Ok, So does not only does this kid put his finger over the trigger(Its fake in shooting, but real in the video) but keeps a gun on him in class, with the magazine in it and shows it and shoves it down infront of the teacher.
How does a mother havinng a gun preclude a safe enviroment? I would feel more safe with a gun in my house.
Looks like the Gun Control movement just went full pants on head stupid.
If it didn't involve a kid getting hurt I would hope someone actually followed their advice and hurt someone doing it just to show how stupid this idea is.
Let's see...
1) Theft of a firearm
2) Minor in Possession of a Firearm
3) Unlicensed Concealed Carry of a Firearm
4) Unlawful Possession of a Firearm on a school campus
5) Brandishing
6) Theft of a Firearm by Receiving
7) Conspiracy to commit Firearm Crimes (RICO)
8) Gun Trafficing (assuming enough minors follow the video)
9) Am I missing any? This started in San Fransico, CA!
At this point the minor, if tried as an adult and if charged with all crimes could easily get more than 100 years behind bars. Boggles the mind that anyone would air this video.
I find it remarkable that the gun was able to travel that far, and in the hands of a minor, and into a school without hurting, well, anyone.
I mean, there was no violence to actually stop. Certainly no GUN violence. I guess theft isn't a violent crime, though the ones whembly mentioned are pretty bad ones to get mixed up in.
I don't think I've ever met a kid that wouldn't be like 'sweet, a gun to play with'. Unless they're an idealistic wannabe hippie that read about how guns are bad on some blog, but those kids are stupid anyways. So I mean, teaching kids to be safe and responsible sure.
Every once and a while you read about a kid bringing a gun to school, but it's always something dumb like their friends made them do it on a dare.
Let's see...
1) Theft of a firearm
2) Minor in Possession of a Firearm
3) Unlicensed Concealed Carry of a Firearm
4) Unlawful Possession of a Firearm on a school campus
5) Brandishing
6) Theft of a Firearm by Receiving
7) Conspiracy to commit Firearm Crimes (RICO)
8) Gun Trafficing (assuming enough minors follow the video)
9) Am I missing any? This started in San Fransico, CA!
At this point the minor, if tried as an adult and if charged with all crimes could easily get more than 100 years behind bars. Boggles the mind that anyone would air this video.
Absolutely deeply repugnant.
10) Possession of stolen property
11) Receiving stolen property(separate from receiving a stolen firearm)
12) Reckless Endangerment
Let's see...
1) Theft of a firearm
2) Minor in Possession of a Firearm
3) Unlicensed Concealed Carry of a Firearm
4) Unlawful Possession of a Firearm on a school campus
5) Brandishing
6) Theft of a Firearm by Receiving
7) Conspiracy to commit Firearm Crimes (RICO)
8) Gun Trafficing (assuming enough minors follow the video)
9) Am I missing any? This started in San Fransico, CA!
At this point the minor, if tried as an adult and if charged with all crimes could easily get more than 100 years behind bars. Boggles the mind that anyone would air this video.
Absolutely deeply repugnant.
RICO has nothing to do with gun violence, or any firearm crimes. It's an acronym. It stands for "Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations"... it's meant to point to the Mafia and other Organized Crime syndicates.
Let's see...
1) Theft of a firearm
2) Minor in Possession of a Firearm
3) Unlicensed Concealed Carry of a Firearm
4) Unlawful Possession of a Firearm on a school campus
5) Brandishing
6) Theft of a Firearm by Receiving
7) Conspiracy to commit Firearm Crimes (RICO)
8) Gun Trafficing (assuming enough minors follow the video)
9) Am I missing any? This started in San Fransico, CA!
At this point the minor, if tried as an adult and if charged with all crimes could easily get more than 100 years behind bars. Boggles the mind that anyone would air this video.
Absolutely deeply repugnant.
Are you sure about #2? I don't think that's a crime, Guns are marketed towards kids and "responsible" gun owners buy guns for their 5 year old kids. and I forget how old was the girl at the shooting range with a semi automatic weapon?
and I think #3 varies by state, in some you don't need a license to conceal carry.
Let's see...
1) Theft of a firearm
2) Minor in Possession of a Firearm
3) Unlicensed Concealed Carry of a Firearm
4) Unlawful Possession of a Firearm on a school campus
5) Brandishing
6) Theft of a Firearm by Receiving
7) Conspiracy to commit Firearm Crimes (RICO)
8) Gun Trafficing (assuming enough minors follow the video)
9) Am I missing any? This started in San Fransico, CA!
At this point the minor, if tried as an adult and if charged with all crimes could easily get more than 100 years behind bars. Boggles the mind that anyone would air this video.
Absolutely deeply repugnant.
Are you sure about #2? I don't think that's a crime, Guns are marketed towards kids and "responsible" gun owners buy guns for their 5 year old kids. and I forget how old was the girl at the shooting range with a semi automatic weapon?
and I think #3 varies by state, in some you don't need a license to conceal carry.
DarkLink wrote: I don't think I've ever met a kid that wouldn't be like 'sweet, a gun to play with'.
And yet, kids get shot and/or killed all the time because of access to unsecured firearms.
...no gak. Because the kids find the gun and play with them, not hand them over to their teachers. Hence my comment that you should teach your kids to safely handle any firearms rather than play with them.
As for "all the time", if you're concerned with unsafe behaviors hurting your children, you should be more worried about car accidents, drinking household chemicals, drowning in a swimming pool, or one of any number of things off a very long list of preventable causes of death that kills more kids than firearm ownership does. Pools alone kill something like a hundred kids for every kid accidentally killed or injured by a firearm.
Moral of the story, there's no reason to be concerned about owning a gun with kids in the home, but you should still be responsible and either lock them up or teach the kids to safely handle the firearm, preferably both.
Here's an article from Yahoo! Parenting of all places that touches on what's been said here. All aboard the crazy train, people.
Jennifer O'Neill wrote:'Monumentally Stupid' Anti-Gun PSA Urges Kids to Steal Parents’ Firearms
For once, gun control advocates and gun rights groups agree — they’re fired up about a new video that urges kids to steal their parents’ guns and hand them over to teachers at school.
The controversial Dec. 13 clip from Sleeper 13 Productions in San Francisco, titled “Stop Gun Violence - PSA,” shows a teenage boy take a handgun from his mother’s dresser drawer, stash it in his backpack, and bring it to class. Walking up to his teacher after the period ends, the student slaps the gun on her desk. “Can you take this away?” the child actor asks the shocked teacher. “I don’t feel safe with a gun in my house.”
Then the messages “Our children deserve a safe world” and “Stop gun violence now” are plastered onscreen before production credits run, notably lacking any sponsors or collaborating organizations.
The nearly 3-minute video has been viewed more than 320,000 times since it was released on YouTube 10 days ago, and it has prompted over 6,300 comments, the majority of them critical. More than 18,000 viewers gave it a thumbs-down, compared to just 138 “likes,” one of which applauded the piece as “truly inspiring.”
Irresponsible is more like it, wrote another commentator: “This encourages children to lie and steal. It endangers the children and others, and puts them at risk by encouraging them to handle weapons they probably haven’t had any training with.” Yet another critic weighed in: “Gun safety isn’t about getting people to ‘steal’ guns and give them away but teaching people, children, adults, whomever about gun safety.”
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms even put out a press release detailing the number of crimes depicted in the piece. “We’re talking about felony theft of a firearm, illegal possession of a handgun by a minor, having a gun in a school, illegal concealed carry by a minor, brandishing and maybe one or two other crimes, depending upon the jurisdiction,” wrote chairman Alan Gottlieb on Dec. 22. “… At the very least, the boy in this video would wind up being arrested and face felony charges.” As should the creator, Gottlieb continued: “The message of this video is so monumentally stupid that if any youth does something like this after watching it, the producers should face charges.”
But the filmmaker, Rejina Sincic, told Yahoo Parenting that she stands by the piece and its message. “Kids shouldn’t have access to firearms in their homes,” Sincic emailed Yahoo Parenting, without responding to an inquiry about who sponsored the video. “Violent crimes have been committed by children who wrongfully had access to firearms. Society as a whole should take stricter measures to keep guns out of the hands of children.”
Is there value at least in the discussion that it raises? Dr. Paul Hokemeyer, for one, thinks so. “It doesn’t use fear in a gratuitous, salacious way,” the family therapist told Yahoo Parenting. “Parents can use this as a tool to open a dialogue with their children about gun control and family well-being. They can also use it to let their children know they have a voice that is heard and respected.”
The real danger in this video, says one gun control advocate, is in the unsaid. “Who paid for this and what are their motivations?” asked the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Communications Director Ladd Everitt, noting that “zillions” of people post videos expressing their position on guns. “I’m suspicious, considering it only started to get coverage after right-wing media seized on it.” All the uproar this video has raised is “sad,” he continued. “It’s working up good people who mean well and really support gun control.”
I live in Sweden, so guns aren't a problem, but if I lived in the US, I'd feel safer if no one had guns except for criminals, instead of everyone having one.
Matthew wrote: I live in Sweden, so guns aren't a problem, but if I lived in the US, I'd feel safer if no one had guns except for criminals, instead of everyone having one.
Maybe it's a translation issue...
You'd feel safer as long as it was only the criminals who had guns?
Matthew wrote: I live in Sweden, so guns aren't a problem, but if I lived in the US, I'd feel safer if no one had guns except for criminals, instead of everyone having one.
Maybe it's a translation issue...
You'd feel safer as long as it was only the criminals who had guns?
Matthew wrote: I live in Sweden, so guns aren't a problem, but if I lived in the US, I'd feel safer if no one had guns except for criminals, instead of everyone having one.
Maybe it's a translation issue...
You'd feel safer as long as it was only the criminals who had guns?
Mhm. A competent police force protects me better than having a gun in every single house.
I'd rather have people steal my things than to have my future children die in a school shooting.
Matthew wrote: I live in Sweden, so guns aren't a problem, but if I lived in the US, I'd feel safer if no one had guns except for criminals, instead of everyone having one.
Maybe it's a translation issue...
You'd feel safer as long as it was only the criminals who had guns?
Mhm. A competent police force protects me better than having a gun in every single house.
I'd rather have people steal my things than to have my future children die in a school shooting.
Matthew wrote: I live in Sweden, so guns aren't a problem, but if I lived in the US, I'd feel safer if no one had guns except for criminals, instead of everyone having one.
Maybe it's a translation issue...
You'd feel safer as long as it was only the criminals who had guns?
Mhm. A competent police force protects me better than having a gun in every single house.
I'd rather have people steal my things than to have my future children die in a school shooting.
Does it now? A couple years back a friend of mine had an intruder on his property. Guy was going through his garage Took the police 25 minutes to get to the house. Would have taken the intruder about 5 seconds to walk from the garage to the front door had he intended to do something violent. (My friend owns about 15 fire arms. Would have ended badly for the other guy.)
At any rate, there were roughly 2000 victims of rape due to home invasions every year. About 3,000 victims of other forms of serious assault (Justice Department doesn't put murder numbers in home invasion stats for some reason). School shootings? Maybe about 10 a year? In a nation with about 100,000 schools. Seems one is at much greater risk for one of these issues then another.
Matthew wrote: I live in Sweden, so guns aren't a problem, but if I lived in the US, I'd feel safer if no one had guns except for criminals, instead of everyone having one.
Maybe it's a translation issue...
You'd feel safer as long as it was only the criminals who had guns?
Mhm. A competent police force protects me better than having a gun in every single house.
I'd rather have people steal my things than to have my future children die in a school shooting.
Does it now? A couple years back a friend of mine had an intruder on his property. Guy was going through his garage Took the police 25 minutes to get to the house. Would have taken the intruder about 5 seconds to walk from the garage to the front door had he intended to do something violent.
At any rate, there were roughly 2000 victims of rape due to home invasions every year. About 3,000 victims of other forms of serious assault (Justice Department doesn't put murder numbers in home invasion stats for some reason). School shootings? Maybe about 10 a year? In a nation with about 100,000 schools. Seems one is at much greater risk for one of these issues then another.
I said COMPETENT police force, like we hvae in Sweden. I mean, in the US, cops shoot kids for carrying BB guns. I feel a LOT safer in my house.
Matthew wrote: I live in Sweden, so guns aren't a problem, but if I lived in the US, I'd feel safer if no one had guns except for criminals, instead of everyone having one.
Maybe it's a translation issue...
You'd feel safer as long as it was only the criminals who had guns?
Mhm. A competent police force protects me better than having a gun in every single house.
I'd rather have people steal my things than to have my future children die in a school shooting.
Does it now? A couple years back a friend of mine had an intruder on his property. Guy was going through his garage Took the police 25 minutes to get to the house. Would have taken the intruder about 5 seconds to walk from the garage to the front door had he intended to do something violent.
At any rate, there were roughly 2000 victims of rape due to home invasions every year. About 3,000 victims of other forms of serious assault (Justice Department doesn't put murder numbers in home invasion stats for some reason). School shootings? Maybe about 10 a year? In a nation with about 100,000 schools. Seems one is at much greater risk for one of these issues then another.
I said COMPETENT police force, like we hvae in Sweden. I mean, in the US, cops shoot kids for carrying BB guns. I feel a LOT safer in my house.
You do? Swedish police would never bust into a house and kill you, then try to cover it up.
Oh look, I can white wash an entire nation by a single incident as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Well damn, the more I look into it, the more and more there seems to be a significant issue with the way Swedish police treat the minorities of their nation.
Matthew wrote: I live in Sweden, so guns aren't a problem, but if I lived in the US, I'd feel safer if no one had guns except for criminals, instead of everyone having one.
Maybe it's a translation issue...
You'd feel safer as long as it was only the criminals who had guns?
Mhm. A competent police force protects me better than having a gun in every single house.
I'd rather have people steal my things than to have my future children die in a school shooting.
Does it now? A couple years back a friend of mine had an intruder on his property. Guy was going through his garage Took the police 25 minutes to get to the house. Would have taken the intruder about 5 seconds to walk from the garage to the front door had he intended to do something violent.
At any rate, there were roughly 2000 victims of rape due to home invasions every year. About 3,000 victims of other forms of serious assault (Justice Department doesn't put murder numbers in home invasion stats for some reason). School shootings? Maybe about 10 a year? In a nation with about 100,000 schools. Seems one is at much greater risk for one of these issues then another.
