The disgraceful ease with which anybody can get a gun plays a part in these daily tragedies. Gun availability could be diminsihed.An 18-year-old Atlanta man was arrested Thursday in the accidental shooting death of a three-year-old girl, MyFoxAtlanta.com reported.
Larenzo Montgomery shot Takira Garlington in the stomach Wednesday, and faces involuntary manslaughter charges, police said, according to the report. He was denied bond at a court appearence.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
How can gun availability be diminished? You want that, but what it really means is the disarmament of private citizens. That's where your proposals lead.
ReplyDeleteAsked and answered.
DeleteNot really.
DeleteWhy did you not say "possible CCW holder"? Is it because he is black?
ReplyDeleteWell he is fat, that's part of the stereotype right there.
DeleteThe straight answer is he's too young.
Yes. And he is too young to legally own a handgun too. So I guess we could make it illegaller.
DeleteI don't believe that gun availability can be diminished in any meaningful amount ... certainly not in a way that would reduce accidents significantly. Here's why. Criminals are certainly not going to give up their guns and there are myriad ways for them to acquire them in spite of any legal restrictions. So there's no chance of reducing accidents with criminals. Next we have very responsible law-abiding citizens ... the types that are responsible enough not to have accidents and the types that might actually turn in their guns if there were a mandate. So taking away their guns wouldn't reduce accidents because they were not the ones responsible for accidents. The final category of people are irresponsible citizens who handle their firearms carelessly. Those people are the group that unintentionally discharge their firearms and cause injuries. The trouble is, those people are not going to be any more responsible when it comes to turning in their guns than they are when it comes to firearm safety.
ReplyDeleteAnd there's the responsible gun owners who won't turn in their guns if the government ever demands that. We follow the law, but we recognize that an unjust law is no law at all.
DeleteWhat's wrong with diminishing the numbers of guns in criminal hands without diminishing those in the hands of the law abiding? That's what my proposals would do.
DeleteYou guys hate to let go of the victim role don't you?
What's wrong? Your proposals would diminish the numbers of guns in the hands of the law abiding, while doing nothing to change the number in the hands of criminals. That's what's wrong.
DeleteGreg, that's not true at all. I've described how it would work and what you said couldn't possible be part of it.
DeleteYou're not arguing fairly now.
Well, of course you fellas don't believe that the number of gunz floatin' round in the country can't be diminished or that it will lead to the disarmament of "private citizens". I mean, I undersand that you're afraid; your fear is irrational and leads to paranoia but I certainly understand that you live in fear. Fear which can only be held at bay by teh gunz.
ReplyDeleteYou're playing pop psychologist without a license again, Democommie.
DeleteGreggie:
ReplyDeleteI'm playing "pop psychologist"? Well, perhaps, but then again you're dealing with some serious issues of self-esteem when you gotz to have houseful of teh gunz, locked and loaded AND a need to play dress-up with your hawgleg.
Mikeb, if we can't use disparaging names for Democommie, he shouldn't be allowed to do that to us. Greg, Mr. Camp, or Professor Camp are standard ways to address me, and in the future, I'd appreciate those being used.
DeleteThat's fair enough. OK democommie?
DeleteDemmocommie,
ReplyDeleteI am glad that you are happy as you go through life unarmed. Before you accuse armed citizens of being paranoid or having low self-esteem, consider the following.
About 1 in 68 people are victims of violent crimes in areas like Baltimore, Maryland. And over the course of 10 years about 1 in 7 people would be a victim of a violent crime.
(http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/table-8/10tbl08md.xls)
The odds of you crashing your car probably lower ... and yet you have car insurance just in case. And why do you have car insurance? Because the stakes are high. If you crash your car, you could lose a piece of personal property and be out $20,000. You could sustain injuries that would cost $80,000 in hospital bills. And you could incur a liability for damages that you caused to someone else for who knows how much cash.
Well being armed is pretty much the same thing. It reduces the risk exposure a citizen faces as they go about their lives, just like car insurance reduces the risk exposure a citizen faces as they go about their lives.