Schizophrenic gun owner goes on killing spree

[Marinus 0]

Quote

I don't think anybody here has said they support batshit crazy people owning guns.

I remember a story about a 3 yo shooting her 6 yo brother. Of course that happened in the USA. that shit always happens in the USA it seems. But anyway, the point is, you need one or more truly incompetent fucks to make that happen. And that's why it only seems to happen in the US of A.

Every idiot is allowed to own a gun, also people that are less responsible then the average 8yo. How about a system where people are only allowed to own a firearm if they show basic understanding of the fact that guns DO kill people? For a commie I'm rather positive about firearm ownership, but I wouldn't want them in the hands of people who can't handle a firearm.

[Elite_Marksman 0]

Guns DO NOT kill people. Guns to not randomly decide to fire. PEOPLE kill people. Whether it be intentional, leaving the firearm unattended where a child can reach it, believing that a firearm is unloaded when it is not. A loaded gun sitting on your kitchen table will not just one day fire, if you drop it, or start playing with it it just may, but if it is left alone it will not fire.

With the gun safety my grandfather and uncles taught me, it is highly unlikely that either they or myself will have an accidental discharge. In fact, in my grandfather's 65 years of hunting and two of my uncle's 35 years each of hunting, they claim they have never had an accidental discharge.

Also, one sure way of minimizing any risk even if there is an accidental discharge is to ensure that the muzzle is NEVER pointed at something you don't want a hole in.

I have no issue with firearm safety courses being required as a condition to own firearms, but to say "guns are evil" and leave it at that is bullshit.

[lawrocket 3]

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2011/09/birmingham_officer_kills_wife.html

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2009/09/report_detroit_police_officers.html

http://www.policeone.com/officer-misconduct-internal-affairs/articles/3772602-Reserve-Ind-police-officer-kills-wife/

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&sqi=2&ved=0CGEQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Farticles.cnn.com%2F2011-05-30%2Fjustice%2Fvirginia.shooting_1_virginia-state-police-state-trooper-boones-mill%3F_s%3DPM%3ACRIME&ei=DcyyTt3YEaSfiAKB7M10&usg=AFQjCNEF49FEu9NmFJmOomBwXE8-ZuQfZg

Let's take the position that cops should not have guns. They are well trained, of course. They know what the effect of guns is. And we see cops killing people – particularly wives – at an alarming rate. It is by no means rare. It looks like in the past few months, cops may be responsible for more gun deaths than schizophrenics. Check out the sane cops that wasted a homeless guy in Fullerton a couple of months ago. A sane judge beating his daughter.

What do we do about this? Ban guns from cops? These cops apparently are not schizophrenics. Narcissists? Probably. Sociopaths? You betcha! But not people whom one would put into a psycho ward. They don’t hear voices and don’t have a conscience.

So let’s ban guns from police. I can pull out PLENTY of instances of our trusted boys in blue engaging in irresponsible gun possession. Shall we check out a few of these anecdotal events and use them as a method to ban all mentally ill or cops from firearm ownership? What are your thoughts?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,400]

>Much the same can be said about suicide bombers. That doesn't
>mean you have to make it easy for them.

So since there might be suicide bombers, we have to strip search everyone at airports. Can't make it easy for them.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Much the same can be said about suicide bombers. That doesn't
>mean you have to make it easy for them.

So since there might be suicide bombers, we have to strip search everyone at airports. Can't make it easy for them.

Hmm
Dont they do that electronicaly today?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

So, then, you're in favor of the mentally ill having access to guns?

I think you need to realize that's an extremist position even the NRA is against.

I rarely post in this forum.
But from the tone I assume you feel that NO ONE should own a gun? is that correct?

No. It is not correct. I have repeated stated many times that responsible gun ownership is fine.

I do, however, don't feel that means everyone, including the mentally incompetent should have access to them.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[regulator 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't think anybody here has said they support batshit crazy people owning guns.

I remember a story about a 3 yo shooting her 6 yo brother. Of course that happened in the USA. that shit always happens in the USA it seems. But anyway, the point is, you need one or more truly incompetent fucks to make that happen. And that's why it only seems to happen in the US of A.