I said COMPETENT police force, like we hvae in Sweden. I mean, in the US, cops shoot kids for carrying BB guns. I feel a LOT safer in my house.
You do? Swedish police would never bust into a house and kill you, then try to cover it up.
Oh look, I can white wash an entire nation by a single incident as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Well damn, the more I look into it, the more and more there seems to be a significant issue with the way Swedish police treat the minorities of their nation.
Ugh, Guardian. Trust me, I was at Husby and they man was carrying a knife while holding his wife. Yeah, I'd shoot him instead of giving him a chance to murder her.
Oh wait you mean there are differing ways to interpret controversial scenarios?
You mean I shouldn't have just jumped right on the media hype train over the issue?
Maybe there is more to the story?
Man, maybe people should start slowing down, and looking at all the facts before throwing out inflammatory statements. Especially when it comes to attacking other nations and cultures.
Mhm. A competent police force protects me better than having a gun in every single house.
.
Agreed 100%
And Mr. Burning we may all be criminals because of our heritage, but we don't have guns, only our treasonous cousins across the water have guns everywhere, i think they are still preparing for a counter revolution.
Matthew wrote: I live in Sweden, so guns aren't a problem, but if I lived in the US, I'd feel safer if no one had guns except for criminals, instead of everyone having one.
Maybe it's a translation issue...
You'd feel safer as long as it was only the criminals who had guns?
Mhm. A competent police force protects me better than having a gun in every single house.
I'd rather have people steal my things than to have my future children die in a school shooting.
Does it now? A couple years back a friend of mine had an intruder on his property. Guy was going through his garage Took the police 25 minutes to get to the house. Would have taken the intruder about 5 seconds to walk from the garage to the front door had he intended to do something violent.
At any rate, there were roughly 2000 victims of rape due to home invasions every year. About 3,000 victims of other forms of serious assault (Justice Department doesn't put murder numbers in home invasion stats for some reason). School shootings? Maybe about 10 a year? In a nation with about 100,000 schools. Seems one is at much greater risk for one of these issues then another.
I said COMPETENT police force, like we hvae in Sweden. I mean, in the US, cops shoot kids for carrying BB guns. I feel a LOT safer in my house.
Oh, yeah, I forgot, the police here don't know how to use their magic crystal fortune-tellers to predict when and where every crime is going to happen so they can be on-scene and prevent it.
I don't think you realize just how big a place the USA is. We can't have a police officer on every corner because too much of our population is too dispersed for that to be even theoretically possible. There are huge swaths of America where the police can't meaningfully prevent crimes, only arrest the perpetrators. It didn't take the police 25 minutes to get to djone's house because they forgot which pedal made the car go forward. It took them 25 minutes because he probably lives like 30-40 minutes away from the nearest police station and the cops had to floor it to get there. You have unrealistic expectations if you think "well, if the cops would have just been a little bit smarter, they would have known to start heading out a little early". That's a laughable argument.
Plus, do you know how often someone gets shot for waving a BB gun around in the USA? It's not very often. Which, considering that there are 800,000 police officers scattered across 17,000 different police agencies, it's kind of absurd to construe a literal handful of cases as the "norm", no matter how much the media sensationalizes it to sell newspapers.
At any rate, there were roughly 2000 victims of rape due to home invasions every year. About 3,000 victims of other forms of serious assault (Justice Department doesn't put murder numbers in home invasion stats for some reason). School shootings? Maybe about 10 a year? In a nation with about 100,000 schools. Seems one is at much greater risk for one of these issues then another.
Out of how many homes? If you're going to use ratios, at least use ratios for both sides of the argument, not just for the one that you need to support your argument.
djones520 wrote: Oh wait you mean there are differing ways to interpret controversial scenarios?
You mean I shouldn't have just jumped right on the media hype train over the issue?
Maybe there is more to the story?
Man, maybe people should start slowing down, and looking at all the facts before throwing out inflammatory statements. Especially when it comes to attacking other nations and cultures.
He's not wrong about the US, though. Our police forces are in serious need of reform.
djones520 wrote: Oh wait you mean there are differing ways to interpret controversial scenarios?
You mean I shouldn't have just jumped right on the media hype train over the issue?
Maybe there is more to the story?
Man, maybe people should start slowing down, and looking at all the facts before throwing out inflammatory statements. Especially when it comes to attacking other nations and cultures.
He's not wrong about the US, though. Our police forces are in serious need of reform.
Yes, but the cases these people are getting worked up over are not examples of why. They're examples of the police doing their job and other people being monumentally stupid.
Psienesis wrote: Yes, because illegally-sold cigarettes could be the death of our democracy.
Restraining a guy who is resisting arrest is part of the cops job. The only reasonable issue you could have with that situation is why that is a crime that mandates arrest and not just a citation.
Yes, it is. However, a police officer has the ability to decide whether or not to arrest someone for a misdemeanor crime. NYPD, specifically, has tried to speak out of both sides of its mouth on the topic of having legislature enacted to decriminalize certain acts. Perhaps most notably, the legalization of marijuana. Specifically, advising citizens to "get the law changed" if they wanted to decriminalize it, and then raising hell (or ignoring the fact that the law changed at all) when it was changed.
Further, who gives a gak if the guy was selling loose cigarettes? It's fethin' NYC. You cannot tell me the police don't have more important things to do.
Yes, it is. However, a police officer has the ability to decide whether or not to arrest someone for a misdemeanor crime. NYPD, specifically, has tried to speak out of both sides of its mouth on the topic of having legislature enacted to decriminalize certain acts. Perhaps most notably, the legalization of marijuana. Specifically, advising citizens to "get the law changed" if they wanted to decriminalize it, and then raising hell (or ignoring the fact that the law changed at all) when it was changed.
Further, who gives a gak if the guy was selling loose cigarettes? It's fethin' NYC. You cannot tell me the police don't have more important things to do.
So, when store owners complain to the police that someone is selling "loosies" in their vicinity... the police should disregard them?
Matthew wrote:I live in Sweden, so guns aren't a problem, but if I lived in the US, I'd feel safer if no one had guns except for criminals, instead of everyone having one.
Matthew wrote:Mhm. A competent police force protects me better than having a gun in every single house.
Not everyone in the US has a gun, and there are certainly not guns in every single house. You are buying into stereotypes and hyperbole.
There's a gun in about one in three houses. A lot are probably stored away in the attic or locked up or similar. There is roughly one gun for each person, total, though.
Matthew wrote: I live in Sweden, so guns aren't a problem, but if I lived in the US, I'd feel safer if no one had guns except for criminals, instead of everyone having one.
Maybe it's a translation issue...
You'd feel safer as long as it was only the criminals who had guns?
Mhm. A competent police force protects me better than having a gun in every single house.
I'd rather have people steal my things than to have my future children die in a school shooting.
And I'd rather have prohibition of alcohol rather than have my kids killed by a drunk driver(roughly equal or greater death statistitics as guns when discussing murder)
...no gak. Because the kids find the gun and play with them, not hand them over to their teachers. Hence my comment that you should teach your kids to safely handle any firearms rather than play with them.
Okay, so you claimed you've never met a kid that would play with a gun as if a kid like that doesn't exist and the when presented with the fact that they do, you brush it off like it's common knowledge. Besides, you. An teach a kid everything about gun safety and at the end of the day, they are still kids and prone to do stupid stuff.
As for "all the time", if you're concerned with unsafe behaviors hurting your children, you should be more worried about car accidents, drinking household chemicals, drowning in a swimming pool, or one of any number of things off a very long list of preventable causes of death that kills more kids than firearm ownership does. Pools alone kill something like a hundred kids for every kid accidentally killed or injured by a firearm.
I don't know who this "you" is that you are addressing because I never said anything other than the fact that kids kill or injure themselves and others because of access to unsecured firearms. But since you asked, I'm not at all worried about my children hurting themselves with my firearms because I keep them properly secured in my home, though your list of false equivalence was a nice touch.
Moral of the story, there's no reason to be concerned about owning a gun with kids in the home, but you should still be responsible and either lock them up or teach the kids to safely handle the firearm, preferably both.
Thanks mate. Again, if you are addressing me with your recap of the "moral of the story," you can save it.
I know you're new around here, but don't start jumping down people's throat other over dumb gak. We all like to play nice in the OT.
...no gak. Because the kids find the gun and play with them, not hand them over to their teachers. Hence my comment that you should teach your kids to safely handle any firearms rather than play with them.
Okay, so you claimed you've never met a kid that would play with a gun as if a kid like that doesn't exist and the when presented with the fact that they do, you brush it off like it's common knowledge. Besides, you. An teach a kid everything about gun safety and at the end of the day, they are still kids and prone to do stupid stuff.
Emphasis mine. You might want to reread DarkLink's first post in this thread, because I'm pretty sure he never said the bit that I've bolded. In fact, he said the exact opposite on page one. That misunderstanding might be part of the argument you two seem to be having for no reason.
Emphasis mine. You might want to reread DarkLink's first post in this thread, because I'm pretty sure he never said the bit that I've bolded. In fact, he said the exact opposite on page one. That misunderstanding might be part of the argument you two seem to be having for no reason.
No, I read exactly what he wrote.
He added some ridiculous qualifier (everything after the "unless" in his statement) which was absolutely asinine. Normal kids get injured by unsecured firearms, not just some mythical kid that fits in his description.
I'm not arguing with him, he actually made me laugh. He took my statement of fact as an opportunity to rant about how I should be more concerned about my kids getting hurt by other things in my house and blah blah blah. It's no big deal, he's new around here so he's going to jump in with all guns blazing (pun intended!).
Emphasis mine. You might want to reread DarkLink's first post in this thread, because I'm pretty sure he never said the bit that I've bolded. In fact, he said the exact opposite on page one. That misunderstanding might be part of the argument you two seem to be having for no reason.
No, I read exactly what he wrote.
He added some ridiculous qualifier (everything after the "unless" in his statement) which was absolutely asinine. Normal kids get injured by unsecured firearms, not just some mythical kid that fits in his description.
I'm not arguing with him, he actually made me laugh. He took my statement of fact as an opportunity to rant about how I should be more concerned about my kids getting hurt by other things in my house and blah blah blah. It's no big deal, he's new around here so he's going to jump in with all guns blazing (pun intended!).
Wasn't that his point though? That most kids would mess with an unsecured firearm given the chance, especially when lacking any kind of firearms safety training (and even then they still might)?
Hordini wrote: Wasn't that his point though? That most kids would mess with an unsecured firearm given the chance, especially when lacking any kind of firearms safety training (and even then they still might)?
In any case, not a huge deal. Carry on!
That was the point I am making, his point was that only "an idealistic wannabe hippie that read about how guns are bad on some blog" (lolwut?) kid would play with a gun, because those kids are "stupid." No kid he's ever met would do that though, only this special kind of kid that exists somewhere in his imagination. Of course, he went on to make a counterargument to point that I didn't make for whatever reason (he did the same thing to someone else in another thread to, so there's that), which made me chuckle.
But yes, not a huge deal... and at the end of the day, the best protection from a child accidentally injuring themselves or others with a firearm is to keep it secured. No matter how much you teach any child about safe handling of a firearm (equally important as proper and secure storage), they are still children. As the parent of some, and a former child myself, I recognize that they are still capable of stupid things, despite the best intentions of a parent.
Hordini wrote: Wasn't that his point though? That most kids would mess with an unsecured firearm given the chance, especially when lacking any kind of firearms safety training (and even then they still might)?
In any case, not a huge deal. Carry on!
That was the point I am making, his point was that only "an idealistic wannabe hippie that read about how guns are bad on some blog" (lolwut?) kid would play with a gun, because those kids are "stupid." No kid he's ever met would do that though, only this special kind of kid that exists somewhere in his imagination. Of course, he went on to make a counterargument to point that I didn't make for whatever reason (he did the same thing to someone else in another thread to, so there's that), which made me chuckle.
But yes, not a huge deal... and at the end of the day, the best protection from a child accidentally injuring themselves or others with a firearm is to keep it secured. No matter how much you teach any child about safe handling of a firearm (equally important as proper and secure storage), they are still children. As the parent of some, and a former child myself, I recognize that they are still capable of stupid things, despite the best intentions of a parent.
No, he said only an idealistic wanna be hippie wouldn't play with a gun. That's the part I thought you were misreading, and it seems like you still are. Here's his exact quote:
I don't think I've ever met a kid that wouldn't be like 'sweet, a gun to play with'. Unless they're an idealistic wannabe hippie that read about how guns are bad on some blog, but those kids are stupid anyways.
Emphasis mine. Unless I'm missing something I think he's agreeing with you. That is, he's saying he hasn't met a kid that wouldn't play with a gun given the chance, except for some kind of theoretical hippie child.
Still not a big deal, not trying to be overly pedantic, just trying to clear up the misunderstanding as I'm pretty sure we agree with each other (Secure firearms properly, teach children gun safety).
Oh, yeah, I forgot, the police here don't know how to use their magic crystal fortune-tellers to predict when and where every crime is going to happen so they can be on-scene and prevent it.
This. Even if we had a competent police force (which I would argue that we do not, in MOST areas), a gun in the holster of some cop a mile away doesn't make me feel safe at all. A gun in MY holster, on the other hand, has saved my life.
Matthew wrote: I live in Sweden, so guns aren't a problem, but if I lived in the US, I'd feel safer if no one had guns except for criminals, instead of everyone having one.
Maybe it's a translation issue...
You'd feel safer as long as it was only the criminals who had guns?
Mhm. A competent police force protects me better than having a gun in every single house. I'd rather have people steal my things than to have my future children die in a school shooting.
Emphasis mine. You might want to reread DarkLink's first post in this thread, because I'm pretty sure he never said the bit that I've bolded. In fact, he said the exact opposite on page one. That misunderstanding might be part of the argument you two seem to be having for no reason.
No, I read exactly what he wrote.
He added some ridiculous qualifier (everything after the "unless" in his statement) which was absolutely asinine. Normal kids get injured by unsecured firearms, not just some mythical kid that fits in his description.
I'm not arguing with him, he actually made me laugh. He took my statement of fact as an opportunity to rant about how I should be more concerned about my kids getting hurt by other things in my house and blah blah blah. It's no big deal, he's new around here so he's going to jump in with all guns blazing (pun intended!).
Wasn't that his point though? That most kids would mess with an unsecured firearm given the chance, especially when lacking any kind of firearms safety training (and even then they still might)?
