All right Hawaii, time to turn in your man card and put on a mumu.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/7717516/hawaiian_lawmaker_introduces_bill_to.html?cat=25

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children
Glenn Church, Yahoo! Contributor Network
Feb 3, 2011 "Contribute content like this. Start Here." More: cam newton Obama john boehner macbook Brett Favre If Hawaiian State Rep. Scott Saiki gets his way, guns will be outlawed in Hawaii. Toy guns for kids, that is. Adults can still buy toy guns. Presumably, it is still safe to give them to children.

The bill has had its first reading and has been referred to the judiciary committee where, hopefully, it dies.

SECTION 1. Chapter 709, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by adding a new section to be appropriately designated and to read as follows:

"§709- Sale of toy guns to minors prohibited. (1) It shall be unlawful to sell, attempt to sell, or offer for sale a toy gun to a minor under eighteen years of age; provided that it shall be an affirmative defense to any prosecution that the:

(a) Purchaser falsely represented the purchaser's age by producing a driver's license bearing a photograph of the licensee, a state identification card, or similar card purporting to be a valid identification card indicating that the purchaser was eighteen years of age or older;

(b) Appearance of the purchaser was such that an ordinary prudent person would believe the purchaser to be eighteen years of age or older; and

(c) Sale was made in good faith relying upon the indicators of age in paragraphs (a) and (b).

(2) Any person who violates this section shall be subject to a fine of not more than $2,000, imprisonment of not more than ninety days, or both."

SECTION 2. This Act does not affect rights and duties that matured, penalties that were incurred, and proceedings that were begun before its effective date.

SECTION 3. New statutory material is underscored.

SECTION 4. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Seriously, does any state need a law requiring toy store clerks to card customers when buying a toy gun?

On top of that, there is the threat of a fine and 90 days in jail for anyone violating this act.

It seems that it is safe to still give a gun as a gift to a minor, but what is the necessity for society to prevent a twelve-year-old from buying a squirt gun, a rubber band gun or any other facsimile of a gun, assuming that it is a toy?

I betcha megatron is glad he changed into a tank now.

Still I bet this one doesn't pass. Although some dumb laws have made it into the books before...

What's with these recent slowed laws lately? First the farting one and now this?!

I wouldn't say this is as slowed as the farting one.
I think the logic behind it is "giving toy guns means they might go and find real ones by mistake etc etc".
I mean, I'm not condoning it... But it's not banning a normal bodily function, if you know what I mean. =P

Well I would say No to realistic looking guns. They had to put those orange caps in them to make them ok to sell for awhile now. But if Supersoakers and Nerf fall into this category then it is slowed.

What they need is toy guns that make fart noises.

Monster Rain wrote:What they need is toy guns that make fart noises.

Or even better, one of these:


As for a gun that makes fart noises and not the smell, they do have one:

http://nerdapproved.com/bizarre-gadgets/disguster-gun-a-full-clip-of-burping-farting-and-puking/

What they need is toy guns that look so real that...

Wait thats a horrible idea

Can they still buy fully automatic rocket chainsaw launchers without a waiting period?

If they do that, I will have to use real guns to teach my kids how to kill bad guys. Nerf really is better at first. Makes for lower insurance premiums.

Perhaps it's just the era I grew up in,but as a child every boy (and some of the girls) I knew had at least one toy gun.
Playing soldier,cops and robbers and other such "gun games" was just part of being a kid.
I really don't get the fuss,all the toy guns that existed when I was a kid looked "real" and not one child I knew ever mistook a toy gun for a real gun...of course we were raised to know the difference and the dangers of a real firearm as opposed to the toys we played with.

FITZZ wrote: all the toy guns that existed when I was a kid looked "real" and not one child I knew ever mistook a toy gun for a real gun...of course we were raised to know the difference and the dangers of a real firearm as opposed to the toys we played with.

And that's the difference. Liberal lawmakers almost universally prefer to bury their heads in the sand and try to pretend that things they don't like simply don't exist. It would never occur to one of them, or most 'liberal' parents to TEACH their kids about guns; not as a way of 'condoning' or 'glorifying' them, but as a way of giving a kid the knowledge he or she needs to avoid a danger. They have no problem teaching their kids about fire (which kills far more people per year than guns, toy or otherwise) - but guns? "No way! We don't allow guns in OUR house!" Yeah, and that's why when they go visit a cousin or friend who does have guns in the house, they go play with it and hurt someone - because no one ever taught them different. When you read about some kid shooting his friend by accident...that gun usually was the other kids - and THAT kid new better than to mess with it. You can't uninvent guns, and you can't childproof the world. You can, however, try to world-proof your child.

WTF...

I'll tell you what bloody toys need banning, those 'bratz' dolls and all their imitators that encourage children to dress and act like whores.


Also, might this law might end up affecting wargaming minis...

It would be a strange thing if it were harder for an American child to buy a toy gun than it is for a British adult to buy a real gun.

I suppose it depends on the definition of toy.

We never had any of these problems in the 60s and 70s. What has gone wrong?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:WTF...

I'll tell you what bloody toys need banning, those 'bratz' dolls and all their imitators that encourage children to dress and act like whores.


Also, might this law might end up affecting wargaming minis...

I agree with your about the whore dolls. I really wonder where this will go if it passes. I mean toy guns could refer to this:



What about legos? Would they need to be banned?




I will admit though...this girl doesn't need this toy. She looks like she is about to pop a cap in someone's ass:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:WTF...

I'll tell you what bloody toys need banning, those 'bratz' dolls and all their imitators that encourage children to dress and act like whores.


Also, might this law might end up affecting wargaming minis...

Right on both counts!

I will admit though...this girl doesn't need this toy. She looks like she is about to pop a cap in someone's ass:

Timmy has pulled her hair for the last time...

Frazzled wrote:

I will admit though...this girl doesn't need this toy. She looks like she is about to pop a cap in someone's ass:

Timmy has pulled her hair for the last time...

I'll see your revolver and raise you a semi-automatic pistol.

VoidAngel wrote:

FITZZ wrote: all the toy guns that existed when I was a kid looked "real" and not one child I knew ever mistook a toy gun for a real gun...of course we were raised to know the difference and the dangers of a real firearm as opposed to the toys we played with.

And that's the difference. Liberal lawmakers almost universally prefer to bury their heads in the sand and try to pretend that things they don't like simply don't exist. It would never occur to one of them, or most 'liberal' parents to TEACH their kids about guns; not as a way of 'condoning' or 'glorifying' them, but as a way of giving a kid the knowledge he or she needs to avoid a danger. They have no problem teaching their kids about fire (which kills far more people per year than guns, toy or otherwise) - but guns? "No way! We don't allow guns in OUR house!" Yeah, and that's why when they go visit a cousin or friend who does have guns in the house, they go play with it and hurt someone - because no one ever taught them different. When you read about some kid shooting his friend by accident...that gun usually was the other kids - and THAT kid new better than to mess with it. You can invent guns, and you can't childproof the world. You can, however, try to world-proof your child.

Politics notwithstanding,I agree that far to many parents try to "bubble wrap" their children through banning various "offensive/dangerous" things,and I see this as simply ridiculous....what sort of people will the next few generations be...individuals afraid to walk outside with out wearing a helmet?
I also agree that education and parental responsibility is the key to dealing with many of these issues,I own firearms,my children fully understand how dangerous they can be and that they are not toys to be played with...ever.

Edit:
I'm ok with the colored tips. I'm even ok in making life sized toy guns clear or bright colors. But come on...really?

Kilkrazy wrote:It would be a strange thing if it were harder for an American child to buy a toy gun than it is for a British adult to buy a real gun.

I suppose it depends on the definition of toy.

We never had any of these problems in the 60s and 70s. What has gone wrong?

Hippies, that's what. The whole. "Let's blame things and not people" philosophy. Personal responsibility became 'oppression' and 'conformity', 'judgement' became a dirty word, and 'self-esteem' became the Holy Grail to be elevated above actual achievement. Civics and Ethic classes were removed from schools as too preachy (nevermind prayer). Things "it was not the place of teachers" to provide. These were the safety nets of society, there not to replace the dutiful parent - but to prop up the inadequate one.

As a result, generations of the most disadvantaged children have received exposure to such ideals that underpin a harmonious society from NO ONE, while at the same time mechanisms were laid in place to practically ensure that there be an endless parade of such generations. Now they are disaffected, angry, uneducated, and amoral - and been told endlessly that it's all someone else's fault! Of course violence ensued, and persists. It was a natural consequence of well-meaning but idiotic approaches to societal equality and cohesion. The greater folly is that we keep clinging to them as if they're going to start working as intended just any decade now...

