Synopsis: Original 2nd Amendment had a note that indicated that people can use guns just so long as they don't act like dumbasses. Jefferson argued that people wouldn't need that note because people couldn't be that stupid. Which i think is a poke at people being stupid with guns.
I think one of the obligations of a responsible gun owner is to be trained in the use of them. That means regular range sessions, teaching others living in the home how to use them, and maintaining them properly.
I can't imagine many responsible gun owners would feel diff from this.
cincydooley wrote: I think one of the obligations of a responsible gun owner is to be trained in the use of them. That means regular range sessions, teaching others living in the home how to use them, and maintaining them properly.
I can't imagine many responsible gun owners would feel diff from this.
I think if that were the case many people would have a very different view, but unfortunately the only way to ensure that you only have responsible gun owners is licensing, which is where the crunch point is. Yes, irresponsible gun owners are most of the problem, but how do you stop people from being dumbasses? Two ways, social pressure or legal requirements, neither of which seem to be acceptable to many people.
cincydooley wrote: I think one of the obligations of a responsible gun owner is to be trained in the use of them. That means regular range sessions, teaching others living in the home how to use them, and maintaining them properly.
I can't imagine many responsible gun owners would feel diff from this.
I think if that were the case many people would have a very different view, but unfortunately the only way to ensure that you only have responsible gun owners is licensing, which is where the crunch point is. Yes, irresponsible gun owners are most of the problem, but how do you stop people from being dumbasses? Two ways, social pressure or legal requirements, neither of which seem to be acceptable to many people.
See, licenses aren't needed. There are laws that prohibit the use of a gun incorrectly; murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, etc. I don't see why there needs to be a whole new set of laws to regulate what I do with my property that aren't already covered by existing laws. That's sort of the point a lot of people miss, it isn't that pro-gun folks are against being responsible, it's that we're against being forced to register our property for no reason.
Frankenberry wrote: @cincydooley You just listed everything responsible gun owners do.
I would add only "Storing them securely, as appropriate to your situation".
Someone (later in the thread) said they didn't feel social pressure worked. I think it's not being applied often enough. Slate started a thing some time back where they started collecting details of "accidental" child firearm incidents, and simultaneously were urging media outlets to no longer report such events as "accidental". I strongly agree with this. An actual firearms accident is quite rare, but firearm negligence is sadly much more commonplace.
If you keep your glock under your couch and your kid shoots himself or a sibling with it, then I know that you have suffered a tragedy and I know how that feels - but I also think you should go to jail.
Frankenberry wrote: See, licenses aren't needed. There are laws that prohibit the use of a gun incorrectly; murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, etc. I don't see why there needs to be a whole new set of laws to regulate what I do with my property that aren't already covered by existing laws. That's sort of the point a lot of people miss, it isn't that pro-gun folks are against being responsible, it's that we're against being forced to register our property for no reason.
Additionally, charge morons that have kids kill themselves with firearms that weren't properly stored with Negligent Manslaughter or something like that.
If the government made firearms safety and training classes tax write offs, that could potentially help. I mean, it IS education.
@Steve - I don't think licensing is the only way to ensure you have responsible owners. We require people to take a driving test once, and that sure as gak doesn't yield tons of responsible drivers....
I would add only "Storing them securely, as appropriate to your situation".
Someone (later in the thread) said they didn't feel social pressure worked. I think it's not being applied often enough. Slate started a thing some time back where they started collecting details of "accidental" child firearm incidents, and simultaneously were urging media outlets to no longer report such events as "accidental". I strongly agree with this. An actual firearms accident is quite rare, but firearm negligence is sadly much more commonplace.
If you keep your glock under your couch and your kid shoots himself or a sibling with it, then I know that you have suffered a tragedy and I know how that feels - but I also think you should go to jail.
Agree pretty much in full. We didn't have a large safe for my shotguns until very recently, because there were never any kids in the house and there was really no reason to. As there have been children in the house, we now do. Easy peasy.
You know, if we actually upheld the gun laws on the books vigilantly, there'd be far fewer problems.
Pretty sure people already get charged with that if they leave a loaded firearm unattended and someone gets hurt/killed. No different than any other negligent thing you could do that gets people hurt/killed.
cincydooley wrote: I think one of the obligations of a responsible gun owner is to be trained in the use of them. That means regular range sessions, teaching others living in the home how to use them, and maintaining them properly.
I can't imagine many responsible gun owners would feel diff from this.
I think if that were the case many people would have a very different view, but unfortunately the only way to ensure that you only have responsible gun owners is licensing, which is where the crunch point is. Yes, irresponsible gun owners are most of the problem, but how do you stop people from being dumbasses? Two ways, social pressure or legal requirements, neither of which seem to be acceptable to many people.
