Anonymous wrote:More detail.

http://www.houstonpress.com/news/police-katy-mom-killed-daughters-to-make-husband-suffer-8524499
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Sheriff-Mom-killed-daughters-to-punish-husband-8333148.php

Police visited the house over a dozen times in response to mom's mental health crises, but there was no process to separate her from her guns. She even applied for a concealed carry license - which was rejected - but still not separated from the guns.

"At one point, she stood over the girls and tried to shoot with an empty gun. Then she went inside, reloaded, and came outside to shoot Taylor one more time."

This is the price we all pay so that gun owners can avoid any reasonable safety restrictions. It's not worth it.

Yes, very tragic.

However, asking all gun owners to register, and having the government decide on when they can confiscate weapons from owners using the registration information is not the right thing to do.

Anonymous wrote:

Surely we all can agree this woman should not have had a gun. No one's trying to take guns away from safe owners. But there can be easy steps put in place to keep guns away from people who should not have guns. Why can't we take some commonsense steps to make us all safer, and keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill?

Here's the problem - no one thinks they are an irresponsible gun owner. Not the guy who killed his kid this weekend, not the lady whose toddler shot her in the Wal*Mart in Idaho, not the police office in Detroit who didn't secure his service weapon.

Everyone thinks they are a responsible gun owner until they day they are proven wrong, and even then some of them won't admit there was ever a problem. The guy who shot his own kid this weekend? He's already saying it was a "fluke" and he won't give up his weapons.

You're exactly right. Everyone thinks he's a good driver, and every gun owner thinks he's safe and responsible. But the problem is that many are not. One easy and obvious improvement is to require annual safety checks. If you're safe, you can renew your license every year and prove it to law enforcement. That won't stop all senseless gun deaths, but it's a minor burden that will surely stop some.

Another step is for states to require registration of all guns, and then cross-check those gun records against criminal conviction and mental health records. Minimal one-time paperwork for gun owners, but it saves lots of lives by separating irresponsible and unsafe owners from illegal guns. Seems obvious.

More detail.

http://www.houstonpress.com/news/police-katy-mom-killed-daughters-to-make-husband-suffer-8524499
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Sheriff-Mom-killed-daughters-to-punish-husband-8333148.php

Police visited the house over a dozen times in response to mom's mental health crises, but there was no process to separate her from her guns. She even applied for a concealed carry license - which was rejected - but still not separated from the guns.

"At one point, she stood over the girls and tried to shoot with an empty gun. Then she went inside, reloaded, and came outside to shoot Taylor one more time."

This is the price we all pay so that gun owners can avoid any reasonable safety restrictions. It's not worth it.

Surely we all can agree this woman should not have had a gun. No one's trying to take guns away from safe owners. But there can be easy steps put in place to keep guns away from people who should not have guns. Why can't we take some commonsense steps to make us all safer, and keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill?

Here's the problem - no one thinks they are an irresponsible gun owner. Not the guy who killed his kid this weekend, not the lady whose toddler shot her in the Wal*Mart in Idaho, not the police office in Detroit who didn't secure his service weapon.

Everyone thinks they are a responsible gun owner until they day they are proven wrong, and even then some of them won't admit there was ever a problem. The guy who shot his own kid this weekend? He's already saying it was a "fluke" and he won't give up his weapons.

Anonymous wrote:If you hide firearms from children and say "don't touch", they will instinctively want to "play" with them; they will not know how to do it safely and danger ensues.

Conversely, if you teach your children how to safely handle firearms, they will not be curious. If you teach them how to make sure they are safe and clear, they will do that each time they see one. If you take them shooting, it will take away the mystery. If you lock your firearms, they will not be able to "play" with them. Education will solve these problems easier than banning a Constitutional right.

Notice how the vast majority of gun-related deaths are in the cities that already have strict bans and regulations? Yet the left thinks bans work? How are bans working out for everything else?

