Curse

Stockholm · Feb 17, 2008, 06:52 PM // 18:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diddy bow

Mabay she will learn to share now?

I joke ^^, but redneck power, people should need to complete some kind of test before they are allowed guns ¬¬

guns and/or kid's

fishy go moo · Feb 17, 2008, 07:23 PM // 19:23

Why would you need to hide your guns? If your children are not ass holes you wouldn't need to hide them, parents need more discipline.

xxlebox · Feb 17, 2008, 07:33 PM // 19:33

Children should be raised better, while parents shouldn't have guns.

RPGmaniac · Feb 17, 2008, 07:52 PM // 19:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by I pwnd U

So basically you are saying take away the 2nd Amendment which gives people the right to bear arms? Would anger lots of people.

In Illinois, where I live, for a person to obtain a gun legally there is a process.

1) Must obtain a Firearm Owner's Identification(FOID) card which requires you to send an application and picture to the state police for a full background check.
2)After the background check, IF cleared, you get your card and if over the age of 21 can go purchase a handgun (18+ can get a rifle). Once at the store you can purchase the rifle but again you are run through the system that looks for any felonies.
3)After purchasing the gun for a handgun one must wait 3 days to pick it up, and 24 hours for a rifle.

Doesn't seem like much but the 1st step is what stops anyone with a criminal record or anything out of the ordinary from obtaining one. I would be all for this being put into place in the whole US. Would keep people who should not have a firearm away from one. It's a pain to go through but if you have a good record you are fine.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/...d_rankings.pdf

Shows the rankings of the places from hardest to obtain a firearm to easiest. In South Carolina it is fairly easy to obtain a firearm as shown.

That is a law pertaining to purchase of a shotgun/rifle in South Carolina.

All this is good and fun BUT the fact is, even with harsher gun laws and even if an FOID system was implemented had the father taken correct percautions (as in locking up the gun) this never would of happened. 2nd, who the heck teaches their 10 year old son how to load and fire a gun?!?! Parenting breakdown tbh.

Pwnd, I now introduce...

A 10 month old baby with a perfeclty legit gun permit!

This isn't a rickrolld attempt, I promise (though it would be a really good setup for one)

Issac · Feb 17, 2008, 08:03 PM // 20:03

What if the gun had 2 barrels and loaded them both :S. His sister would have been done for. Then he would have been thrown into the wall by the force of the gun.

I pwnd U · Feb 17, 2008, 08:04 PM // 20:04

I never said that age mattered, as the article says

Quote:

'No age restrictions'

Illinois gun laws are said to be among the strictest in the US.

But Illinois State Police, who oversee the application process, said that they had followed the law in this case.

"Does a 10-month-old need a FOID card? No, but there are no restrictions under the act regarding age of applicants," the Associated Press news agency quoted Lt Scott Compton as saying.

Therefore they were following the law and had they denyed it without reason then the law would have been broken. Also a FOID card allows the owner the ability to hold a gun in the store, to buy one when of age, and to own one IF it is given as a present. Since the baby is only 10 months old there is no way it will be able to fire the shotgun. Just because he was granted an FOID card does not mean the law is flawed. People are starting to miss the fuzzy line here. The point of this whole matter is the dad should of had his gun locked up and probably should of taught his son better self control. Had the guns been locked up proper the kid never would of gotten to it. That doesn't mean he still wouldn't have severly hurt his sister. He could of got a knife from the kitchen and stabbed her.

Would that have people calling for people to have a knife permit for a butter knife? No, that would have people screaming about DCFS going down there to take the kids away because the parents didn't do their job. But instead since there was a gun involved, people immediatly say it was the guns fault and that our gun control measures suck. Yet even with the best gun control laws it is up to the parents to raise the kid right. There were still many ways that the 10 year old could of hurt his sister, a knife, a baseball bat, his own fist, etc. So sorry to say everyone, this is a failure in parenting rather then gun control laws. All this falls on the dad for not locking the gun up and not teaching his kid self-control.

