Two accidentally shot in church while discussing church shootings

Yet there are still well over 30,000 auto deaths. Why do you not propose banning cars and mandating mass transit "for the children" thus saving about 900 kids a year?

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/child-safety/fatalityfacts/child-safety
Seventy-one percent of child motor vehicle crash deaths in 2015 were passenger vehicle occupants, 20 percent were pedestrians, and 3 percent were bicyclists. Child pedestrian and bicyclist deaths declined by 89 and 94 percent, respectively, since 1975. Passenger vehicle child occupant deaths in 2015 were 52 percent lower than in 1975.

 

Yes, you're right. Look at the large reduction in number of deaths due to more car safety regulations and other changes. Now what are gun nuts doing to reduce the number of shootings?

 

30,000 deaths by drivers requiring insurance and license to drive. It seems like you're proposing scrapping these requirements. That will go well - let everyone drive without needing a license, insurance or learning how to drive but of course that 30,000 deaths will stay the same

 

Large reduction, yes, but why are you content with over 30,000+ annual auto deaths, almost a 1000 of which are children, yet complain about 500+ accidental gun deaths? Why the bias? Is it because you loooooove your car and find the convenience of private transportation worth the loss of a 1000 kids?

 

Incorrect, but I understand why you want to leap to that conclusion.

What I'm doing it threefold;
1) Pointing out the hypocrisy of the anti-gun Left; they seek to ban or highly restrict a fundamental right on the pretense that it would stop 11,000+ homicides (primarily gang murders), 21,000+ suicides (less than half total suicides) and 500+ accidental deaths yet they are completely satisfied with the regulations regarding autos even those automobiles kill over 30,000 Americans each year, about a 1000 of which are kids. Why do they think regulating guns will stop gang murders and suicides yet don't want to ban cars in favor of public transportation? One word: CONVENIENCE.

2) Regulations are nice, but as shown with automobiles, deaths will still happen due to accidents and as the Neo-Nazi murder of a protester proved, you can't stop someone intent on murder.

3) More importantly, when you start empowering government to restrict rights based on "need" you go down a very dark path. Do you "need" freedom of speech? Protests which are not condoned by government would be banned. Same goes for blogs, newspapers or other media which do not say things approved by TPTB.

 

You forgot to answer the question being now what are gun nuts doing to reduce the number of shootings?

 

Please point out anyone who have said that they are completely satisfied with auto regulations. In fact, the reduction of auto deaths has decreased with regulations such as seat belt regulation, no using mobile phone regulations, better braking systems etc

No one said that deaths will drop to zero. I'm amazed that you would need to be told this!

Irrelevant but clearly you are happy with the status quo and will sweep the next mass shooting under the carpet

 

Why would I or should I. I don't want to ban guns either. Stop projecting nonsense.

 

No you're not.
We have all those auto deaths with all the rules and requirements to drive a vehicle.
If none of those requirements existed, that death toll would likely triple.

So what is wrong with putting regulations that will lower auto deaths, gun deaths, or any other mishap type deaths?

 

To make drivers more responsible I suggest that a breath test be required before the driver can start the car. Disabling or circumventing the system in ANY manner automatically increase any accident to the next highest level up to AND including 1st degree murder.

 

Well, at least no innocent people were harmed.

 

Dude, that's my point. Just like you're happy with the level of auto regulations and, by default, consider 30,000+ deaths the "cost of doing business", I'm satisfied with the level of gun regulations.

OTOH, the enforcement of those current regs needs some work. Banning guns won't solve the Big Blue City (BBC) gang problem nor will banning guns cure depression and other mental illnesses. If you want to solve those problems, stop trying to shred the Constitution and try actually solving the problems.

 

Gunsters shoot themselves and their loved quite frequently. It is never a laughing matter.

Keeping oneself and one's own loved ones far away from them is the only sensible thing to do.

 

Thanks for expressing your satisfaction with the level of auto regulations even though over 30,000 Americans, about 1000 of them children, die each year.

As for gun regs, they're sufficient. Murder is already illegal. Do you want to give murderers double secret probation or execute them twice if they commit murder with a gun rather than a knife or baseball bat? Speaking of which, what are the regs on knives and baseball bats? Something you should look into regulating.

Many states already rule suicide illegal. What do you propose doing to someone who successfully commits suicide? Life imprisonment? What if their suicide attempt fails? Attempted murder with a mandatory sentence if they use a firearm? It's already illegal for a felon or adjudicated mentally ill person to buy a gun. Again, what do you propose? Making it doubly illegal? Making doing something illegal a crime?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Suicide
Under Common Law, suicide, or the intentional taking of one's own life, was a felony that was punished by Forfeiture of all the goods and chattels of the offender. Under modern U.S. law, suicide is no longer a crime. Some states, however, classify attempted suicide as a criminal act, but prosecutions are rare, especially when the offender is terminally ill. Instead, some jurisdictions require a person who attempts suicide to undergo temporary hospitalization and psychological observation. A person who causes the death of an innocent bystander or would-be rescuer while in the process of attempting suicide may be guilty of murder or Manslaughter.

 

Some seem eager to surrender to the current astronomical level of firearm fatalities in the US.

Others recognize that all other advanced nations have achieved a far lower rate, and feel Americans are every bit as capable of doing so as well.

 

Anti-"Gunsters", like anti-Christians, love to quote "facts" without facts, links or other evidence.

Wouldn't you think it deplorable if some asshat kept saying things like "99% of Atheists drink Christian baby blood" without ever backing it up with factual evidence? Do you agree that someone who backs up their posts with references and verifiable facts is much better at persuading others that their position is the correct one?

 

Just another reason to "high crime" the unlawful discharge of a fire arm
and not the gun or owning or carrying it.
There are no accidents. You hold it and it discharges, it's on You.

 

Another fine example of emotional rhetoric without a single fact in sight. Thanks for proving my previous point!

 

Really? Lemme guess: You only support "common sense gun control" but when asked to spell out the details, you suddenly find you have to do your hair?

Please answer this question: If President Obama's 2013 Gun Control Bill had passed, would you have been satisfied that it was sufficient and never asked for further gun control? Yes or no, please.

 

Not a bad idea. And lets have IQ test before allowing people to own guns and require them to be in locked chambers where breathalyzer tests are required before the door to the gun cabinets open and then have a time limit in which they have to be returned before criminal misconduct charges are initiated.

 

Satisfaction? We have 30,000 deaths. Obviously the level for satisfaction is NOT there yet.

If gun regs are sufficient, why can dozens and dozens be killed by a gun in a matter of minutes?

As for the rest of your rant. Worthless.

 

I don't follow gun control. I have no idea what is in the 2013 gun bill.

But I see no reason for clips with 5 or more rounds. There is no logical reason for it.
I own guns, I hunt deer, I have a clip that can hold 4 rounds and 1 in the chamber. I never had a need for even that many rounds.

Would you be ok with people carrying around bomb? Even a dirty bomb? Do you have any limit on the type of weapons individuals can own?
Even though the constitution places no limit, at all.

Now, go do you hair, it's a mess.

 

Only if you agree to require an IQ test for exercising other enumerated rights such as freedom of speech and unenumerated rights such as voting and having kids. Are you in?

 

So what new car regs are you proposing since the number of auto deaths is three times the number of accidental gun deaths plus murders.

 

Awesome, dude. You just epitomized the Uninformed Voter: someone who proposes legislation or supports laws without knowing what they are talking about.