In any case, not a huge deal. Carry on!
Pretty much exactly what I was trying to say, thanks. If your kid stumbles randomly across a gun, they're probably just going to play with it, which is obviously dangerous. It is still really rare, I only brought up other causes of death to keep it in perspective, but it does happen. Hence why I said the behavior of the kid in the video is unrealistic, and why I said that if you own a gun you should be responsible about storing it. I have no clue what scootypuff was going on about, honestly.
Matthew wrote: I live in Sweden, so guns aren't a problem, but if I lived in the US, I'd feel safer if no one had guns except for criminals, instead of everyone having one.
Maybe it's a translation issue...
You'd feel safer as long as it was only the criminals who had guns?
Mhm. A competent police force protects me better than having a gun in every single house.
I'd rather have people steal my things than to have my future children die in a school shooting.
This. Thisthisthis.
So, just out of curiosity, what do you suggest to the large number of people in the US who live somewhere it takes police 20-30 minutes or longer to get to?
Pretty much exactly what I was trying to say, thanks. If your kid stumbles randomly across a gun, they're probably just going to play with it, which is obviously dangerous. It is still really rare, I only brought up other causes of death to keep it in perspective, but it does happen. Hence why I said the behavior of the kid in the video is unrealistic, and why I said that if you own a gun you should be responsible about storing it. I have no clue what scootypuff was going on about, honestly.
What I was going on about was attributed to a mistake I made, which I admitted to if you scroll up and read it. We are on the same page here, and the only time we weren't was because of my apparent lack of reading skills. What I scoffed at was the argument you attempted to make against nothing I said, which was peppered with the old stand by of "X isn't that bad because Y is also bad" which is a poor argument all the way around. And as far as whether or not children accidentally shooting themselves is rare or not, the data is poorly compiled or altogether absent.
Hordini wrote: So, just out of curiosity, what do you suggest to the large number of people in the US who live somewhere it takes police 20-30 minutes or longer to get to?
Yeah, really. My mom is always lecturing me about having guns in the house because she's pretty anti-gun, but she says this when she lives in a major metro area where the can reliably have emergency services at her doorstep in 4-5 minutes. Meanwhile I have no local police coverage at all and have to wait for the county sheriff - I've dialed 911 a few times on emergency calls and 23 minutes is the best response time I've gotten: Detroit-level response times.
In her case, the police will probably there to help, but where I live, the police are just going to be cleaning up whatever happened.
Hordini wrote: So, just out of curiosity, what do you suggest to the large number of people in the US who live somewhere it takes police 20-30 minutes or longer to get to?
Yeah, really. My mom is always lecturing me about having guns in the house because she's pretty anti-gun, but she says this when she lives in a major metro area where the can reliably have emergency services at her doorstep in 4-5 minutes. Meanwhile I have no local police coverage at all and have to wait for the county sheriff - I've dialed 911 a few times on emergency calls and 23 minutes is the best response time I've gotten: Detroit-level response times.
In her case, the police will probably there to help, but where I live, the police are just going to be cleaning up whatever happened.
I live near two cops. I've rubber rounds for my M4 (AR15) and beanbag rounds in the antique double barrel. Made the trade recently because I'm pretty adamant on not cleaning up blood (both LEO advised me to go that route)
Ok, So does not only does this kid put his finger over the trigger(Its fake in shooting, but real in the video) but keeps a gun on him in class, with the magazine in it and shows it and shoves it down infront of the teacher.
How does a mother havinng a gun preclude a safe enviroment? I would feel more safe with a gun in my house.
Personally I felt less safe when there was a gun in my house. Made the house more of a target for criminals. I have no training in how to use one and I don't think I'd be able to kill someone. Means it was more likely to be used on me than by me.
Sounds like Darwinism in action. If a parent who owns a gun is stupid enough to not talk about gun safety with their children and not take the child shooting so they can learn about firearms that is Strike One for being an idiot that is too dumb to live.
Strike Two is having a child who has unrestricted access to the Internet and whose parent or parents don't pay enough attention to what their children are doing to prevent such idiotic ideas from getting into their children's head in the first place. Sure dumb ideas get rooted in every kid but good parents are like gardeners, we need to weed that garden frequently to prevent it from getting overrun with stupid.
Strike Three, said parent leaves their firearms where their child, whose head is full of stupid ideas that have not been countered with logic, has easy access to the firearms in the home so the child can commit upwards of a dozen felonies by doing what some other idiots on YouTube told him to do.
The shame is the idiots who did this PSA (Putrid Stupidity Announcement) aren't going to be Darwinized along with the kid and his parents.
My son has our guns in his closet. No trigger locks or other idiotproofing. Why? Well for one we live in South Dakota where there are no laws regarding firearm ownership or storage (we spray for Californians along with other pests).
Secondly I take my son shooting regularly. He has taken hunter safety courses and goes hunting so he understands the deadly nature of firearms and knows the rules of safe handling.
Thirdly his friends who come over have gone shooting with us as well and have been trained in safe handling.
Lastly we pay attention to our child and listen to what he says. When idiot ideas come out of his mouth we challenge them with logic and help him work out why the idea was stupid.
So yeah, I feel safe with my son having access to firearms. Safer actually since I am disabled and at night am attached to a dialysis machine. So if bad people come knocking he will be there to defend me and my wife (who sleeps through just about anything). He's a good shot with his 22 mag rifle so idiots looking for trouble beware of this little house on the prairie.
Ok, So does not only does this kid put his finger over the trigger(Its fake in shooting, but real in the video) but keeps a gun on him in class, with the magazine in it and shows it and shoves it down infront of the teacher.
How does a mother havinng a gun preclude a safe enviroment? I would feel more safe with a gun in my house.
Personally I felt less safe when there was a gun in my house. Made the house more of a target for criminals. I have no training in how to use one and I don't think I'd be able to kill someone. Means it was more likely to be used on me than by me.
Did you advertise you had an unsecured gun that no one knew how to use? If not, how did the presence of that gun make your house a target for criminals?
As for being untrained on the use of that gun, couldn't you have gotten training?
If the gun was in a gun safe, even if your house was broken into, how would it have been likely to be used on you? Did you plan on just hanging out while some home invader cut open the safe to retrieve the gun and then use it on you?
Ok, So does not only does this kid put his finger over the trigger(Its fake in shooting, but real in the video) but keeps a gun on him in class, with the magazine in it and shows it and shoves it down infront of the teacher.
How does a mother havinng a gun preclude a safe enviroment? I would feel more safe with a gun in my house.
Personally I felt less safe when there was a gun in my house. Made the house more of a target for criminals. I have no training in how to use one and I don't think I'd be able to kill someone. Means it was more likely to be used on me than by me.
That is definitely one of the more "interesting" ways I've heard people justify to themselves that guns are scary...
skyth wrote: Personally I felt less safe when there was a gun in my house. Made the house more of a target for criminals. I have no training in how to use one and I don't think I'd be able to kill someone. Means it was more likely to be used on me than by me.
Let me take a moment to counter your points with logic.
Unless you post a sign saying "Unsecured Firearms in home with untrained owner" your home is not at greater risk for criminal invasion. Even if you had the sign up it wouldn't change your risk level as most criminals are idiots who cant read big words like "unsecured".
Why on earth would you have a gun and not go to the range and practice with it? For one it is great fun for the whole family as you can compete at hitting difficult targets. Bragging rights as best shooter are just as good as best wargamer. Unless you live in Communist China you can find classes for gun safety. Game, FIsh and Parks hold inexpensive classes a couple times a year in most states.
You don't need to kill to protect yourself. Most uses of a gun for self defense simply involve brandishing the firearm. Even then if you have to shoot unless you are very good you aren't going for a head shot. Shooting the bad guy will likely result in a wound that will be treated at the ER while he is handcuffed to the operating table. If the criminal dies, well consider it Darwinism in action. Bad guys kill themself by invading homes with guns. You just held the bullet for them.
Unless you hand the bad guy the gun he isn't likely to get it from you. If you have your finger on the trigger and they grab for it and pull it from your grip the gun will go off and they will get shot. Problem solved.
Statistically, more people are injured by someone having a gun and trying to use it to 'be the hero' than are saved by one.
Personally, I doubt I'd be able to pull the trigger regardless. That is what makes having a gun more dangerous to me than not having one as I am more likely to provoke a violent response and am more likely to have the gun taken from me. I also don't have the money or time for proper training in how to use a firearm.
Not saying that other people shouldn't be able to have guns. I do think gun ownership should require significant training though. It's too easy to get a gun. I got given one basically at random with no input from me.
Regardless, the PSA is stupid...taking someone's stuff that you aren't entitled to is bad...Bringing a gun to school is stupid and likely to result in the kid being expelled.
skyth wrote: Statistically, more people are injured by someone having a gun and trying to use it to 'be the hero' than are saved by one.
Personally, I doubt I'd be able to pull the trigger regardless. That is what makes having a gun more dangerous to me than not having one as I am more likely to provoke a violent response and am more likely to have the gun taken from me. I also don't have the money or time for proper training in how to use a firearm.
Not saying that other people shouldn't be able to have guns. I do think gun ownership should require significant training though. It's too easy to get a gun. I got given one basically at random with no input from me.
Regardless, the PSA is stupid...taking someone's stuff that you aren't entitled to is bad...Bringing a gun to school is stupid and likely to result in the kid being expelled.
skyth wrote: Statistically, more people are injured by someone having a gun and trying to use it to 'be the hero' than are saved by one.
Personally, I doubt I'd be able to pull the trigger regardless. That is what makes having a gun more dangerous to me than not having one as I am more likely to provoke a violent response and am more likely to have the gun taken from me. I also don't have the money or time for proper training in how to use a firearm.
Not saying that other people shouldn't be able to have guns. I do think gun ownership should require significant training though. It's too easy to get a gun. I got given one basically at random with no input from me.
Regardless, the PSA is stupid...taking someone's stuff that you aren't entitled to is bad...Bringing a gun to school is stupid and likely to result in the kid being expelled.
Aside from the fact you didn't address anyone's questions, can you at least show the source for your statistics? Frankly I think you are making it up.
Given a gun at random with no input? Seriously? Ever hear the phrase "No thanks, I can't accept that."
The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that “almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”
And yet:
“In 2010, incidents in the U.S. involving firearms injured or killed more than 105,000 Americans, of which there were twice as many nonfatal firearm-related injuries (73,505) than deaths.”
So, out of between 500k and 3 million defensive uses of guns in 2010, at best 1/5th of the incidents involved injury or death. And that injury or death was not necessarily the guy/gal defending themselves...
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.
djones520 wrote: Hey, it's all about competency. If our police were competent, they could cross the 30-40 miles in 10 seconds.
No, they couldn't. Competence =/= breaking laws of physics.
I agree. I'm still waiting to hear your ideas about what people who live in areas where police response times are 20+ minutes should do though.
Depends. What are you doing to get so high response times? Are you living out on the country? Then that might actually be the problem.
If you feel concerned that they'd be too slow to reach you, consider smacking up your house somewhere closer/inside the city.
If you live in the city and you get high response time anyway, then the police is at fault.
Our police per population ratio is very similar to Sweden. Our population is spread out over 22 times the area that Sweden is though. So it's pretty easy to see why our response time is so much higher.
To focus it down some more, New York City has a police force of 35,000. That one city makes up 4% of the entire nations police force. 3.5 million square miles of country, 4% of the police cover 470 square miles... I don't feel like doing the math for all of the major urban centers, but you can see that it's going to leave a MUCH smaller foot print for the rest of the nation.
That is definitely one of the more "interesting" ways I've heard people justify to themselves that guns are scary...
You don't really need to justify why guns are scary. They are.
They're an engineered tool to propel a bit of metal at over the speed of sound into things. If the thing it is going into is a living thing then it will often die as a result. There are some which are capable of propelling these bits of metal so far that to hit a target the shooter has to compensate for the rotation of the Earth as the bullet travels, and the target will be hit before the sound of the shot reaches it. Others are capable of propelling over 1000 bits of metal a minute at the target, or sending out lots of smaller bits of metal rather than one larger one.
djones520 wrote: And when you don't lay a hand on it, they're a complex paper weight. Nothing more.
The one wielding it is the "scary" part of the equation.
So is a nuclear warhead, but it still has the inherent potential to be the most devastating weapon on the planet.
Not until someone pushes the button that starts the molecular reaction that splits the atom.
Atoms don't just randomly split. Bullets don't just fire. It takes a human element to make it happen. You remove that human element, and there is no danger.
djones520 wrote: And when you don't lay a hand on it, they're a complex paper weight. Nothing more.
The one wielding it is the "scary" part of the equation.
So is a nuclear warhead, but it still has the inherent potential to be the most devastating weapon on the planet.
Not until someone pushes the button that starts the molecular reaction that splits the atom.
Atoms don't just randomly split. Bullets don't just fire. It takes a human element to make it happen. You remove that human element, and there is no danger.
Except that's not really true is it? If removing the human element removed all danger then I'm sure you're wanting AI police with no emotion, or AI soldiers with no emotion? A tool can only be as dangerous as the person using it, yes, but that doesn't mean that the inherent danger in all tools is equal without a person wielding them.
An eraser will, barring some crazily unlikely scenarios, never have the potential to cause as much destruction as a nuclear warhead, which can harm even without people detonating it and through no result of human action. The casing could become damaged, leaking the nuclear material, for instance.
"If the police take too long to get to you, rather than own a gun, you should simply move" is an argument with a lot of logistical problems. I don't know about the feasibility of moving the entire population of Detroit.
skyth wrote: Personally, I doubt I'd be able to pull the trigger regardless.
Well, if that's how it is, that's how is. I won't cheapen your pacifism, I can totally respect the idea that you'd rather die than kill someone else. I simply don't personally adhere to it, if someone breaks into my house and it's our lives vs a home invader, I feel pretty comfortable coming down on the side of my family and I, in the "who gets to live" debate.
For all the macho talk the pro-'good guy with a gun' side makes, I believe there are plenty of people that would have trouble pulling the trigger as well. It's called empathy. Any hesitation can mean your gun could be turned on you.
djones520 wrote: Hey, it's all about competency. If our police were competent, they could cross the 30-40 miles in 10 seconds.
No, they couldn't. Competence =/= breaking laws of physics.
I agree. I'm still waiting to hear your ideas about what people who live in areas where police response times are 20+ minutes should do though.