Every idiot is allowed to own a gun, also people that are less responsible then the average 8yo. How about a system where people are only allowed to own a firearm if they show basic understanding of the fact that guns DO kill people? For a commie I'm rather positive about firearm ownership, but I wouldn't want them in the hands of people who can't handle a firearm.

----------------------------------------------------------
Pretty sure not only is this statement is not only inaccurate, but outright STUPID. In most any country that allows their citizens to posess firearms this can happen...true it happens here probably more often because we live here and the media blasts it in our faces over and over again, but its naive to think that the USA is the only country with this issue...this could also be applied to part of natural selection when you have a country with over 300 million people in it. Not saying I agree with it or that its right, but it is a means to thin the herd.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

No. It is not correct. I have repeated stated many times that responsible gun ownership is fine.

What about cops? They are frequent irresponsible users of guns.

Take a looks at this: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/08/22/09-16573.pdf

Quote

This was not the first time Officer Noriega had mistakenly drawn the wrong weapon, though never before with such dire consequences. The Madera City Police Department first issued Officer Noriega a Taser, and certified her to use it, sometime in the winter of 2001, less than one year before Everardo’s shooting. Her certification training consisted of a single three-hour class, during which she fired the weapon only once. She was given a right-side holster for her Taser and instructed to wear it just below her Glock. There was no discussion during this training session of a recent incident in which a Sacramento officer had mistaken his handgun for his Taser.6

Nonetheless, Officer Noriega soon came to experience firsthand the risk of confusing the two weapons, both all-black and of similar size and weight. The first incident occurred about a month and a half after she was first issued the Taser when she was at a jail putting her weapons back in their holsters. She mistakenly put her Glock into the Taser holster, realizing her error when the weapon did not “sit right” in the wrong holster. Concerned about the mistake, she notified her sergeant, Sergeant Lawson, who instructed her to practice putting each weapon in its proper holster and to practice drawing them.

Just one week later, Officer Noriega again confused her weapons, this time during a field call. Seeking to touch-taser a kicking and fighting suspect who refused to get into the back seat of a patrol car, Officer Noriega instead pulled out her Glock. Only when she tried unsuccessfully to remove the cartridge, which would have been present on her Taser but was not a feature on her Glock, did she realize she was holding the wrong weapon “and it was pointing at [her] partner’s head, the [Glock’s] laser was pointing at his head.” Frightened by this second incident of weapon confusion and by how narrowly she had averted a potentially fatal mistake, she again informed Sergeant Lawson, explaining that she “had pulled out my gun thinking it was my Taser.” Again, Sergeant Lawson instructed her “to keep practicing like he’s been doing and that he’s having everybody do.”

For the next nine months, leading up to the day of Everardo’s tragic shooting, Officer Noriega followed her sergeant’s instructions, practicing drawing her two weapons daily, both before work and during downtime throughout each shift. Officer Noriega described her daily self-training as follows: “I would have both my gun and my taser in their holsters. And I would draw my taser, and then I would draw my gun. And in my mind thinking taser, taser, taser, gun, gun, taser. Just practicing that way so I would draw, draw, draw.” In the five or so times she used her Taser in the field, never again did she confuse her two weapons, until the night of Everardo’s shooting. On all previous occasions, however, she had only touchtased the subjects, which required her first to remove the Taser’s safety cartridge. Never before had she dart-tased anyone, as she had intended to do to Everardo.

pp. 1323-1324

Let's talk about "responsible gun ownership." How about cops? This cop killed a cuffed and unarmed man who was in a police car. She had prior incidents of irresponsible gun use.

What should the standard be with cops? Should it be the same with the mentally ill? Should the cops have a lower standard? Or should they have a higher standard?

If you don't think this shit happens all the time, you're wrong. Check out the BART cop who killed the guy because h mistook his Taser. Or the cited case in Texas.

Cops are armed and kill plenty of people - more than schizos. FAR more than schizos. Should be ban all cops because of the large numbers of irresponsible gun owners/users?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Marinus 0]

Quote

Guns DO NOT kill people. [...] PEOPLE kill people.