Ah yes, the whole "guns kill people" quandry, IMHO it should fall upon the parent of a child to teach right from wrong when it reguards firearms, whether they are a toy or not. Then again I had a BB gun at 4 and a .22 at 6, and I was raised around the rules involving firearms, and I would believe some parents do not teach that, and it was very evident to me of that fact when I attended basic training, and I found my self looking down the barrell of an M16 because some thought it would be funny.

In other words:
1) I don't like the law itself
2) Make sure to teach your children firearm safety
3) Keep ammo and firearms seperate
4) keep a trigger lock on your firearms

What's listed as a toy gun under this law?

Because airsoft guns are considered "toys".

btemple0 wrote:Ah yes, the whole "guns kill people" quandry, IMHO it should fall upon the parent of a child to teach right from wrong when it reguards firearms, whether they are a toy or not. Then again I had a BB gun at 4 and a .22 at 6, and I was raised around the rules involving firearms, and I would believe some parents do not teach that, and it was very evident to me of that fact when I attended basic training, and I found my self looking down the barrell of an M16 because some thought it would be funny.

In other words:
1) I don't like the law itself
2) Make sure to teach your children firearm safety
3) Keep ammo and firearms seperate
4) keep a trigger lock on your firearms

My intent is not to turn this into a self-defense rights debate. Most of what you say is correct, except for the last two things (and that fact that there's no quandary - it's the hand the wields, not the implement that kills.):

3) Makes it kinda useless if you need it in a hurry - and most people who own guns for self defense know that home invaders rarely send ahead to schedule...
4) See above. Keep a behavior lock on your kids, and or keep guns accessible to you - but not them.

I had a friend who's Mum banned guns in their house. He was about five when she realised he'd just use sticks like a pretend gun, and that there was no point fighting the inevitable, kids like to pretend to shoot people.

I can understand the idea of realistic guns being made to have some kind of marker to show they're not real - bright orange tips or bright colours. But even that's only needed for authentic looking weapons, and most toy guns are two piece of low quality stamped plastic stuck together, they're not convincing anyone of anything.

VoidAngel wrote:They have no problem teaching their kids about fire (which kills far more people per year than guns, toy or otherwise) - but guns?

There are around 40,000 deaths related to guns in the US each year, and about 4,000 to fire. Where do people get this nonsense?

Frazzled wrote:

I will admit though...this girl doesn't need this toy. She looks like she is about to pop a cap in someone's ass:

Timmy has pulled her hair for the last time...

I find lazy eyes quite creepy enough as it is...

sebster wrote:

VoidAngel wrote:They have no problem teaching their kids about fire (which kills far more people per year than guns, toy or otherwise) - but guns?

There are around 40,000 deaths related to guns in the US each year, and about 4,000 to fire. Where do people get this nonsense?

Accidents. Due to accidents. Didn't say it that way, I admit, but that's what I meant. The discussion was of children accidentally injuring themselves or others with guns, vs. due to fire. Your figure includes crime, which is to say, deliberate and illegal use of firearms. Also, you should use statistics from law enforcement sources, not groups that are anti-self-defense rights. The FBI puts the statistic closer to 10,000 per year. By contrast, there were about 13,000 home fire-related injuries in a similar period (but fewer deaths).

VoidAngel wrote:Accidents. Due to accidents. Didn't say it that way, I admit, but that's what I meant.

Oh, accidental deaths... that's a reasonable claim then. Then you're looking at about 600 deaths a year from gun accidents, compared to 4,000 deaths from fire (and it seems reasonable to assume almost all are accidental and not arson).

The discussion was of children accidentally injuring themselves or others with guns, vs. due to fire. Your figure includes crime, which is to say, deliberate and illegal use of firearms. Also, you should use statistics from law enforcement sources, not groups that are anti-self-defense rights. The FBI puts the statistic closer to 10,000 per year. By contrast, there were about 13,000 home fire-related injuries in a similar period (but fewer deaths).

You just said deaths, so I went with deaths. I didn't use an anti-gun site, by the way, I just went with the figure I remembered, which was around 40,000. Checking now CDC puts this figure closer to 30,000 so I was off by a bit but still miles higher than your 10,000 figure. I suspect you're citing homicide, which is a bit over 10,000, and ignoring the 15,000 odd suicides each year.

Citing fire related injuries is a bit of a nonsense, though. By your own claim you're looking at deaths from fire, and that figure is around 4,000 per year. Trying to compare fire related injuries to one form of death by firearm is even more non-sensical.

I'd stick to focussing on the accidental part, if you ask me.

Kanluwen wrote:What's listed as a toy gun under this law?

Because airsoft guns are considered "toys".

In the UK, airsoft guns come into the category of "realistic imitation firearms" under the definitions of the relevant law.

This kid is not amused:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I'll tell you what bloody toys need banning, those 'bratz' dolls and all their imitators that encourage children to dress and act like whores.

I concur...

The quickest way to remove the mystique from guns is to take a kid to a firing range and putting one in their hands. The first time that 20 gauge or 9mm knocks them on their little ass they will comprehend immediately that this device is not a toy and it can indeed hurt someone.

All the "be careful" and "safety" speeches in the world didn't do me as much good as the first time I pulled the trigger on a shotgun and I thought it was going to tear my arm off when I was 10. Instantaneous comprehension that this thing was dangerous, it could hurt me, and it could really hurt someone else. They got treated with the utmost respect from there on out.

The problem I think is that too many people own guns without ever bothering to teach their kids about them. They become just another of those things their parents never allow them to touch which of course makes them utterly irresistible.

Tyyr wrote:The quickest way to remove the mystique from guns is to take a kid to a firing range and putting one in their hands.

You also have people who give their kid an uzi at a gun show and he shoots himself and dies as happened recently...

Tyyr wrote:The quickest way to remove the mystique from guns is to take a kid to a firing range and putting one in their hands. The first time that 20 gauge or 9mm knocks them on their little ass they will comprehend immediately that this device is not a toy and it can indeed hurt someone.

All the "be careful" and "safety" speeches in the world didn't do me as much good as the first time I pulled the trigger on a shotgun and I thought it was going to tear my arm off when I was 10. Instantaneous comprehension that this thing was dangerous, it could hurt me, and it could really hurt someone else. They got treated with the utmost respect from there on out.

This. 100 times. I honestly couldn't have said it better myself.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

CT GAMER wrote:

Tyyr wrote:The quickest way to remove the mystique from guns is to take a kid to a firing range and putting one in their hands.

You also have people who give their kid an uzi at a gun show and he shoots himself and dies as happened recently...

Well you don't just toss a loaded gun at a little kid and say, "have fun!"

The fault in this case more than likely lies with the parent for not showing their kid how to properly and safely use the gun.

The experience of shooting a gun doesn't replace lessons on safety, it reinforces them.



And also, at least in my opinion, uzis and the like are stupid. You don't really need full auto anything, and you sure as hell don't need it in such a small package.

And what the feth was a loaded Uzi doing at a gun show in a condition where it could fire?

Tyyr wrote:The quickest way to remove the mystique from guns is to take a kid to a firing range and putting one in their hands. The first time that 20 gauge or 9mm knocks them on their little ass they will comprehend immediately that this device is not a toy and it can indeed hurt someone.

All the "be careful" and "safety" speeches in the world didn't do me as much good as the first time I pulled the trigger on a shotgun and I thought it was going to tear my arm off when I was 10. Instantaneous comprehension that this thing was dangerous, it could hurt me, and it could really hurt someone else. They got treated with the utmost respect from there on out.

The problem I think is that too many people own guns without ever bothering to teach their kids about them. They become just another of those things their parents never allow them to touch which of course makes them utterly irresistible.

Genghis Connie likes shooting 9mm...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyyr wrote:And what the feth was a loaded Uzi doing at a gun show in a condition where it could fire?

They apparently had a range in the back of the gun show where you could shoot. Thats the only thing I can figure out. Otherwise yea, thats crazy nuts.

Here is the story.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,444180,00.html

rubiksnoob wrote:

Well you don't just toss a loaded gun at a little kid and say, "have fun!"

And I would argue that I'd rather not gamble a child's life & safety on the degree of stupidty to which his parents might or mght not possess.

I'm not for gun control in any form, and I think this law is dumb. I had tons of toy guns and weapons when I was a kid, as did everyone I knew.

However I don't agree with your assertion that we need to throw guns in every kids hands as some rite of passage, especially when any error of judgement on the part of the parents or accident on the child's part could be life ending. The lesson just isn't relevant enough to take that risk imho...

Not to mention I think intentionally putting small children within reach of guns for sport or taking them to an event the purpose of which is to amass lots of guns and ammunition into a small area fto be handled, demonstrated and fired is poor judgement to begin with at best and akin to child endangerment at worst...

CT GAMER wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:

Well you don't just toss a loaded gun at a little kid and say, "have fun!"