Toddlers had shot 23 people in 2016 in the US as of May 1. Almost certainly more by now, and most of those shootings happened in Georgia, Texas, and Missouri. Not only are those gun-friendly places, but they speak to how difficult it is to educate toddlers (defined here as 1 - 3 year olds) about gun safety.

It would be great if more education = fewer deaths, but it ignores the shocking levels of accidental gun deaths and injuries by those too young to listen to directions.

Anonymous wrote:

June 26, 2016 - Christy Sheats, 42, shot and killed her two young daughters, Taylor, 22, and Madison Sheats, 17, on what neighbors said was their father’s birthday, according to local reports. A family spat started inside the married couple’s Houston-area home and spiraled into gun violence that spilled out onto their street.

"It would be horribly tragic if my ability to protect myself or my family were to be taken away," Sheats wrote in March on her Facebook page, "but that's exactly what Democrats are determined to do by banning semi-automatic handguns."

Update: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/06/30/she-wanted-him-to-suffer-sheriff-explains-why-texas-mom-two-killed-daughters-in-front-of-husband/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_1_na

"After years of challenges with Christy’s mental health, her struggles with depression and anxiety, her suicide attempts, Jason told authorities that he thought perhaps she was going to announce she had decided to file for divorce. The couple had talked about separating. But instead, police said, the 42-year-old mother pulled out a .38 caliber handgun, a gift from her late grandfather, and pointed it at her screaming children. Then she shot them, inside the house and out in the street, where the girls collapsed and stopped moving. When law enforcement arrived, they watched Christy fire a final bullet into her eldest daughter, then a police officer shot the mother dead."

This story is a perfect example of why there should be firearm registration and annual safety checks. The mom obtained her gun legally as a gift from her grandfather. But then over the later years, she developed severe mental health issues. But no one from the government was able to connect those two facts, and it was impossible to follow up because there was no record she had this gun. If the gun had been registered, or if there'd been an annual re-licensing requirement, then the shooter would have been separated from the gun years before this tragic incident.

Surely we all can agree this woman should not have had a gun. No one's trying to take guns away from safe owners. But there can be easy steps put in place to keep guns away from people who should not have guns. Why can't we take some commonsense steps to make us all safer, and keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill?

Anonymous wrote:Notice how the vast majority of gun-related deaths are in the cities that already have strict bans and regulations? Yet the left thinks bans work? How are bans working out for everything else?

Huh? Which cities are those?

If you hide firearms from children and say "don't touch", they will instinctively want to "play" with them; they will not know how to do it safely and danger ensues.

Conversely, if you teach your children how to safely handle firearms, they will not be curious. If you teach them how to make sure they are safe and clear, they will do that each time they see one. If you take them shooting, it will take away the mystery. If you lock your firearms, they will not be able to "play" with them. Education will solve these problems easier than banning a Constitutional right.

Notice how the vast majority of gun-related deaths are in the cities that already have strict bans and regulations? Yet the left thinks bans work? How are bans working out for everything else?

July 4, 2016 -- A Fourth of July weekend family trip to the gun range turned tragic for Florida teen, whose father accidentally shot him dead while his two siblings stood by.

http://www.cbs8.com/story/32368484/teen-accidentally-shot-dead-in-front-of-siblings-by-their-father-at-gun-range
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/shell-casing-caused-father-accidentally-shoot-kill-teen-son-article-1.2698393

July 1, 2016 -- CLARKSVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) – A 3-year-old has died after he accidentally shot himself in the face. The toddler was vising from Fort Riley, Kansas, with his family. He shot himself with a .40-caliber handgun that belonged to the homeowner. “They are the direct result of a decision by an irresponsible gun owner to not take the most basic safety precautions and store their gun properly when children are present.”

http://wkrn.com/2016/07/01/child-injured-in-accidental-shooting-in-clarksville/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thankfully, I don't need your help in providing a safe home for my family. I have little interest in those who do.

