And people wonder why I favor tightened gun control.

First let me say I agree with your feeling of outrage.  I also agree that the organizers and executors of this type of fair should be held accountable...and punished.  But the thing that rankles me most is that we already have so many stupid weapons oriented laws on the books, please explain how adding to the list will fix stupid?  You cannot outlaw stupid, you cannot keep guns out of the hands of stupid, and when you make it harder for reasonable people to own guns, you increase the danger of stupid things happening.  I agree that fairs and "gun shows" need better policing, but not more laws.  There are more than enough gun laws on the books to prevent this kind of thing.  There are so many laws about guns that not even the law enforcement people know them all.  We have a simple system nationwide of licensing and regulating commercial truck drivers...seems to me that a very thin, simple, comprehensive code book could be developed to regulate the ownership, transfer of ownership, transport and use of firearms...without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens who want to own weapons.

But stupid will always be in the mix.  Stupid let his kid shoot a submachine gun.  Stupid let HIS kid operate a machine gun range.  Stupid no doubt issued whatever permit or license that was required for the fair without insuring public safety.  Stupid did not have adequate safety monitoring to insure public safety.  I will bet ya that a search of local, state and federal codes will find laws or regulations requiring all the above.

I am not a big gun fan and I won't have one in my house.  I know there are families out there who teach and live proper gun safety with their children (Tova comes to mind), and I can't say I think that's wrong.  I just know that for my own family, guns are not an option. 

I think generally, people AREN'T safe about weapon storage and use in the home.  Obviously, based on the news story you posted, "professionals" aren't much better.

I am a propenent of owning weapons, but anyone that would put any kind of deadly weapon in the hands of an eight year old should be..... well..... SHOT!!!

SC you're going on emotion here.  Yes, if we go by emotion we should outlaw the guns because these types of things do happen on occasion.  We don't want even one kid hurt or killed. 

But there is something much more sinister here to think about.  Giving up our guns or making it harder for the average Joe to obtain them is not a good thing especially as our world gets more and more messed up.   It is our right to protect ourselves.  You take the guns away and we become very very vulnerable.  Freedoms usually do cost us something.  Freedom is seldom free. 

As already stated, stupid people do stupid stuff.  In this case this dad made an awful choice that resulted in an awful tragic ending.  Making a law is not going to stop that from happening.  We know that kids die in cars because parents don't buckle them up.  We know kids under the drinking age drink and drive. Kids smoke pot and do drugs.  All illegal.  We hear about kids burning down houses.  Should we outlaw matches?  Why are we always going after guns?  I'd dare to guess that drugs and alcohol are killing kids at a faster rate than the guns are. 

Think about this:

In 1929, the  Soviet Union  established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911,  Turkey  established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Many, many people were rounded up and exterminated because of gun control over the years. 

We need to learn from history.  We need to hang onto our guns.  We most likely are going to need them one day. 

I am with you on this. Just goes to show just how idiotic some people really are.

But if you are to take away peoples rights to weapons because a few of them are irresponsible and stupid when it comes to children and guns, then maybe we should take the children away from people as well. I mean yes guns have been part of many situations where children were innocently killed (drive-bys, no gun locks and accesible to children, teaching children to use guns at a young age, etc), but then children die at the hands of adults with or without guns in the mix (reckless driving, child abuse, accidental falls, reckless endangerment, forgetting or ignoring about the child). It's extreme to take 1 example to complete elimite that which is considered a right to all Americans that qualify to own a gun.

Gun laws don't have much to do with this.  This was simply an act of stupidity on the adults part.  Stricter gun laws don't prevent stupid people from doing stupid things, just in the same way they don't stop criminals from obtaining or using guns.

By way of negation of these comments, strict gun laws completely remove the chance of this incident happening.

For reals.

Australia doesn't even have gun shows, so it is impossible for a child to handle an automatic or semi-automatic weapon at a gun show.

I'm glad you brought up Australia. 

In Australia the citizens were forced by new laws to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. 