Depends. What are you doing to get so high response times? Are you living out on the country? Then that might actually be the problem.
If you feel concerned that they'd be too slow to reach you, consider smacking up your house somewhere closer/inside the city.
If you live in the city and you get high response time anyway, then the police is at fault.
In New Orleans one morning at 2 am, I had to wrestle a gunman down and restrain him in a joint lock for 10 minutes until the police came to collect him. This was in the lobby of a large hotel on Canal street. The place was quiet, with only 4 people on the scene.
That is definitely one of the more "interesting" ways I've heard people justify to themselves that guns are scary...
You don't really need to justify why guns are scary. They are.
They're an engineered tool to propel a bit of metal at over the speed of sound into things. If the thing it is going into is a living thing then it will often die as a result. There are some which are capable of propelling these bits of metal so far that to hit a target the shooter has to compensate for the rotation of the Earth as the bullet travels, and the target will be hit before the sound of the shot reaches it. Others are capable of propelling over 1000 bits of metal a minute at the target, or sending out lots of smaller bits of metal rather than one larger one.
That's pretty scary.
Alcohol is engineered to mess up people's systems and causes almost 3 times the deaths that guns do, with kids having easier access That is also scary.
skyth wrote: For all the macho talk the pro-'good guy with a gun' side makes, I believe there are plenty of people that would have trouble pulling the trigger as well. It's called empathy. Any hesitation can mean your gun could be turned on you.
However, I would rather live in a place where I have a chance to survive on my own, rather than rely on someone else for my safety... especially since police work is mostly a reactive response, rather than a preventative force.
skyth wrote: For all the macho talk the pro-'good guy with a gun' side makes,
Well, if we're just going to make up imaginary arguments that haven't been made in this thread....
Also, your link isn't working. Presumably it's the Kellerman study that shows having a gun in the home places you at an increased risk of homicide, but I presume you're glossing over that it's a lower risk of homicide than simply living alone, or renting rather than owning your home
Perhaps we should form foundations to warn people of the dangers of living alone, or non-home-ownership.
That is definitely one of the more "interesting" ways I've heard people justify to themselves that guns are scary...
You don't really need to justify why guns are scary. They are.
They're an engineered tool to propel a bit of metal at over the speed of sound into things. If the thing it is going into is a living thing then it will often die as a result. There are some which are capable of propelling these bits of metal so far that to hit a target the shooter has to compensate for the rotation of the Earth as the bullet travels, and the target will be hit before the sound of the shot reaches it. Others are capable of propelling over 1000 bits of metal a minute at the target, or sending out lots of smaller bits of metal rather than one larger one.
That's pretty scary.
By that standard, cars are scary, stoves are scary, airplanes are scary, powerlines are scary, coffee pots are scary, anything that might theoretically hurt you is scary. I mean, who would ever want to strap themselves into a plastic container with wheels and a hunk of metal filled with controlled explosions and hurtle down a road so fast that hitting just about anything larger that a small dog can be instantly fatal?
That is definitely one of the more "interesting" ways I've heard people justify to themselves that guns are scary...
You don't really need to justify why guns are scary. They are.
They're an engineered tool to propel a bit of metal at over the speed of sound into things. If the thing it is going into is a living thing then it will often die as a result. There are some which are capable of propelling these bits of metal so far that to hit a target the shooter has to compensate for the rotation of the Earth as the bullet travels, and the target will be hit before the sound of the shot reaches it. Others are capable of propelling over 1000 bits of metal a minute at the target, or sending out lots of smaller bits of metal rather than one larger one.
That's pretty scary.
By that standard, cars are scary, stoves are scary, airplanes are scary, powerlines are scary, coffee pots are scary, anything that might theoretically hurt you is scary. I mean, who would ever want to strap themselves into a plastic container with wheels and a hunk of metal filled with controlled explosions and hurtle down a road so fast that hitting just about anything larger that a small dog can be instantly fatal?
By that standard, cars are scary, stoves are scary, airplanes are scary, powerlines are scary, coffee pots are scary, anything that might theoretically hurt you is scary. I mean, who would ever want to strap themselves into a plastic container with wheels and a hunk of metal filled with controlled explosions and hurtle down a road so fast that hitting just about anything larger that a small dog can be instantly fatal?
Actually, no. None of those things were purposely made to make the act of killing easier and more efficient.
So the only thing scary about that is to see how much amazing stuff we can create to help unite the world, yet we spend so much time developing new ways to kill people.
By that standard, cars are scary, stoves are scary, airplanes are scary, powerlines are scary, coffee pots are scary, anything that might theoretically hurt you is scary. I mean, who would ever want to strap themselves into a plastic container with wheels and a hunk of metal filled with controlled explosions and hurtle down a road so fast that hitting just about anything larger that a small dog can be instantly fatal?
Actually, no. None of those things were purposely made to make the act of killing easier and more efficient.
So the only thing scary about that is to see how much amazing stuff we can create to help unite the world, yet we spend so much time developing new ways to kill people.
Town, I see what your point is, but alcohol is essentially a type of poison that does far more damage in a year than guns do. If there was any type of medication on the market that wreaks the havoc alcohol does, it would have been long ago pulled and the manufacturers bankrupted by lawsuits.
Town, I see what your point is, but alcohol is essentially a type of poison that does far more damage in a year than guns do.
Oh I agree, alcohol abuse is a very serious problem. Very difficult to tackle as well, just like gun violence, with no easy solution.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: If there was any type of medication on the market that wreaks the havoc alcohol does, it would have been long ago pulled and the manufacturers bankrupted by lawsuits.
I think it would have been instantly classified as a class A drug (or however drugs are organised in the US). The only reason alcohol isn't on the list of controlled substances is its historical nature (most cultures develop it early on, before such programs) and taxation. So it becomes part of a societies culture and then a money maker for governments.
Town, I see what your point is, but alcohol is essentially a type of poison that does far more damage in a year than guns do.
Oh I agree, alcohol abuse is a very serious problem. Very difficult to tackle as well, just like gun violence, with no easy solution.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: If there was any type of medication on the market that wreaks the havoc alcohol does, it would have been long ago pulled and the manufacturers bankrupted by lawsuits.
I think it would have been instantly classified as a class A drug (or however drugs are organised in the US). The only reason alcohol isn't on the list of controlled substances is its historical nature (most cultures develop it early on, before such programs) and taxation. So it becomes part of a societies culture and then a money maker for governments.
The irony is the amount of economic damage alcohol does when you look at lost work, along with health and family problems that have to be dealt with on taxpayer dollars.
The irony is the amount of economic damage alcohol does when you look at lost work, along with health and family problems that have to be dealt with on taxpayer dollars.
Same with cigarettes, on the health costs at least
skyth wrote: For all the macho talk the pro-'good guy with a gun' side makes,
Well, if we're just going to make up imaginary arguments that haven't been made in this thread....
People have said the macho pro-good guy with a gun bits in this thread...plus I was referring to a general idea that is plenty of places. Any time someone spouts off that they would use their gun to protect their family, etc...that right there is the good guy with a gun argument. One that ignores how hard it is to pull the trigger.
Also, your link isn't working. Presumably it's the Kellerman study that shows having a gun in the home places you at an increased risk of homicide, but I presume you're glossing over that it's a lower risk of homicide than simply living alone, or renting rather than owning your home
Perhaps we should form foundations to warn people of the dangers of living alone, or non-home-ownership.
It was a link to an analysis of that study that showed that arguments that the national gun manufacturer's association were making (like the one you mentioned) are nothing but hot air. That question was controlled for in the study.
Actually, no. None of those things were purposely made to make the act of killing easier and more efficient.
So the only thing scary about that is to see how much amazing stuff we can create to help unite the world, yet we spend so much time developing new ways to kill people.
I guess I think the guy willing to commit the act of killing is a lot scarier than any tool he may use. The tool on its own honestly instills zero fear in me. It is an inanimate object that doesn't even move without a person controlling it. Cutting deadfall with a big chainsaw is a lot more dangerous and makes me a lot more nervous than handling any gun/weapon ever had.
People have said the macho pro-good guy with a gun bits in this thread...plus I was referring to a general idea that is plenty of places. Any time someone spouts off that they would use their gun to protect their family, etc...that right there is the good guy with a gun argument. One that ignores how hard it is to pull the trigger.
Pulling a trigger is not hard. Dealing with the aftermath may be difficult, and more so for some, but pulling the trigger is surprisingly easy when you are in the position where it is a you and your loved ones or the other guy. Heck, pulling the trigger can be almost a conditioned response to stimuli (hence the Army's use of man shaped pop up targets).
Care to address the CDC study I linked to? Or to show your stats for "more people are injured by someone having a gun and trying to use it to 'be the hero' than are saved by one," or are you just pulling 'facts' from where the sun don't shine?
Grey Templar wrote: What is your backup for the claim that its ''hard to pull the trigger''?
If I'm in danger or someone I know is in danger it would be the easiest thing in the world to pull the trigger.
And people were trying to say that macho good guy with a gun rhetoric wasn't in this thread...
I'm pretty sure Templar HAS pulled the trigger before. Nothing macho about speaking of personal experience.
You'd do yourself a favor to not go around trying to insult people though. And to back up some of your outlandish claims, though I'm sure you'll ignore that as well.
Grey Templar wrote: What is your backup for the claim that its ''hard to pull the trigger''?
If I'm in danger or someone I know is in danger it would be the easiest thing in the world to pull the trigger.
And people were trying to say that macho good guy with a gun rhetoric wasn't in this thread...
How is that macho good guy with a gun rhetoric? That's ridiculous, what Grey Templar is talking about has more to do with human instinct and empathy for loved ones than any macho rhetoric. Many people are capable of a lot more violence than they realize, especially if it comes down to a life or death situation involving people they care about. Saying that someone claiming they'd pull the trigger to defend themselves or their loved ones is macho rhetoric is just as ignorant and condescending as someone telling you your posts about how you have too much empathy to defend yourself or your family is just the holier-than-thou humblebrag of someone who is too much of a coward to defend an innocent person from a violent attacker even if they had the chance.
But nobody is saying that because we're actually trying to treat your posts and your opinions with a bit of respect. So it would be nice if you made an attempt to do the same to those of us who don't happen to be anti-gun or anti-self defense (or whatever you want to call being unable to defend yourself or your loved ones out of fear of harming a violent attacker).
By that standard, cars are scary, stoves are scary, airplanes are scary, powerlines are scary, coffee pots are scary, anything that might theoretically hurt you is scary. I mean, who would ever want to strap themselves into a plastic container with wheels and a hunk of metal filled with controlled explosions and hurtle down a road so fast that hitting just about anything larger that a small dog can be instantly fatal?
Actually, no. None of those things were purposely made to make the act of killing easier and more efficient.
So the only thing scary about that is to see how much amazing stuff we can create to help unite the world, yet we spend so much time developing new ways to kill people.
A gun is just a hunk of metal and plastic. A massive number of Americans use that hunk of metal and plastic to do little more than punch holes in pieces of paper for fun, and do so with an incredibly low injury rate compared to far more "acceptable" activities like football, soccer, riding a bike, etc. Assigning arbitrary values to an inanimate object doesn't change the fact that it's perfectly possible for large numbers of people to safely and responsibly handle firearms with no meaningful risk to them or their families. Statistics bear this out. Rich white people own like twice as many firearms as anyone else in the USA combined, yet have the lowest violent homicide rate and have the lowest number of people killed or injured by firearms of any ethnic group in the USA. When you look at numbers like that, you have to accept that maybe something other than owning those violent death-murder-machines is driving firearm fatalities, things like gang and drug related crime and irresponsible gun handling procedures.
Plus, you would be amazed at how much of the good things in the world were developed exclusively because the military needed some new technology. Everything from gps to computers to tissue paper was invented because there was a military need for it, and once the technology was developed a commercial use for it was found. Combined with the fact that violent crime in the industrial world has been steadily dropping for decades and isn't showing any signs of stopping, it feels like you're reading too many sensationalist headlines and have an unrealistically pessimistic view of the world. You're directing your ire at the wrong things. If you want to make the world a better place, stop wasting time bitching about personally owned firearms and start working on improving social mobility, particularly for minorities. Lower poverty rates leads to less crime and higher standards of living and a huge number of other benefits. Gun ownership rates, in the meantime, have no meaningful correlation with said issues.
The irony is the amount of economic damage alcohol does when you look at lost work, along with health and family problems that have to be dealt with on taxpayer dollars.
Same with cigarettes, on the health costs at least
Very true. Man has to be the most self destructive critter there is.
The irony is the amount of economic damage alcohol does when you look at lost work, along with health and family problems that have to be dealt with on taxpayer dollars.
Same with cigarettes, on the health costs at least
Very true. Man has to be the most self destructive critter there is.
Sadly we can't blame our alcoholic tendencies on those as some animals in the wild like to get drunk off fermented fruit yet don't indulge to the point of liver failure
Sadly we can't blame our alcoholic tendencies on those as some animals in the wild like to get drunk off fermented fruit yet don't indulge to the point of liver failure
Sadly we can't blame our alcoholic tendencies on those as some animals in the wild like to get drunk off fermented fruit yet don't indulge to the point of liver failure
I Don't live in the US, but the way i see this gun problem (and i guess its solution) Instead of: a) letting every sick owning an arsenal of AR15s for house "protection" and B.) Confiscating every gun any civilian ever bought and destroying it, simply make guns unavailable to people from choice a)???? Never actually researched about firearms laws in Croatia, but since my Grandfather was a military doctor during a war, he was given a TT57 (I THINK) hand gun. He was allowed to keep it after the war, since he was deemed sane for a proper use of firearms , but since he had to go on those "annoying psychology tests which costed about a kidney" he decided to simply disable it and hand it to me as a souvenir.
tl; dr IMHO guns are DEFINITELY not meant for anyone, so if you really enjoy shooting from it, you should pay a lot of money for the psychology tests, registration, ammo etc etc. simply because everything has its price.
DarkLink wrote: You're directing your ire at the wrong things. If you want to make the world a better place, stop wasting time bitching about personally owned firearms and start working on improving social mobility, particularly for minorities. Lower poverty rates leads to less crime and higher standards of living and a huge number of other benefits.
The sad thing is that the people who are the strongest supporters of gun ownership are often the strongest supporters of social darwinist attitudes about how poor people "deserve" to be poor because of their obvious failures.
