Originally Posted by raytri";p=&quot

You know, I like guns. They're fun to shoot. I grew up hunting. I joined the Army.

But regardless of where you stand on guns, you have to admit that if this guy didn't have access to one (in particular, if he didn't have it in the car), the father would still be alive.

I'm not saying we should ban guns. But I think we have to admit that, whatever the arguments in favor of unbridled gun ownership, one consequence of our gun culture is that innocent people die, either in pointless incidents like this or in accidents in the home.

And I think it's worth asking how much carnage we're willing to accept in order to preserve that gun culture. And if there are reasonable steps we can take to reduce that carnage.

The philosophical counterargument is that gun ownership is a right, and the only real guarantee of liberty. Okay. But that doesn't mean we can't put limitations on it in order to reduce casualties.

The practical counterargument is that guns prevent far more deaths and injuries and crime than they cause. Maybe. But first we should prove that, and then there still might be reasonable steps we can take to reduce the damage.

There will always be incidents. But if it turns out that reasonable restrictions on gun ownership and use could have prevented this tragedy, then I think this man's death is a pretty high price to pay.