See, licenses aren't needed. There are laws that prohibit the use of a gun incorrectly; murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, etc. I don't see why there needs to be a whole new set of laws to regulate what I do with my property that aren't already covered by existing laws. That's sort of the point a lot of people miss, it isn't that pro-gun folks are against being responsible, it's that we're against being forced to register our property for no reason.
Many things are licensed and regulated to stop dumb people doing dumb things, like driving licenses, concealed carry permits, etc. The concept of regulating access to something to stop people doing something dangerous is a well established concept.
cincydooley wrote: I think one of the obligations of a responsible gun owner is to be trained in the use of them. That means regular range sessions, teaching others living in the home how to use them, and maintaining them properly.
I can't imagine many responsible gun owners would feel diff from this.
funny, we have licensing here, yet they still call for gun bans and ban more and more models each year with the old "heres your letter of confiscation without compensation"
also, crooks with life long firearms prohibitions up here have historically still been able to acquire valid licenses due to bureaucratic stupidity, so its really not as hot of solution as you would think. Not to mention the fact that there is a huge black market world wide for firearms, all the pot heads can still get their pot despite a total ban on it, all the ones who want guns will also still be able to get them.
Frankenberry wrote: See, licenses aren't needed. There are laws that prohibit the use of a gun incorrectly; murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, etc. I don't see why there needs to be a whole new set of laws to regulate what I do with my property that aren't already covered by existing laws. That's sort of the point a lot of people miss, it isn't that pro-gun folks are against being responsible, it's that we're against being forced to register our property for no reason.
Additionally, charge morons that have kids kill themselves with firearms that weren't properly stored with Negligent Manslaughter or something like that.
If the government made firearms safety and training classes tax write offs, that could potentially help. I mean, it IS education.
@Steve - I don't think licensing is the only way to ensure you have responsible owners. We require people to take a driving test once, and that sure as gak doesn't yield tons of responsible drivers....
I'm not saying it is, all I'm saying is that I agree with you that responsible owners are not the problem. But that dose not mean you don't need to deal with the irresponsible ones. Same with cars, but we try and deal with that before they have an accident. That doesn't always happen, but it is better than letting everyone drive how they like until they crash.
Agree pretty much in full. We didn't have a large safe for my shotguns until very recently, because there were never any kids in the house and there was really no reason to. As there have been children in the house, we now do. Easy peasy.
You know, if we actually upheld the gun laws on the books vigilantly, there'd be far fewer problems.
Quite possibly. That may be the answer. Uphold the laws that already exist, but at the moment that isn't being done.
Many things are licensed and regulated to stop dumb people doing dumb things, like driving licenses, concealed carry permits, etc. The concept of regulating access to something to stop people doing something dangerous is a well established concept.
I guess background checks don't satisfy this for you then?
Honestly, I don't think regulation is the way to go on this one. I understand that guns, when used incorrectly, can lead to a death, but so can a myriad of other things. The same arguments could be made for cigarettes and they're guaranteed to kill a person who smokes them, and to a lesser extent, hurt those around the smoker.
But we don't hear a collective outcry for smoking bans or for legislature to be put in place for cigarette companies to make payouts to all their dead/ailing customers.
I'm down for keeping the system we have in place, it works.
Agree pretty much in full. We didn't have a large safe for my shotguns until very recently, because there were never any kids in the house and there was really no reason to. As there have been children in the house, we now do. Easy peasy.
You know, if we actually upheld the gun laws on the books vigilantly, there'd be far fewer problems.
Quite possibly. That may be the answer. Uphold the laws that already exist, but at the moment that isn't being done.
My question is, if we aren't enforcing the existing laws, why do people think having more laws will help?
I think the simple response to all of this is: you can't fix stupid. Regardless of the amount of safety's you put in place people will still think that it can't happen to them, or that they're smarter than that, etc.
The best we can do is awareness, introduce new gun owners to safety, proper storage and use, and for godssakes teach children the importance of gun safety.
cincydooley wrote: I think one of the obligations of a responsible gun owner is to be trained in the use of them. That means regular range sessions, teaching others living in the home how to use them, and maintaining them properly.
I can't imagine many responsible gun owners would feel diff from this.
I think if that were the case many people would have a very different view, but unfortunately the only way to ensure that you only have responsible gun owners is licensing, which is where the crunch point is. Yes, irresponsible gun owners are most of the problem, but how do you stop people from being dumbasses? Two ways, social pressure or legal requirements, neither of which seem to be acceptable to many people.
Licensing is never about responsbiity, at least not in the US. Have you seen our licensed drivers?!?!?!?!!!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ive been almost killed by far more "dumbassery" via motor vehicles then I have via guns
Exactly. I've never been injured on a range (not including an exploding gun) but I've been in plenty of accidents.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
If the government made firearms safety and training classes tax write offs, that could potentially help. I mean, it IS education.
