I still contend that instruments designed to be deadly weapons are in a category of their own. Otherwise, what is the 2nd Amendment for? Why doesn’t it just say, “right to bear kitchen knives, ropes, pitchforks, or badminton rackets shall not be infringed”? Obviously the framers of the Constitution believed there was a difference.

Viz http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/ which concludes:

[...]among advanced countries, the U.S. homicide rate stands out. “We seem to be an average country in terms of violence and aggression,” says Harvard’s Hemenway. “What we have is huge homicide rates compared to anybody else.”

Says Wintemute: “The difference is that in this country violence involves firearms and firearms change the outcome.”

But when it comes to deadly weapons we’re supposed to throw up our hands and say, “there’s nothing to be done”?

To live in a society of more than 1 person in it requires some accommodations, some restriction of “rights” so the society can survive. (Your right to freely swing your arm ends at my face.)

With rights comes responsibility, with consequences for being irresponsible. Even Constitutional rights.

While persons more expert may find other inconsistencies, my hope is that Obama,Kerry and Cheney NOT duck hunt together.

Adam Lanza’s mother, Nancy, knew her son was unstable yet she kept guns in the house and encouraged Adam to learn how to use them. She paid the ultimate price for that recklessness. But if she had lived would she have faced any legal consequences? She should have. But what statute would hold her responsible?

Ownership of dead weapons must carry extra legal consequences for what happens with those weapons. Otherwise these are all empty words.

My father taught me how to shoot and handle a firearm. Sure, I’ve learned how to use other models/calibers. I’ve learned how to clean and repair them. I’ve learned many laws surrounding them. But my father taught me the basic rules firing .22 in the YMCA Indian Guides when I was 6-8 years old.

How many kids today get to even speak to their fathers?

I look at it like alcohol. If we tell people it’s bad and they can’t have it, they will only want it more and then abuse it once they have it.

If we tell them they can have it but they have to learn the proper use and respect for it, problems and accidents will still occur, but maybe they won’t be as frequent or deadly.

Likewise, those that are trained need to take the initiative and have words with someone doing something stupid with a firearm. I dealt with this as a paintball enthusiast all the time. Some jerk always thought it was funny to shoot paintballs at people off the field. This is very dangerous, and it only takes being embarrassed by someone else once to straighten someone up. Idiots like this make us all look bad.

Even someone highly trained can make a mistake and have an accident. I think that was probably griff’s point. This quest for total safety the government is selling is a lie used to steal our rights. With the assassin drones preparing to take flight in the continental US, are we really any safer?

Some do, but not all. I actually skeet shoot occasionally with my wife’s family, using an automatic 12 gauge shotgun, and it smokes when I fire.