And I would argue that I'd rather not gamble a child's life & safety on the degree of stupidty to which his parents might or mght not possess.

I'm not for gun control in any form, and I think this law is dumb. I had tons of toy guns and weapons when I was a kid, as did everyone I knew.

However I don't agree with your assertion that we need to throw guns in every kids hands as some rite of passage, especially when any error of judgement on the part of the parents or accident on the child's part could be life ending. The lesson just isn't relevant enough to take that risk imho...

Meh, you're a yankee. Do they even allow guns where you live? (legally, not the criminals, I'm sure they have them).

It actually is a "rite of passage," for many, especially countryfolk. Everyone I grew up with had a light rifle of some sort in their hands when they were 12, some slightly younger.

I remember the first time my Dad took me, just as I remember the first time I took SWMBO, and each of the kids. Course we didn't have uzis, or MAC-10's or noe of that nonsense.
"No one will bully Mom. She'll shoot 'em."
-Genghis Connie, on bullying, and also on how to keep men in line...

Kilkrazy wrote:Here is the story.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,444180,00.html

That's just senseless. No one in their right mind would let an 8 year old fire an uzi. That's just the parent being stupid and his son paying the ultimate price as a result. It's unfortunate and tragic.

Frazzled wrote:
Meh, you're a yankee. Do they even allow guns where you live? (legally, not the criminals, I'm sure they have them).

Well I grew up in Maine, and lots of people had firearms, more then they had teeth usually...

I would have been scared as hell to be around a good number of the "responsibe adults" from my childhood had they been brandishing a boom stick.

As for CT, we settle our disagreements with a gentlemen's duel, usually after throwing a glove in the offender's face...

Frazzled wrote:Genghis Connie likes shooting 9mm...

And after I got used to it I loved the 20 gauge, but that first shot scared the gak out of me.

Frazzled wrote:They apparently had a range in the back of the gun show where you could shoot. Thats the only thing I can figure out. Otherwise yea, thats crazy nuts.

I suppose. All the shows I've been too have been in convention centers or the like so that was never an option. You could bring all the guns you wanted but they couldn't be loaded and they had to be secured inoperable with bright orange zip ties. Still, handing a fully automatic submachine gun to a kid is idiotic. We're talking about responsible parenting, not morons with kids.

CT GAMER wrote:As for CT, we settle our disagreements with a gentlemen's duel, usually after throwing a glove in the offender's face...

Chocolate caske is better, then its a no lose situation for everyone. Cake!!!

suppose. All the shows I've been too have been in convention centers or the like so that was never an option. You could bring all the guns you wanted but they couldn't be loaded and they had to be secured inoperable with bright orange zip ties. Still, handing a fully automatic submachine gun to a kid is idiotic. We're talking about responsible parenting, not morons with kids.

Reading the Fox article it sounds not at all like a gun show but some sort of get together at the range/club. Sounds almost like a fair. The reports are too dense to figure out what it really was.

Kilkrazy wrote:Here is the story.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,444180,00.html

"This tragedy is a mystery"
*twitch*

No, it's not. No it's fething not you fething moron. They let an EIGHT YEAR OLD grab a fully loaded and ready to fire uzi you worthless gakker, what did you expect would happen, flowers and sunshine? Grr.

CT GAMER wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:

Well you don't just toss a loaded gun at a little kid and say, "have fun!"

And I would argue that I'd rather not gamble a child's life & safety on the degree of stupidty to which his parents might or mght not possess.

I'm not for gun control in any form, and I think this law is dumb. I had tons of toy guns and weapons when I was a kid, as did everyone I knew.

However I don't agree with your assertion that we need to throw guns in every kids hands as some rite of passage, especially when any error of judgement on the part of the parents or accident on the child's part could be life ending. The lesson just isn't relevant enough to take that risk imho...

I'm not advocating giving every kid a glock and sending them off with a pat on the head. Far from it.
What I'm saying is that kids are less likely to treat guns as toys or playthings if they've fired one before.

Instead of just giving a child speech after speech about gun safety, give them speech after speech about gun safety and have them actually fire a gun with VERY close supervision and guidance. And for feths sake, don't give them a fething uzi!

As far as gun control goes, I'm all for the banning of all fully automatic and some semi-automatic weapons, depending on rate of fire and ease of operation. And allowing a child to fire a full auto weapon should be made a felony. There just isn't any sitution in which a fully automatic weapon is neccessary, excepting warfare.

Kilkrazy wrote:Here is the story.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,444180,00.html

A fething micro-Uzi, "no recoil", and an 8 year old. Someone sterilize that man.

CT GAMER wrote:And I would argue that I'd rather not gamble a child's life & safety on the degree of stupidty to which his parents might or mght not possess.

Children's lives are always in danger due to the degree of stupidity of their parents.

However I don't agree with your assertion that we need to throw guns in every kids hands as some rite of passage, especially when any error of judgement on the part of the parents or accident on the child's part could be life ending. The lesson just isn't relevant enough to take that risk imho...

Yeah, because we all hand our kids fully automatic weapons and let them do as they please with them. For feths sake get a grip. No one is talking about handing a kid a gun and a box of cartridges and hoping for the best. You take them to the range and teach them about the weapons. Show them how they work, what they can do, the proper way to handle them, and how to use them. Then you let the kid try for themselves in a controlled manner. First of all, they only get one round at a time. So when the gun goes off if they freak out the thing is empty when they drop it or it twists in their grip or whatever. If you need to you brace them or help them with the first couple shots.

The most important part is that you're not a fething moron giving a 8 year old a fully automatic weapon they couldn't hope to control. Use some common sense.

Well full auto weapons are generally illegal in the first place, so thats not really an issue.

The rate of accidental death caused by guns to children is pretty low, actually.

http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/guns.htm

If people are concerned about it, I should suggest the best thing would be a training programme leading to a licence, as with cars. However I think that might contravene the 2nd Amendment, and may be impossible.

Tyyr wrote:
Children's lives are always in danger due to the degree of stupidity of their parents.

Yes to an extent, but the voluntary introduction of certain settings and items certainly ups the anty.

If I have zero firearms in my house and don't take my children to shoot them or be around them then the degree of danger is far lower then consciously putting them into contact with them, even if the intent is to "educate" no?

If I smoke or take my kids to places in which people do, I am increasing the danger of second hand smoke effecting them fa more then if I don't smoke or attempt to limit their exposire to it.

That is our responsibility/obligation as parents. Yes many things in life are potentially dangerous to children, even more reason to limit/avoid the ones we are able to imo.

As a parent I would rather air on the side of caurion when it comes to my own kids. It does not require the firing of guns to respect them or be taught about the danger.

I don't have to let my nine year old drive the car in order to teach him the importance of wearing his seatbelt, etc.

I'd rather not gamble with the lives of my childen, even if I think the situation is controlled.

Any chance of death is too great as far as I'm concened if I can otherwise avoid it through choice when it comes to my own kids. You obviously think the benfits outweigh the risks.

If you read the quotes of that father he had the best intentions as well, and felt no danger in taking his son to a location filled with guns and ammuntion.

Kids don't chose their parents, and count on their parents to keep them safe. A good start would be to not seek out situations like such imho...

SO when would you take kids around guns CT?

Is it possible to ban the use of any and all Frazzleds?

Frazzled wrote:SO when would you take kids around guns CT?

Personally?

I wouldn't make a point to take my own children around them. I wouldn't attend a gun show with them. I wouldn't try to arrange a trip to a gun range with them, etc. We have no guns in our house so they have zero danger of coming into contact with one in our home/daily lives. In short I would not purposely introduce them to an environment with guns or ask them to fire them as I don't see the need nor feel the introduction of such potential risk is a wise parenting choice.

I know people that have guns. this fact factors in to what houses my children have play dates at, etc.

I have discussed gun safety with them: that is adequate at this point in our lives.


Again I have no issue with gun owership and do not support gun control. I do however endeavour to keep my children as safe as possible and take issue with actions that border on child endangerment such as putting firearms into young children's hands, even under supposedly "controlled" situations.

Other people make other choices...

WarOne wrote:Is it possible to ban the use of any and all Frazzleds?

I have a deadman switch at all times for just such an event. Attempting banning of Frazzled will results in the explosive bolts firing, releasing Dachshundkrieg. Now give me pie!

Well, other than my current job, the only time is ever use a firearm is for sport, but the view of not having a firearm around but still teaching firearm safety is an excellent idea. The only reason I was exposed so soon is because I grew up in a family where every member of my family did some form of hunting, so there were always firearms around, so my family started teaching me early so I knew right from wrong.

And for those using a firearm for home defense, if you have a uzi or a MAC-12 for home defense, you are wrong and are more likely to hurt someone in your own home, sheetrock and wood will not stop a solid slug.