Actually, a gun doesn't really care why who or what pulls it's trigger. And it certainly doesn't care about this American mantra. We can talk for ages about the semantics, but in the end firearms are deadly and intended to be just that. And not everyone seems to get that, people who can't wrap their mind about that simple fact, shouldn't even be allowed near a firearm.

Quote

With the gun safety my grandfather and uncles taught me, it is highly unlikely that either they or myself will have an accidental discharge. In fact, in my grandfather's 65 years of hunting and two of my uncle's 35 years each of hunting, they claim they have never had an accidental discharge.

My experience with firearms isn't spectacular. I'm an average shoot with an assault rifle (Diemaco C7) and I'm full of fail when combined with a pistol (Glock 17) and I'm hardly experienced with a couple of other types of firearms, but the most important thing is that you can put a firearm in my hands and nothing dangerous will happen. I think that's a basic requirement for handling firearms.

Quote

Also, one sure way of minimizing any risk even if there is an accidental discharge is to ensure that the muzzle is NEVER pointed at something you don't want a hole in.

I've stared into the barrels of the guns of several professional American gun toters. I assume the guns were loaded, and some of the complacent shits even had their finger on the trigger. When I mentioned that to another American soldier he said that it didn't matter as long as the trigger wasn't pulled. Combatants of other nationalities seemed a lot more aware of the fact they were holding something deadly in their hands. So if basic gun safety is lacking in some of the professionals, I've no illusions about amateurs. I believe you if you say you're caring about safety, but idiots who won't or can't can get themselves a gun too. I don't know about you, but if I die I don't want "Sorry"coming from the idiot that accidentally shot me, the last thing I heard.

Quote

I have no issue with firearm safety courses being required as a condition to own firearms, but to say "guns are evil" and leave it at that is bullshit.

I think an extensive safety course should be a requirement. Think of something akin to a drivers licence, and in case on your side of the pond driving isn't thought by safety Nazis, something akin a Dutch drivers licence. That is in case they ever relax the very strict fire arm restrictions over here.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Never said I was in favor of them having access. Merely stated that legislating that someone doesn't have access and reality being that one doesn't have access are two very different things.

And no, I don't believe those who are known to be mentally unstable should be able to legally own firearms. Not that that will stop them from acquiring one should they so desire.

OH SHIT are you in deep doo doo....Jerry and Kelp et al will be here momentarily to protect the metally ill and their right to bear arms.. not that any other right seems to be particularily important.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Guns DO NOT kill people. [...] PEOPLE kill people.

Actually, a gun doesn't really care why who or what pulls it's trigger. And it certainly doesn't care about this American mantra. We can talk for ages about the semantics, but in the end firearms are deadly and intended to be just that. And not everyone seems to get that, people who can't wrap their mind about that simple fact, shouldn't even be allowed near a firearm.A perfect example of the "who gets to decide" part of the argument. I have built two high power rifles. Neither has killed anything or anyone. Even though hundreds of rounds have been fired through them. They must then be defective in your mind. Since you are so afraid of guns and gun owners, I feel you should not be allowed to voice and opinion regarding guns and gun owners

Quote

With the gun safety my grandfather and uncles taught me, it is highly unlikely that either they or myself will have an accidental discharge. In fact, in my grandfather's 65 years of hunting and two of my uncle's 35 years each of hunting, they claim they have never had an accidental discharge.

My experience with firearms isn't spectacular. I'm an average shoot with an assault rifle (Diemaco C7) and I'm full of fail when combined with a pistol (Glock 17) and I'm hardly experienced with a couple of other types of firearms, but the most important thing is that you can put a firearm in my hands and nothing dangerous will happen. I think that's a basic requirement for handling firearms.everyone I know who owns a gun can say the same. I can do what you do. I have not went through a formal class. I was however taught how to respect and handle them by my father. Guess I should not be allowed then. but since you cant voice and opinion IMO your words and comments mean nothing here

Quote

Also, one sure way of minimizing any risk even if there is an accidental discharge is to ensure that the muzzle is NEVER pointed at something you don't want a hole in.