The first year results of this show that Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.  Assaults are up 8.6 percent.  Armed robberies are up 44 percent.  In the state of  Victoria  alone,  homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.   It's interesting to note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not.

Guns in the hands of honest law abiding citizens saves lives and property.  History backs this up. 

I've heard it said:

With Guns we are citizens

Without Guns we are subjects. 

I tend to agree even though I've never owned a gun.  I appreciate those who do and will fight for them to keep their right to arm themselves and me if necessary. 

I have to agree with Big Fat Daddy.

While it's easy to say we need a law and assume that will take care of the problem, it is also naive.

All the gun laws on the books, even 'strict' laws (whatever that means ... I think for the most part gun laws are strict. You generally don't get off easy for a gun violation) don't do squat if:

(1) those laws are not enforced adequately, and

(2) stupidity continues to exist, which you can't legislate out of existence.

It is also naive to think that all people, including criminals, will voluntarily give up their guns to authorities upon request. In addition to the example given by KFC, there are other stories with similar results.

For the criminals who do not give up their guns, it's a Blue Light Special for quite some time in the crime business.

I assume you're referring to the gun law reforms following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, where 35 innocent people were killed and 21 wounded by a single gunman? Using the logic of the War on Terror, the fact that there has not been a similar massacre since proves that the gun laws have been a rousing success.

Using more conventional logic, and looking at figures a little newer than 1997 (11 years ago!), we can see that:

On another note, KFC said that that homicides were up 3.2%. My response: so? In 2005-06, there were 301 homicide-related deaths - an increase of 14% on the previous year. A 3 per cent rise is about 9 people, which is hardly statistically significant. As a point of comparison, California had 2,503 in the same period but has twice as many people.*

Criminals aren't so much the problem. Organised crime doesn't gun down shopping malls, because they understand that organisation is important. It's the nutters and the casual criminal who get targeted by gun laws. Restrict supply, you restrict usage. Restrict usage, restrict abuse. Restrict abuse, restrict collateral damage. You can cause a lot less damage with a knife than you can a gun.

*California's gun control is a joke compared to what an island state with effective border controls and a national policy can achieve, so I doubt it's statistically significant. If the US has a state or set of states more comparable to Australia in size (20 million) and composition (predominately urban/suburban) I'd appreciate seeing what equivalent figures are. I'm guessing LA heavily affects California's, but I couldn't think of another so close in general make-up and psychology to Australia.

So true. Every jail there is has at least one bullet hole in it where some idiot cop accidently discharged his firearm while playing with -the jail I work at included. There will ALWAYS be stupid people!

The OP favors tightened gun control.  Some of the pro-gun dissenters say we can't legislate against stupidity, and therefore suggest we don't try.  But we legislate against stupidity all the time.  The high taxes we place on cigarettes is one example.  The argument that there will always be stupid people is a weak argument.  There will always be crime, so we should not legislate against it?  The pro-gun dissenters do better arguing the "more guns, less crime" and "government is the real thing to fear" arguments. 

To KFC's point the OP is "going on emotion here," so are you, KFC.  It's just that your emotion is fear and the OP's emotion is disgust.

The OP is frustrated with gun shows in particular.  How did the kids obtain their weapons for the massacre at Columbine?  A gun show.  I am a moderate on the gun control issue, and I think there is common ground to be found.  The area I focus on is gun shows because that is where gun-control is basically a joke.  Proponents of the 2nd Amendment need to get on-board with tightening control of gun shows otherwise they may find public opinion swinging against them.  I think often the gun advocates think the problem is a bad apple (stupid person) instead of seeing the problem is a bad barrel (gun shows).

Guns should at least be as hard to obtain as crack cocaine. Hmm....maybe I better re-think that.  

I don't think it's a question of not trying, but more that you can't legislate stupidity out of existence.

You can pass laws which will make it more difficult for stupid people to do stupid things, but the more effective way to stop or lessen stupid choices, decisions, or actions is through education about proper choices along with better enforcement of existing laws. I believe that is the current method espoused by many as the proper way to deal with teen pregnancy, for example. As many consider it futile to try to prevent teens from having sex, education is believed to be the best way to prevent stupid choices, decisions, or actions.