Would you like to post your method for separating "sick s" from "responsible gun owners", preferably one that doesn't depend on stereotypes about race/mental illness/politics/religion/etc?
tl; dr IMHO guns are DEFINITELY not meant for anyone, so if you really enjoy shooting from it, you should pay a lot of money for the psychology tests, registration, ammo etc etc. simply because everything has its price.
IOW, "only rich people should own guns, if you're poor then you don't deserve one".
@Peregrine: I said i am no expert since i only have a disabled gun from my grandfather. And look at my previous conments. You go to a psychiatrist for an (as objective as it can be) personality test, meaning no bullcrap such as muslims and blacks aren't allowed to own guns because news say that they do most of the guncrimes (before you attack me on the matter, i agree with you that it is a bull stereotype)
definitely isn't 100% reliable, i admit it, recently there was a case about a maniac shooting a toddler with a handgun here in Croatia, but as far as i can remember last scenario where a mentally unstable person shot someone with a LEGALLY AQUIRED firearm was like 6 years ago(General Ivan Korade, google it, i assume it were legally acquired since he was a general) when you put illegal ones, you would get a timespan between this incident and last like year and a half. That is why i said to make guns less available and stricter control on gun owners.
and one last thing: judging by your tone in previous post this is just my opinion, and i am not preaching how it shall be done with gun problems in the US(TBH not like i care a lot, since i don't live there )
I've moderate PTSD and own quite a few weapons one being an M4/AR15.
Edit
I spent a year in a control environment seeing Mental Health Specialists along with some other acquired "injuries".....before i go off on a tangent
Clarify a bit more
No, it isn't even close to 100% reliable. There is no magic "this person shouldn't own a gun" test. Many people who commit violent crimes are perfectly "sane" by mental illness testing standards, and many people who would fail those tests are able to take them dishonestly and pretend to be fine long enough to get their gun purchase approved. And then there's the huge problem that "mental illness" =/= "violent criminal", so you either use an incredibly specific test that only prevents the most extreme cases from owning a gun (someone who admits to struggling to control violent impulses, for example) or an unreasonably broad test that excludes a lot of people who are not a significant risk based on bad stereotypes about mental illness. In fact, this kind of testing would probably do more harm than good, both by supporting bad stereotypes and by giving a false sense of security about people who pass the test.
DarkLink wrote: You're directing your ire at the wrong things. If you want to make the world a better place, stop wasting time bitching about personally owned firearms and start working on improving social mobility, particularly for minorities. Lower poverty rates leads to less crime and higher standards of living and a huge number of other benefits.
The sad thing is that the people who are the strongest supporters of gun ownership are often the strongest supporters of social darwinist attitudes about how poor people "deserve" to be poor because of their obvious failures.
Would you like to post your method for separating "sick s" from "responsible gun owners", preferably one that doesn't depend on stereotypes about race/mental illness/politics/religion/etc?
tl; dr IMHO guns are DEFINITELY not meant for anyone, so if you really enjoy shooting from it, you should pay a lot of money for the psychology tests, registration, ammo etc etc. simply because everything has its price.
IOW, "only rich people should own guns, if you're poor then you don't deserve one".
Yeah, party-line politics and general intolerance of anyone who doesn't share your opinion generally annoys me. Sure, I have my opinions, and I like to think they're pretty well supported by fact, but I won't begrudge anyone for disagreeing with me. Within reason of course, I mean, if someone went around shouting 'heil hitler' or something, I wouldn't look too favorably on that, but if someone feels that ultimately the best course of action for reducing crime is unilaterally getting rid of all the guns everywhere, no big deal.
Though ironically enough, if you could keep guns out of the hands of the poor, the gun crime rate would drop off a cliff. Well over 80% of all gun crime is committed with handguns, and mainly cheap models, primarily because they're cheap and concealable. AR-15s and similar firearms that Democrats like to ramble on about are used in like 3% of gun crimes, because they're expensive and hard to find. Independently of this, most crime guns are either stolen or lent to the criminal by a third party, often a drug dealer or family member. That's a big part of the reason why restrictive gun laws have little to no effect on the crime rate, because they're either easy to circumvent for criminals or they don't target the guns/people actually committing the crimes. You can try and ban .50 caliber rifles all you want, but it won't have any effect on the crime rate because criminals simply don't use .50 caliber rifles for crimes.
I have a feeling that you might probably get more accidents involving guns in countries with more guns available. However the amount of gun violence probably has a lot more to do with social issues, poverty and drug use than anything else. Switzerland has a lot of military weapons among the citizens. Here in Sweden, there are a lot of hunting weapons (moose hunting is huge). Home guard soldiers (70 000 back in the day) used to keep their assault rifles at home. Recreational shooting with hand guns is also a lot more popular than most people realise.
I do think that weapons should be properly secured though.
If your parents get drunk and start waving weapons around I think that the message should encourage kids to contact a social worker or the police rather than bringing a gun to school.
skyth wrote: I'm going to claim that 40 million children an hour are saved from pedophile cannibal clowns by responsible AR-15 owners.
Don't forget the study that showed how 15.8 kids are saved each second from angry hoards of hungry spiked hair bikers by 12 gauge shotgun wielding war gamers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DarkLink wrote: Though ironically enough, if you could keep guns out of the hands of the poor, the gun crime rate would drop off a cliff. Well over 80% of all gun crime is committed with handguns, and mainly cheap models, primarily because they're cheap and concealable. AR-15s and similar firearms that Democrats like to ramble on about are used in like 3% of gun crimes, because they're expensive and hard to find. Independently of this, most crime guns are either stolen or lent to the criminal by a third party, often a drug dealer or family member. That's a big part of the reason why restrictive gun laws have little to no effect on the crime rate, because they're either easy to circumvent for criminals or they don't target the guns/people actually committing the crimes. You can try and ban .50 caliber rifles all you want, but it won't have any effect on the crime rate because criminals simply don't use .50 caliber rifles for crimes.
Ye Gawds man! You can't go spouting logic and reason in a debate about GUNS!!! You have to come up with BS statistics and insult everyone who disagrees with you! Don't you know the first thing about internet etiquite!?!
By that standard, cars are scary, stoves are scary, airplanes are scary, powerlines are scary, coffee pots are scary, anything that might theoretically hurt you is scary. I mean, who would ever want to strap themselves into a plastic container with wheels and a hunk of metal filled with controlled explosions and hurtle down a road so fast that hitting just about anything larger that a small dog can be instantly fatal?
Actually, no. None of those things were purposely made to make the act of killing easier and more efficient.
So the only thing scary about that is to see how much amazing stuff we can create to help unite the world, yet we spend so much time developing new ways to kill people.
A gun is just a hunk of metal and plastic. A massive number of Americans use that hunk of metal and plastic to do little more than punch holes in pieces of paper for fun, and do so with an incredibly low injury rate compared to far more "acceptable" activities like football, soccer, riding a bike, etc. Assigning arbitrary values to an inanimate object doesn't change the fact that it's perfectly possible for large numbers of people to safely and responsibly handle firearms with no meaningful risk to them or their families. Statistics bear this out. Rich white people own like twice as many firearms as anyone else in the USA combined, yet have the lowest violent homicide rate and have the lowest number of people killed or injured by firearms of any ethnic group in the USA. When you look at numbers like that, you have to accept that maybe something other than owning those violent death-murder-machines is driving firearm fatalities, things like gang and drug related crime and irresponsible gun handling procedures.
Plus, you would be amazed at how much of the good things in the world were developed exclusively because the military needed some new technology. Everything from gps to computers to tissue paper was invented because there was a military need for it, and once the technology was developed a commercial use for it was found. Combined with the fact that violent crime in the industrial world has been steadily dropping for decades and isn't showing any signs of stopping, it feels like you're reading too many sensationalist headlines and have an unrealistically pessimistic view of the world. You're directing your ire at the wrong things. If you want to make the world a better place, stop wasting time bitching about personally owned firearms and start working on improving social mobility, particularly for minorities. Lower poverty rates leads to less crime and higher standards of living and a huge number of other benefits. Gun ownership rates, in the meantime, have no meaningful correlation with said issues.
In a book hated by both left and right making it most likely full of truth the steady drop in crime rates was attributed to legal abortion.
Stop for a moment before firing off your manifesto filled with righteous indignation.
Who commits the majority of violent crime? Poor people, out of desperation. Why are many of those people in poverty to begin with? They were born there. Why were they born into poverty? Most likely because the poor girl without anyone to help her couldn't get an abortion. Legalized abortion allowed those young women to not be saddled with a child that will be raised in poverty thus reducing the overall number of potential criminals.
Sure it sounds horrible to say it. On one site I mentioned it I was compared to Bob Barker. They said I wanted to spay and neuter the ghetto trash.
But the truth of the matter is desperate people do desperate things. They aren't going to stop before shooting someone in a bank robbery and say "this gun is illegal and I'd better not have it." Once you decide to rob the bank, breaking a gun law or two isn't a big deal.
jorny wrote: I have a feeling that you might probably get more accidents involving guns in countries with more guns available. However the amount of gun violence probably has a lot more to do with social issues, poverty and drug use than anything else. Switzerland has a lot of military weapons among the citizens. Here in Sweden, there are a lot of hunting weapons (moose hunting is huge). Home guard soldiers (70 000 back in the day) used to keep their assault rifles at home. Recreational shooting with hand guns is also a lot more popular than most people realise.
I do think that weapons should be properly secured though.
If your parents get drunk and start waving weapons around I think that the message should encourage kids to contact a social worker or the police rather than bringing a gun to school.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate when you go to this page and see america is not close at all to any western democracy in regard to homocides per 100000 . Perhaps changes to attitudes should be more prominent. Social issues are involved, sure, but i don't see too may first world countries with such a high homicide rate. IS it gun control, or are americans more murderous? If it aint a lack of gun control what is it?
jorny wrote: I have a feeling that you might probably get more accidents involving guns in countries with more guns available. However the amount of gun violence probably has a lot more to do with social issues, poverty and drug use than anything else. Switzerland has a lot of military weapons among the citizens. Here in Sweden, there are a lot of hunting weapons (moose hunting is huge). Home guard soldiers (70 000 back in the day) used to keep their assault rifles at home. Recreational shooting with hand guns is also a lot more popular than most people realise.
I do think that weapons should be properly secured though.
If your parents get drunk and start waving weapons around I think that the message should encourage kids to contact a social worker or the police rather than bringing a gun to school.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate when you go to this page and see america is not close at all to any western democracy in regard to homocides per 100000 . Perhaps changes to attitudes should be more prominent. Social issues are involved, sure, but i don't see too may first world countries with such a high homicide rate. IS it gun control, or are americans more murderous? If it aint a lack of gun control what is it?
It's especially interesting when you consider that the majority of the murders happen in a few large urban centers, like Chicago. If you take a few of those out of the equation the difference between the US and other western democracies isn't as drastic.
Economic inequality/racism/etc that create a lot of desperate people with nothing to lose, often packed into dense cities where opportunities for crime are abundant. Then on top of that you add a legal system that focuses on punishment instead of rehabilitation, and an idiotic war on drugs that turns victimless crimes into life-destroying mistakes. If you stop considering the US as a whole* and look at where crime happens you see a lot of places with high gun ownership and low violent crime rates, and places with strict gun control laws and lots of violent crime. And the places with the highest crime rates tend to be the places where the non-gun factors all converge and motivate violent crime. At best you could argue that a lack of gun control contributes to violent crime rates by making the necessary tools easier to get, but IMO that argument seriously overestimates the difficulty in making your own guns.
*Something that is important to remember is that the US is not a single homogenous mass, there are huge regional differences in wealth/culture/population density/etc.
but most other first world countries have those large urban centers and they don't have those murders. FFs australia has the largest spread urban centers anyway ( that may be an exageration) and we have feth all homicides.
Britain has a huge urban center, in fact if your going on your theory it should have more murders than america. let alone Germany.or france, or spain, or poland, or denmark, or ireland.
Bullockist wrote: but most other first world countries have those large urban centers and they don't have those murders. FFs australia has the largest spread urban centers anyway ( that may be an exageration) and we have feth all homicides.
Britain has a huge urban center, in fact if your going on your theory it should have more murders than america. let alone Germany.or france, or spain, or poland, or denmark, or ireland.
Peregrine nailed it. Check his post. It is the urban centers, but it's more than just that. And a lot of the urban centers that are having problems also already have very strict gun control laws in place.
ok, so instead of regarding the states as a whole i am to regard it as parts? i'm cool with that , just want to make sure before the next gun monkey gets in with a comment.
I'm not surprised there is localised crime in the us, there is localised crime everywhere .Even if you want to go the socio economic route, aboriginal australians are responsible for 25% of convictions ( at roughly 2% of population)
so wheres our increased murder rate, we most surely have a VERY marginalised minority?
or p0erhaps gun laws play a part,
What's a gun monkey? I'm interested to know what you mean by that.
You can regard the US however you want to. I think the point is however, that the situation is more complex than comparing the entire US directly to western European nations, all of which are much smaller and many of which have populations that are much more homogeneous than the US might indicate.
Keep in mind, like Peregrine said, there are areas of the US with very low crime and very high gun ownership, and areas with low gun ownership, strict gun controls, and very high crime.
A gun monkey is a primate who has a gun but wants to fling poo everywhere.
The US has a high homicide rate as compared to any other first world country. WHy is this so? I have no idea why in the name of self defence you want to live in a country that has far more OFFENCE! makes no sense, i have far better self defence here, without a gun.
"Gun Monkey" is a reference to those individual manning a artillery piece. Being they look like a bunch of monkey's moving all over the piece to fire thereby putting "Steel on Target"
A gun monkey is a primate who has a gun but wants to fling poo everywhere.
The US has a high homicide rate as compared to any other first world country. WHy is this so? I have no idea why in the name of self defence you want to live in a country that has far more OFFENCE! makes no sense, i have far better self defence here, without a gun.
With gun control the converse of what is likely true?
And no. You do not have better self-defense without a gun against an armed assailant. You do not have better self-defense without a gun against an assailant bigger or stronger than you. You may feel safe, and that is fine, but there is virtually no situation in which not having a gun is a better defense than having a gun.
And more than one of us has explained to you why the US has a high homicide rate compared to other first world countries. Was there something confusing about our posts?
