I feel guns should not be available to almost everyone, because this is what happens.

There have been many cases of where this has happened. I personally feel that only military and police should be able to have guns. Columbine would have never happened. The North Hollywood Shootout would have never happened. And this yet is another reason why:

9:46 PM, Jul 18, 2012

Video by 9News http://www.9news.com/news/article/278489/339/Accidental-shooting-sheds-light-on-gun-safety

DENVER – A two-year-old boy from Denver died in Utah Tuesday when he found his grandfather’s gun and shot himself in the head. According to police, the gun was not locked up.

Ethan Hartley was visiting his grandfather in Sandy, Utah. Police say Ethan was in his grandfather’s master bedroom when he found the gun. He was alone at the time. Police say his parents and grandfather were in another room.

It’s unclear how Ethan got a hold of the gun. Charges might be filed against his grandfather.

“He didn’t lock it up or hide it, it’s his fault!” You might say, But still, if he didn’t have a gun in the first place…

Have you not been taught about the Constitution and why we have the Bill of Rights? You know those people will suffer dearly for what has happened and using this disaster to further you feelings about firearms doesn’t really help any.

I could use the same argument against cars. We had a little girl get hit by a car about a week ago. I think only police and military should have cars. Does that seem logical to you?

We had a little girl get hit by a car about a week ago. I think only police and military should have cars.

You’re forgetting the part where cars are usually important tools for getting around in time. They’ve also been assigned a specific place for usage.

And you forget our firearms are tools and they have also been assigned a specific place in our Constitution.

Here is an example where a firearm was needed. I think he had too small a caliber though.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2012/06/24/20120624arizona-bear-attack-tempe-man-near-payson.html

Originally posted by jhco50:

And you forget our firearms are tools and they have also been assigned a specific place in our Constitution.

Here is an example where a firearm was needed. I think he had too small a caliber though.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2012/06/24/20120624arizona-bear-attack-tempe-man-near-payson.html

I guess I forgot about those…Is there any way possible to Stop people from using them the wrong way though, as for home invasions and school shootings?

Originally posted by Cody_Harrison:

I guess I forgot about those…Is there any way possible to Stop people from using them the wrong way though, as for home invasions and school shootings?

Yeah, security systems and metal detectors.

Originally posted by Cody_Harrison:

Originally posted by jhco50:

And you forget our firearms are tools and they have also been assigned a specific place in our Constitution.

Here is an example where a firearm was needed. I think he had too small a caliber though.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2012/06/24/20120624arizona-bear-attack-tempe-man-near-payson.html

I guess I forgot about those…Is there any way possible to Stop people from using them the wrong way though, as for home invasions and school shootings?

If you are trying to keep guns out of the schools, Tenco is as close as you can get I guess. I think teachers should be armed to prevent school shootings. Home invasions are very unpredictable and you should be armed, even if it is just put in a place you can get to if you need it quickly. Again, Tenco has a good idea of a security system so you can be warned.

Originally posted by jhco50:
I think teachers should be armed to prevent school shootings.

Seriously? This just seems like a weird idea. They’re educators, not air marshals. And what if they didn’t want to carry? Many of them are not getting into the teaching profession for that sort of thing.

Originally posted by jhco50:
Again, Tenco has a good idea of a security system so you can be warned.

I think you misunderstand, security systems are loud (often times, at least) and the last thing an intruder would want is attention, which is almost exactly what they would get if an alarm was tripped.

It also seems like a terrible idea. “Let’s prevent shootings by arming more people.” Not to mention you’re now adding costs (because they’ll have to be armed and trained at school expense), and another way for things to go wrong (it only takes one teacher putting their gun somewhere silly for this).

I’m sure the reasoning is along the lines of “they’ll be able to stop people before they shoot others” or “it’ll discourage others.” Honestly, if I wanted to kill somebody in a school, that would just make me rig up an explosive instead.

If you really want to kill somebody and don’t care about getting caught, it’s not terribly difficult. (The exception being anybody important enough to have security detail.) The only reason people generally don’t kill is because they aren’t sociopaths without any care for themselves. Preventing that particular kind of person from killing is more or less impossible, since you have to give away too much freedom to make it worth it.

Honestly, I think a better example of why guns need better regulations (I hesitate to say band, because that’s not very sane either) is when some guy gave his seven (maybe eight or nine, I can’t remember the age exactly) year-old son an uzi, with which the kid could shoot some targets, and the kid accidentally killed himself. (Obviously, I mean it was an uzi, what did you expect?)

Now if someone would be so kind as to look that up and get a link to it…

Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

Originally posted by jhco50:
I think teachers should be armed to prevent school shootings.

Seriously? This just seems like a weird idea. They’re educators, not air marshals. And what if they didn’t want to carry? Many of them are not getting into the teaching profession for that sort of thing.

Actually, this has been suggested and considered seriously. I have heard of one school attack that a teacher had a gun in his car, retrieved it and eliminated the threat.

Originally posted by jhco50:

Actually, this has been suggested and considered seriously.

Source?

I have heard of one school attack that a teacher had a gun in his car, retrieved it and eliminated the threat.

So when something rare that doesn’t happen very often at all that supports your positions happens, it is something that should be taken serioously and carfully debated, but when something that happens just as infrequently (or even more frequently) that disagrees with your position (like what the OP is talking about), it should be discounted almost as soon as it’s brought up, correct?

