I would argue that guns serve more of a purpose than swimming pools and far more children die from drowning than gun shot wounds. And your comment about cars having more restrictions than guns only shows how little you know about current gun laws/restrictions.

I challenge you to create a list of restrictions for cars versus guns and compare the two.

July 15, 2016 -- LEIGHTON, AL (WAFF) - Family and friends are speaking out following the death of a two-year-old boy. Robert Michael Reaves died on Thursday after an accidental shooting in Leighton. Those who knew him said he had a fascination with fire trucks and idolized his dad, because he was the fire chief at the Spring Valley Volunteer Fire Department. “He had a face that would melt your heart,” Utley said of the 2-year-old who died Thursday night from an accidental gunshot wound. “When he saw you coming, he would hold out his arms. He loved giving out hugs. He is the son of Spring Valley Volunteer Fire Chief Keith Reaves.

July 15, 2016 -- They say Gavin Michael Stiles was the 3-year old son of Steamboat Springs police officer Michael R. Stiles and his wife, Joni. In a news release, the Sheriff’s Office said dispatchers received a call at 8:36 a.m. indicating that the boy had shot himself and that he was being transported to the hospital. Deputies and emergency medical personnel responded to an area near Hwy 131 and County Road 14, where the child was placed in an ambulance and driven to the Yampa Valley Medical Center. Gavin was pronounced dead at 11:04 a.m.

Anonymous wrote:Okay, we all agree there is cost vs benefits - keep this in mind next time someone brings up individual cases of accidents as this tread was started to do. The "even one is too many" logic is idiotically simplistic once you've acknowledge that there is a cost vs benefit decision to be made. We good citizens here do not wish harm and misfortune on any individual, but we must acknowledge that life decisions all have associated risks that run along a continuum. Any all-or-nothing type of logic is counter productive and adds nothing to the dialog.

We agree on costs-vs-benefits. But that doesn't mean you get to dismiss the collection of individual children being shot almost daily by guns. If you think this thread is based on the theme of "even one is too many," you're not paying attention. Every one of the children listed in this thread is part of the cost of guns. It's too easy to ignore that cost when it's someone else's child in a faraway town; it's too easy to assume those children are not really victims of guns, but rather are collateral damage in the crossfire of wrongdoers shooting at one another. Make no mistake: These children are victims of guns. They are being shot, and often killed, because gun owners want easy access to guns without accepting restrictions on safe handling and storage.

I am in strong agreement that we should place restrictions on who can own a firearm - and the law does currently place such restrictions. Whether the restrictions are enough is a discussion we can all have, but arguing that no one should be able to own a firearm as many are doing in this thread is a conversation stopper.

I'd like our country to have agreement on proper gun restrictions. If the polling is to be believed, even most gun owners favor more restrictions. But all too often, the NRA and the politicians beholden to it will block the most sensible restrictions. I made clear in my first post that I'm not advocating for total elimination of all guns, but I know some people see total elimination as the logical response to the no-limits view of many pro-gun people. Neither extreme should be a "conversation stopper." If you don't want people advocating for total elimination, you ought to encourage other pro-gun people and even the NRA to become part of the solution to gun violence by proposing commonsense limitations.

There are significant benefits to gun ownership. Why else would it be such a large industry. The benefits of gun ownership has been brought up and rehashed over and over so I won't repeat the obvious. Whether it's sport, fun, or self defense, people find value in gun ownership and decide to do so. Gun ownership rate in the US is 41%, this is a minority but it's not a small minority. In many states, gun ownership is a majority. However, even if gun owners were a small minority as you seem to have imagined, the goal of a democratic republic is to implement the will of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority. Without the second part, all you have is mob rule and I doubt any one would agree that's a superior way to govern a nation. The concept that you are justifying trading off the right of gun ownership because they are just a small minority is sickening.

Your logic escapes me in this last paragraph. I understand some people enjoy owning guns, and that counts on the benefit side of the ledger. I question your facts, because the data I've seen suggests the number of gun owners is steadily falling, and is not little more than 20% of the population. I'm simply not sure where you're going with this "rights of the minority" and "mob rule" argument. Perhaps your passion outkicked your reason there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If our society chooses to have easy access to guns, part of the price we pay is two year olds getting shot. Is the price worth it?

What an idiotic thing to say. We choose to make it very easy to obtain a driver's license, part of the price we pay is two year olds getting killed in accidents. Is the price worth it?

Yes, that's exactly the right question of costs versus benefits.

And yes, our society considers the cost of some people dying in auto accidents to be worth the benefit of easy transportation for millions of people. But we try to reduce that cost by imposing fairly strict controls on who is allowed to drive, tests those drivers have to take, high insurance costs for drivers, lots of speed limits and other rules to keep drivers safe, penalties when drivers are being unsafe, strict controls on auto manufacturers to make their cars safer, mandatory seatbelts, etc.

Now let's ask the same question about easy access to guns. The societal benefits of guns are a lot less than cars. Also, those benefits are highly concentrated in just the relatively small pool of gun owners. We see lots of costs of people dying needlessly from guns, including many children. We also see lots of costs from guns being misused for criminal purposes to rob people. There are other costs as well. So what has our society done to try to reduce those costs? Not much. There are far fewer restrictions on guns, or efforts to make guns safe.