I'm down with this. I could write off all my shooting competition expenses including practice.
Does the Second Amendment prevent Congress from passing gun-control laws? The question, which is suddenly pressing, in light of the reaction to the school massacre in Newtown, is rooted in politics as much as law.
For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.
Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup d’état at the group’s annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to power—as part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party. (Jill Lepore recounted this history in a recent piece for The New Yorker.) The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.”
But the N.R.A. kept pushing—and there’s a lesson here. Conservatives often embrace “originalism,” the idea that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed when it was ratified, in 1787. They mock the so-called liberal idea of a “living” constitution, whose meaning changes with the values of the country at large. But there is no better example of the living Constitution than the conservative re-casting of the Second Amendment in the last few decades of the twentieth century. (Reva Siegel, of Yale Law School, elaborates on this point in a brilliant article.)
The re-interpretation of the Second Amendment was an elaborate and brilliantly executed political operation, inside and outside of government. Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980 brought a gun-rights enthusiast to the White House. At the same time, Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican, became chairman of an important subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he commissioned a report that claimed to find “clear—and long lost—proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms.” The N.R.A. began commissioning academic studies aimed at proving the same conclusion. An outré constitutional theory, rejected even by the establishment of the Republican Party, evolved, through brute political force, into the conservative conventional wisdom.
Frankenberry wrote: See, licenses aren't needed. There are laws that prohibit the use of a gun incorrectly; murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, etc. I don't see why there needs to be a whole new set of laws to regulate what I do with my property that aren't already covered by existing laws. That's sort of the point a lot of people miss, it isn't that pro-gun folks are against being responsible, it's that we're against being forced to register our property for no reason.
Two reasons for licenses:
1) Laws punish you for doing something after the harm is already done. A license attempts to stop you from doing something before it happens.
2) Your examples of existing laws only cover malicious crimes, not accidents or ignorance. A license should ensure that people understand things like self defense laws, safe gun storage and handling, etc, and screen out the people who don't care enough to do those things.
cincydooley wrote: We require people to take a driving test once, and that sure as gak doesn't yield tons of responsible drivers....
That's because the driving test (at least around here) is an absolute joke: pull out of the parking spot, turn left, turn left, 3-point turn, drive back to the parking spot and here's your license. It's maybe five minutes of driving, with nothing even remotely challenging. And you certainly don't get anything from the 20-question written test that you can "study for" and pass with a few more minutes of effort. If we actually took driver's licenses seriously things would be very different. For example, to get a license to fly even the smallest planes in the nicest weather you have a legal minimum of 40 hours of flight time in training (plus any classroom time) and a strict checklist of things that have to be covered which makes the real number of hours quite a bit larger (it took me 23.5 hours just to fly solo locally and under supervision, and 63 hours to get my full license). Then you have a verbal test and a ~45 minute checkride with a federal examiner, where you have to demonstrate a long list of tasks, all within fairly strict error margins, and can fail the test at any time if you make a mistake. And that's just the basics. Want to fly passengers for money? Now you need hundreds of hours of flight time, more training, and an even stricter test. Oh, and crash a plane? Have fun re-taking all of those tests before you're allowed to fly again.
Now imagine the same kind of thing for gun ownership: the equivalent of a full college class on how to safely use and own guns, followed by a tough exam covering both theory (gun laws, etc) and practice (shooting accuracy, safe handling, etc). I suspect the number of gun accidents, carelessly stored guns, and similar stupidity would go down considerably. Just like the car accident rate would go down if getting a driver's license was actually a difficult task that involved legitimate training.
Frankenberry wrote: See, licenses aren't needed. There are laws that prohibit the use of a gun incorrectly; murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, etc. I don't see why there needs to be a whole new set of laws to regulate what I do with my property that aren't already covered by existing laws. That's sort of the point a lot of people miss, it isn't that pro-gun folks are against being responsible, it's that we're against being forced to register our property for no reason.
Two reasons for licenses:
1) Laws punish you for doing something after the harm is already done. A license attempts to stop you from doing something before it happens.
2) Your examples of existing laws only cover malicious crimes, not accidents or ignorance. A license should ensure that people understand things like self defense laws, safe gun storage and handling, etc, and screen out the people who don't care enough to do those things.
cincydooley wrote: We require people to take a driving test once, and that sure as gak doesn't yield tons of responsible drivers....
