10 year old shoots 9 year old sister in face over chips with dad's shotgun

[Јas]

No matches in the house, no house on fire, no children burned to death. It applies to many things. These things, while tragic, are very rare and taking guns away (or questioning why they are there to begin with) doesn't help.

I agree... we need gun control, and ax control, and knife control, and baseball bat control, and scarf control and fist control, and just for good measure we need blunt object control... oh, and water control... we can't forget that.

The logic you two are using presumably means that you favour absolutely no restricitions whatsoever on anybody possessing any items of a dangerous nature in terms of arms (land mines; cluster munitions; irradiated weaponry); poisons (anthrax; bubonic plague; smallpox); etc. - because after all it's not the item but the person that's the problem.
Correct?

[Јas]

No matches in the house, no house on fire, no children burned to death. It applies to many things. These things, while tragic, are very rare and taking guns away (or questioning why they are there to begin with) doesn't help.

I agree... we need gun control, and ax control, and knife control, and baseball bat control, and scarf control and fist control, and just for good measure we need blunt object control... oh, and water control... we can't forget that.

The logic you two are using presumably means that you favour absolutely no restricitions whatsoever on anybody possessing any items of a dangerous nature in terms of arms (land mines; cluster munitions; irradiated weaponry); poisons (anthrax; bubonic plague; smallpox); etc. - because after all it's not the item but the person that's the problem.
Correct?

Not necessarily.

I don't see how the comparison is invalid.
If you agree that a line should be drawn somewhere when it comes to weapons/dangerous materials, then how can you suggest that it's unwise to consider restricting gun ownership?

Those who are blaming guns here seem to want them either banned when banning them wouldn't solve a thing.

Are you of the belief that if guns were banned, with serious penalties imposed for non-compliance, there would be no difference in homicides or serious injuries such as in the instant case?

[Јas]

I don't see how the comparison is invalid.
If you agree that a line should be drawn somewhere when it comes to weapons/dangerous materials, then how can you suggest that it's unwise to consider restricting gun ownership?

Because handling and pulling the trigger of a gun is different than handling and exposing others to anthrax.

Well, can I ask, what restrictions (if any) would you believe are appropriate regarding personal ownership of arms/weapons?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think there would be any notable difference.

But surely cases like this one would either not happen at all, or be significantly reduced in frequency?

Most of the gun crime is because of illegally obtained guns anyway. "Hey, they're banned now!" won't stop the people who are already getting them unlawfully.

Oh, and banning them won't prompt Americans to line up and dump all their guns in a government collection bin.

I, unfortunately, tend to agree. To me, this is probably the strongest argument on that side.