-B fast.

Nobody 'needs' a gun.
Some people need a car to get to work.

So to have car ownership subject to the same restrictions as gun ownership would potentially be limiting job opportunities for some and make the lives of others extremely difficult.

No one is asking for an outright ban (though I wouldn't be sad at the idea, the system we have in the UK works well enough), but you can't honestly think the ease people can get guns, as described by Ben, is a sensible situation to have.

Eilzel wrote:A criminal who has served time or someone with mental issues that may stop them getting a gun, will need to work the same as everyone else. Stopping them getting a car would be just another thing barring them from getting on in life. That's an extreme example of course.

so you would be happy with someone with serious mental issues driving a vehicle?? wierd

as for the criminal...he will have to suffer the indignity of catching public transport......

But I feel this debate has moved from simple gun restrictions, which in the states even you agree with- now you seem to be expecting equally harsh restrictions on cars, why? Spite?
nope not spite.....dislike of two faced hypocrisy...the fact that you and the rest of the luvvies are quite happy to see the continued slaughter on our roads...because any sensible restrictions might (may) bite your ass

let me remind you again 1000+ deaths...

Yes we talked about public safety, but even you must see the massive difference between car deaths and gun deaths.
dead is dead...imposing the restrictions as I suggest would reduce that massively

Mainly; intention or accident.
intent is irrelevant...MOST fatal accidents....especially where the victim is innocent of error..... are the result of serious negligence, if not downright law breaking. Now I really dont see THAT much difference between the guy who goes out with the deliberate intent to kill someone, and the guy that goes out with the deliberate intent to not give a fuck if he kills someone....

more importantly ...as you can imagine gun owners are by their very nature, some of the most law abiding citizens in the UK...we have to be...or we lose that licence...

now...perhaps if a driving licence was as "hard" to get and as easy to lose...it might just calm some of our feral citizens a little... I suspect the number of drunk louts would fall dramatically....after the first few dozen had lost their licence for life having been picked up pissed and puking outside the night club for the third or fouth time....

Lord Foul wrote:are you really that ignorant of the english language quill?

or is it just your turn in the stupid barrel tonite?

Stormee wrote:Should the man who fired the gun face the courts?

I say YES.

Everyone knows you NEVER have a loaded gun unless you are in the process of firing it.
You NEVER point it at anyone loaded or not.

Criminal Law wrote:Negligent homicide is a much lower intent crime and is used as a charge when one person causes the death of another through criminal negligence. The charge does not involve premeditation, but focuses on what the defendant should have known and the risks associated with what he did know.