As far as 'tightening' vs. 'enforcing' gun laws, is this two ways of saying the same thing? Does tightening mean enforcing? Or does it mean adding new laws?

While the meaning of 'enforcing' existing laws is apparent, 'tightening' gun laws is so vague as to make one wonder if the use of the term is deliberate so as to obfuscate the agenda of those proposing it as a solution.

Exactly how do you 'tighten' a law? That term might suggest loose laws, as in loopholes perhaps. If there are exemptions for gun laws at particular venues or for particular people (aside from law enforcment, obviously), that's something that should be looked at; if those exemptions or 'loopholes' put people at risks that wouldn't be normally possible in the absence of the exemption.

The problem I believe some people have with the term 'tighten' is that it seems to suggest adding more laws without any consideration to proper enforcement of existing laws.

I hear you, Pictoratus.  I'm not thinking we can legislate stupidity out of existence, but what I'm talking about is a systems approach.  We make changes to the system so it is less likely for an uzi to end up in the hands of an eight year-old.  So often after something like this people focus on punishing the individuals.  Believe me, I support punishing them, but that is only the start.  If we want to decrease the frequency with which this occurs, we need to change the system.  That's why I advocate increased gun control at gun shows.

Let’s say a young child is hit crossing the street to school.  We should punish the driver, but then prevent future tragedies at the same location by establishing a crossing zone, assigning a crossing guard before and after school, and setting up warning signage/lights.  That’s the difference between a punitive approach and a systems approach.

As to the 'tightening' vs 'enforcing existing' gun laws angle, you are right.  To a large degree they are saying the same thing.  The difference is 'tightening' is a term which would include new legislation whereas the 'enforcing existing' clause precludes new legislation. 

I had a 30-30 when I was eight (hung on my bedroom wall gun rack). I'd take it down and clean it once in a which until I was 12 and old enough to hunt. It never made me shot anybody, and to my knowledge it never got up and killed anyone by itself either. I played cowboys and Indians, and army man too (with toy weapons) never compelled to get out a real gun for that. It really depends on the child's level of responsibility and how they are raised. IMO if the parent is letting their TV or the other neighborhood kids raise their child, a firearm is probably a bad idea for them. You have to be able to respect yourself, others and property before you can have a gun around minors and teach them the same. Hiding (big difference between securing) it from them is the worse thing to do. Teach them to respect it, never point it at anything they don't intend to shoot (even in fun) and treat all weapons as loaded. Then keep it secure.

While this story is tragic (everyone involved displayed bad judgment), it doesn't change my mind one bit on gun rights. Some questions about the story begged to be asked. Did the boy ever fire a gun before? If so how did he respond to the recoil? I would put part of the blame on his "photo taken" father who should have known better. From the article, it sounds like some state laws were broken, but mostly the law of stupid for both the father and whoever allowed the boy to shoot in the first place. Machine guns are fun to shoot, that said they are not practical to shoot (too expensive in the use of ammo), and not practical for most other applications (get a shot gun if you can't hit the target or need a home defense weapon). The average person can't own one anyway (needs a ATF class III license, along with a yearly fee), not too many places to fire one. So what remains? The thrill of doing it (I can see this), or bragging rights to friends (that's childish). I don't think its bad if someone whats the experience for personal enlightenment, but it has to be under controlled, properly supervised, conditions. If you never fired a gun this is a bad choice to start with and especially if it's a small sub-machine gun like this. Fire a pistol or rife first, that may satisfy your curiosity on it;s own, If you still want to then shoot an automatic weapon they have M-16's and AK-47's (larger rifles and much safer) with 3 round bursts (one trigger pull, three shots, designed so troops don't waste ammo)this will warm you up for full-auto. 

San Cho, nice "Gun free zone" sign. I believe everyone that is anti-gun should display one of these signs prominently on their front door/porch. This way thief's won't have to worry about dying when they break into the house, and would be more likely to pass my home (which is full of instruments of their death should they try) for easier pickings.