I wouldn't make a point to take my own children around them. I wouldn't attend a gun show with them. I wouldn't try to arrange a trip to a gun range with them, etc. We have no guns in our house so they have zero danger of coming into contact with one in our home/daily lives. In short I would not purposely introduce them to an environment with guns or ask them to fire them as I don't see the need nor feel the introduction of such potential risk is a wise parenting choice.
***Ever? Here we hunt, target shoot, etc. its part of our lives and culture, like fishing and brain surgery.

I know people that have guns. this fact factors in to what houses my children have play dates at, etc.
***Some yankee newly moved to Texas asked if we had guns in the house once, we just laughed and told them this was Texas, everyone has guns in the house.

I have discussed gun safety with them: that is adequate at this point in our lives.
***I’ve seen videoed studies of kids. The study teaches the kids safety and then they see a (fake) gun on the table. Within a minute they are playing with the gun. It turns out age means a lot for safety to take. Be aware of that depending on the ages of your nefarious youth’s (but not just gun safety, any safety, real little buggers don’t physically get it yet).

When the kids were younger we brought out fake guns and real guns, especially some close looking fake guns. Showed them the weight and how metal looks different but also if any doubt, assume it’s real. Did the same for knives.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

btemple0 wrote:And for those using a firearm for home defense, if you have a uzi or a MAC-12 for home defense, you are wrong and are more likely to hurt someone in your own home, sheetrock and wood will not stop a solid slug.

MAC-12? Back in my day only had Mac-10s and were glad we had them. Who am I kidding, back in my day we had sharpened sticks and were glad we had them.

This is the third or fourth time that I've seen a thread say "sex is bad, but violence is good." I think kids having barbies is sexual exploration just as much as having a toy gun let's them play around with violent stuff. All this legislation does is make stuff more inconvenient for a group of people that probably would have their parents buying stuff for them in the first place.

CT GAMER wrote:

Frazzled wrote:SO when would you take kids around guns CT?

Personally?

I wouldn't make a point to take my own children around them. I wouldn't attend a gun show with them. I wouldn't try to arrange a trip to a gun range with them, etc. We have no guns in our house so they have zero danger of coming into contact with one in our home/daily lives. In short I would not purposely introduce them to an environment with guns or ask them to fire them as I don't see the need nor feel the introduction of such potential risk is a wise parenting choice.

I know people that have guns. this fact factors in to what houses my children have play dates at, etc.

I have discussed gun safety with them: that is adequate at this point in our lives.


Again I have no issue with gun owership and do not support gun control. I do however endeavour to keep my children as safe as possible and take issue with actions that border on child endangerment such as putting firearms into young children's hands, even under supposedly "controlled" situations.

Other people make other choices...

Well it's your decision to make with your own kids, I respect that.

It is just my opinion, based upon my own experiences, that having fired a gun leads to a greater respect for safety around firearms.

But I suppose that it isn't exactly practical if you don't own guns and never plan to. However, if a parent does own a gun(s), then I think that taking their child to the range every now and then would build a healthy respect for gun-safety. It certainly did for me.

Our family owns several guns, and I myself was the proud recipient of a 20 gauge shotgun for my 13th birthday. I was probably 10 or 11 the first time I shot a gun, and it made the fact that these things were dangerous a lot more clear than any talk my dad gave me.

CT GAMER wrote:Yes to an extent, but the voluntary introduction of certain settings and items certainly ups the anty.

Living at all ups the anty. Teaching them to use a knife, play with toys small enough to be swallowed, allowing them to plug things in, eventually teaching them to drive. All up the anty and increase the danger in a child's life. However we do them anyway don't we? Why? They're valuable life skills/important for the kids to know about so as to avoid putting themselves in danger. I keep my guns locked up and my ammo seperate so I'm not worried about my kids. To mitigate that further I intend to take my boy to the range when he gets to be about ten so he can learn to respect the guns. The manner I intend to teach him about them in will be the same one I was taught in which was very safe and posed little to no danger to him or anyone else. Like taking a 15 year old to an empty parking lot late at night so they can learn to drive.

If I have zero firearms in my house and don't take my children to shoot them or be around them then the degree of danger is far lower then consciously putting them into contact with them, even if the intent is to "educate" no?

Yes, but can you guarantee that their friend's parents will have no guns? What if someone at their school shows up with a gun one day to show it off? You can guarantee your child doesn't contact them in your home but they aren't going to stay in your home forever. I'd rather my child know about firearms, how to handle and deal with them, and to properly respect them than insulate them from them and hope they don't come into contact with them one day when I'm not around to supervise or protect them.

You can say the degree of risk is lower but at some point the risk stops being a real one. There's a "risk" that I'll win the lottery if I buy a ticket. No sane human being actually expects that "risk" to pay out though.

That is our responsibility/obligation as parents. Yes many things in life are potentially dangerous to children, even more reason to limit/avoid the ones we are able to imo.

And in m view the best course of action isn't to just preach at them and hope for the best. In this case its simple and safe to let a child have experience with firearms to put a real practical face on that preaching. You can say guns are dangerous till you're blue in the face, but nothing will communicate that as well as that first half second after they pull the trigger on a shotgun. Again, I speak from personal experience, nothing my parents ever said to me convinced me they were right so much as the first time I fired a gun for myself.

As a parent I would rather air on the side of caurion when it comes to my own kids. It does not require the firing of guns to respect them or be taught about the danger.

No, but as a parent myself and a former kid most of them learn better from experience than telling them.

I don't have to let my nine year old drive the car in order to teach him the importance of wearing his seatbelt, etc.

Because no one in their right mind would intentionally get them in a car crash for the proof. I can however take my kid to the range and let them fire a gun safely and inexpensively.

I'd rather not gamble with the lives of my childen, even if I think the situation is controlled.

First of all you do, every time you drive. Secondly at some point a risk stops being real. Yes, there is a possibility that my child could be hurt at the range. There is also a possibility that a pack of wild marauding dogs could come tearing through the neighborhood and attack them as they play outside. You make judgements every day about risk vs. reward even in regards to your kids. In my opinion the risk they will hurt themselves at the range is so minute that the reward of them truly appreciating firearms and what they can vastly outweighs that risk.

If you read the quotes of that father he had the best intentions as well, and felt no danger in taking his son to a location filled with guns and ammuntion.

You have one example of a complete and total idiot doing something stupid and having everything go wrong that could. Yes, it's tragic. However the biggest problem with the situation was that the father is a complete idiot. His actions do not in any way reflect what I'm advocating any more than someone getting killed in a demolition derby invalidates teaching your child to drive. What that father did was reckless and beyond stupid like putting a kid who's never driven behind the wheel of a 500hp rally car on Pike's Peak when they've never driven before. What happened there is in no way represenative of a responsible parent educating their kids about firearms and letting them have hands on experience.

Part of my Gun safety discussion with my children involved taking them with me to see what a firearm was capable of.
I set up several pumpkins as targets and demonstrated exactly what a gun could do if mishandled.
The Mossberg 500 in particular seemed to make a big impression on them,and I believe my lesson was taken to heart as both of my kids have a health respect for the dangers of firearms.
Of course,I still follow proper precautions in storage,but I am quite certain that my kids got the point and know better than to even think about touching a real gun.

What I can reccomend for those that do not want to physically show the use of a weapon, by physically firing one, to one of their children is to go and find a video of a .22 rifle fired at pine boards and a coke can, IIRC it shows the bullet going through 6 boards and then destroying the coke can. Another means of showing that they are dangerous, is by showing the potential danger to the operator of the weapon, and for that you could try to find an example of a shotgun that was loaded with the wrong ammunition. If you cannot find either of these, contact your local Game Warden, DEC ( Dept. of Environmental Conservation ) Office, and ask for some of the pictures and video, they should gladly give you the pictures for free.

If in the case you cannot find either, or your local DEC office does not provide you with that, then PM me and I will contact the instructor I had for my hunter's safety course, who would gladly give you all of that, and possibly more for free.

sebster wrote:

VoidAngel wrote:

The discussion was of children accidentally injuring themselves or others with guns, vs. due to fire. Your figure includes crime, which is to say, deliberate and illegal use of firearms. Also, you should use statistics from law enforcement sources, not groups that are anti-self-defense rights. The FBI puts the statistic closer to 10,000 per year. By contrast, there were about 13,000 home fire-related injuries in a similar period (but fewer deaths).

You just said deaths, so I went with deaths. I didn't use an anti-gun site, by the way, I just went with the figure I remembered, which was around 40,000. Checking now CDC puts this figure closer to 30,000 so I was off by a bit but still miles higher than your 10,000 figure. I suspect you're citing homicide, which is a bit over 10,000, and ignoring the 15,000 odd suicides each year.

