I'm all for banning 'stupid' but you know, that tromps on stupid peoples' inherent (god given and born with) right to be stupid.

Of course if we ban stupid, only stupid people and stupid people offspring will die in bathtubs. It's 'win-win.'

Oh, the irony. To have survived several hundred baths, only to be shot dead :eek:

*thnort*

^^FTW^^

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Just like spoons don't make Rosie O'Donnell fat.

Huh, I'd rather take a bath than a bullet any day of the week. Just sayin.

So this guy was shootin' crow in his backyard (perfectly legal) and his gun didn't fire so when he set it down, on the butt and aimed at him, and the gun fired and went through his arm and out his back.

The crows went wild. (insert crow crowd noise here)

He deserves some kind of civil punishment for sure. He fails the first rule of hunting anything. Never shoot at a target you can't identify with 100% surety.

That was the Windex TV commercial that the censors censored.

:lol:

Crime went up, Lamp. You don't want that.

You don't want genocide either. Particularly if you believe you are more virtuous than me. You can't get genocide without disarming the victims first, can you now?

So, as a fairly pro-gun liberal, I have a possible compromise scenario to run by you die-hards:

prior to gun ownership, along with existing background checks, all potential owners must complete a training (just like you have to do to get a driver's license or whatever), 4 hours or whatever, with in-depth legal and practical walkthroughs, coupled with much harsher penalties for firearms incidents? Short of calling character witnesses to prove you're a responsible, intelligent adult that can handle a firearm, how do we tackle the problem (regardless of how dire a problem you believe it is, I think we all agree that ANY accidental injury or death from firearm use is a problem) of accidental gun death?

I would argue that in cases of intentional murder, in most cases, preventing murderers from getting guns is too lofty a goal - the whole "only criminals will have guns" argument - but in cases of irresponsible firearm use, a stricter or more in-depth licensing program, coupled with, for example, both harsher criminal penalties for hurting someone and a suspension program for less serious gun infractions - just like driving a damn car, if you do it wrong, you get a time-out.

to be fair, I don't know quite how in-depth the process is as it exists, but I think liberty can stand intact while preventing irresponsible operators from endangering others.

This has always pissed me off. Yes, UG, yes you damn well can. Look at Rwanda, look at Sudan, look at so many hundreds of years of ethnic conflict and cleansing in central asia, africa, even eastern europe. Just cause the victims tried and failed to defend themselves doesn't mean they were all disarmed first. In fact, history more or less shows that genocide is almost NEVER the orderly, policed affair the Germans made of it - genocide is open, bloody, unregulated, and while the FORCE of arms is always imbalanced, the losing side isn't always - or even usually - a DISarmed one.

Agree with you about Rwanda, etc. Germany had no special reason to disarm the Jews. Most of Europe is not as pro gun as we are, and citizens do not commonly own guns. This included the Jews in Germany in the 30's.

They weren't pro gun, so there was no need to disarm them - how'd that work out?