Now I may be wrong here, but isn’t that textbook hypocrisy?

look i’m sorry in advance if anything i say come across racist or offensive

I’m from Australia and I firmly believe that no citizens should even own firearms
sure they’re for protection but if no-one had them why would you need to protect yourself?
Essentially a gun is just a weapon, would you support everyone carrying around grenades? of course not because there is obvious danger. the same goes for guns- their purpose is to kill.
As for those who are comparing guns to cars i have to object, although cars can harm they are made for transportation whereas guns are solely useful to harm others

In the end I believe no-one should be able to have guns except military and police (maybe).

In that case, we should ban all knives as well.

Originally posted by senwell1:

In that case, we should ban all knives as well.

The issue of course being that knives have uses like cutting stuff other than humans, and being a rather good tool.

Originally posted by TheLoneLucas:

Originally posted by senwell1:

In that case, we should ban all knives as well.

The issue of course being that knives have uses like cutting stuff other than humans, and being a rather good tool.

And that even though any old shmuch can get a knife, it’s kinda hard to kill more than one person with it at one time. (Though why you need to is another story.)

Don’t compare Guns to anything anymore, there are are very small and limited amount of things that are used Only for killing. Cars are ment for Transportation and Knives are ment for Cutting Fruit and foods.

And you forget our firearms are tools and they have also been assigned a specific place in our Constitution.

please don’t justify a law by stating legality.

Is there any way possible to Stop people from using them the wrong way though, as for home invasions and school shootings?

licensing, registering, coil-fingerprinting. etc. the works. and don’t say they already do that. they don’t. i’ll bet you most guns are unregistered, or not owned by whom it is registered to.

I think teachers should be armed to prevent school shootings.

ugh! G.I.Joe teachers! yeah! i wanna be taught by fucking Tarzan!

this is so Orwellean. you really can’t see how that will go horribly wrong? ugh!

In that case, we should ban all knives as well.

unfortunately they did that in the Netherlands recently. ALL knives. i’m seriously considering showing up with butterknives or such.
anyway, we have our way of dealing with stupid laws. it’s called uncompliance.

but anyway, it’s far harder to stab someone to death than to pull a trigger. no one would ever succesfully go on a stabbing spree. no one would ever habitually do a drive by stabbing.

Guns are used for self-defense. I think that preserving one’s life is far more important than cutting meat. Yay for guns, nay for knives?
Remember that we live in a world where it’s LITERALLY kill or be killed. ALL statistics point to gun control making homicides, firegun kills and rape RISE. When the burglar/robber/rapist/assassin knows their most likely armed, they will be much less likely to attack, let alone invade a house.

………………………………stupidity and ignorance, biggest plagues and killers on this planet…

And schizophrenia.

Rest in peace, 12 brave men, women, and children.

I agree. To put things into perspective, though, I must mention that the problem wasn’t the gun in itself, but rather the absence of responsibility associated with the accident.

Without even reading the rest of the replies I already suspect OP is a troll judging by the post count, but I’ll bite.

There have been many cases of where this has happened.

This is a misleading statement because it revolves around the word “many”, which has no value unless applied statistically. Gun accidents account for around 600-700 deaths in America each year. That’s about a 2 in a million event. I don’t think therefore that accidental shootings justify legislature which would strip people of a constitutional right, as this isn’t a large priority. Plus this is not compared to the problems that lack of gun ownership causes in your post. For example, guns owned legally by citizens stop thousands of crimes each year, many of which could have become violent crimes.

I personally feel that only military and police should be able to have guns.

Remind yourself that both organizations, while necessary, work for the government. If the government decided to turn on the people and violate the ideals of democracy and natural rights, how could we resist them? Gun control like this is the trademark of oppressive regimes like the ones in East Asia and, during the cold war, USSR and soviet satellite countries, not the trademark of a safe and free society. Thinking that an armed government will justly rule an unarmed citizenry is just blind faith, while thinking that an armed citizenry can overthrow an abusive government is supported by history.

Columbine would have never happened.

If more people in that building had been armed the shooters would have at least thought twice before going on a rampage. You are using statistical anomalies, such as school shootings, to your convenience while ignoring the unseen crimes that are prevented from gun use. So 13 people died at Columbine? Yes that’s sad, and yes maybe gun control might have prevented it. But gun control would have also prevented hundreds of thousands from defending themselves from criminals.

http://www.9news.com/news/article/278489/339/Accidental-shooting-sheds-light-on-gun-safety

Again with the rash extrapolation of statistical anomalies. You bring up one case, you fail to mention specific amounts of cases like it and instead use quantitatively ambiguous terms like “many” to give people the illusion that the event happens very often.

But still, if he didn’t have a gun in the first place…

Ethan would have survived, and a few hundred other victims like him per year would have survived as well. At the cost, however, of thousands, perhaps millions, of more people being murdered, raped, or robbed because they were unable to defend themselves using a legal firearm. And if you doubt this even after I gave you my first source, here, have another. The fact is well known by those who actually have a healthy respect for gun crime statistics: legal guns stop crime far more often than creating it.

but if no-one had them why would you need to protect yourself?

You don’t need a gun to commit violent crime, all you need is your fists or a blunt weapon. However, a gun is unlike a blunt weapon or your fists in that it can much more effectively deter crime. They are equalizers in violent situations; a skinny man with a pistol is on the same level as a 250 pound robber with a pistol, but without guns the robber has the odds highly in his favor.

Originally posted by ohmylanta:
Remind yourself that both organizations, while necessary, work for the government. If the government decided to turn on the people and violate the ideals of democracy and natural rights, how could we resist them?

Well, I don’t really think that the peashooters we have now could put up with the war machines the military has, and even if our government decides to go ape-shit crazy on us, it would still get rid of the 2nd amendment, and the citizens would have to be armed via other, non-legal methods.