As I wrote in my original posts, I'm not advocating for the elimination of all guns. I'm just trying to highlight the high human costs of easy access, and encourage people to consider why our society hasn't taken steps to reduce those costs.

Okay, we all agree there is cost vs benefits - keep this in mind next time someone brings up individual cases of accidents as this tread was started to do. The "even one is too many" logic is idiotically simplistic once you've acknowledge that there is a cost vs benefit decision to be made. We good citizens here do not wish harm and misfortune on any individual, but we must acknowledge that life decisions all have associated risks that run along a continuum. Any all-or-nothing type of logic is counter productive and adds nothing to the dialog.

I am in strong agreement that we should place restrictions on who can own a firearm - and the law does currently place such restrictions. Whether the restrictions are enough is a discussion we can all have, but arguing that no one should be able to own a firearm as many are doing in this thread is a conversation stopper.

There are significant benefits to gun ownership. Why else would it be such a large industry. The benefits of gun ownership has been brought up and rehashed over and over so I won't repeat the obvious. Whether it's sport, fun, or self defense, people find value in gun ownership and decide to do so. Gun ownership rate in the US is 41%, this is a minority but it's not a small minority. In many states, gun ownership is a majority. However, even if gun owners were a small minority as you seem to have imagined, the goal of a democratic republic is to implement the will of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority. Without the second part, all you have is mob rule and I doubt any one would agree that's a superior way to govern a nation. The concept that you are justifying trading off the right of gun ownership because they are just a small minority is sickening.

I don't think you've actually been reading the thread. See the bolded part of what pp wrote above.

You're right that it's not going to be possible to eliminate guns. But there are plenty of polls out there to indicate that the majority does want more restrictions. To continually avoid putting restrictions in place, rights of those who feel unsafe are being violated. You can't charge people for leaving their guns where children can get them - there's no requirement for them to do so.

I can't understand why people like you wouldn't at least advocate for licensing, registration and obligatory safeguards for ownership in homes with children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If our society chooses to have easy access to guns, part of the price we pay is two year olds getting shot. Is the price worth it?

What an idiotic thing to say. We choose to make it very easy to obtain a driver's license, part of the price we pay is two year olds getting killed in accidents. Is the price worth it?

Yes, that's exactly the right question of costs versus benefits.

And yes, our society considers the cost of some people dying in auto accidents to be worth the benefit of easy transportation for millions of people. But we try to reduce that cost by imposing fairly strict controls on who is allowed to drive, tests those drivers have to take, high insurance costs for drivers, lots of speed limits and other rules to keep drivers safe, penalties when drivers are being unsafe, strict controls on auto manufacturers to make their cars safer, mandatory seatbelts, etc.

Now let's ask the same question about easy access to guns. The societal benefits of guns are a lot less than cars. Also, those benefits are highly concentrated in just the relatively small pool of gun owners. We see lots of costs of people dying needlessly from guns, including many children. We also see lots of costs from guns being misused for criminal purposes to rob people. There are other costs as well. So what has our society done to try to reduce those costs? Not much. There are far fewer restrictions on guns, or efforts to make guns safe.

As I wrote in my original posts, I'm not advocating for the elimination of all guns. I'm just trying to highlight the high human costs of easy access, and encourage people to consider why our society hasn't taken steps to reduce those costs.

Okay, we all agree there is cost vs benefits - keep this in mind next time someone brings up individual cases of accidents as this tread was started to do. The "even one is too many" logic is idiotically simplistic once you've acknowledge that there is a cost vs benefit decision to be made. We good citizens here do not wish harm and misfortune on any individual, but we must acknowledge that life decisions all have associated risks that run along a continuum. Any all-or-nothing type of logic is counter productive and adds nothing to the dialog.

I am in strong agreement that we should place restrictions on who can own a firearm - and the law does currently place such restrictions. Whether the restrictions are enough is a discussion we can all have, but arguing that no one should be able to own a firearm as many are doing in this thread is a conversation stopper.

There are significant benefits to gun ownership. Why else would it be such a large industry. The benefits of gun ownership has been brought up and rehashed over and over so I won't repeat the obvious. Whether it's sport, fun, or self defense, people find value in gun ownership and decide to do so. Gun ownership rate in the US is 41%, this is a minority but it's not a small minority. In many states, gun ownership is a majority. However, even if gun owners were a small minority as you seem to have imagined, the goal of a democratic republic is to implement the will of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority. Without the second part, all you have is mob rule and I doubt any one would agree that's a superior way to govern a nation. The concept that you are justifying trading off the right of gun ownership because they are just a small minority is sickening.

And let your hapless children keep gunning down themselves and their friends, our children? That's a bargain I don't want.

July 12, 2016 -- A 3-year-old child has been critically injured in an apparent accidental and self-inflicted shooting in Marion County. Officers arrived to a residence on Monica Drive in the Lake O' the Pines area to find a boy with an apparent gunshot wound to the face.