That's because the driving test (at least around here) is an absolute joke: pull out of the parking spot, turn left, turn left, 3-point turn, drive back to the parking spot and here's your license. It's maybe five minutes of driving, with nothing even remotely challenging. And you certainly don't get anything from the 20-question written test that you can "study for" and pass with a few more minutes of effort. If we actually took driver's licenses seriously things would be very different. For example, to get a license to fly even the smallest planes in the nicest weather you have a legal minimum of 40 hours of flight time in training (plus any classroom time) and a strict checklist of things that have to be covered which makes the real number of hours quite a bit larger (it took me 23.5 hours just to fly solo locally and under supervision, and 63 hours to get my full license). Then you have a verbal test and a ~45 minute checkride with a federal examiner, where you have to demonstrate a long list of tasks, all within fairly strict error margins, and can fail the test at any time if you make a mistake. And that's just the basics. Want to fly passengers for money? Now you need hundreds of hours of flight time, more training, and an even stricter test. Oh, and crash a plane? Have fun re-taking all of those tests before you're allowed to fly again.
Uhhhh I had to take a 30 minute test in which I fail 5 times
Grey Templar wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Manslaughter(Involuntary Manslaughter) covers accidents and ignorence(AKA: Stupidity)
That depends on meeting the burden of proof for criminal negligence. A license (with appropriate training and testing) covers misuse that doesn't reach that level, or doesn't reach it convincingly enough that it can be prosecuted effectively.
Licensing is never about responsbiity, at least not in the US. Have you seen our licensed drivers?!?!?!?!!!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ive been almost killed by far more "dumbassery" via motor vehicles then I have via guns
Exactly. I've never been injured on a range (not including an exploding gun) but I've been in plenty of accidents.
I think that is an argument for stricter driving test and better licensing and enforcement of cars rather than the other way around. By all accounts the US driving test is a joke in comparison to the UK.
I don't know if it's the military training, but I find it hard to imagine being unaware that a gun is loaded. Something in my minds snaps into place and the mentality is "HOT" as soon as a magazine is even put in, let alone actually loaded. Seeing people storing weapons with a round in the chamber is a huge red flag in my head. I wouldn't even store a magazine loaded, much less a rifle, regardless of how secure it is. In a way, there's a feeling your whole life, and the lives of those around you is dependent on that selector switch being on safe when you're live. Even with imitation firearms, like airsoft or paintball, safety is paramount.
it's just something you should instinctively be aware of , I think. There are a LOT of stupid people who own guns though, and a lot of people who were not brought up with guns and never took the time to learn weapons safety (or proper shooting technique, but that's another issue).
Did he really shoot himself in the foot with a .40 +AP? I can't believe it. No way he could just keep it rolling like that after being shot in the foot. He must have just barely grazed his boot or something.
Kind of pathetic that he asked someone off camera to verify that it was unloaded, and neither of them noticed that there was a round in the chamber, in a room full of people.
Captain Fantastic wrote: . I wouldn't even store a magazine loaded, much less a rifle, regardless of how secure it is.
I keep my pistol in my safe with the magazine loaded but separate. I can't imagine in a home-invasion, or i heard a noise and maybe a burglar type issue, I'll have time to load up a mag; what's wrong with keeping a magazine loaded?
Captain Fantastic wrote: . I wouldn't even store a magazine loaded, much less a rifle, regardless of how secure it is.
I keep my pistol in my safe with the magazine loaded but separate. I can't imagine in a home-invasion, or i heard a noise and maybe a burglar type issue, I'll have time to load up a mag; what's wrong with keeping a magazine loaded?
Well one quick safe has a full loaded .44 mag. The other has a loaded but not cocked 9mm with two spare mags sitting there.
At the other house I have a loaded .380 but not cocked in a chest within hands reach of the comfy chair I sit in, and a fully loaded Wingmaster by the bed, also not cocked.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
I'm not saying it is, all I'm saying is that I agree with you that responsible owners are not the problem. But that dose not mean you don't need to deal with the irresponsible ones. Same with cars, but we try and deal with that before they have an accident. That doesn't always happen, but it is better than letting everyone drive how they like until they crash.
Actually, that seems to be basically, EXACTLY what they do with automobiles. We "train" people to drive a multi-ton machine, give them a multiple-guess test, a "driving test" and send them on their merry way. Beyond that, we have laws on the books prohibiting things like drink driving, or depending on your locality, the use of phones whilst operating a vehicle, etc. HOWEVER, all those laws dont fix the problem of being a dumbass, or sheer stupid. All these laws deal with consequences AFTER someone is caught in the act, or gets in a wreck, etc.
So, ultimately I feel that while certain licenses are OK, or necessary, guns are not in that category; And just because a person has a license, does not mean that they aren't going to be stupid with it. That goes with driving, insurance, stock brokering, cutting hair, etc.
I still workout with my body armor on. Keeping all 15 mags loaded and body plates in slots. When the economy collapse and its everyone for themselves....I aim to misbehave in the right way and await the coming of our new Glorious Leader Kronk at DakkaDakka Fortress of Debauchery
Government can't possibly prevent people from being dumbasses. Any attempt to try will be...well...dumbassed.