Citing fire related injuries is a bit of a nonsense, though. By your own claim you're looking at deaths from fire, and that figure is around 4,000 per year. Trying to compare fire related injuries to one form of death by firearm is even more non-sensical.

I'd stick to focussing on the accidental part, if you ask me.

The CDC is arguably not an objective source. What the Center for Disease Control has to do with crime is...a fatuous attempt of prominent liberal politicians to co-opt (politically sympathetic) doctors into helping them distort facts and inflate numbers to serve their own ends (banning guns). Your example of suicides is a perfect illustration. As if the firearm had anything to do with it. A person totally at the end of their rope is going to find a way to end their pain, whether by throwing themselves off a bridge, in front of a speeding bus, or any other method you care to imagine. It's neither accidental nor criminal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rubiksnoob wrote:

Tyyr wrote:

And also, at least in my opinion, uzis and the like are stupid. You don't really need full auto anything, and you sure as hell don't need it in such a small package.

Thankfully, this is just your opinion. No doubt there are people out there with the opinion that lead miniatures should be banned, or limited - because who needs more than 20 of something so small, anyway?

Your opinion is formed by your experience and your environment. That doesn't mean you have a grasp of all possible needs. And, fundamentally, a law-abiding citizen isn't going to do something immoral with that uzi, or a steak knife, or a flamethrower.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

btemple0 wrote:What I can reccomend for those that do not want to physically show the use of a weapon, by physically firing one, to one of their children is to go and find a video of a .22 rifle fired at pine boards and a coke can, IIRC it shows the bullet going through 6 boards and then destroying the coke can. Another means of showing that they are dangerous, is by showing the potential danger to the operator of the weapon, and for that you could try to find an example of a shotgun that was loaded with the wrong ammunition. If you cannot find either of these, contact your local Game Warden, DEC ( Dept. of Environmental Conservation ) Office, and ask for some of the pictures and video, they should gladly give you the pictures for free.

If in the case you cannot find either, or your local DEC office does not provide you with that, then PM me and I will contact the instructor I had for my hunter's safety course, who would gladly give you all of that, and possibly more for free.

Or, you could *gasp* contact the NRA. Their Eddie Eagle gun safety program for children is actually quite good - regardless of what horrendous evil status you might assign the organization.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
CT - your position is well articulated and really begins and ends at our need to respect your right to do as you please in regards to guns and your child rearing strategies. I hope you may have gleaned some of Tyyr's excellent points and they gave you something to think about. Best to you.

Reply by: Fateweaver - click to view full reply 

14852

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/10 06:36:37

Post by: Fateweaver

Yay for nanny states.

Reply by: sebster - click to view full reply 

5470

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/10 07:02:32

Post by: sebster

VoidAngel wrote:The CDC is arguably not an objective source. What the Center for Disease Control has to do with crime is...a fatuous attempt of prominent liberal politicians to co-opt (politically sympathetic) doctors into helping them distort facts and inflate numbers to serve their own ends (banning guns). Your example of suicides is a perfect illustration. As if the firearm had anything to do with it. A person totally at the end of their rope is going to find a way to end their pain, whether by throwing themselves off a bridge, in front of a speeding bus, or any other method you care to imagine. It's neither accidental nor criminal.

I'm guessing you don't know a lot about how not done a lot of reading about suicide. People don't just reach 'the end of their rope', they reach the depth of a cycle of depression, which they may or may not come out of depending on a range of factors. One very important factor is having the means to kill themselves, and this is why a home with a gun in it is much more likely to result in a suicide. And while suicide might not be an accident or a felony, it is still a tragedy, and an avoidable one.

Your attack on the CDC is really odd. It's a public health agency who only brush across gun control because of their work in producing national causes of death statistics. And when they do produce such data, like with all other stats they produce, they state their assumptions up front - if they'd wanted to hide the suicide numbers they wouldn't seperately list them.

Reply by: youbedead - click to view full reply 

7926

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/11 04:50:42

Post by: youbedead

Wait, the CDC is a liberal plot to ban guns.

Reply by: Happygrunt - click to view full reply 

10127

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/11 05:13:39

Post by: Happygrunt

This is coming from a kid who grew up around fire arms (16 right now).

My father taught me how to correctly hold, clean and be safe with guns VERY early on. I have a bunch of nerf guns, which he used to show me hand gun and rifle safety. I know my way around a fire arm. He drilled the safety in so much, I treat those nerf guns as an actually fire arm now, because its good practice. Taking away the toys which are fun and safe training tools is a stupid idea that will come back and bite them in the ass latter.

Reply by: VoidAngel - click to view full reply 

38857

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/11 05:55:39

Post by: VoidAngel

Happygrunt wrote:This is coming from a kid who grew up around fire arms (16 right now).

My father taught me how to correctly hold, clean and be safe with guns VERY early on. I have a bunch of nerf guns, which he used to show me hand gun and rifle safety. I know my way around a fire arm. He drilled the safety in so much, I treat those nerf guns as an actually fire arm now, because its good practice. Taking away the toys which are fun and safe training tools is a stupid idea that will come back and bite them in the ass latter.

I do the VERY same thing with my son. Well said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:
I'm guessing you don't know a lot about how not done a lot of reading about suicide. People don't just reach 'the end of their rope', they reach the depth of a cycle of depression, which they may or may not come out of depending on a range of factors. One very important factor is having the means to kill themselves, and this is why a home with a gun in it is much more likely to result in a suicide. And while suicide might not be an accident or a felony, it is still a tragedy, and an avoidable one.

Your attack on the CDC is really odd. It's a public health agency who only brush across gun control because of their work in producing national causes of death statistics. And when they do produce such data, like with all other stats they produce, they state their assumptions up front - if they'd wanted to hide the suicide numbers they wouldn't seperately list them.

You guess wrong. I'm clinically trained and have plenty of experience with suicide and suicidal persons. Suicide is about anguish exceeding one's tolerance for such. Whether you call it "the end of the rope" or "the depth of a cycle of depression" - they are the same. And one verifiable truth is that people ALWAYS have a means to kill themselves. Moreover, given that they have reached that point at which they can stand no more, method becomes irrelevant. Concerns of 'neatness', 'who will find me?', and 'how quick/painless will it be'...evaporate. Your argument applies somewhat, but not strongly, to crimes of passion. Where a gun is present and a spouse walks in on marital-infidelity-in-progress - there's more likely to be a shooting. But...in the same scenario where a baseball bat is present, there's nearly as high a chance of a 'baseball batting'.

As for the CDC - the truth of what I'm saying is well known by those involved with the preservation of 2nd Amendment guarantees. It only sounds like some loony conspiracy theory to people with no stake in self-defense rights. Look into it, you'll see I'm not wearing a tinfoil hat. Honest.

Reply by: sebster - click to view full reply 

5470

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/11 06:43:06

Post by: sebster

VoidAngel wrote:You guess wrong. I'm clinically trained and have plenty of experience with suicide and suicidal persons. Suicide is about anguish exceeding one's tolerance for such. Whether you call it "the end of the rope" or "the depth of a cycle of depression" - they are the same. And one verifiable truth is that people ALWAYS have a means to kill themselves. Moreover, given that they have reached that point at which they can stand no more, method becomes irrelevant. Concerns of 'neatness', 'who will find me?', and 'how quick/painless will it be'...evaporate. Your argument applies somewhat, but not strongly, to crimes of passion. Where a gun is present and a spouse walks in on marital-infidelity-in-progress - there's more likely to be a shooting. But...in the same scenario where a baseball bat is present, there's nearly as high a chance of a 'baseball batting'.

Any training you had would have taught you about the importance of triggers that put or keep the thought of suicide in the mind. Any academic study you would have done on the subject would have told you that having a gun in the house is a major risk factor for suicide.

These are basic things that can't be debated. If you haven't read about them before, go and read about them now.

As for the CDC - the truth of what I'm saying is well known by those involved with the preservation of 2nd Amendment guarantees. It only sounds like some loony conspiracy theory to people with no stake in self-defense rights. Look into it, you'll see I'm not wearing a tinfoil hat. Honest.

No, it doesn't make you sound like a conspiracy nut. It makes you sound like just another guy that disregards any source of information that doesn't have your exact set of biases, because it's easier to ignore them than it is to think about the information they're providing and start to form a more considered point of view.

Here's the thing, you don't have to believe guns need to be further restricted or anything like that (I don't believe they should be, either). But whatever opinion you do form needs to be based on the actual facts of gun ownership. And one basic factor is that having guns in the house makes suicide more likely.

It is a thing you need to accept as simply being true.

Reply by: VoidAngel - click to view full reply 

38857

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/11 07:22:15

Post by: VoidAngel

Look, suicidal people kill themselves. If a gun is handy they do it with a gun. If narcotics are handy, they use those. If a bathtub and a razor blade are to hand...they use those.