Jihadin wrote: "Gun Monkey" is a reference to those individual manning a artillery piece. Being they look like a bunch of monkey's moving all over the piece to fire thereby putting "Steel on Target"
And no. You do not have better self-defense without a gun against an armed assailant. You do not have better self-defense without a gun against an assailant bigger or stronger than you. You may feel safe, and that is fine, but there is virtually no situation in which not having a gun is a better defense than having a gun.
And more than one of us has explained to you why the US has a high homicide rate compared to other first world countries. Was there something confusing about our posts?
I have better self defence without firearms, i have less chance of being murdered. a figure your defence figures can not argue.I have less chance of being killed....and I don't need a weapon
Bullockist wrote: The US has a high homicide rate as compared to any other first world country. WHy is this so?
I just gave you some reasons, and none of them involve gun ownership rates.
I have no idea why in the name of self defence you want to live in a country that has far more OFFENCE!
Because the best defense is a good offense, and because you recognize that gun control does very little to stop violent crime and mostly just annoys the people who own guns and never break any laws with them.
i have far better self defence here, without a gun.
Only if you don't have the various non-gun factors that encourage violent crime. You can build your own machine gun with some cheap parts from your local hardware store and a bit of effort, and with a decent machine shop you have a gun factory. IOW, if people have a desire to commit crimes with a gun making guns illegal isn't going to stop them from getting a gun. So you lacking a gun doesn't make you much safer, your extra safety is the result of living in a place that doesn't have as many people with a desire to hurt you.
Because the best defense is a good offense, and because you recognize that gun control does very little to stop violent crime and mostly just annoys the people who own guns and never break any laws with them.
Because my country has sane carry laws i don't have to carry, i will never carry, and i will live in a safer state than the most safe american states. all because we don't carry guns....fething crazy i kno0w.
the best defence is no one being at war.
And no. You do not have better self-defense without a gun against an armed assailant. You do not have better self-defense without a gun against an assailant bigger or stronger than you. You may feel safe, and that is fine, but there is virtually no situation in which not having a gun is a better defense than having a gun.
And more than one of us has explained to you why the US has a high homicide rate compared to other first world countries. Was there something confusing about our posts?
I have better self defence without firearms, i have less chance of being murdered. a figure your defence figures can not argue.I have less chance of being killed....and I don't need a weapon
Having less of a chance of being killed isn't the same as having better self defense without a gun, which is what you said before. The former may be true, the latter isn't. And there are a lot of factors that go into the latter as well, may of which might not apply, especially if you don't live in a troubled neighborhood in one of the major US urban centers.
Because the best defense is a good offense, and because you recognize that gun control does very little to stop violent crime and mostly just annoys the people who own guns and never break any laws with them.
Because my country has sane carry laws i don't have to carry, i will never carry, and i will live in a safer state than the most safe american states. all because we don't carry guns....fething crazy i kno0w.
the best defence is no one being at war.
That's weird, we don't have to carry here either. In fact the majority of Americans don't.
Bullockist wrote: but you do have a homicide rate on par with 3rd world countries
Sigh. Again, I've given you reasons for that, and they have nothing to do with gun ownership. Could you please stop acting like the only thing responsible for the US violent crime rate is how many legally-owned guns we have?
PS: remember how I mentioned that the US isn't a homogenous mass? There are parts of the US that make the average third-world country look like a pleasant vacation spot.
Bullockist wrote: Because my country has sane carry laws i don't have to carry, i will never carry, and i will live in a safer state than the most safe american states. all because we don't carry guns....fething crazy i kno0w.
the best defence is no one being at war.
You do realize that carry laws don't magically stop people from having guns, right? If someone wants to shoot you the fact that the might have to illegally carry a gun to do it probably isn't going to stop them.
yeah i do, the only people that carry here is a criminal. a good distinction. youve given me socio economic reasons and i have shown yoiu wiorse in australia. 2%= 25% far superior to afro american scio economic dislocation. we have less mnurders.. less gun murders. ass long as you dont spout for pro gun gak i'm ok
Bullockist wrote: yeah i do, the only people that carry here is a criminal. a good distinction. youve given me socio economic reasons and i have shown yoiu wiorse in australia. 2%= 25% far superior to afro american scio economic dislocation. we have less mnurders.. less gun murders. ass long as you dont spout for pro gun gak i'm ok
Are you drunk? I'm not judging, it's cool if you are. You're just making a lot more spelling errors than you usually do. And your posts are a bit belligerent.
What's wrong with being pro gun? That's interesting that only criminals carry in your country. In the US, there are plenty of people who carry who aren't criminals. It's quite nice, actually.
I am pro gun, in my country, in the us well i am not. THe US has a cr4azy murder/homicide figure.that's people dead, people that aren't dead in other countries. why is it ok to have a hi8gh murder rate?
Bullockist wrote: yeah i do, the only people that carry here is a criminal. a good distinction.
Now do you see how this destroys your argument that you're safer because carrying a gun is illegal? If the only people who don't carry guns are people who obey the law voluntarily then how exactly is it helping to keep you safe? If you're safer where you live than in the US (again, not a homogenous mass) it's because there are fewer people who want to hurt you, not because someone who is willing to murder you is afraid of breaking a "no guns" law.
youve given me socio economic reasons and i have shown yoiu wiorse in australia. 2%= 25% far superior to afro american scio economic dislocation.
Could you explain exactly how those things are worse? When you do, don't forget the population density factor. It isn't just poverty and desperation that cause all the murders (and other crime), it's poverty and desperation combined with packing a ton of poor and desperate people into a concentrated area and effectively cutting them off from the rest of the world.
carrying does not mean safer
FFS what fething gave you tat idea?
Automatically Appended Next Post: we don't carry ever, we are safer, or our people are morally superior
Automatically Appended Next Post: it's fact mate, i have never felt the need to carry a weapon. I have been mugged once for 30 cents. fear does not eneter my brain like that
Bullockist wrote: yeah i do, the only people that carry here is a criminal. a good distinction.
Now do you see how this destroys your argument that you're safer because carrying a gun is illegal? If the only people who don't carry guns are people who obey the law voluntarily then how exactly is it helping to keep you safe? If you're safer where you live than in the US (again, not a homogenous mass) it's because there are fewer people who want to hurt you, not because someone who is willing to murder you is afraid of breaking a "no guns" law.
youve given me socio economic reasons and i have shown yoiu wiorse in australia. 2%= 25% far superior to afro american scio economic dislocation.
Could you explain exactly how those things are worse? When you do, don't forget the population density factor. It isn't just poverty and desperation that cause all the murders (and other crime), it's poverty and desperation combined with packing a ton of poor and desperate people into a concentrated area and effectively cutting them off from the rest of the world.
the whole "{carrying protects you against criminals)" thing is bunk. I dont carry any time in my country and I'm safer.no matter what i do i'm safer. no matter the population density I;m safer!. socio economic i;m safer by over 1,5 % . do i need a gun to be safe?
Automatically Appended Next Post: guns do not make you safe
Bullockist wrote: carrying does not mean safer
FFS what fething gave you tat idea?
Of course it does, as long as you're willing to use your gun instead of treating it like a magic "make the bad guy go away" button that you can just wave in their general direction. Even if the chances of using your gun in self defense are low (and they are) a small additional chance of protecting yourself is more than no additional chance.
Also, remember that your original argument was that you're safer because you don't carry a gun, which is a very different claim.
it's fact mate, i have never felt the need to carry a weapon. I have been mugged once for 30 cents. fear does not eneter my brain like that
The plural of anecdote is not data.
Also, again, please stop ignoring the non-gun factors involved in crime. The fact that you feel safe enough to not need to carry a weapon has very little to do with how many legally-owned guns the people around you have access to.
I'll give you statistics,in a country with harsh gun laws, I am safer than a country than with lax gun laws. I don't carry a gun, statistically i am safer than a human (per 100000) that lives in the us.I dunno how you cannot see this, your country is the murder capital 0of the first world.
I'm sure that's ok.
I duuno how you guys don't see it, less guns = less murders.
Bullockist wrote: I'll give you statistics,in a country with harsh gun laws, I am safer than a country than with lax gun laws. I don't carry a gun, statistically i am safer than a human (per 100000) that lives in the us.I dunno how you cannot see this, your country is the murder capital 0of the first world.
Correlation is not causation. Please stop ignoring the non-gun factors that I have mentioned over and over again.
I duuno how you guys don't see it, less guns = less murders.
Then please explain the parts of the US that have high gun ownership and low violent crime rates.
Honestly, I'm going to have to agree with the "are you drunk" question at this point. Your arguments aren't even making sense anymore, maybe it's time to turn off your computer and go to bed?
Peregrine wrote: Honestly, I'm going to have to agree with the "are you drunk" question at this point. Your arguments aren't even making sense anymore, maybe it's time to turn off your computer and go to bed?
Yeah, I wasn't trying to be a jerk, I was seriously asking.
Ok, you're clearly drunk or sleep deprived or something. As an act of kindness I'm going to step out of this debate for a while and stop encouraging you to make posts you'll regret later.
Bullockist wrote: I bet Dakka wishes there was a similar idea for you and by that i m,ean peregrine, a lot of peregrine. I mean feth... it's all about peregrine
I don't even know what that means, but I am morbidly curious.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Anyway, yeah. I'm with Peregrine. If you want to talk about this later when you're done poasting, I'll be happy to discuss it further.
Bullockist wrote: Because my country has sane carry laws i don't have to carry, i will never carry, and i will live in a safer state than the most safe american states. all because we don't carry guns.
I'd argue that my state has the sane gun laws. That is to say almost none. I'd also say I am safer here than in most European nations as we don't have a bunch a flying rodent gak crazy Muslims blowing gak up around here.
Bullockist wrote: Because my country has sane carry laws i don't have to carry, i will never carry, and i will live in a safer state than the most safe american states. all because we don't carry guns.
I'd argue that my state has the sane gun laws. That is to say almost none. I'd also say I am safer here than in most European nations as we don't have a bunch a flying rodent gak crazy Muslims blowing gak up around here.
Life is all about reasonable risk management.
We don't have muslims blowing stuff up, either. In fact, most of the people blowing stuff up/setting stuff on fire etc. are white, non-muslim, neo-nazis. Go figure.
Bullockist wrote: I duuno how you guys don't see it, less guns = less murders.
Then please explain the parts of the US that have high gun ownership and low violent crime rates.
Hordini wrote:And the parts of the US with strict gun laws, low gun ownership, and high violent crime rates.
Also that, in the last 10 or so years, the gun ownership rate in the US has risen whilst the violent crime rate using guns in the US has gone down (caveat that correlation is NOT causation, of course).
Jihadin wrote: "Gun Monkey" is a reference to those individual manning a artillery piece. Being they look like a bunch of monkey's moving all over the piece to fire thereby putting "Steel on Target"
I thought the accepted term was "gun bunny."
To close to being called a Badge Bunny.
Edit
Might be acceptable now being DOMA and DADT has been removed. Though females are not allowed still in the 13 series slots
Bullockist wrote:ok, so instead of regarding the states as a whole i am to regard it as parts? i'm cool with that , just want to make sure before the next gun monkey gets in with a comment.
I'm not surprised there is localised crime in the us, there is localised crime everywhere .Even if you want to go the socio economic route, aboriginal australians are responsible for 25% of convictions ( at roughly 2% of population)
so wheres our increased murder rate, we most surely have a VERY marginalised minority?
or p0erhaps gun laws play a part,
sweden , denmark, switzerland ect.
African Americans make up about 13% of the population of the USA, but account for over 50% of all violent crimes*. They also have a gun ownership rate that's... I want to say about 1/3 of that of white Americans, but that's from memory. Isolating African Americans from the rest of the USA cuts the homocide rate in half. But no, it's all about gun ownership.
Another note, if you actually graph the world's gun ownership versus homocide rate, you actually get a negative correlation. That is, more guns, less crime. Fewer guns, more crime. Now, the correlation is very weak, and no one should try and use that to claim that guns prevent crime, but it's pretty easy to demonstrate that gun ownership rates have absolutely no causational link to violent crime rates.
Meanwhile, poverty and crime have an extremely strong correlation that's extensively documented by all sorts of different organizations.
Bullockist wrote:
jorny wrote: I have a feeling that you might probably get more accidents involving guns in countries with more guns available. However the amount of gun violence probably has a lot more to do with social issues, poverty and drug use than anything else. Switzerland has a lot of military weapons among the citizens. Here in Sweden, there are a lot of hunting weapons (moose hunting is huge). Home guard soldiers (70 000 back in the day) used to keep their assault rifles at home. Recreational shooting with hand guns is also a lot more popular than most people realise.
I do think that weapons should be properly secured though.
If your parents get drunk and start waving weapons around I think that the message should encourage kids to contact a social worker or the police rather than bringing a gun to school.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate when you go to this page and see america is not close at all to any western democracy in regard to homocides per 100000 . Perhaps changes to attitudes should be more prominent. Social issues are involved, sure, but i don't see too may first world countries with such a high homicide rate. IS it gun control, or are americans more murderous? If it aint a lack of gun control what is it?
There are a few instances in which you can observe gun control measures decreasing gun-related deaths. Australia's gun ban is one. However, we're not actually concerned with gun related violence. We're concerned with all violence. It doesn't do anyone any good if you take away the guns and people start getting stabbed to death instead. In every case I've been able to find, this is exactly what happens. Remove the guns, and either the criminals will find ways of illegal acquiring guns, or they will just use different weapons in their crimes. After Australia enacted a major gun ban, firearms related deaths (including suicides) dropped, but their overall homicide and suicide rates remained pretty steady.
Bullockist wrote: Because my country has sane carry laws i don't have to carry, i will never carry, and i will live in a safer state than the most safe american states. all because we don't carry guns.
I'd argue that my state has the sane gun laws. That is to say almost none. I'd also say I am safer here than in most European nations as we don't have a bunch a flying rodent gak crazy Muslims blowing gak up around here.
Life is all about reasonable risk management.
We don't have muslims blowing stuff up, either. In fact, most of the people blowing stuff up/setting stuff on fire etc. are white, non-muslim, neo-nazis. Go figure.
If we're going to inaccurately sensationalize violent crime in the USA, then should you be pointing the finger at inaccurate sensationalize of violent crime in Europe ?
Edit:
*I'm just pointing this out to illustrate that poverty and racial issues are far more closely tied with violence than gun ownership probably ever will be.