Redfeather1975 · Feb 18, 2008, 04:05 AM // 04:05

Yeah I pwnd U, it's about teaching coping skills. The son could not handle his emotions and negative relationship with his sister. He had to have had a negative relationship with his sister long before this.
But if the gun were locked up, he would have used a knife. Nothing would have changed.
My friend said when he was young he got in a fight with his sister and it escalated so far she was stabbing a knife into his bedroom door screaming at him.

Brianna · Feb 18, 2008, 04:26 AM // 04:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesmer in Need

This is why having kids should be a privilege, not a right. First off, the kid obviously knew how to use the gun, who do you think taught him? I know where my dad keeps his guns, but as far as knowing how to use them, no. I also know better then to pull one on one of my family members. Parents fault 100%.

It's not hard to use a gun.

Take off safety, point at your target, and pull the trigger.

And really, kids see all kinds of things on TV and in Video Games with guns, I'm not surprised at all - Which means that they simply might know how to use a gun from that, not saying that it encourages them to.

Kerwyn Nasilan · Feb 18, 2008, 04:26 AM // 04:26

For anyone saying that there needs to get rid of guns, do guns kill people NO, it is the idiot firing the gun that does. The unfortunant part is that to many people have guns that are in no way fit to have one. And to the people that think that rednecks are the problem, I know some "rednecks" I go bear hunting with them and they are some of the nicest people I know. Wierd? yes, crazy murdering gun wielders? Absolutly not. I guarantee you more city people kill others with guns than "rednecks" do.

Onarik Amrak · Feb 18, 2008, 04:38 AM // 04:38

The best solution is not to get rid of guns.

Just get rid of rednecks!

Winterclaw · Feb 18, 2008, 05:03 AM // 05:03

If someone has a little common sense, takes plenty of safety precautions, and doesn't break any laws, keeping a gun in the house is fine. It's the people who don't do those three things who shouldn't have a gun around the house.

Brianna · Feb 18, 2008, 06:12 AM // 06:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterclaw

If someone has a little common sense, takes plenty of safety precautions, and doesn't break any laws, keeping a gun in the house is fine. It's the people who don't do those three things who shouldn't have a gun around the house.

Yes this is true, but very unrealistic to expect everyone to abide by that.

And it was deleted before, for some reason, but like I said, it's easy for guns to fall into the wrong hands, nearly anyone can get one (In America). Though I guess it is going off-topic a bit, just thought I'd mention it.

I'd kill for some Salt&Vinegar chips right now.. what? *runs*

I Dont Do Coke · Feb 18, 2008, 06:23 AM // 06:23

Wow... Imagine them growing up with each other now =[

Muspellsheimr · Feb 18, 2008, 06:48 AM // 06:48

Subject: Doctors... Or Guns?

On Doctors: What you probably didn't know...
Doctors
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.

Statistics courtesy of U.S.Dept of Health Human Services.

Now think about this:
Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. (Yes, that's 80 million)
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.

Statistics courtesy of FBI

So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

Remember, 'Guns don't kill people, doctors do.'

Winterclaw · Feb 18, 2008, 03:37 PM // 15:37

Mu, while I support the 2nd amendment I think you are going to be accused of comparing apples to oranges.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brianna

Yes this is true, but very unrealistic to expect everyone to abide by that.

And it was deleted before, for some reason, but like I said, it's easy for guns to fall into the wrong hands, nearly anyone can get one (In America). Though I guess it is going off-topic a bit, just thought I'd mention it.

The thing about freedoms are is that you have to accept people to make the wrong choice. Now as a hypothetical (from the standpoint of the framers) consider what would happen if the government became the wrong hands and tried to keep guns out of the right hands who would want to fight for themselves. That's what was going on in the pre-revolutionary period; our official government, the British one, became the wrong hands for the people of the colonies. Now while it is unlikely to happen in the US again, if we forget about it we make it easier to happen again.

WarKaster · Feb 18, 2008, 04:13 PM // 16:13

I own many various type of fire arms.....Rifles, and hand guns....any one who is competent enough should either

a) have a gun safe, and have gun locks on all the fire arms
b) at least have gun locks if they don't have a gun safe
c) And if you really don't feel safe with them in the house do the above only store them some where off the property at either a gun club where you can rent your own safe, or a storage facility that is climate controlled.