This is an education issue. Since liberals have tried (and succeeded, unfortunately) in removing all firearms education from public school systems, it's no wonder that accidents happen. People raised around guns are far less likely to shoot themselves accidentally.
Frankenberry wrote: I think the simple response to all of this is: you can't fix stupid. Regardless of the amount of safety's you put in place people will still think that it can't happen to them, or that they're smarter than that, etc.
I think this is the rub of it. People are pretty stupid. And not just specific people who are stupid all the time, but most people at some point or another do something pretty stupid. And just sometimes that has tragic circumstances. And that means that any society that loves guns is just going to end up with guns in the hands of people who are, at that moment in time, being very stupid.
It's why the video in the OP left me cold - you think the founding fathers never saw anyone do someting stupid? We're talking about an age with very little schooling, limited access to books, and almost the entire population working in menial jobs... the Foundind Fathers would have seen stupid on a daily basis.
The real difference between then and now is that we have begun to think that every misfortune is preventable. Gone are the days when you had 8 kids and figured 3 should get to adulthood and secure your lineage, now we have just 2 and then spend every moment worrying about all the scary things on the news that might happen to them.
Risk is now unacceptable, but unfortunately we really haven't figured out how to have a sensible conversation about balancing risk against removing fun things from our society. Try listening to a discussion on speed limits, you'll hear people shouting 'dangerous lunatics' on one side, and 'nanny state revenue raisers' on the other, without almost no-one trying to explain what the real speeding risks. The gun debate, if anything, is even sillier, full of nonsense about protecting our children on one side (as if primary school kids are anywhere near a significant part of the death toll), and shouts about freedom and the dangers of cars on the other.
Which is, I think, a different kind of stupid, and probably just as dangerous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Government can't possibly prevent people from being dumbasses. Any attempt to try will be...well...dumbassed.
Yeah, everyone, this is exactly what I'm getting at in my post above. There is just so much silliness in the debate. Actual, sensible stuff never gets discussed because it gets drowned out in stuff like this.
This is an education issue. Since liberals have tried (and succeeded, unfortunately) in removing all firearms education from public school systems, it's no wonder that accidents happen. People raised around guns are far less likely to shoot themselves accidentally.
It's the fault of them durn liberals. Or possibly the decline of gun awareness is due to something a lot more sensible, such as the decline in the rural working population (who by the nature of their jobs had to know gun safety), replaced by suburbanite gun owners.
Jihadin wrote: I still workout with my body armor on. Keeping all 15 mags loaded and body plates in slots. When the economy collapse and its everyone for themselves....I aim to misbehave in the right way and await the coming of our new Glorious Leader Kronk at DakkaDakka Fortress of Debauchery
I do this because I'm forced to, but it makes sense. The resistance you gain and the familiarity of wearing body armor (assuming IOTV here) in situations like running and hell, even doing pull-ups is valuable.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Government can't possibly prevent people from being dumbasses. Any attempt to try will be...well...dumbassed.
People said the same thing about drunk driving but we have drastically cut that down in the last 40 years.
That actually fits the militiaman's agenda. Drunk driving is not down due to "education." Its down due to severe penalties, and unconstitutional road sweeps of all drivers. Thats what we are arguing for (except the unconstitutional part).
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Government can't possibly prevent people from being dumbasses. Any attempt to try will be...well...dumbassed.
Yeah, everyone, this is exactly what I'm getting at in my post above. There is just so much silliness in the debate. Actual, sensible stuff never gets discussed because it gets drowned out in stuff like this.
This is an education issue. Since liberals have tried (and succeeded, unfortunately) in removing all firearms education from public school systems, it's no wonder that accidents happen. People raised around guns are far less likely to shoot themselves accidentally.
It's the fault of them durn liberals. Or possibly the decline of gun awareness is due to something a lot more sensible, such as the decline in the rural working population (who by the nature of their jobs had to know gun safety), replaced by suburbanite gun owners.
Time to prove your theory on the decline of "gun awareness," or cease calling others' posts "silliness."
Generally, accidental firearms deaths have been on a steady decline since the 50's. The greatest effect, in the mid 70's, coincides with state-mandated requirements for hunter safety courses.
I know that as an Australian, you expect the government to shake it for you after you go to the bathroom, but we do things a bit differently here in America.
Captain Fantastic wrote: . I wouldn't even store a magazine loaded, much less a rifle, regardless of how secure it is.
I keep my pistol in my safe with the magazine loaded but separate. I can't imagine in a home-invasion, or i heard a noise and maybe a burglar type issue, I'll have time to load up a mag; what's wrong with keeping a magazine loaded?
Yeah... all the magazines on my AR-10 are loaded. What's the magazine going to do, walk across the room and insert itself into the firearm?