It's not a matter of triggers, it's a matter of intolerable anguish. The trigger is the source of the anguish, not the means to kill oneself in a facile way.

If guns disappeared from the face of the Earth overnight, there would not be one less suicide in the following year. People would continue to experience tragedies and stresses that they were not prepared to weather at exactly the same rate.

Having a gun available makes a suicidal person more likely to commit suicide with a gun - not more likely to commit suicide.

Reply by: Kilkrazy - click to view full reply 

299

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/11 07:28:23

Post by: Kilkrazy

Do you have any epidemiological evidence to support that claim?

Reply by: sebster - click to view full reply 

5470

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/11 07:41:48

Post by: sebster

VoidAngel wrote:Having a gun available makes a suicidal person more likely to commit suicide with a gun - not more likely to commit suicide.

You keep insisting on this, but it's complete bunk. Nonsense. Piffle. False. Wrong. Incorrect. Garbage.

From the New England Jurnal of Medicine; "There are at least a dozen U.S. case–control studies in the peer-reviewed literature, all of which have found that a gun in the home is associated with an increased risk of suicide. The increase in risk is large, typically 2 to 10 times that in homes without guns, depending on the sample population"
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0805923

From the American Journal of Epidemiology; "After they controlled for a number of potentially confounding factors, the presence of a gun in the home was associated with a nearly fivefold risk of suicide"
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

From the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention; "a history of firearms licence (current or present) was found to more than double the risk of suicide by any means"
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/52

The science is clear.

Reply by: VoidAngel - click to view full reply 

38857

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/11 07:41:49

Post by: VoidAngel

Epidemiological evidence suggests that having an easy means with which to commit suicide definitely plays a secondary role. But no distinction is made between guns, medicines, and agricultural poisons (for example). That is to say, none increases the risk significantly more than the others.

If you want to talk prevention, then I will accept that it is easier to *prevent* suicide for a person known to be at risk by removing guns (or medicines, or poisons) from the immediate environment. This simply forces the person to use gravity, or traffic, or a rope - unless you can confine and monitor them. This tends to be no more than a delaying tactic in many cases. This is good only where the source of the stressor can be ameliorated during confinement, (you hit the lottery and you're not bankrupt. Your wife decides not to leave you afterall. The test was a false positive, etc.) or the person can be taught to cope or medicated into a lower state of affect. In cases where the stressor remains in full force upon release and the person has the same lack of available tolerance...they simply find an opportunity and do it anyway.

Reply by: sebster - click to view full reply 

5470

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/11 07:47:02

Post by: sebster

VoidAngel wrote:Epidemiological evidence suggests that having an easy means with which to commit suicide definitely plays a secondary role. But no distinction is made between guns, medicines, and agricultural poisons (for example). That is to say, none increases the risk significantly more than the others.

No, it doesn't. See my post above.

If you want to talk prevention, then I will accept that it is easier to *prevent* suicide for a person known to be at risk by removing guns (or medicines, or poisons) from the immediate environment. This simply forces the person to use gravity, or traffic, or a rope - unless you can confine and monitor them. This tends to be no more than a delaying tactic in many cases.

This denies the well established fact that many suicide attempts are spontaneous, with the time from first instance to attempt being around five minutes. This is especially true in youth suicide attemtps.

What have you actually read on this subject? It really sounds like you're just making stuff up, and I hope that's not true.

Reply by: VoidAngel - click to view full reply 

38857

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/11 08:09:26

Post by: VoidAngel

*sigh*

NEJM? LEGENDARILY biased and anti-gun. Can't accept that one. For anything else, love it.

"
Reducing access to the means of self-harm is thus
an important prevention strategy and one that
has proved effective. Notable reductions in suicide have occurred, for instance, in countries that
have removed carbon monoxide from domestic
gas and car exhausts or restricted access to concentrated agricultural poisons among people.
Restrictions on the ownership of firearms has
been associated with a decrease of their use for
suicide"
http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/factsheets/en/selfdirectedviolfacts.pdf

Unlike in the U.S., suicide rates of suicides committed with guns in countries where firearms are uncommon are similarly uncommon (an obvious statistic, since guns are not as available; most suicides with guns would have been attempted through other means).
Research also indicates no association vis-à-vis safe-storage laws of guns that are owned, and gun suicide rates, and studies that attempt to link gun ownership to likely victimology often fail to account for the presence of guns owned by other people leading to a conclusion that safe-storage laws do not appear to affect gun suicide rates or juvenile accidental gun death.[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

http://www.haciendapub.com/stolinsky.html

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/specials/switzerland_for_the_record/european_records/Switzerland_s_troubling_record_of_suicide.html?cid=8301804
“We know that people turn to alternatives that are similar,” Ajdacic-Gross said. “If someone thinks of committing suicide using drugs, they are unlikely to resort to a firearm as an option.”

But a suicide who for some reason is prevented from using a gun, may decide instead to hang themselves, which is also a highly efficient method.

Ajdacic-Gross says that between half and two-thirds of people who are unable to access their method of choice, will fall back on another.

“Preventative measures certainly cannot prevent all suicides, but a large number,” he said.


In short - using a gun is more certain and results in more successful attempts. It doesn't increase the chance of an attempt. Even with so called 'impulsive' cases (a notion many clinicians reject, on the basis that the idea almost certainly formed very much prior to the act, and simply lay dormant until an opportunity presented) an alternate method is employed when a gun is not present.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

This denies the well established fact that many suicide attempts are spontaneous, with the time from first instance to attempt being around five minutes. This is especially true in youth suicide attemtps.

What have you actually read on this subject? It really sounds like you're just making stuff up, and I hope that's not true.

See my post above about so-called 'spontaneous attempts'.

Making stuff up? No, I have a Masters degree in Clinical Psychology, if you must know. I read everything from peer-reviewed journal articles to political blogs. I have actual, clinical experience with profoundly depressed individuals. Frankly, that informs my opinion a thousandfold more than a research article based on meta-statistical analyses.

Reply by: sebster - click to view full reply 

5470

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/11 08:27:45

Post by: sebster

VoidAngel wrote:*sigh*

NEJM? LEGENDARILY biased and anti-gun. Can't accept that one. For anything else, love it.

So you dismiss the oldest and most reputable medical journal in the world for no good reason other than more 'bias', and fail to make any comment at all on the other sources I provide.

Instead you attempt to make your case by providing links that are peripherally related to the issue at best. The first notes that reducing access to self harm will help reduce suicide and makes this point by saying a reduction in gun ownership has reduced their use in suicide, but makes no comment on whether suicide as a whole was reduced. The second gives an uncited wikipedia comment, which means it has exactly as much authority as, well, your word or mine. The last option states that people tend towards similar types of suicide methods, but again makes no comment on whether having guns in the house will increase the risk of suicide.

Your articles are barely related to the question, whereas each of my cites was directly on the issue at hand, and each came down strongly in favour of the argument that having a gun in the house increases the chance of suicide.

Please read them, and learn something. It won't hurt you.

In short - using a gun is more certain and results in more successful attempts. It doesn't increase the chance of an attempt. Even with so called 'impulsive' cases (a notion many clinicians reject, on the basis that the idea almost certainly formed very much prior to the act, and simply lay dormant until an opportunity presented) an alternate method is employed when a gun is not present.

No, it increases the number of suicides by a factor of at least double. That difference can't be explained away with 'more likely to be successful' - that's a nonsense that you've made up.

Accept it. You're wrong. It's okay. It happens. Pissing about with nonsense cites to marginally related studies (and an uncited wiki quote?!) won't change it. Ignoring the sources I gave you won't change it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

VoidAngel wrote:See my post above about so-called 'spontaneous attempts'.

Making stuff up? No, I have a Masters degree in Clinical Psychology, if you must know. I read everything from peer-reviewed journal articles to political blogs. I have actual, clinical experience with profoundly depressed individuals. Frankly, that informs my opinion a thousandfold more than a research article based on meta-statistical analyses.

And you used an uncited wiki sentence as evidence...

Reply by: Happygrunt - click to view full reply 

10127

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/11 14:19:32

Post by: Happygrunt

Guys, make sure the medical flame debate dosen't go to 11.

Reply by: VoidAngel - click to view full reply 

38857

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/11 16:26:44

Post by: VoidAngel

sebster wrote:

VoidAngel wrote:*sigh*

NEJM? LEGENDARILY biased and anti-gun. Can't accept that one. For anything else, love it.

So you dismiss the oldest and most reputable medical journal in the world for no good reason other than more 'bias', and fail to make any comment at all on the other sources I provide.

>>>Here's the probolem - there is a systematic bias IN many of the pedestrian journals, and while I said I respect the NEJM, it's a known offender. I will spell it out for you: academicians tend toward the liberal. Liberals tend to be anti-gun. That liberal doctors should be less apt to be highly polorized on this issue is an unrealistic expectation.