I'll preface this by saying I've grown up in Australia, I was reasonably young when our strict gun laws came in to effect (following the Port Arthur massacre), but I have also lived some time in the USA.
For the most part I think violence/crime/murder comes from social problems rather than gun ownership and in the past I've mostly supported the idea of gun ownership... though as time has passed I find myself leaning more toward the gun control side of the argument. There's lots of arguments both ways, but I tend to feel they are more on the side of gun control being the better option.
If you have gun control, yes, criminals will still be able to get their hands on guns... but how often does a criminal with access to black market weaponry go out of their way to kill you personally?
It seems to me you're mostly likely to encounter criminals who are simply trying to steal from you, in which case having a gun on you sounds like a good way to get yourself killed.
If you encounter someone who is not a common criminal but rather a gun toting psychopath, then yeah, having a gun on you will make you safer than if you didn't have a gun on you because they're probably going to shoot you anyway so if lots of regular citizens have guns they are more capable of defending against the gun toting psychopath... but at the same time having tighter gun control means the gun toting psychopath is less likely to be toting a gun in the first place. If you're mentally deranged enough to go randomly shooting people it's not THAT easy to find yourself a gun on the black market, it's both difficult and expensive (but by no means impossible).
I'm not sure what the statistics are, but I tend to think if you have guns and even if you are trained in their use, you're probably more likely to be shot or shoot someone or have someone shoot someone else with your gun (eg. a kid who doesn't know what they're doing) by accident than you are likely to have the gun save you in self defence. Even if you know what you're doing, mistakes happen.
There's the argument that citizens should have guns to protect themselves from a tyrannical government... I think that idea went out the window some time before WW2 when the military started getting aircraft and tanks that are capable of incredible destruction and are mostly resilient to weapons your average citizen is likely to own.
For a girl (and maybe a dude) having a gun may be a more effective rape-preventative, though it's still hardly a cure for the problem.
Switzerland has high gun ownership but relatively low gun violence, however gun ownership is largely tied to military service and from what I've read it's hard to get a permit to carry unless you work in a high risk job, so even though gun ownership is high, gun control is there as well.
Hunting wise, even countries with gun control seem to typically allow permits for rifles suitable for hunting. Even here in Australia with our strict gun laws I know several people who (legally) hunt. It seems those sorts of rifles are rarely used against people
But in the end I don't sway strongly one way or the other, I just tend to err on the side of gun control being better, but if the majority of society wants to be able to freely carry guns I'm fine with that, but I think it's as silly to think the guns are protecting you as it is to think it's guns are the root of all evil and banning them will fix the core community problems.
Gun deaths per capita in the USA are on par with road deaths per capita in the USA (which also aren't great compared to the rest of the western world but that's another discussion), so if it's worth discussing road safety I think it's worth discussing gun safety and control. Even if homicide doesn't decrease massively but accidental deaths and suicides decrease I think it's worth discussing the matter. I think having no guns around also reduces the chance of deaths during heated arguments (maybe? I don't have numbers, that's just my guess, lol).
All that said... if I were living in the USA again I'd probably own guns, mostly rifles for hunting though, lol. If I lived in the same spot where I lived when I first moved there I'd probably own hand guns for self defence as well because it was a really crappy area and I don't have a wife/kids so I don't have to be all that concerned with accidental deaths of loved ones either. But I wouldn't be opposed to gun control if it's what the community wanted it.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: It seems to me you're mostly likely to encounter criminals who are simply trying to steal from you, in which case having a gun on you sounds like a good way to get yourself killed.
If you encounter someone who is not a common criminal but rather a gun toting psychopath, then yeah, having a gun on you will make you safer than if you didn't have a gun on you because they're probably going to shoot you anyway so if lots of regular citizens have guns they are more capable of defending against the gun toting psychopath...
I think you have that backwards. The average robber wants a weak target, and is likely to run away as soon as they realize you have a gun and might fight back. The homicidal lunatic is more likely to just walk up and shoot you before you have any idea that you're in danger.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: It seems to me you're mostly likely to encounter criminals who are simply trying to steal from you, in which case having a gun on you sounds like a good way to get yourself killed.
If you encounter someone who is not a common criminal but rather a gun toting psychopath, then yeah, having a gun on you will make you safer than if you didn't have a gun on you because they're probably going to shoot you anyway so if lots of regular citizens have guns they are more capable of defending against the gun toting psychopath...
I think you have that backwards. The average robber wants a weak target, and is likely to run away as soon as they realize you have a gun and might fight back. The homicidal lunatic is more likely to just walk up and shoot you before you have any idea that you're in danger.
But conversely, highly available guns means that every little bag-snatcher or shoplifter might carry a gun.
More restricted guns means that only those who are really dedicated criminals use guns (that is, either building them themselves or stealing from police etc.), and while that is of course bad, it at least means you won't risk being shot for chasing after the guy who just grabbed your bag.
I acknowledge that social and economic differences is the largest problem, but still.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: It seems to me you're mostly likely to encounter criminals who are simply trying to steal from you, in which case having a gun on you sounds like a good way to get yourself killed.
If you encounter someone who is not a common criminal but rather a gun toting psychopath, then yeah, having a gun on you will make you safer than if you didn't have a gun on you because they're probably going to shoot you anyway so if lots of regular citizens have guns they are more capable of defending against the gun toting psychopath...
I think you have that backwards. The average robber wants a weak target, and is likely to run away as soon as they realize you have a gun and might fight back. The homicidal lunatic is more likely to just walk up and shoot you before you have any idea that you're in danger.
But conversely, highly available guns means that every little bag-snatcher or shoplifter might carry a gun.
More restricted guns means that only those who are really dedicated criminals use guns (that is, either building them themselves or stealing from police etc.), and while that is of course bad, it at least means you won't risk being shot for chasing after the guy who just grabbed your bag.
I acknowledge that social and economic differences is the largest problem, but still.
The logic sounds good on paper, but as I mentioned earlier, the statistics simply don't reflect this as being the case. Forget the USA, many of the most violence-ridden countries in the world have basically completely banned firearms. The failure of gun control measures isn't just that they don't target the right problems, but that there are already too many guns floating around for criminals to acquire for gun laws to have a meaningful effect when criminals do want to get their hands on a gun. And that's independent of the fact that even if you do get rid of guns, then guns are simply substituted for other things like knives, clubs, bombs, etc. The comparison also breaks down in certain places like Switzerland, which has an extremely high gun ownership rate yet virtually no crime. It's absolutely blatantly obvious that something other than gun ownership rates drives, or even precipitates, violent crime. People just tend to gloss over the obvious in favor of lazy, politics driven rhetoric. Heck, even with the highest gun ownership in the world by a significant margin, the USA still have a very low overall violent crime rate, no matter what sensationalist media tells you. Far be it from being a violent and dangerous place to live, the USA is just a slightly rougher neighborhood than, say, Europe, and a significant amount of the reason behind that is likely remnants of racial issues from prior to the 1960's combined with the extensive drug trade right across the border in central and south America.
Funnily enough, the issue is almost similar to the war on drugs. Ban drugs/guns completely, and you simply create systematic abuse. Legalization and appropriate regulation seems to produce far better results. The irony is that, at least here in the USA, liberals will preach for days that legalizing Marijuana and banning firearms is a good thing, while conservatives will argue that banning drugs and keeping firearms legal is the best course of action. Banning drugs has led to obscene levels of drug related violence south of the USA, and banning guns never seems to have a meaningful impact, so who's right on what?
On the point about Switzerland, whilst it does have a very low crime rate, if you look at its homicide numbers you'll see that a large proportion of its homicides are carried out with firearms.
Switzerland has a low homicide rate per capita compared to neighbouring countries but the percentage of homicides committed by firearms per capita is much higher than neighbouring countries.
And also, Switzerland has very strict laws governing the movement of firearms. They may not be transported loaded, the magazine and weapon must be separated, you must have a legitimate reason for having it on your person (such as going to the firing range or barracks) and you must take the most direct route to your destination. So the culture is vastly different to the US.
Suicide shouldn't be included in violence. It artificially inflates the numbers.
The means of suicide should also not be given any weight either. if someone wants to commit suicide they'll do it with whatever they have available. The presence of a gun doesn't alter anything in that regard.
In the first half of the 20th century, ovens in England used to burn coal gas, which happened to be completely lethal in concentrated doses and was thus the preferred way to commit suicide. By the late 1950s, sticking your head in the oven accounted for nearly half of all suicides committed in England. By the early 1970s, these ovens had been phased out, so nobody was surprised to see coal gas fall out of the top ten British suicide methods (one of Cracked.com's least popular recurring articles). So what did all of those suicidal people do instead? In a startling number of cases, they just went right on living. The suicide rate dropped by a third, and it never went back up.
Jupiterimages/Photos.com/Getty Images
Although the marked increase in Hot Pocket consumption pretty much canceled it out.
Wait, really? The decision to off yourself is kind of a big one, isn't it? It's not the sort of thing you just wait to do when the opportunity arises and your schedule opens up. Yet you can find plenty of examples of people being inconvenienced right the hell down from the ledge. Adding a suicide barrier to a bridge in Washington lowered not just the number of suicides that occurred on that bridge, but the overall suicide rate (meaning those people didn't just go find another bridge to jump from). A study of more than 500 Golden Gate Bridge jumpers who were stopped in the act found that 94 percent didn't try it again.
Suicides, it turns out, are often split-second decisions -- add even a few minutes' thought or just plain inconvenience to it, and a lot of the victims change their minds. Of course, that's not possible if your method involves instantly splattering your brains all over the wall with one pull of the trigger. If a bridge with a low barrier and a coal gas oven are Regis Philbin asking you to lock in your final answer, having a gun is like the Jeopardy! clicker -- all you have to do is press one button a single time and it's done. No going back. So it's no surprise that one of the biggest risk factors for suicide is simply having a gun in the house.
Grey Templar wrote: Suicide shouldn't be included in violence. It artificially inflates the numbers.
The means of suicide should also not be given any weight either. if someone wants to commit suicide they'll do it with whatever they have available. The presence of a gun doesn't alter anything in that regard.
Grey Templar wrote: Suicide shouldn't be included in violence. It artificially inflates the numbers.
The means of suicide should also not be given any weight either. if someone wants to commit suicide they'll do it with whatever they have available. The presence of a gun doesn't alter anything in that regard.
The evidence doesn't support this.
Funny, the link you provided doesn't support your claim.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Switzerland has a low homicide rate per capita compared to neighbouring countries but the percentage of homicides committed by firearms per capita is much higher than neighbouring countries.
Who cares? Dead is dead.
Grey Templar wrote: if someone wants to commit suicide they'll do it with whatever they have available. The presence of a gun doesn't alter anything in that regard.
This isn't true at all. Easy access to a reliable method is a big factor in whether a person commits suicide successfully or not. Even relatively minor obstacles like putting up a barrier on a bridge can stop people from killing themselves. The little bit of extra effort required to climb over the barrier is enough to get past that impulsive thought and keep them alive. Sure, people who are truly determined to die are going to find a way to do it, not every suicidal person is in that category.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ashiraya wrote: But conversely, highly available guns means that every little bag-snatcher or shoplifter might carry a gun.
Not really. Despite our high gun ownership rates most of those crimes involve no violence at all, beyond maybe a token struggle when the mall cops arrive and ask to look in the shoplifter's bag. In fact, the whole point is to avoid confrontation with a low-stakes crime where nobody is likely to start a fight and the price of getting caught is low. Where guns are involved is when you have people who decide to take what they want by force, and someone who intends to do that is going to need some kind of weapon even if it isn't a gun. And that kind of person is the perfect customer for an illegal gun manufacturer.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Switzerland has a low homicide rate per capita compared to neighbouring countries but the percentage of homicides committed by firearms per capita is much higher than neighbouring countries.
Who cares? Dead is dead.
It matters because if there weren't guns you might find the number of homicides decreases. Sure, if people want to kill someone then they'll try whether or not they have a gun, but it will be harder and less likely to succeed.
For an example you can compare the Chenpeng School attack with the Sandy Hook attack. In the first the child had a knife and injured 23 people, with no fatalities. In the second the child had a rifle and killed 20 children, 6 members of staff, his mother, himself and injured 2 others. That's a pretty big difference in body count.
Even if we include all of the other school knife attacks in china over the period of 2010 to 2012 (there was a series of them, apparently uncoordinated) , there were still less fatalities than in the single Sandy Hook attack (25 as opposed to 28).
Grey Templar wrote: Suicide shouldn't be included in violence. It artificially inflates the numbers.
The means of suicide should also not be given any weight either. if someone wants to commit suicide they'll do it with whatever they have available. The presence of a gun doesn't alter anything in that regard.
The evidence doesn't support this.
Funny, the link you provided doesn't support your claim.
I don't need to provide a link. He made a claim. He has to provide the evidence to support his claiml
Grey Templar wrote: Suicide shouldn't be included in violence. It artificially inflates the numbers.
The means of suicide should also not be given any weight either. if someone wants to commit suicide they'll do it with whatever they have available. The presence of a gun doesn't alter anything in that regard.
The evidence doesn't support this.
Funny, the link you provided doesn't support your claim.
I don't need to provide a link. He made a claim. He has to provide the evidence to support his claiml
You're the one who cited evidence. Good form would be to provide said evidence.
People kill people, not guns...gun restrictions do not stop gun violence, it actually has been proven that allowing good people to carry firearms has lowered crime rates..i believe that good firearm safety education is a must have for kids like riding a bike. Being an american it is a right and a priviledge to own firearms, it is not the guns fault if a child picks a weapon up and shoots somebody..thats the parents fault
A Town Called Malus wrote: Switzerland has a low homicide rate per capita compared to neighbouring countries but the percentage of homicides committed by firearms per capita is much higher than neighbouring countries.
Who cares? Dead is dead.
It matters because if there weren't guns you might find the number of homicides decreases. Sure, if people want to kill someone then they'll try whether or not they have a gun, but it will be harder and less likely to succeed.
For an example you can compare the Chenpeng School attack with the Sandy Hook attack. In the first the child had a knife and injured 23 people, with no fatalities. In the second the child had a rifle and killed 20 children, 6 members of staff, his mother, himself and injured 2 others. That's a pretty big difference in body count.
Even if we include all of the other school knife attacks in china over the period of 2010 to 2012 (there was a series of them, apparently uncoordinated) , there were still less fatalities than in the single Sandy Hook attack (25 as opposed to 28).