Officers said family member told them the child was playing with his brothers on a bed and discovered the gun under the covers. However, the boy's grandfather said the gun was on top of a cabinet and that the boy's 5-year-old brother climbed on top and got it down. He said the boy's brother told law enforcement it was on the bed and had changed his story several times about what happened in the incident.

https://www.news-journal.com/news/2016/jul/12/toddler-in-critical-condition-after-shot-in-face/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If our society chooses to have easy access to guns, part of the price we pay is two year olds getting shot. Is the price worth it?

What an idiotic thing to say. We choose to make it very easy to obtain a driver's license, part of the price we pay is two year olds getting killed in accidents. Is the price worth it?

Yes, that's exactly the right question of costs versus benefits.

And yes, our society considers the cost of some people dying in auto accidents to be worth the benefit of easy transportation for millions of people. But we try to reduce that cost by imposing fairly strict controls on who is allowed to drive, tests those drivers have to take, high insurance costs for drivers, lots of speed limits and other rules to keep drivers safe, penalties when drivers are being unsafe, strict controls on auto manufacturers to make their cars safer, mandatory seatbelts, etc.

Now let's ask the same question about easy access to guns. The societal benefits of guns are a lot less than cars. Also, those benefits are highly concentrated in just the relatively small pool of gun owners. We see lots of costs of people dying needlessly from guns, including many children. We also see lots of costs from guns being misused for criminal purposes to rob people. There are other costs as well. So what has our society done to try to reduce those costs? Not much. There are far fewer restrictions on guns, or efforts to make guns safe.

As I wrote in my original posts, I'm not advocating for the elimination of all guns. I'm just trying to highlight the high human costs of easy access, and encourage people to consider why our society hasn't taken steps to reduce those costs.

Okay, we all agree there is cost vs benefits - keep this in mind next time someone brings up individual cases of accidents as this tread was started to do. The "even one is too many" logic is idiotically simplistic once you've acknowledge that there is a cost vs benefit decision to be made. We good citizens here do not wish harm and misfortune on any individual, but we must acknowledge that life decisions all have associated risks that run along a continuum. Any all-or-nothing type of logic is counter productive and adds nothing to the dialog.

I am in strong agreement that we should place restrictions on who can own a firearm - and the law does currently place such restrictions. Whether the restrictions are enough is a discussion we can all have, but arguing that no one should be able to own a firearm as many are doing in this thread is a conversation stopper.

There are significant benefits to gun ownership. Why else would it be such a large industry. The benefits of gun ownership has been brought up and rehashed over and over so I won't repeat the obvious. Whether it's sport, fun, or self defense, people find value in gun ownership and decide to do so. Gun ownership rate in the US is 41%, this is a minority but it's not a small minority. In many states, gun ownership is a majority. However, even if gun owners were a small minority as you seem to have imagined, the goal of a democratic republic is to implement the will of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority. Without the second part, all you have is mob rule and I doubt any one would agree that's a superior way to govern a nation. The concept that you are justifying trading off the right of gun ownership because they are just a small minority is sickening.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If our society chooses to have easy access to guns, part of the price we pay is two year olds getting shot. Is the price worth it?

What an idiotic thing to say. We choose to make it very easy to obtain a driver's license, part of the price we pay is two year olds getting killed in accidents. Is the price worth it?

Yes, that's exactly the right question of costs versus benefits.

And yes, our society considers the cost of some people dying in auto accidents to be worth the benefit of easy transportation for millions of people. But we try to reduce that cost by imposing fairly strict controls on who is allowed to drive, tests those drivers have to take, high insurance costs for drivers, lots of speed limits and other rules to keep drivers safe, penalties when drivers are being unsafe, strict controls on auto manufacturers to make their cars safer, mandatory seatbelts, etc.

Now let's ask the same question about easy access to guns. The societal benefits of guns are a lot less than cars. Also, those benefits are highly concentrated in just the relatively small pool of gun owners. We see lots of costs of people dying needlessly from guns, including many children. We also see lots of costs from guns being misused for criminal purposes to rob people. There are other costs as well. So what has our society done to try to reduce those costs? Not much. There are far fewer restrictions on guns, or efforts to make guns safe.

As I wrote in my original posts, I'm not advocating for the elimination of all guns. I'm just trying to highlight the high human costs of easy access, and encourage people to consider why our society hasn't taken steps to reduce those costs.

Anonymous wrote:If our society chooses to have easy access to guns, part of the price we pay is two year olds getting shot. Is the price worth it?

What an idiotic thing to say. We choose to make it very easy to obtain a driver's license, part of the price we pay is two year olds getting killed in accidents. Is the price worth it?

If our society chooses to have easy access to guns, part of the price we pay is two year olds getting shot. Is the price worth it?

An accident on the toddler's part - but it was not an accident on the part of whoever the gun belonged to.

July 11, 2016 - SEATTLE A 2-year-old boy shot himself in a motel room in South Seattle and was taken to Harborview Medical Center, where he was listed in critical condition, police said.

After investigating for hours Monday, detectives determined it was an accident, saying the toddler got a loaded gun and fired it himself.