[Oberon]

Originally Posted by August

You totally miss the point. Regardless of what compromise is reached it will only move the goal posts to a new starting point and it won't be long before we are asked to compromise yet again and again and again. It's been that way for decades and the anti's are not going to stop because they think they have achieved something.

Not one step back! The line must be drawn here, here and no further! Seriously though, I'm not entirely certain that the moral ground favours such rigid defence, but I guess that is how things are in America and is probably why nothing has gotten done in the States for the past five to six years and why the government seems to be one argument away from another shutdown.

That's not a compromise, that's just delaying your next demand a little just like the anti's do. If it's going to be off the table then it should be off the table.

It's off the table because I want to know if anyone has something better to put on it.

There are laws that address this already just like there are laws that address traffic safety which are just as patchwork built and unevenly applied yet we don't see you in here week after week demanding that we stop all vehicle accidents which are at least 6 times as deadly.

So is this about the subject at hand, or is it about my attempt to find a situation which will please all parties? The way I look at it is that people will attempt to make vehicles safer, and yet any new gun laws to make guns safer are the beginning of the end of the world for America. When Toyota cars were found to have sticking accelerators leading to accidents, did Toyota shrug and say that there was nothing that could be done about it. Nope, they recalled them and fixed it.
Besides, the next level of car technology might well dramatically reduce vehicle accidents, driverless cars. The Google car has only crashed twice in the time it has been in testing and both times a human was controlling it. When the computer controls it, it has dramatically greater reflexes and situational awareness than a human. It will be interesting when such technology becomes widespread to see how much traffic fatalities reduce.

Requiring guns to be locked up in all situations (which is how I guarantee such a law would be written) pretty much eliminates their use for self defense.

The Gunny disagrees:


http://www.amazon.com/Gunvault-MVB50.../dp/B001UAMZD4

Subsidize the reduction of price of these safes and there's your home defence in a nutshell. A kid can't get hold of it, nor can a burgular.
Outside of the house, a decent holster will suffice.
It's not that difficult really.

How do you intend to balance that need with this Utopian desire for total safety? Again you talk about morally acceptable solutions but you ignore far greater dangers to children which is why I suspect your sincerity here.

Well, to be fair, this thread is entitled "Gun Control thread (merged many)" not "Vehicle safety thread (merged hardly any)" or "Drug abuse thread (merged zero)". So logic dictates that I would talk about morally acceptable solutions in regards to firearms...in a firearms thread.

If 100 dead kids a year triggers such continuous moral outrage then I would expect that 650 dead kids would cause at least six times the anger but you seem perfectly willing to accept that much higher body count because "something" has been tried.

Indeed, although to say that I accept it is perhaps a misnomer. I am no happier about it than I am about a dead kid being shot by a firearm, stabbed by a knife, drowned, electrocuted, eaten by bears, bombed by the USAF or blown up by Daesh. A dead child is a dead child.
If there was a greater drive in the US to improve gun safety rather than this stonewall defence to try and stop any further drives to improve gun safety because it might stop people from enjoying their bits of metal as freely as they do, then we might not be having this conversation.

Well things have been tried with guns too, 20,000 tries and nothing has worked yet so at what point do we reach the concern level you display toward vehicle deaths?

Well, has anyone tried enforcing proper gun storage and safety? Has anyone tried enforcing the average gun owner to have the same sort of training and safety conscious attitude to a firearm as they should? Have people tried improving access to mental health (another part of my proposal that people seem to have forgotten in favour of zeroing in on the gun part of it)?

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

Most similar incidents I've read about the gun owners are charged which is why I thought this fellow would also be charged. Since he's not being charged it must be local law difference or there is more to the circumstances than has been reported.

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

A quick search and it's 14 states that hold parents liable and one state that requires guns to be locked up.

What state requires guns to be locked up? And what do you think would be the effect on these incidents if such laws were made nationwide as opposed to not even a quarter of the nation?