Gun advocate, mother, age 42, shoots her two daughters, ages 17 and 22, and kills them, later gets shot by police, no record of arrests. What else needs to be done in such a case?

Deaves, that's a non-starter if you want a logical discussion. Other things kill you when something GOES WRONG with their designed use. Only guns are designed SPECIFICALLY to wound and kill. And sometimes that IS necessary, but understand that they have NO other use and thus cannot be compared to anything else.

The are used for Olympic events and hundreds of other sporting events. Semi-auto is a class of competition that is very popular.

The objective is to reduce or eliminate murder. Not just get rid of a particular method.

That seems to get lost by the gun haters. They only care about guns not eliminating murders.

Their focus is on one item only.

Deaves, I'll repeat, even though I know you have been told this before:

Just because there are other ways to kill people, doesn't mean guns are not dangerous, and not a problem

Putting guns in the hands of everyone who can hold one, will result in more shootings, and more deaths.

The point is, if that crazy woman did not have a gun handy, maybe she and her daughters would still be alive. Why she went crazy isn't relevant. But I don't really see this as an issue of gun control anyway. Having a small revolver like the one she shot her family with, doesn't seem like that big of a deal. What I see happening here is that the woman was possibly spurred on by this wave of 2nd Amendment fetishism, where guns are supposed to be a symbol of self-integrity, national pride, and a touch of cowboyish bravado. This fervour over guns seems to be at the root of the problem, a problem which has a lot of different roots mind you.

Leaving people defenseless will result in more shootings and more deaths.

If having guns was the disaster gun haters predict then why is it that 88 million people in the US are not on murderous rampages and killing people deliberately or accidentally by the thousands.

A lot of things you buy every day are dangerous and designed to be dangerous.

Getting rid of guns will not stop murders and suicides.

Murder rates were higher back in the 1960's than today. Even though there are over 100 million more guns in the the US than there were in the 60's.

My prejudice, if that is the correct word, is not stupid, it is based on total fairness. That is why I don't think it is prejudice. I said this before and I'll say it again: Law enforcers should NOT be legally allowed to do anything that is illegal for anyone else to do, otherwise it is totally unfair, hypocritical and downright evil. How can I be a fool to say that?

You make a mindless judgment, painting an entire group of people with a broad brush and assuming they're all the same. That's called bigotry or prejudice, whether the group is Jews, African-Americans, members of any nationality, or police officers. It makes you nothing more than a common bigot.

Wrong, Stu. It is based on their behaviour, not on their nationality, creed or colour. There is a world of difference there and you know it.

But not all are the same, and you don't allow for that, which, again, just makes you a bigot.

You don't get what I am getting at, do you, Stu? If you read my postings properly you will see that I said "Law enforcers should NOT be legally allowed to do anything that is illegal for anyone else to do, otherwise it is totally unfair, hypocritical and downright evil". Law enforcers who refuse to do that would not come under the bigoted category you think I am placing them in. Now am I getting through to you yet? It's not who they are, it's WHAT THEY DO that I am judging them for.

Fact of the matter is most people don't put the  high priority on paper targets that they do the human ones !

"American Rifleman Magazine".... Gee whiz Daddy, who puts out that non biased, non political ,public service magazine ???

I'm just following the logic that more guns are the answer to gun violence. That IS what we're being told, right ?

In your little scenario, Andy, would you be the person who kills the police officers? Also, how do you assume that killing the officers solves the problem?

Doubtful. She would've found a way to get guns anyway. It's called the black market.

@Andy B: If the foo shits, wear it. The nutjob you see in the mirror might be you!

Yes. Deaves, what percentage of U.S. gun-owners would YOU say have purchased weapons solely in order to participate in Olympic events ? Overall ? There are more gun-owning liberals than you'd probably imagine; and I get THAT doesn't fit the popular narrative. But even those of us who understand that guns are sometimes necessary aren't pretending not to know what their primary purpose is, and are looking for ways to lessen their availability to those who shouldn't have them.

How many times do I have to repeat the same information? The Gun Violence Archive listed 53,291 gun violence incidents in America last year, resulting in 13,432 deaths, of which only 1,296 were classed as defensive use, which as a percentage is 2.4277% of the total. The figures speak for themselves. There are vastly more Americans endangering other Americans with guns, than defending themselves with guns. It is a ridiculous, circular argument. You need guns to defend yourself. Who from? Other Americans with guns. But if it was not so easy for Americans to get guns, there wouldn't be a need to defend yourself. They always trot out the tired old "they can buy guns on the black market" argument. We don't have much gun crime, or violent crime overall, in Britain, but what gun crime does occur is mostly carried out by owners of legal guns. It is so hard to obtain guns over here that gang-bangers took to using antique guns, because they couldn't get anything else, and the government closed that loophole a couple of years ago, and brought antique guns under the provisions of the firearms act. I would never swap living in a country with gun control for a country with the so-called "right to bear arms."

And Deaves American Rifleman link took me to a mostly blank page with a logo.

There's a happy medium between totally getting rid of guns, which wouldn't even be practical, and arming every man, woman and child, isn't there ? And speaking of hypocrisy, if the Repubs are so afraid of terrorists that they'd ban someone not accused of crime simply because of their ethnicity, why do they have a problem with choosing NOT to arm folks who actually ARE on terrorist watch lists ?

Based upon THAT reasoning, nothing should be illegal. People will break the law anyway, after all---they're called CRIMINALS.

So, the case is being investigated - what else would you expect to be done? Or, are you asking, what could, or should have been done to prevent this from happening?

Sorry Marguerite, beat you to it on this one, 2 days ago, lol! Her name was Christy Sheats.

http://answermug.com/forum/topics/do-you-honestly-believe-any-law-w...

Shoot the cops who shot her. If it is wrong and illegal to do what that mother did (and it most certainly is) then it should be equally wrong and illegal for cops to be able to shoot her as well, and if they have the right to dish out the death penalty just like that then they should also be subject to receiving the death penalty themselves, otherwise it's unfair and immoral.. Why should there be one law for the cops and another law for everyone else? Now do you see why I am not favourably disposed towards the cops?