3-year-old boy fatally shot in the head after finding pink gun

[LondonReign2]

75. Your suggestion is silly

>My suggestion was that the parents should have been taught basic gun safety When they were in school.

Those are public resources. Are you willing to pay additional taxes for this? And are you willing to pay additional taxes on top of that to provide safety classes to 1) people who did not go to public school, and 2) People no longer in school? Because if not, if you are not willing to mandate this and support in through taxes, you suggestion is as useful as the "voluntary pollution control" espoused by Bush.

>Fuck that noise. The license fee for a vehicle entitles the owner to drive it on public roads, not to own it.

Yes, the license fee entitles you to use the vehicle. Likewise, the gun license fee entitles you to use the gun. You just want to own it and not use it? Fine then, you do not have to pay the fee if you bring in the gun so the firing mechanism can be disabled. Should you decide later you want to use the gun, just bring it back and you can pay to have it put back in to working order.

>That's ridiculous.

Really? While "that's ridiculous" is certainly a powerful argument, perhaps you'd like to specify exactly why it is ridiculous to have to license a gun just as you do a motor vehicle.

>Most homeowners and many renters already have liability insurance. I do.

"Most" and "many" are not all. When I take my car in for service I am required to provide proof of insurance. Why shouldn't it be the same for guns?

>The answer is to stop spewing out lame ideas that are concocted with punitive intent rather than a real concern for public safety.

The requirements would strongly parallel those for owning and operating cars. Are vehicle registration laws punitive?