Exactly. And that attitude explains why the current crop of gun owners has failed its responsibility to keep the hobby safe. So now, the rest of us need to clean up the mess for you. You had your chance, and you failed.

It's not your responsibility to boss people around. Get a job, get a promotion, then boss people around.

Anonymous wrote:Guns have always been a prevalent part of our country's history. Were you afraid of it when you were growing up? Your parents? If not, what changed? I know I was oblivious to US gun ownership growing up. Didn't actually see someone open carry until my late 30s in Virginia. Semi-auto rifles has been available to US consumers ever since they were commercially available. Same with handguns. The popular 1911 was a pre-WWI weapon. If it was not a problem in American's minds then, what changed to make it a problem now? I have my own take on why it's a problem now but would like to here some different opinions.

1. Perhaps your lack of exposure to guns, and how stupid preteens and teens play with them, is a blind spot for you. I received my first gun at age 12. I know what guns can do, and I know how foolish young people can be, and how they get even more foolish around guns.

2. Three reasons I think guns are more of an issue now than when we were growing up: (1) media coverage has expanded, so now we all can easily learn about all the people needlessly dying from guns, and not just the small number that happened to get reported in each town's local paper news when we grew up, (2) society has gotten less rural each decade, so the perceived "need" for guns has gone way down, because there are far fewer sportsmen and far more "weekend Rambo warriors," (3) most things have gotten safer over time, but guns remain persistently deadly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We get it gun rights people. You are ok with the status quo, propose no changes, are fine with all these lives lost every singe day. You advocate inaction. Is that correct?

Anyone? Bueller? Wayne LaPierre?

I didn't think it's worth repeating the same thing over and over again if proposals has already been offered several times in this thread. If you didn't read it the first, second, or third time, why would you read it the fourth time it's posted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just this afternoon my sitter texted me that he had dropped off my teen DD and her 2 friends at a movie. He said 15 police cars raced by, he had checked twitter, and seen that there was an active shooter in an office building nearby and that people were running out of the building. He asked me what I would like him to do.

SMH at this country. What a fiasco and an embarrassment.

Exactly. Just the other day, I told my daughter, who had apparently witnessed a verbal altercation a couple houses down while outside jumping rope, to run back in the house if she saw that car again for fear the idiot might return with a gun.

Is this the society we want for our children?

Guns have always been a prevalent part of our country's history. Were you afraid of it when you were growing up? Your parents? If not, what changed? I know I was oblivious to US gun ownership growing up. Didn't actually see someone open carry until my late 30s in Virginia. Semi-auto rifles has been available to US consumers ever since they were commercially available. Same with handguns. The popular 1911 was a pre-WWI weapon. If it was not a problem in American's minds then, what changed to make it a problem now? I have my own take on why it's a problem now but would like to here some different opinions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's not a good idea to sacrifice the rights of law abiding citizens just to make it easier for the government to do something.

Exactly what right of yours is being sacrificed by requiring gun registration?

None whatsoever. Quit your whining.

Per the ninth amendment of the US constitution:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

And the tenth amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Taken together, it's clear that everything not delegated to the Federal government, nor prohibited by the constitution, is a right that the state/people have. It's therefore my right to not have to register my ownership of a gun because the constitution and the US code does not give the Federal government the ability to perform gun registration.

So we should read "well regulated" out of the Bill of Rights in its entirety (just like "militia") because ... ya know ... it's the Second Amendment, which has only been interpreted to afford a private right to gun ownership for the past six years by SCOTUS. Ya know, unlike the First Amendment which has been interpreted in a manner to restrict freedom of speech, assembly and religion, or Fourth Amendment or Fifth Amendment

Not sure what your point is. Are you saying that the individual right to own guns didn't exist until SCOTUS provided an opinion on the subject? You can't be seriously trying to argue this point, but I can't find any other meaning from what you are trying to write above.