Instead you attempt to make your case by providing links that are peripherally related to the issue at best.

>>>>No, I provided articles that presented a balanced view, you cherry picked.

The first notes that reducing access to self harm will help reduce suicide and makes this point by saying a reduction in gun ownership has reduced their use in suicide, but makes no comment on whether suicide as a whole was reduced.

>>>>>>>>Right, because there's no effect. No of the articles I posted or any of the others I read through (except yours) found an effect where the chance of suicide was amplified by the presence of a gun. Those that do find such an effect explain it by the so-called "impulse suicide" - which does not exist. So...who's making stuff up?

The second gives an uncited wikipedia comment, which means it has exactly as much authority as, well, your word or mine. The last option states that people tend towards similar types of suicide methods, but again makes no comment on whether having guns in the house will increase the risk of suicide.

>>>>>>For the first, standard tactic. It's Wikipedia, it's worthless. Sure, for a thesis - but with millions reading it every day, BS doesn't last. To the second point, see above. There's no comment because there's no increase in risk when you remove biased sources, and correctly reject the notion that people "just up an obliterate themselves on a whim" because they're a bit down and gun happens to be there. It ridiculous.

In short - using a gun is more certain and results in more successful attempts. It doesn't increase the chance of an attempt. Even with so called 'impulsive' cases (a notion many clinicians reject, on the basis that the idea almost certainly formed very much prior to the act, and simply lay dormant until an opportunity presented) an alternate method is employed when a gun is not present.

No, it increases the number of suicides by a factor of at least double. That difference can't be explained away with 'more likely to be successful' - that's a nonsense that you've made up.

>>>>>>Incorrect. You obviously can read, so I have to conclude that you're tired, dense, or being deceptive. Gun are among THE MOST lethal means of comitting suicide, and there's no "back out" mechanism - you can't stop halfway and maybe survive the attempt. Pull trigger - done, 89% percent of the time. Hanging you can sometimes back out of. You can step away from a ledge or ingest too little poison. Guns are more lethal. It's obvious, logical, and factual. Not something I "made up".

Accept it. You're wrong. It's okay. It happens. Ignoring the sources I gave you won't change it.

>>>Right back atcha.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

VoidAngel wrote:See my post above about so-called 'spontaneous attempts'.

Making stuff up? No, I have a Masters degree in Clinical Psychology, if you must know. I read everything from peer-reviewed journal articles to political blogs. I have actual, clinical experience with profoundly depressed individuals. Frankly, that informs my opinion a thousandfold more than a research article based on meta-statistical analyses.

And you used an uncited wiki sentence as evidence...

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought this was a gaming forum conversation with a random internet denizen - not a thesis defense. Hey, go on your merry way - I've no need to change your mind.

Reply by: Frazzled - click to view full reply 

221

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/11 16:39:03

Post by: Frazzled

Reply by: Monster Rain - click to view full reply 

23223

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/11 16:41:54

Post by: Monster Rain

VoidAngel wrote:Oh, I'm sorry, I thought this was a gaming forum conversation with a random internet denizen - not a thesis defense. Hey, go on your merry way - I've no need to change your mind.

That made me lol.

How did the banning of toy guns end up as an epidemiological discussion about firearms deaths?

The Hawaiian law is moronic and I fully believe that if all guns were banned there would be 75% less death and 97% more ice cream and rainbows.

Reply by: VoidAngel - click to view full reply 

38857

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/11 18:22:26

Post by: VoidAngel

Sorry Monster, that's not right. Violent crime goes up when guns are banned. True in Britain, Wales, Australia...and counting. Why? Criminals ignore bans, and laws that say, "don't murder people." 'Cause...they're criminals. Ignoring laws is kinda their thing.
Restrictive gun laws just disarm the people that need to defend themselves against criminals the most. And, living and working in high crime areas...I see too many instances of the law-abiding being laid waste by the evil and useless because they couldn't get or carry an effective means of defense. That's why I bother to continue this thread for so long. Self-defense and suicide are things I have too much unwanted experience with.

You suggest an interesting area of research though. I think someone needs to look into the correlational data for systematic variation in the frequency of atmospheric light defraction, high-caloric load dairy treats, and mortality rates.

Reply by: Fateweaver - click to view full reply 

14852

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/12 00:47:58

Post by: Fateweaver

I think we should ban all guns so that I can turn on the evening news and read "Death by spoons".

That'd make my evening.

Reply by: FITZZ - click to view full reply 

9079

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/12 01:02:17

Post by: FITZZ

Fateweaver wrote:I think we should ban all guns so that I can turn on the evening news and read "Death by spoons".

That'd make my evening.

No,because then some one would form the" Citizens for Spoon safety" and you'd have to eat your soup with a fork....No wait...forks are pointy and possibly dangerous...better just suck your soup through a straw.

Reply by: Monster Rain - click to view full reply 

23223

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/12 01:04:50

Post by: Monster Rain

I could kill someone with a straw.

Reply by: Happygrunt - click to view full reply 

10127

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/12 01:05:13

Post by: Happygrunt

FITZZ wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:I think we should ban all guns so that I can turn on the evening news and read "Death by spoons".

That'd make my evening.

No,because then some one would form the" Citizens for Spoon safety" and you'd have to eat your soup with a fork....No wait...forks are pointy and possibly dangerous...better just suck your soup through a straw.

Cant do that, what if your bending down and miss, and come up with Straw in eye syndrome?

Reply by: Fateweaver - click to view full reply 

14852

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/12 01:13:44

Post by: Fateweaver

Spoon in eye?

Could scoop it out like an apple core.

Reply by: Monster Rain - click to view full reply 

23223

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/12 01:17:41

Post by: Monster Rain

You could always flip it around and jab the pointier end into a temple or carotid artery or windpipe.

Reply by: FITZZ - click to view full reply 

9079

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/12 01:23:41

Post by: FITZZ

Meh,Give me a paper clip, a rubber band and a handful of tooth picks and I'll take out any attacker.

Reply by: Happygrunt - click to view full reply 

10127

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/12 01:31:46

Post by: Happygrunt

FITZZ wrote:Meh,Give me a paper clip, a rubber band and a handful of tooth picks and I'll take out any attacker.

Give me a used tissue and I will take on the Israeli army.

Reply by: Monster Rain - click to view full reply 

23223

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/12 01:33:26

Post by: Monster Rain

I don't get it.

Reply by: whatwhat - click to view full reply 

9401

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/12 01:47:59

Post by: whatwhat

Neither did I. Did you mean a pork roast perhaps? If you did I will get the joke but also wish death upon you and your family.

Reply by: VoidAngel - click to view full reply 

38857

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/12 03:38:29

Post by: VoidAngel

I think he was saying he such an incredible badass that he could be victorious against the most effective and hardened fighting force in the world, with the least-scary-imaginable weapon. Nothing to require his death over.

Reply by: FITZZ - click to view full reply 

9079

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/12 04:40:52

Post by: FITZZ

VoidAngel wrote:I think he was saying he such an incredible badass that he could be victorious against the most effective and hardened fighting force in the world, with the least-scary-imaginable weapon. Nothing to require his death over.

See how dangerous and controversial used tissue has become...clearly it should be banned.

Reply by: VoidAngel - click to view full reply 

38857

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/12 04:42:14

Post by: VoidAngel

Clearly.

Reply by: Monster Rain - click to view full reply 

23223

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/12 04:43:00

Post by: Monster Rain

FITZZ wrote:

VoidAngel wrote:I think he was saying he such an incredible badass that he could be victorious against the most effective and hardened fighting force in the world, with the least-scary-imaginable weapon. Nothing to require his death over.

See how dangerous and controversial used tissue has become...clearly it should be banned.

Won't someone please think of the children?

Reply by: FITZZ - click to view full reply 

9079

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/12 04:51:25

Post by: FITZZ

Monster Rain wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

VoidAngel wrote:I think he was saying he such an incredible badass that he could be victorious against the most effective and hardened fighting force in the world, with the least-scary-imaginable weapon. Nothing to require his death over.

See how dangerous and controversial used tissue has become...clearly it should be banned.

Won't someone please think of the children?

No...Children have the potential to become dangerous too...ban them as well.

Reply by: Monster Rain - click to view full reply 

23223

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/12 04:54:02

Post by: Monster Rain

True. They won't all grow up to beat an old lady to death with a hammer... but one of them might!

Reply by: FITZZ - click to view full reply 

9079

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/12 04:59:39

Post by: FITZZ

In my own subtle way,I'm attempting to make a statement about the slippery slope of "Safety Legislation".
...I know it's an "unpopular" view in some peoples opinion,but there honestly is a point when "For the good of the people" becomes a bad thing.

