The man got the gun with intention to kill, if he didnt have that gun he would still have had the intention to kill, he would hae used and iron or a spoon if he wanted to or any object in the house

Ok we're just never going to agree with this.

All im going to say is that the easy access this man had to a gun led to the death of his son. And yet people still cling to that damn ammendment..

And I am going to say you are being closed minded, ignorant, and extremely insensitve about the subject matter. The fact that you would turn the greatest tragedy of a persons life into fuel for a political agenda it doesn't fit in disgusts me more than words can describe.

What damned agenda is that exactly?

The agenda that doesnt want to see something like this happen again? or have i just been arguing for shits and giggles? I dont even live it the US so i couldnt give a damn about any political agenda you think i might have.

Trying to argue that senseless deaths like this need not happen is not being ignorant or closed minded, so dont try and tell me i dont realise the tragedy of the situation.

The one that blames a weapon over a person. The specifics of the weapon do not factor in here. A million things could be substituted for gun and the same end result. The same cannot be said for the people involved.

he didn't blame the weapon over the person.  He's saying without the weapon maybe the kid could have survived.  That doesn't mean the person isn't the problem, but you can't do anything about crazy people.  Seriously though, how do you explain how a country like Canada that shares most of its culture with the US, watches the same TV shows and movies, has the same culturally diverse population but the homicide rate is 1/4 that of the US.  Obviously there is something that can be done, but you're just fine with just moving on.

"All I am going to say is the gun led to the death..." "...which is more deadly, a gun or a knife.." "its that other implements arent designed specifically to shoot someone."

Yes, I can see where he didn't focus on the weapon itself at all. I can provide a similar slew of quotes from anyone I responded to.

I say again, I am not talking about broader implications because they do not factor into THIS case. You want to discuss greater implications of gun control laws then find a story that fits, or create a different thread. Explain to me how the gun itself uniquely enabled this tragedy and I will concede my point. This isn't a guy getting an automatic weapon and firing into a crowd though. This is targetted, specific, horrible tragedy. The weapon of choice is meaningless, and I will not sit back and watch this story twisted into something its not.

That guy is EVIL.

i didn't say he didn't focus on the weapon, i said he didn't blame the weapon which is exactly what you said. You can't change the person, there's really very little to talk about there. The person is to blame, he can tell you that himself, and there is a chance that he would have died anyway obviously. You can't get rid of all the murders, every place in the world has murder. However if there is any chance the kid would have survived it is worth it.

"All I am going to say is the gun led to the death" That is blaming the weapon. There is no way around it. Have all parents under go anger management classes and the kid has an even greater chance for the kid to survive. Not one of you have even thought of suggesting that. I will not tell you what to post. I will tell you what I will not allow to go unchallenged. Blaming the gun, or twisting this story to fit some anti-gun agenda is the most repulsive thing I can imagine.