I've stared into the barrels of the guns of several professional American gun toters. I assume the guns were loaded, and some of the complacent shits even had their finger on the trigger. When I mentioned that to another American soldier he said that it didn't matter as long as the trigger wasn't pulled. Combatants of other nationalities seemed a lot more aware of the fact they were holding something deadly in their hands. So if basic gun safety is lacking in some of the professionals, I've no illusions about amateurs. I believe you if you say you're caring about safety, but idiots who won't or can't can get themselves a gun too. I don't know about you, but if I die I don't want "Sorry"coming from the idiot that accidentally shot me, the last thing I heard.

Quote

I have no issue with firearm safety courses being required as a condition to own firearms, but to say "guns are evil" and leave it at that is bullshit.

I think an extensive safety course should be a requirement. Think of something akin to a drivers licence, and in case on your side of the pond driving isn't thought by safety Nazis, something akin a Dutch drivers licence. That is in case they ever relax the very strict fire arm restrictions over here.

Parnioa???

Hmmm
Guess you should not be allowed to own, handle or shot a weapon in the US then

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Never said I was in favor of them having access. Merely stated that legislating that someone doesn't have access and reality being that one doesn't have access are two very different things.

And no, I don't believe those who are known to be mentally unstable should be able to legally own firearms. Not that that will stop them from acquiring one should they so desire.

OH SHIT are you in deep doo doo....Jerry and Kelp et al will be here momentarily to protect the metally ill and their right to bear arms.. not that any other right seems to be particularily important.

first kallend, then quade, now you.

All grads of the Twister 101 debating course

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Marinus 0]

Quote

Pretty sure not only is this statement is not only inaccurate, but outright STUPID.

Yeah, it's the anti-American liberal media. But I'll give you this, it happens in other countries too, but not to that extend and/or in countries I consider civilized. You can choose to ignore the statistics but you've got a problem with speeding lead on your side of the pond. We have that exact same problem too, but your problem is 20 times bigger.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Jerry and Kelp et al will be here momentarily to protect the metally ill

Goddamned right. I note the use of the word “protect.” Which is EXACTLY correct. There are people like us out there who would rather “protect” people than attack them. I’m glad you recognize it.

Quote

and their right to bear arms..

Yep. So long as they have never been deemed a threat (which did not happen in this case because the shooter had been committed) then you are correct. I WILL defend and protect people – even ones that you or I do not particularly like because they have rights, too.

Quote

not that any other right seems to be particularily important.

Actually, I further appreciate the rights of the mentally ill under the First Amendment, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth. You name it! I tend to hold all of these rights with equal dignity. Sure, it means you can’t permanently incarcerate mentally ill in “hospitals” though they have been treated and are not threats because they have, oh, habeas corpus and other stuff like that.

The Constitution is a real pain in the ass for those who have a grand vision of a society where the undesirables are eliminated and/or sequestered to where they can do no harm. So before taking those guns, I’d think that the Fourth Amendment would be a good place to start. Or keeping a person locked up and doped up would be something to consider not doing under the Eighth Amendment. And that Second Amendment thingy is JUST AS IMPORTANT as the other rights.

It’s not me, or kelpdiver, or DesertAttorney who find rights unimportant. It is us who find rights to be important and important for everybody. Even criminals. Even the mentally ill. Even terrorists. They have rights, too, and rights are immune from attacks based on social stigma.

These rights protect you, too, Jeanne.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Elite_Marksman 0]

Quote

Actually, a gun doesn't really care why who or what pulls it's trigger.

That is exactly my point. The gun will not fire itself, SOMEONE must pull the trigger or otherwise abuse the weapon for it to discharge.




I've stared into the barrels of the guns of several professional American gun toters. I assume the guns were loaded, and some of the complacent shits even had their finger on the trigger. When I mentioned that to another American soldier he said that it didn't matter as long as the trigger wasn't pulled. Combatants of other nationalities seemed a lot more aware of the fact they were holding something deadly in their hands. So if basic gun safety is lacking in some of the professionals, I've no illusions about amateurs. I believe you if you say you're caring about safety, but idiots who won't or can't can get themselves a gun too. I don't know about you, but if I die I don't want "Sorry"coming from the idiot that accidentally shot me, the last thing I heard.