However, please god can we stop comparing guns to cars.
1. There are far more cars in comparison to guns and they are in constant use. Think of the amount of time you spend driving, and how many other people are doing it, and the amount of time you spend using a gun and the number of others doing it. The numbers are vastly different, so comparing raw numbers of auto related deaths to gun related deaths, or even numbers per head of population or something, is ridiculous.
2. Cars are a requirement to live and work in many parts of the US, guns are not in most areas. You could argue they are required for defense in some places.
That said I'm pro gun control in Europe but not in the US. It seems to me that you can't really get the cat back in the bag in the US, and posters here have convinced me that the background checks and so on are mostly as good as they can be in many states- states with ridiculous regulations are outliers.
But I can't excuse poor statistical arguments!
However, please god can we stop comparing guns to cars.
1. There are far more cars in comparison to guns and they are in constant use. Think of the amount of time you spend driving, and how many other people are doing it, and the amount of time you spend using a gun and the number of others doing it. The numbers are vastly different, so comparing raw numbers of auto related deaths to gun related deaths, or even numbers per head of population or something, is ridiculous.
2. Cars are a requirement to live and work in many parts of the US, guns are not in most areas. You could argue they are required for defense in some places.
That said I'm pro gun control in Europe but not in the US. It seems to me that you can't really get the cat back in the bag in the US, and posters here have convinced me that the background checks and so on are mostly as good as they can be in many states- states with ridiculous regulations are outliers.
But I can't excuse poor statistical arguments!
In the US, there are actually more guns. There are 300mm firearms in the US.
However, please god can we stop comparing guns to cars.
1. There are far more cars in comparison to guns and they are in constant use. Think of the amount of time you spend driving, and how many other people are doing it, and the amount of time you spend using a gun and the number of others doing it. The numbers are vastly different, so comparing raw numbers of auto related deaths to gun related deaths, or even numbers per head of population or something, is ridiculous.
2. Cars are a requirement to live and work in many parts of the US, guns are not in most areas. You could argue they are required for defense in some places.
That said I'm pro gun control in Europe but not in the US. It seems to me that you can't really get the cat back in the bag in the US, and posters here have convinced me that the background checks and so on are mostly as good as they can be in many states- states with ridiculous regulations are outliers.
But I can't excuse poor statistical arguments!
In the US, there are actually more guns. There are 300mm firearms in the US.
Point still stands!
How many of those are in use at any one time!
I am, I'm saying the populations you are comparing aren't comparable in the way that you are comparing them. That is the basis of all statistics, and the basis of all abuse of statistics.
Da Boss wrote: I am, I'm saying the populations you are comparing aren't comparable in the way that you are comparing them. That is the basis of all statistics, and the basis of all abuse of statistics.
DUDE you brought it up. So you're impugning yourself.
Da Boss wrote: I am, I'm saying the populations you are comparing aren't comparable in the way that you are comparing them. That is the basis of all statistics, and the basis of all abuse of statistics.
I see what you're saying here, and agree with you for the most part. In order to get an accurate feel for prevalence of use, we would need first to define "in use."
The handgun that I carry every single day...is that "in use" even though I'm not pulling the trigger? How about the rifle next to the bed that the homeowner keeps there in case of a home invasion? It's not so easy to define using a firearm as it is to define using a car.
Da Boss wrote: I'm not pro gun control, I'm anti bad arguments.
Have all the guns you like, it doesn't bother me.
Da Boss wrote: That said I'm pro gun control in Europe but not in the US.
Edit: So you're fine with taking away your countrymen's form of self defense (Where you might actually have a say) but in the US where your opinion actually doesn't count you don't mind.
"countrymen's form of self defence" is a bit much. There's far fewer guns available in Europe, which results in fewer firearm related deaths in most EU countries (AFAIK). There's no need for firearms for self defence here, and most people want restrictions. Just makes sense.
Plus, I owned a gun from age 16, for hunting. It's not like you can't get one, you just need a license to do so and a reason for it's use. For most people, self defence isn't seen as a reasonable use because the risk of being attacked and needing to defend yourself with deadly force is just too low.
Totally different situation in the US from what I understand, so I (shock) have a different opinion.
Da Boss wrote: "countrymen's form of self defence" is a bit much. There's far fewer guns available in Europe, which results in fewer firearm related deaths in most EU countries (AFAIK). There's no need for firearms for self defence here, and most people want restrictions. Just makes sense.
Plus, I owned a gun from age 16, for hunting. It's not like you can't get one, you just need a license to do so and a reason for it's use. For most people, self defence isn't seen as a reasonable use because the risk of being attacked and needing to defend yourself with deadly force is just too low.