Colleen was fervently anti-gun, but mean old me made her learn how to use one anyways, just in case. now she is comfortable around weapons, knows how to use them, clean them and when to bring one out to save her life should I be elsewhere, or should I die.

You don't have to love weapons to be able to use them. Nitro is right, having a no weapons at home here sign is an invite for trouble.

I have a home protection system and a sign up for that.  Works for me. 

Isn't it statistically likely that a gun-owner will have their weapon USED AGAINST THEM in the event of a violent break-in?  Further, guns are $$$.  Post a sign that you have lots of them stock-piled and see if you don't get robbed.  :p

Me too! it's a .380 Colt automatic. But I DO keep the clip separate and right next to it in the drawer!

(But seriously folks, I get threats from time to time. That tends to change one's perspective on home gun ownership when known criminals threaten YOU and YOURS personally, lol)

I'm not trying to criticize responsible gun-owners.  It's an American right.  

It's just not the ONLY acceptable way to go about things, which seemed to be what Nitro was implying.  I have small children in the house and we are not gun people, generally.  It would be far less safe and responsible for us to keep weapons.  It's just not for us.

We also don't get personal threats due to work.  Individual circumstances do make a difference.  I just get so tired of the uber pro-gun crowd making it like you're putting your family in jeopardy for not packing.  I don't have time/interest in my life for guns.  I would be LESS safe with a gun in MY home.

My husband and sons hunt.  A lot.  They also have guns passed down as family heirlooms.  I personally love to target and range shoot with pistols, rifles, and yes even (gasp) semi-automatics (the AK-47 is a much better assault rifle imo than an M16). 

There is something to be said for guns, the technology of them, the gadgetry if you will.  Feeling the weight in your arms as you aim down range, the kick, or the lack of one, and marveling at the invention, the ingenuity..  And of course the thrill of looking at the shot pattern.  I admit, I love it when I outshoot my husband and sons because they are so competitive about it. 

Guns are deadly, and I am sorry that kid died.  Could there be more safety measures in place at gun shows?  Yeah, sure.  I don't think most people would even have a problem with that.

I don't think my right to bear arms should be modified because of some dumb asses though.  If that it the litmus test for modifying or taking away our constitutional rights, then well, we may as well just kiss them all goodbye. 

I'm a supporter of the second Amendment, Libertarian Lefty in most cases, but there MUST be limitations, just as there are on just about all freedoms and rights, legitimate, well thought about limitiations. The mentally challenged and blind should not be able to own guns, voilent crime felons, etc.. Common sense approach saying that you must be mentally capable of being responsible for the possession of an object that is the easiest tool to kill another citizen.  

Most importantly, if our lawmakers, especiallly those in bed with the NRA, took the manufactures to task, and FORCED them to stop selling abroad to organizations that funnelled the guns BACK into the US(ask an inner city Cop,they'll inform you if you already aren't), most inner cities and depressed rural areas wouldn't have the gun violence in the first place, and this entire issue would be a very minor problem(people using guns to kill other poeple). Most gun owners are hunters, hobbyists or people that just want to protect their property or want to excersize their right(myself) aren't even factored in to the discussion about gun control, but the rabid NRA lobbyists want legitimate gun owners "to be afraid!". Everyone seems to get lumped into one big group, and we MUST differentiate between each other, as they are two seperate issues.

We need to make sure those people are spereated from the real problem in the country, illegal inner city guns that kill thousands and thousands of people a year including hundreds of cops a year in the US. The rabid NRA supporters and politicians like to use scare tactics whenever an inner city politician tries to tackle a gun issue in the city, and make claims that they "want your guns!", which is total BS. Most people with an ounce of intellect know that inner city crime and police officers getting killed is the REAL problem here, not the law abiding citizen who wants to own a gun. Of course, getting rid of ALL guns in the cities and economically depressed areas will be replaced by another forrm of violence, given the economic climate in these areas it's human nature. 

