There are 35 comments.

1. Inactive
   James Gawron

   @JamesGawron

   10:50 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 21, 2016

   danok1:

   James Gawron: There is only one regulatory approach that I can think of that would be relevant. People may be held liable for allowing unauthorized access to their guns.

   Jim, are you thinking of something along these lines:

   NC General Statute 14-315.1: Storage of firearms to protect minors

   (a) Any person who resides in the same premises as a minor, owns or possesses a firearm, and stores or leaves the firearm (i) in a condition that the firearm can be discharged and (ii) in a manner that the person knew or should have known that an unsupervised minor would be able to gain access to the firearm, is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor if a minor gains access to the firearm without the lawful permission of the minor’s parents or a person having charge of the minor and the minor:

   1. Possesses it in violation of G.S. 14-269.2(b);
   2. Exhibits it in a public place in a careless, angry, or threatening manner;
   3. Causes personal injury or death with it not in self defense; or
   4. Uses it in the commission of a crime.

   Or were you thinking civil liability?

   -Dan

   Dan,

   I think this is quite adequate and usually civil liability would be part of the package. Of course, the hysterics who populate the anti-gun world won’t sit still for this simple but effective approach.

   Meanwhile, as the debate is highjacked by the left’s hysteria we totally ignore the real problem. Gang violence with illegal guns is the cause of the vast majority of violent crime committed. The media blacks out the coverage of this reality.

   Polemics are easy. Problem solving is hard.

   Regards,

   Jim

2. Inactive
   Spin

   @Spin

   10:52 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 21, 2016

   Frank Soto: Even yours?

   No, don’t read mine.  Mine are just wise acre stuff…

3. Coolidge
   C. U. Douglas

   @CUDouglas

   

   11:38 AM EDT ⋅ Mar 21, 2016

   Tom Meyer, Ed.:

   C. U. Douglas:The general argument against these statistics is that while pool and automobile accidents are more likely, guns only have one purpose: to kill things/people. Thus to the Progressive, ignoring pools and cars are okay because the normal use of these things are not lethal. The potentiality is there, but not the assurance. Guns are supposed to be lethal. Thus they feel righteous in trying to control or outright ban them.

   Like I said: sharks and moose.

   True. But to the progressive, we recognize that cars and pool have dangers, and we tend to accomodate — seatbelts, airbags, and auto body features for example, or lifeguards and safety devices for the pool.

   In the progressive’s mind, he’s been convinced that we aren’t do anything about firearms, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. Obama capitalizes on this by demanding Congress pass “Common sense” reform (without really explaining what those are) as if just a little something will fix the problem that you and I know to be way overstated.

   In a Progressive’s mind, this isn’t Shark vs. Moose (movie idea: Shark vs. Moose), but rather diving with a shark cage vs. diving without a shark cage.

4. Member
   Tom Riehl

   @

   12:07 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 21, 2016

   Larry3435:

   Tom Meyer, Ed.: And watch out for moose.

   And squirrel. Don’t forget the squirrel.

   Hey, c’mon, spell it right!  It’s SQUIRREL.  I about had a heart attack the first time I saw Christmas Vacation.

5. Thatcher
   Dan Hanson

   @DanHanson

   

   10:08 PM EDT ⋅ Mar 21, 2016

   I can’t think of a more dangerous gun than one with a trigger that works *sometimes*.  If a ‘smart gun’ isn’t absolutely flawless in execution, a lot of people are going to accidentally shoot themselves and others.