Reply by: Monster Rain - click to view full reply 

23223

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/12 05:00:50

Post by: Monster Rain

FITZZ wrote: In my own subtle way,I'm attempting to make a statement about the slippery slope of "Safety Legislation".
...I know it's an "unpopular" view in some peoples opinion,but there honestly is a point when "For the good of the people" becomes a bad thing.

Like in I, Robot when the Three Laws of Robotics make them decided the best way to keep us safe is to enslave us?

I see what you're saying.

Reply by: dogma - click to view full reply 

5534

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/12 05:07:15

Post by: dogma

Monster Rain wrote:True. They won't all grow up to beat an old lady to death with a hammer... but one of them might!

If I might make A Modest Proposal of sorts...

Reply by: VoidAngel - click to view full reply 

38857

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/12 05:11:14

Post by: VoidAngel

FITZZ wrote: In my own subtle way,I'm attempting to make a statement about the slippery slope of "Safety Legislation".
...I know it's an "unpopular" view in some peoples opinion,but there honestly is a point when "For the good of the people" becomes a bad thing.

Witness Great Britain. Almost total gun ban goes into effect. Law-abiding Britons dutifully turn in their guns for destruction. Violent crime skyrockets. Lesser thugs take to the use of knives. Britain enacts "knife control" - to the point where you maybe don't get one on your table in London restaurants. I think I heard something about toothpicks being next. What then, harsh words?


I apologize in advance that I could find no article in the Old England Journal of Medicine, but lest anyone think I'm "making things up":

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4581871.stm

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/justice/article684784.ece

Reply by: Monster Rain - click to view full reply 

23223

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/12 06:01:33

Post by: Monster Rain

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:True. They won't all grow up to beat an old lady to death with a hammer... but one of them might!

If I might make A Modest Proposal of sorts...

Sheer brilliance!

Reply by: rdlb - click to view full reply 

17130

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/12 06:40:14

Post by: rdlb

I live in HI. This is just funny. The land of rainbows and bored stupid politicians.

Check out this one from last year.

http://www.kitv.com/news/20679481/detail.html

The government here is so useless that people just get together to solve their problems and write off their taxes as a loss. There are a ton of private schools because all the public schools are horrible. There are private environmental groups that enforce good policies because the department of land and natural resources is asleep at the wheel. The examples are endless and the politicians are focused on toy guns and BO...

Reply by: Kilkrazy - click to view full reply 

299

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/12 09:46:05

Post by: Kilkrazy

Fateweaver wrote:I think we should ban all guns so that I can turn on the evening news and read "Death by spoons".

That'd make my evening.

You needn't worry. It's illegal to ban guns in the USA.

Reply by: ChrisWWII - click to view full reply 

27848

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/12 11:27:54

Post by: ChrisWWII

Thank God for the Supreme Court!

Reply by: Kilkrazy - click to view full reply 

299

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/12 11:29:39

Post by: Kilkrazy

VoidAngel wrote:

FITZZ wrote: In my own subtle way,I'm attempting to make a statement about the slippery slope of "Safety Legislation".
...I know it's an "unpopular" view in some peoples opinion,but there honestly is a point when "For the good of the people" becomes a bad thing.

Witness Great Britain. Almost total gun ban goes into effect. Law-abiding Britons dutifully turn in their guns for destruction. Violent crime skyrockets. Lesser thugs take to the use of knives. Britain enacts "knife control" - to the point where you maybe don't get one on your table in London restaurants. I think I heard something about toothpicks being next. What then, harsh words?


I apologize in advance that I could find no article in the Old England Journal of Medicine, but lest anyone think I'm "making things up":

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4581871.stm

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/justice/article684784.ece

I think you will find there was a very great deal more violent crime in Britain before guns were invented.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you will refer to this page here...

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/crime-justice/crime/violent-and-sexual-crime

You will see that:

1. Violent crime trended upwards quickly from 1991 to 1995, not after the gun laws following Hungerford and Dunblane.

Violent crime trended downwards quickly during the era of the Dunblane laws coming into effect.

2. The long term murder rate trended upwards fairly regularly from 1954 to 2001, regardless of the status of law regarding guns.

On the face of it, there is no connection between the availability of legal guns and violent crime in the UK.

Reply by: Melissia - click to view full reply 

29408

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/12 13:06:22

Post by: Melissia

Or in the US for that matter, as the NRA is annoyingly proud to point out.

Reply by: Kilkrazy - click to view full reply 

299

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/12 14:02:43

Post by: Kilkrazy

Hard to say.

The murder rate in the USA is roughly triple the UK's rate per capita, and about 1/3rd of US murders involve guns.

On the face if it, getting rid of guns would reduce the murder rate.

However it is unlikely it would drop by 2/3rds, due to social factors.

What I mean is that crime is driven by social and psychological factors such as poverty and the acceptability of violence in society, not simply by availability of weapons.

Reply by: Albatross - click to view full reply 

15594

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/12 15:06:09

Post by: Albatross

VoidAngel wrote:

FITZZ wrote: In my own subtle way,I'm attempting to make a statement about the slippery slope of "Safety Legislation".
...I know it's an "unpopular" view in some peoples opinion,but there honestly is a point when "For the good of the people" becomes a bad thing.

Witness Great Britain. Almost total gun ban goes into effect.

Nah, you can still own a gun here. We just have stricter controls. Guns aren't 'banned' in the UK, as some US gun-nuts would have you believe, you just need a good reason to own one.

Law-abiding Britons dutifully turn in their guns for destruction.

Hmm. Not quite. Many guns handed in during those sorts of amnesties are illegal. That's why it's called an amnesty.

Violent crime skyrockets. Lesser thugs take to the use of knives. Britain enacts "knife control" - to the point where you maybe don't get one on your table in London restaurants. I think I heard something about toothpicks being next. What then, harsh words?

Where do people get this crap?

If you like guns, then fine - but there's no need to make up stupid myths about places that have stricter gun-laws in order to reinforce one's position. That's just juvenile. The idea that, by law, a person wouldn't be allowed a table knife at a restaurant is absurd to the point that it reflects really badly on the person daft enough to believe it.

Reply by: VoidAngel - click to view full reply 

38857

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/13 05:52:58

Post by: VoidAngel

Violent crime skyrockets. Lesser thugs take to the use of knives. Britain enacts "knife control" - to the point where you maybe don't get one on your table in London restaurants. I think I heard something about toothpicks being next. What then, harsh words?



Where do people get this crap?

Allow me to draw your attention to the words "maybe", "think" and "What then, harsh words?" - it's called sarcasm. Look it up, mate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:Hard to say.

The murder rate in the USA is roughly triple the UK's rate per capita, and about 1/3rd of US murders involve guns.

On the face if it, getting rid of guns would reduce the murder rate.

However it is unlikely it would drop by 2/3rds, due to social factors.

What I mean is that crime is driven by social and psychological factors such as poverty and the acceptability of violence in society, not simply by availability of weapons.

No, it is not hard to say, and it definitely would not reduce the murder rate - it would increase it.

To demonstrate this to yourself, you need only to look at where gun laws are most strict (i.e., guns are essentially "banned") vs. where the laws are least restrictive. Almost invariably, the cities/states with the most restrictive laws have higher murder rates (even when you isolate for population density). Why? Oh yeah, criminals ignore laws. Which means, the people who would attempt to obtain guns legally for their own defense against these criminals...can't get them. Easier to murder helpless people, no?

Perhaps part of the problem is what you might mean by "get rid of" which is different from "banning". As someone with great experience in self-defense - I contend that waving a magic wand and making all guns disappear would simply set women's self-defense back to the stone age. Never mind the "might makes right" issue, where less combat able MEN are now the playthings of any larger, meaner thug.
Most of the women I encounter in my classes are anti gun. Sure, with a few weeks of training they can become far more dangerous and less helpless than they were (same for men) - but they'll STILL be at huge disadvantage against a determined male attacker (nevermind an intoxicated one).
Now train that same woman with a small revolver. Oh, hmmm, not getting raped tonight, is she? Now it doesn't matter if she's attacked by a 250lb Grandmaster in Kill-yu-do - or what he's high on.

The point is, those "social factors" you mention are all important - and the best reason for not making it harder to get or carry guns legally.

Oh, and to my English friend. Yes, you can "own" your bolt-action hunting rifle, still, sure. Tell he how much good it is to you (locked in your government approved container at your gun club) when 3 punks with chains and screwdrivers begin to follow you to your car one night leaving the soccer game?

Reply by: Kilkrazy - click to view full reply 

299

Hawaiian Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Ban Sales of Toy Guns to Children @ 2011/02/13 08:17:49

Post by: Kilkrazy

Thanks to the collected wisdom of OT, we seem to have solved the problem.

Everyone should have more guns.