Want to solve that problem and mute the issue of gun rights as  a wedge issue? Fix the economic system so that people won't turn to the streets for an easy living, lowering the demand of illegal street guns which will in turn degrade the offshore importing of illegel firearms(good luck with that, since it's supported by the gun manufactures), and provide good paying jobs that almost equal what they can earn on the street, as well as benfits. It's the only way inner city violence is going to change, but good luck with that. No one really wants to talk about why we have such problems, we just want to scream at each other and label each other, when the underlying issues in most problems are never discussed or resolved.

San Chonino,

I simply want to say I agree with you.  And despite what some might think, gun control HAS worked for Australia.  You only have to live here to see this.

JU insists that the beginning of my text is already quoted...

I cannot find any 1929 law that would establish gun control in Soviet Russia.

You think the genocide happened because people living in the mountains of eastern Turkey couldn't buy guns because of a law enforced by the government in Ankara?

The 1938 law was a liberalisation of existing gun control laws.

Also note that the Nazi party was VERY popular among the gun-owning militia types. That was one the reasons they liberalised gun control laws.

"On August 7, 1920, the German government enacted a second gun-regulation law called the Law on the Disarmament of the People. It put into effect the provisions of the Versailles Treaty in regard to the limit on military-type weapons.

In 1928, the German government enacted the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. Under this scheme, Germans could possess firearms, but they were required to have separate permits to do the following: own or sell firearms, carry firearms (including handguns), manufacture firearms, and professionally deal in firearms and ammunition. This law explicitly revoked the 1919 Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which had banned all firearms possession."

"The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose Trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law:

Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."

The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and Nazi party members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.

The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.

The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.

Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing of firearms and ammunition."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Politics_in_Germany

The 1938 law did not establish or tighten gun control. Apart from the point about Jews, it merely liberalised the existing harsher law at the request of the gun lobby, which in Germany were a bunch of Nazi sympathisers.

The so-called Freikorps had been established after World War 1 to circumvent restrictions on the German military. Guess which kind of people made of the Freekorps?

Your date of 1935 marks the first year of Japan's war against China, which was then ruled by the nationalists under Chianh Kai-Tsheck (sp?), a general who took over running the country from the then-dead Sun Yat-Sen (again sp?). 

In any way, your period of strict gun control and dissidents "unable to defend themselves" happens to be the time the communist revolution succeeded in China (the nationalists left in 1949 for Taiwin, which they reclaimed from the Japanese during the war). 

They were not only "unable to defend themselves", they were also able to win a civil war. I guess missing guns can't have been the major problem. 

Far from being disarmed, the Chinese fought a civil war. With guns.

Gun control and guns are both tools that can be used for good or evil. But the Nazi government in Germany is a really bad example. You know the free gun-owning people ready to defend their (perceived) rights? In Germany in the 1920s and 1930s THOSE PEOPLE were the Nazis. That's who they were.

Gun control was used by the Weimar republic as a weapon against the militias. Far from defending liberty the militias were either communist or fascist and tried to take over the (then democratic) country. The fascists succeeded. One has to wonder if they would have had a chance if gun control had been more strict without exceptions for Freikorps.

After World War 2 Germany went back to the 1928 standard of gun control. And there are no more militias in Germany. Occasionally the police find a militia in the making. But because of gun control laws, they can take away their guns and put them away BEFORE they start doing what the posters in their houses suggest they were planning to do. (They usually plan to kill foreigners and burn down synagogues in case you are wondering.)

Yes, that's what the Freikorps said.

Very worrying.

But what the heck was an 8-year old doing at a gun show anyway? And what about the 15-year old? Gun shows, like guns, are for adults. I would treat such shows similar to sex shows. Some things are just not suitable for small children. What's the matter with those people?

Incidentally, owning a gun and going hunting is legal in Germany. But leaving two kids alone with a machine gun doesn't sound like "hunting" to me. It's one thing to let a kid drive your car under supervision and to let him drive a race car alone. The same care should be applied to kids and guns.