Not sure about active duty, but I don't see why it would be any different from the basic weapons training I did with ROTC (M4 with blanks on field exercises and a trip to the range at Kirtland AFB), we were told that the muzzle never gets pointed at anything we didn't want a hole in. When we were instructed how to clean the M4s, we were told to never look down the barrel unless the barrel was physically removed from the receiver. We were taught that whenever a weapon was transfered from one person to another, the person with the rifle removes the magazine, pulls the charging handle, visually inspects the chamber to make sure no round is present, then hands the rifle to the other person muzzle-down. The recipient then pulls the charging handle and visually inspects the chamber to make sure there is no round present, disengages the safety, and pulls the trigger with the muzzle pointed at the ground to drop the hammer.

Also, when the weapon is not intended to be fired, the weapon is on safe and the finger is not on the trigger. When there may be a need to fire the weapon is removed from safe and the finger remains off the trigger. When you intend to fire immediately the finger is placed on the trigger. Should the need to fire be removed, the finger is removed from the trigger and the weapon placed back on safe when appropriate.

The only time that we pointed our weapons in the direction of anyone or anything that we did not want to harm is when we were using blanks and had the BFA securely in the barrel. Even then, there was a "no fire" rule if you were within 20' of the other person, and the BFAs are bright yellow so you can easily tell from a distance that the weapon is not loaded with live ammo.

[Marinus 0]

Quote

And we see cops killing people – particularly wives – at an alarming rate. It is by no means rare. It looks like in the past few months, cops may be responsible for more gun deaths than schizophrenics.

FIFY

And we see American cops killing people – particularly wives – at an alarming rate. It is by no means rare in the US of A. It looks like in the past few months, American cops may be responsible for more gun deaths than schizophrenics.

It isn't exactly a worldwide problem you know. Our police force doesn't need to be fixed, and since there's an ocean between your cops and me, I don't really care about your killer cops.

[lawrocket 3]

Did I respond to your post? If so, it was not directed at you.I'm wondering what quade thinks about it, mainly.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Marinus 0]

Quote

That is exactly my point. The gun will not fire itself, SOMEONE must pull the trigger or otherwise abuse the weapon for it to discharge.

It doesn't have to be a someone, but if something pulls the trigger, it's usually because someone failed. But then again I'm a commie, I've a radical different view on the world, and in my world guns do kill people.

Quote

Not sure about active duty

Well, the theoretical part is about the same as here, but in active duty there seems to be some differences. The situation were things often went wrong was in traffic. When our column (that's what a row of vehicles is called right?) overtook another column your guys too often forgot to point their weapons away from us. So I was too often driving through the line of fire of some idiot that probably shouldn't be allowed near a fire-arm in the first place. I'm sure someone who forgets to point his weapon away from me is probably the same type that forgets to put the weapon on safe, etc.

I've had a theory about it. When I first was handed a fire arm it came with a man who promised me to stick said firearm up my ass in case I did something stupid with it. He looked like he was both able and willing to do just that. On your side of the pond I think chances are much bigger that the safety part of the weapon isn't as colourfully made clear to them. Would you want an idiot that made it possible for a 3 yo to shoot her 6 yo brother to teach someone else about fire-arm safety? But it does happen, and the result are probably the idiots that were pointing their gun at me.

[Marinus 0]

You responded with a similar argument on one of my posts, I reacted to that, but reacted to the wrong post, not the wrong argument.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Jerry and Kelp et al will be here momentarily to protect the metally ill

Goddamned right. I note the use of the word “protect.” Which is EXACTLY correct. There are people like us out there who would rather “protect” people than attack them. I’m glad you recognize it.

Quote

and their right to bear arms..

Yep. So long as they have never been deemed a threat (which did not happen in this case because the shooter had been committed) then you are correct. I WILL defend and protect people – even ones that you or I do not particularly like because they have rights, too.

Quote

not that any other right seems to be particularily important.

Actually, I further appreciate the rights of the mentally ill under the First Amendment, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth. You name it! I tend to hold all of these rights with equal dignity. Sure, it means you can’t permanently incarcerate mentally ill in “hospitals” though they have been treated and are not threats because they have, oh, habeas corpus and other stuff like that.

