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

[Keystone Phil]

Why was this gun in a house with young children, indeed?

That has nothing to do with the problem.

[Keystone Phil]

As fa as I see it, no gun in house, no gun accidentally in child's possession, no sister shot.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The kid is obviously troubled so what makes you think he wouldn't try to find the gun?

[Keystone Phil]

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. Those who are blaming guns here seem to want them either banned when banning them wouldn't solve a thing. And you can't really compare guns to the other items you listed. When it comes to a gun, yes, it is the person handling it, not the item.

[Keystone Phil]

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[Keystone Phil]

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

I am in favor of the assualt weapons ban.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I really don't believe so. Again, it is a fantasy to think the guns would just disappear.

[Keystone Phil]

 Limiting the amount of guns someone can buy during a certain period of time (something similar to what was proposed by Rendell), more stringent gun registry systems

One gun a month is BS because, again, an overwhelming majority of these crimes are committed with illegally obtained weapons.

[Keystone Phil]

  Limiting the amount of guns someone can buy during a certain period of time (something similar to what was proposed by Rendell), more stringent gun registry systems

One gun a month is BS because, again, an overwhelming majority of these crimes are committed with illegally obtained weapons.

Yes and how to those guns become illegal in the 1st place??  People buying them legally then selling them off on the black market.

Actually, theft might also be a leading factor but whatever.