I have friends that would kill the government agents that tried to take their guns.  Hopefully, no one tries to outlaw guns in New Hampshire, because a lot of people will die.  And the serious criminals and government agents will still have goods (two bad things).  I mean, I don't mind government agents having guns, as long as non-government workers are allowed to own machine guns and stuff.  But if only government agents and criminals had guns, the regular folks could be walked all over with no way of defending themselves.

In case anyone is thinking it, no, I'm not encouraging violence or anything.  I'm a quaker and judging by many of the posts in this thread, one of the least violent people in this thread.

The father should know better than to leave a locked and loaded .380 within reach of his small daughter. This is sad and deplorable.

Very unfortunate story, but guns won't be useful in the ideal situation if they aren't loaded. Surely, some discretion should be used on the behalf of the holder. My loaded firearm would never be out of my sight, but in a free country there are bound to be irresponsible morons. These anomalies will happen from time to time, but a govt restriction won't change the dumbies. The ultimate idea toward gun control in response to a few irresponsible gun owners will achieve far more in the restriction of law-abiding citizens defending themselves then to end individual errors with said weapons. There will inevitably be people that aren't responsible enough for their freedoms, but to put in check other's freedoms because of that is wrong. 

Bottomline, defending oneself is a basic human right, and mistakes by some should not limit others. The letter of the law is the 2nd Amerndment, read it and get used to the rule of law. For women, a gun is the great equalizer and the restriction thereof via gun control is harmful. If ure truly a free person in ure country, u have the right to protect ureself and ure family.

You surely must agree, freetalk, that something should be done? There are potential solutions in between 'do nothing' and 'ban guns completely' Gun licenses are used to great effect in the majority of the world, and another good option would be to make the unsafe storage of a gun to be a crime, even if you allow people to keep loaded guns, they should be uncocked and have a safety on.

As for your friends who would kill government agents who came to take their guns, this is exactly the sort of person who is most likely to cause deaths by having a gun. When they inevitably fail the psychological test for required to get a gun license, the army or swat would very easily be able to subdue them, and the world will be a lot safer with them behind bars for trying to kill policemen. This is an excellent example how gun licensing requirements prevent firearms deaths

I feel sad for the little girl. She was only 3.

The right to defend yourself and your property is the most important right.  Right now, it is pretty bad in New Hampshire.  A rule (not a law) was just passed that prevents non-cops from carrying guns in the capital building.  What I'm trying to do, is make sure a bunch of the folks that voted for that rule are removed from office.  Almost all gun restrictions are horrible and must be removed.  And I'll keep working at it until it happens or I die of old age.

No doubt.  I totally support women not being robbed or raped.

How tragic... I really feel for the poor kid, how can a parent leave a loaded firearm in front of a 3 year old kid!!!. Even worse the mom was in the same room but didn't notice her child playing with it! If the kid was trying to play the Wii, why wouldn't the mom play with her? I don't think a 3 year old kid can exactly play a Wii by herself. Seriously, how does this kind of thing happen? Kids are far too curious for parents to let this slip by!

And honestly, there is no reason for the Wii to be involved in any way, shape, or form. I cannot believe the mom would even say anything about her child thinking it was a gun-shaped Wii remote! I don't think they even have those, unless that picture in the op is real. I would also think the investigators would know better than to make such a comparison unless the family has a gun-shaped peripheral (wtf) for the Wii as well as a white-colored gun.

1) Yeah, agreed. But you have to consider that by owning a gun, you are (may be) impinging on other people's right to safety. I'll accept that you are most likely responsible with your firearms and wouldn't let something like the story in the OP happen to your household. So of course you would breeze through the qualification process for getting a gun if they were to require a license. But someone who might lose their gun, leave it where a child can find it, or have it stolen is endangering their entire community and thus impinging upon the right to safety of many people. I argue that by denying these people firearms, the right to safety is granted to the majority, whereas if these people have firearms, only the minority has their right to safety upheld (and if they're really irresponsible they're no safer with a gun than without)

2) Ignore for a second that this is a public building. Lets say I move to America. If I put up a sign on my gate that says 'the owner of this property asks that you do not carry a gun on this property. If you do carry a gun, the police will be called to deal with your trespassing.' This is well within United States law, and I would argue that this is required for my right to safety. If you feel unsafe without a gun, you have the right to not come over to my house to play video games. Same argument could go for any private business, at the owners insistence. Why then are those who work in the public service denied the same right to safety as those who work in the private sector?

It's the south.
Not surprising sadly considering.