Sunday, January 20, 2013

Multiple Guns, Multiple Gunshots, Multiple Deaths In NM Home

Five dead. Family members and a chaplain. The alleged shooter is a 15-year-old.

Talk to me again about guns in the home, and that it isn't the guns, its the shooter...

Details, here.

13 comments:

nonquixote said...

Tom Paxton What If?
(he couldn't lay hands on a gun)

http://www.tompaxton.com/video_what_if.html

Anonymous said...

it's the shooter

Anonymous said...

If the gun malfunctioned and went off all by itself, killing all these people, then the gun would definitely be at fault. If not, then it’s the shooter.

Reagan's Disciple said...

Better yet, tell us again how universal background checks or a ban on assault weapons or hi-cap magazines would have prevented this.

zombie rotten mcdonald said...

More guns = more gun deaths.

Some may throw their hands up and say "It is too hard to create universal gun regulation that will prevent every gun death" while pragmatists will say "if we can prevent a few child size coffins being filled, it is worthwhile".

It's the shooter who had unrestricted access to a tool of murder.

Gary Ott said...

It isn't logically consistent to say background checks would not have prevented this outrage. because no-one knows whether a hypothetical is true.

Would a l;aw banning abortion stop all abortions? Of course it wouldn't, and, just as in this case, the presence or absence of a law has no moral bearing on any particular outcome. It is altogether possible that a background check would have prevented this. If you claim to "know" otherwise you're a fool of the first water.

Reagan's Discple said...

Gary,

The kid is underage. He was possessing the guns illegally under any circumstance.

Just an FYI so we know who the "fool" is here. They don't do background checks on 15 year old kids. So yes, I can say a background check would not have prevented this shooting.

Anonymous said...

If the gun(s) weren't there, no one would have died from a gun. They might have died from something else and they might be alive today. Take the gun out of the picture and you don't really know what might have happened.

Reagan's Disciple said...

The answer to drunk driving is making it more difficult for sober people to buy cars.

Gary Ott said...

The question isn't whether the shooter was subject to a background check. Its whether the person who possessed of the weapon(s) was subjected.

So this is yet another of the illusory certainties you entertain. You cannot ever make a positive assertion from a negative.

Reagan's Disciple said...

Gary,

If he was background checked, the killings still happened.

If he wasn't background checked, and/or purchased the gun illegally, the killings still happened.

Creating more hoops to jump through does not prevent people from owning firearms. Background check or not, the likelihood of a firearm being present in the home was still very high.

Go to anywhere and look at illegal gun ownership. Background checks do nothing to stop people from owning firearms.

To try and make a case that a background check in this instance would have stopped these killings is disingenuous at best.

Gary Ott said...

So, you're at once saying background checks are a problem and not a problem?

QED

Reagan's Disciple said...

No, I am saying background checks are not the issue and would not have made a difference.

Nice try though.