The Constitution is a real pain in the ass for those who have a grand vision of a society where the undesirables are eliminated and/or sequestered to where they can do no harm. So before taking those guns, I’d think that the Fourth Amendment would be a good place to start. Or keeping a person locked up and doped up would be something to consider not doing under the Eighth Amendment. And that Second Amendment thingy is JUST AS IMPORTANT as the other rights.

It’s not me, or kelpdiver, or DesertAttorney who find rights unimportant. It is us who find rights to be important and important for everybody. Even criminals. Even the mentally ill. Even terrorists. They have rights, too, and rights are immune from attacks based on social stigma.

These rights protect you, too, Jeanne.

I fully support you or Desert Attorney ... to make a killing off of "protecting" nutters rights to keep and bear arms

[DesertAttorney 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Jerry and Kelp et al will be here momentarily to protect the metally ill

Goddamned right. I note the use of the word “protect.” Which is EXACTLY correct. There are people like us out there who would rather “protect” people than attack them. I’m glad you recognize it.

Quote

and their right to bear arms..

Yep. So long as they have never been deemed a threat (which did not happen in this case because the shooter had been committed) then you are correct. I WILL defend and protect people – even ones that you or I do not particularly like because they have rights, too.

Quote

not that any other right seems to be particularily important.

Actually, I further appreciate the rights of the mentally ill under the First Amendment, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth. You name it! I tend to hold all of these rights with equal dignity. Sure, it means you can’t permanently incarcerate mentally ill in “hospitals” though they have been treated and are not threats because they have, oh, habeas corpus and other stuff like that.

The Constitution is a real pain in the ass for those who have a grand vision of a society where the undesirables are eliminated and/or sequestered to where they can do no harm. So before taking those guns, I’d think that the Fourth Amendment would be a good place to start. Or keeping a person locked up and doped up would be something to consider not doing under the Eighth Amendment. And that Second Amendment thingy is JUST AS IMPORTANT as the other rights.

It’s not me, or kelpdiver, or DesertAttorney who find rights unimportant. It is us who find rights to be important and important for everybody. Even criminals. Even the mentally ill. Even terrorists. They have rights, too, and rights are immune from attacks based on social stigma.

These rights protect you, too, Jeanne.

I fully support you or Desert Attorney ... to make a killing off of "protecting" nutters rights to keep and bear arms

Again, you twat, I do Divorce Law, not Criminal or Mental Health Law. Stop projecting your wrath where it does not belong.

[quade 3]

For an attorney, you certainly don't seem to have a good understanding of "The Rules."

I suggest you review them and adhere to them. Calling another user a "twat" is uncalled for and you can consider this as your single and last warning about such behavior.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I do Divorce Law

I wonder if I've ever gotten my ass kicked by you in court. Likely - I've gotten my ass kicked by lots of opposing counsels in divorce actions..

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DesertAttorney 0]

Quote

For an attorney, you certainly don't seem to have a good understanding of "The Rules."

I suggest you review them and adhere to them. Calling another user a "twat" is uncalled for and you can consider this as your single and last warning about such behavior.

I'll gladly admit it may be considered a PA, but under your definition:

Quote

Personal attacks on another user are a great way to earn some time off, as is posting inflammatory material specifically to provoke a negative response from someone (aka trolling).

What provoked my post was clearly trolling.

Where's Amazon's warning? Or does she have "the immunity idol?"

[tkhayes 126]

Quote

Guns DO NOT kill people. Guns to not randomly decide to fire. PEOPLE kill people.

It's the oldest and the lamest argument of them all, yet it gets used every day.

CARS don't kill people either. But we restrict them and we license them, and companies get sued over them, and laws are made to make them better and manufacturers are forced through civil courts and recalls to improve them, and we decide who can drive them and who cannot. So the CAR did not kill anyone, but it is still the target of "How do we fix this?" and rightly so.

But the gun is protected in the constitution so it is 'out of bounds'

And I said earlier, and many times before, very sarcastically, "The USA does not have a gun problem"

yeah right!