I think this may even come down to area... I was stationed in Wiesbaden, which is generally very nice, and my personal carry "self-defense" weapon that I felt I needed would be fingernail clippers. However, when I visited Berlin, we drove through some areas that I would only have felt safe at night in, if I were driving an Abrams tank
I've also seen "reports" about areas of Marseilles where I, as a white guy, simply CANNOT enter. These areas have been literally overrun and "fortified" by various Muslim immigrants. Things are to the point where even the French police forces cannot enter these areas.
The same is true in the US. The town I grew up in is generally pretty safe, and even though I might Concealed Carry there (if I had the license), I do not feel compelled to do so. Compare that with areas of say, Chicago, or LA, etc.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: The town I grew up in is generally pretty safe, and even though I might Concealed Carry there (if I had the license), I do not feel compelled to do so. Compare that with areas of say, Chicago, or LA, etc.
Which, somewhat ironically (and I would add, unfortunately), also happen to both be places where it is rather difficult for the average citizen to get a concealed carry license.
CCW permits are just a formality in a lot of places. I would be willing to bet less than half of the people that carry a handgun on them on a daily basis bother to apply for a CCW permit, especially in states like Maryland, where it's almost impossible to get a permit.
I'm not saying breaking the law is acceptable, but if you have a real need to defend yourself, perhaps it's better to break a few laws than be dead in the street, or raped, or any number of horrible things that could have possibly been avoided. I don't know how the law works in the situation that you end up killing someone in self-defense with a pistol you were not allowed to carry though.
Captain Fantastic wrote: CCW permits are just a formality in a lot of places. I would be willing to bet less than half of the people that carry a handgun on them on a daily basis bother to apply for a CCW permit, especially in states like Maryland, where it's almost impossible to get a permit.
I'm not saying breaking the law is acceptable, but if you have a real need to defend yourself, perhaps it's better to break a few laws than be dead in the street, or raped, or any number of horrible things that could have possibly been avoided. I don't know how the law works in the situation that you end up killing someone in self-defense with a pistol you were not allowed to carry though.
You get the first half of being judged by 12 rather than be carried by 6.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Time to prove your theory on the decline of "gun awareness," or cease calling others' posts "silliness."
So first you say gun accidents are because liberals got gun education taken out of schools, and then you say gun accidents are on a decrease.
Yeah, exactly what I'm talking about. Nonsense from people who don't give a gak that they're spouting nonsense, who just end up preventing a sensible conversation.
I know that as an Australian, you expect the government to shake it for you after you go to the bathroom, but we do things a bit differently here in America.
You don't actually know much about Australia, do you?
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Time to prove your theory on the decline of "gun awareness," or cease calling others' posts "silliness."
So first you say gun accidents are because liberals got gun education taken out of schools, and then you say gun accidents are on a decrease.
Yeah, exactly what I'm talking about. Nonsense from people who don't give a gak that they're spouting nonsense, who just end up preventing a sensible conversation.
I know that as an Australian, you expect the government to shake it for you after you go to the bathroom, but we do things a bit differently here in America.
You don't actually know much about Australia, do you?
Assigning attributions has nothing to do with frequency, however I have demonstrated a temporal connection. You have demonstrated absolutely nothing except the fact that you know nothing about this topic.
Time for you to prove your theory or step away from the keyboard.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Assigning attributions has nothing to do with frequency, however I have demonstrated a temporal connection.
Your temporal connection is connecting declining rates of accidents with durn librals stopping gun courses in schools. To the extent that mashing together vague ideas with loose connections could be seen as evidence of anything, its establishing the opposite of what you claimed.
You have established absolutely nothing except the fact that you know nothing about this topic.
Time for you to prove your theory or step away from the keyboard.
My theory? I have one? My only claim here is that your theory is nonsense.
I mean, to the extent that I've theorised anything, it's that the rural population has declined relative to the suburban population, and that the rural population typically has a much higher knowledge of guns than the suburban population. And if you're asking me to prove either of those two things... well that would be quite sad. Ridiculous and sad.
Anyhow, this is stupid. I just wrote a little piece about how gun control debates get dragged in to the ridiculous by ridiculous people, preventing sensible discussion, and here I am, trying to bring some sense to a ridiculous argument. It's something that happens to me too often, and a few times before from you, nuggz.
Da Boss wrote: Yes, exactly. It's almost as if the comparison is not useful.
The entire discussion is useless. RKBA is a constitutionally protected right, and your right to protect yourself is morally correct.
Debating away someone's right to self-defense is one of the most morally reprehensible things one human being can do to another.
That is a clever new argument!
We can't have gun control because it is morally reprehensible to talk about it.
I thought free speech was mentioned somewhere in the constitution?
Free speech is mentioned in the constitution, and nowhere did I write that you can't talk about things that are morally reprehensible.
For example, if you really wanted to curb gun violence in the US, you could start by removing all African Americans from the United States as they commit a disproportionate number of murders. We shouldn't do this, as it's morally reprehensible, but we should feel free to talk about it. And, unlike banning guns, committing genocide against African Americans might actually do something to swing the numbers.
Sure. So, if you really want to make things happen, it's time to start deporting African Americans. Let's not be stingy while we're violating peoples' civil rights.
According to the US Department of Justice, blacks accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and Native Americans and Asians 2.2%. The offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites, and the victim rate 6 times higher. Most murders were intraracial, with 84% of white homicide victims murdered by whites, and 93% of black victims murdered by blacks.[32][33]
We could cut the homicide rate in half just by implementing this one common sense measure!
@Nuggz: I get that you are making a "modest proposal" type sardonic point but it concerns a sensitive issue. If possible, I'd suggest using a different metaphor. Thanks!
Manchu wrote: @Nuggz: I get that you are making a "modest proposal" type sardonic point but it concerns a sensitive issue. If possible, I'd suggest using a different metaphor. Thanks!
As someone whose people were disarmed by law, then herded at gunpoint (ironically) into gas chambers and ovens, I assure you that gun control is no less sensitive an issue for many people.
Manchu wrote: @Nuggz: I get that you are making a "modest proposal" type sardonic point but it concerns a sensitive issue. If possible, I'd suggest using a different metaphor. Thanks!
And for some, the 2nd Amendment is no less sensitive. So why not provide the special warnings for those things?
Frazzled wrote: Portion control is a pretty sensitive topic for me...
(just lightening things up)
Perhaps the Gov't should install an electronic scale at the entryway to all Golden Corral, and other "all you can eat" establishments, to prevent overly large people from hurting themselves further by eating too much at one of these places?
Frazzled wrote: Portion control is a pretty sensitive topic for me...
(just lightening things up)
Perhaps the Gov't should install an electronic scale at the entryway to all Golden Corral, and other "all you can eat" establishments, to prevent overly large people from hurting themselves further by eating too much at one of these places?
Well, I mentioned that gun control debates often aren't very constructive because so many people in the debate tend to make such ridiculous arguments. And shortly after I make that point there are people honestly comparing gun control to genocide. So um... yeah.
As someone whose people were disarmed by law, then herded at gunpoint (ironically) into gas chambers and ovens, I assure you that gun control is no less sensitive an issue for many people.
So your (I assume) Jewish heritage informs your understanding of what it is to be "American"?
As someone whose people were disarmed by law, then herded at gunpoint (ironically) into gas chambers and ovens, I assure you that gun control is no less sensitive an issue for many people.
So your (I assume) Jewish heritage informs your understanding of what it is to be "American"?
No but it provides a unique view of what happens when a people are disarmed by the government.
Because the people that view gun issues as equivalent to racial issues are wrong.
Interestingly, gun laws in the South were first put in place preciesly because of racism as part of Jim Crow, so that Afircan Americans couldn't get them and gain power.
And for some, the 2nd Amendment is no less sensitive. So why not provide the special warnings for those things?
Because the people that view gun issues as equivalent to racial issues are wrong.
No you are wrong. Those issues are on the exact same level of ground as free speech issues, search and seizure issues, and every other civil right issue that the constitution protects. The same exact level.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Government can't possibly prevent people from being dumbasses. Any attempt to try will be...well...dumbassed.
This is an education issue. Since liberals have tried (and succeeded, unfortunately) in removing all firearms education from public school systems, it's no wonder that accidents happen. People raised around guns are far less likely to shoot themselves accidentally.
^^^^^Exalted^^^^^^^
I go through the basics with all my students, regardless of training level. These are fundamental to safe firearms handling:
1.) A gun is always loaded
Treat every firearm as if it is loaded. Give it the proper respect a loaded firearm deserves, never assume. You are allowed ZERO mistakes when handling a firearm. Every bullet fired from a firearm you are handling has your name on it: you are responsible for where it lands.
2.) Be aware of where your muzzle is pointed
Never point your firearm or allow your firearm to point to something or someone you are not willing to destroy.
3.) Keep your finger off the trigger until target is in sights
When drawing and presenting your firearm, your trigger finger is to be kept straight horizontally above the trigger guard until you are lined up to the target. Most "accidents" occur because people have their booger picker on the bang switch.
4.) Be sure of your target
Identify your target, as well as what lies behind and to the sides of the target. Bullets dont know when to stop. They can over penetrate your intended target with enough force to be still lethal. Identify your target means you do NOT engage shadows or sounds. Remember every bullet fired from a firearm you are handling has your name on it: you are responsible for where it lands.
Spacemanvic wrote: Identify your target means you do NOT engage shadows or sounds. Remember every bullet fired from a firearm you are handling has your name on it: you are responsible for where it lands.