School attacks are so incredibly rare that they can't really be used as evidence. And in nearly all cases of US shootings the attack was carried out with stolen weapons by people who would have been allowed to have them in the first place. So the law isn't at fault. Taking away legal weapons from law abiding citizens does nothing to prevent school shootings, and they're so incredibly rare that they are statistically insignificant.
School attacks are so incredibly rare that they can't really be used as evidence. And in nearly all cases of US shootings the attack was carried out with stolen weapons by people who would have been allowed to have them in the first place. So the law isn't at fault. Taking away legal weapons from law abiding citizens does nothing to prevent school shootings, and they're so incredibly rare that they are statistically insignificant.
Bringing in laws that require all weapons to be securely locked up, in a gun safe which the child has no access to (so probably number code rather than key in case the key is misplaced), when not in use might.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Switzerland has a low homicide rate per capita compared to neighbouring countries but the percentage of homicides committed by firearms per capita is much higher than neighbouring countries.
Who cares? Dead is dead.
It matters because if there weren't guns you might find the number of homicides decreases. Sure, if people want to kill someone then they'll try whether or not they have a gun, but it will be harder and less likely to succeed.
For an example you can compare the Chenpeng School attack with the Sandy Hook attack. In the first the child had a knife and injured 23 people, with no fatalities. In the second the child had a rifle and killed 20 children, 6 members of staff, his mother, himself and injured 2 others. That's a pretty big difference in body count.
Even if we include all of the other school knife attacks in china over the period of 2010 to 2012 (there was a series of them, apparently uncoordinated) , there were still less fatalities than in the single Sandy Hook attack (25 as opposed to 28).
School attacks are so incredibly rare that they can't really be used as evidence. And in nearly all cases of US shootings the attack was carried out with stolen weapons by people who would have been allowed to have them in the first place. So the law isn't at fault. Taking away legal weapons from law abiding citizens does nothing to prevent school shootings, and they're so incredibly rare that they are statistically insignificant.
Bringing in laws that require all weapons to be securely locked up, in a gun safe which the child has no access to (so probably number code rather than key), when not in use might.
Nope.
Impossible to enforce without enormous civil right's violations.
Even the existence of such a law would be constitutionally shaky. Requiring people to purchase expensive gun safes just to exercise their basic civil, and human, rights is beyond wrong.
A gun locked up in a safe also completely defeats using it as home defense. 2-3 seconds to open the safe may not seem like much, but it matters in the event of a home invasion.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Switzerland has a low homicide rate per capita compared to neighbouring countries but the percentage of homicides committed by firearms per capita is much higher than neighbouring countries.
Who cares? Dead is dead.
It matters because if there weren't guns you might find the number of homicides decreases. Sure, if people want to kill someone then they'll try whether or not they have a gun, but it will be harder and less likely to succeed.
For an example you can compare the Chenpeng School attack with the Sandy Hook attack. In the first the child had a knife and injured 23 people, with no fatalities. In the second the child had a rifle and killed 20 children, 6 members of staff, his mother, himself and injured 2 others. That's a pretty big difference in body count.
Even if we include all of the other school knife attacks in china over the period of 2010 to 2012 (there was a series of them, apparently uncoordinated) , there were still less fatalities than in the single Sandy Hook attack (25 as opposed to 28).
School attacks are so incredibly rare that they can't really be used as evidence. And in nearly all cases of US shootings the attack was carried out with stolen weapons by people who would have been allowed to have them in the first place. So the law isn't at fault. Taking away legal weapons from law abiding citizens does nothing to prevent school shootings, and they're so incredibly rare that they are statistically insignificant.
Less then .01% of schools will experience a shooting in a given year, just to put numbers to words.
Ultimately, its a choice between a very very few people getting killed and everyone in the nation having a civil right infringed on.
The right to bear arms is equal in importance to all the others on the Bill of Rights. You would never ever think of infringing on freedom of religion, freedom of speech, assembly, or the right to vote? Why is the right to bear arms ok to infringe on?
Grey Templar wrote:Indeed. We've done this dance before.
Ultimately, its a choice between a very very few people getting killed and everyone in the nation having a civil right infringed on.
The right to bear arms is equal in importance to all the others on the Bill of Rights. You would never ever think of infringing on freedom of religion, freedom of speech, assembly, or the right to vote? Why is the right to bear arms ok to infringe on?
Ashiraya wrote:Oh dear.
So, that local sports team? I hear they're doing well. Might even make the playoffs this year.
Grey Templar wrote: Impossible to enforce without enormous civil right's violations.
Depends on how you want to enforce it. Obviously mandatory inspections of gun storage would create serious legal issues, but there are other ways to do it. The police could act on information that you're breaking the storage law and get a search warrant, just like any other crime. And even if the storage law is never enforced unless you've already attracted the attention of the police it would still ensure that most people decide that buying and using a gun safe is better than risking legal trouble if their guns are used in a crime and their failure to store them legally is discovered. It's kind of like seatbelt laws, you don't need mandatory seatbelt checkpoints every 5 miles to get most people to obey the law.
A gun locked up in a safe also completely defeats using it as home defense. 2-3 seconds to open the safe may not seem like much, but it matters in the event of a home invasion.
Any gun storage law would obviously account for having a gun outside the safe but under your control. You would be free to have your gun out and accessible when you are there with it, you just wouldn't be allowed to leave it out when you're not home.
Grey Templar wrote: Just because someone is killed doesn't mean its ok to infringe on the rights of people who did nothing wrong.
Except that's how it already works with other rights.
Grey Templar wrote: You would never ever think of infringing on freedom of religion, freedom of speech, assembly, or the right to vote?
Those rights are infringed on all the time. Try claiming a "free speech" defense against a libel accusation, or a "freedom of religion" defense against breaking drug laws. And then there are things like right to only have your property searched with a legitimate warrant, which has been narrowed almost to the point of uselessness (when the government doesn't blatantly ignore it).
AllSeeingSkink wrote: It seems to me you're mostly likely to encounter criminals who are simply trying to steal from you, in which case having a gun on you sounds like a good way to get yourself killed.
If you encounter someone who is not a common criminal but rather a gun toting psychopath, then yeah, having a gun on you will make you safer than if you didn't have a gun on you because they're probably going to shoot you anyway so if lots of regular citizens have guns they are more capable of defending against the gun toting psychopath...
I think you have that backwards. The average robber wants a weak target, and is likely to run away as soon as they realize you have a gun and might fight back. The homicidal lunatic is more likely to just walk up and shoot you before you have any idea that you're in danger.
Maybe they will run away when they discover you have a gun, maybe they'll shoot you in a panic. I count that as a higher chance of getting yourself killed vs just giving them what they want. I lived in a mildly rough area in the US for the first few months I was there, every couple of weeks the police would issue a warning that someone has been robbed on X street at Y time of night, they were almost always robbed by someone with a gun. If I was being held up by someone pointing a gun at me and I had a gun on me myself, I'd mostly be hoping they didn't notice I had a gun than hoping they did on the chance they'd run away rather than just shoot me.
Peregrine wrote: Depends on how you want to enforce it. Obviously mandatory inspections of gun storage would create serious legal issues, but there are other ways to do it. The police could act on information that you're breaking the storage law and get a search warrant, just like any other crime. And even if the storage law is never enforced unless you've already attracted the attention of the police it would still ensure that most people decide that buying and using a gun safe is better than risking legal trouble if their guns are used in a crime and their failure to store them legally is discovered. It's kind of like seatbelt laws, you don't need mandatory seatbelt checkpoints every 5 miles to get most people to obey the law.
Torga_DW wrote: The problem with gun laws is usually that the law abiding gun owners follow the laws and the criminals don't.
Which is fine in this case. The goal of storage laws isn't to prevent crime, it's to prevent things like a child getting their parent's gun and having a tragic accident. If most law-abiding gun owners follow the law then the fact that criminals ignore it doesn't negate the benefits.
Torga_DW wrote: The problem with gun laws is usually that the law abiding gun owners follow the laws and the criminals don't.
Which is fine in this case. The goal of storage laws isn't to prevent crime, it's to prevent things like a child getting their parent's gun and having a tragic accident. If most law-abiding gun owners follow the law then the fact that criminals ignore it doesn't negate the benefits.
Well the PSA does advise the kid to pick up their parents fire arms and take it to school.....
Torga_DW wrote: The problem with gun laws is usually that the law abiding gun owners follow the laws and the criminals don't.
Which is fine in this case. The goal of storage laws isn't to prevent crime, it's to prevent things like a child getting their parent's gun and having a tragic accident. If most law-abiding gun owners follow the law then the fact that criminals ignore it doesn't negate the benefits.
Well the PSA does advise the kid to pick up their parents fire arms and take it to school.....
Which he couldn't do if it were securely locked away. Just sayin'
So not only would it reduce the cases of accidental suicide by firearms (and possibly also intentional suicide by having that little obstacle of opening the safe, loading the gun etc. in the way), you also wouldn't have to worry about your children trying to give your guns to teachers because they saw it in a video! Everybody wins!
A Town Called Malus wrote: We don't have muslims blowing stuff up, either. In fact, most of the people blowing stuff up/setting stuff on fire etc. are white, non-muslim, neo-nazis. Go figure.
Wackos are wackos no matter skin tone or BS ideology. I haven't heard much about European governments caving to the Neo Nazis for fear of offending them so I didn't figure they were the same level of threat as the Muslim terrorists to whom your governments seem loath to allow offense based upon the plethora of laws regarding the publication of materials that put a negative spin on the actions andor habits of Muslims or Arabs. My apologies for not picking on the right wackos.
*I'm just pointing this out to illustrate that poverty and racial issues are far more closely tied with violence than gun ownership probably ever will be.
Very true. In America we don't have the social safety net they have in European countries. W simply can't afford it since we have been protecting Europe from itself for the last 50 plus years. After all, there isn't a European nation with a military large enough to take on the South Dakota National Guard so they can afford to keep the poor from being desperate enough to commit crimes. But that's a good thing since a militarized Europe managed to start a war every 20 years or so, eventually dragging the world into a couple of their little dust ups until we took their toys away and made them play nice. Relative world peace in exchange for a large number of people below the poverty line here in the US. Probably worth the trade in the long run. The number of crime related deaths in the US is nothing compared to the body count of WWI and WWII.
Of course they have a problem with bored teens committing crimes for something to do, but I think that's a problem everywhere. Something about the mixing of hormones and affluence that makes for increased stupidity.
Of course it's not just poverty that leads to criminal activity. The problem is single mother households with multiple children. Not divorced mothers with fathers still in the picture, that's a whole different batch of sociological nightmare, but the "I'm not sure who the baby daddy is but I'm going to raise them on my own, just like Madonna!" That kind of dumb buttishness needs to be addressed. If you interview prison inmates you will find the vast majority were raised in single mother households. While exemptions to the rule exist the majority of children born to single mothers are pretty much screwed for life. To be blunt, the mother should have aborted the pregnancy and waited until she could raise a child in a healthy two parent household I say two parent. not man and woman. Kids would be better off raised by a gay couple than a single mother.
That 's why I think not only should abortions be free but women should be paid $1,000 for having an abortion. It would be cheaper in the long run.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: I think you have that backwards. The average robber wants a weak target, and is likely to run away as soon as they realize you have a gun and might fight back. The homicidal lunatic is more likely to just walk up and shoot you before you have any idea that you're in danger.
In the early years of my locksmith career I sought out criminals to talk with them about how they did what they did. It was easy enough to find them and get them to talk. They aren't very bright after all. I wanted to determine the best ways to keep them out of homes and businesses and I figured developing a criminal eye would be a good idea. I found the thing they feared most; more than alarms, more than deadbolts, more than cops and more than dogs. They fear a homeowner with a gun. I've never found any other group of people to be so supportive of strict gun control legislation. I have to say it firmed up my stand on personal gun ownership more than any other argument or statistic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ashiraya wrote: More restricted guns means that only those who are really dedicated criminals use guns (that is, either building them themselves or stealing from police etc.), and while that is of course bad, it at least means you won't risk being shot for chasing after the guy who just grabbed your bag.
Bag snatchers as you call them are not going to carry a gun. No matter how easy or hard it is to get one. Even an idiot is capable of rudimentary risk analysis. Purse snatching ranks rather low on the misdemeanor/felony scale, the punishment is less time than drug possession with intent to distribute. However if the snatcher has a gun in his possession when they snatch the purse it shoots up to a more serious crime. Which means more jail time if caught and a greater chance of being made an example of by a DA who is up for re-election. The criminal isn't going to get in a shoot out with the police over a purse snatching because even nick a cop with a slug and the criminal can expect to fall down every flight of stairs from the site of his arrest to the jail and one of those "falls" might just be fatal...
Guns get carried when the criminal needs to or may need to threaten someone. Such as a more serous home invasion, especially when they expect to have to get someone to open a safe or locked drawer. The level of that crime is already high so the gun charge doesn't make it much worse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote: Bringing in laws that require all weapons to be securely locked up, in a gun safe which the child has no access to (so probably number code rather than key in case the key is misplaced), when not in use might.
But reality fails to back up your claim. Here in South Dakota we have no laws regarding storage of firearms. Children have ready access to all manner of guns. My son has access to three modern guns and a large collection of antique replicas. My brother's kids can lay hands on any one of a dozen shotguns and twice that number of rifles and pistols. His home is not unusual for our state. Yet we have zero school shootings. While cities where strict storage laws are in place have school shootings.
No matter how you slice it, more laws do not equal more safety. Violent people will do violent things. Take away guns and they use knives, baseball bats, explosives or vehicles. You simply cannot legislate away bad people.
Mike Weisser wrote:A New Video Tells the Truth About Guns and Some Folks Don't Like It
There's a new video floating around the Internet called " Gun Violence - PSA" that's making quite a stir. Created by Rejina Cincic, it follows a teenage boy who takes an unlocked pistol out of his mother's bureau drawer, slips it into his backpack, walks into his class at school and, when there are no other kids in the room, plops the gun down on the teacher's desk and says, "I don't feel safe with this at home." And that's it.
From viewer reactions, you would think that the NRA had posted a video telling gun owners to turn in all their guns. I have never seen such vitriol, such anger and such cheap and snarky comments directed at any statement about gun ownership, and once the hoi polloi weighed in with their usual invectives, the pro-gun propaganda media known as the Washington Times came forth with their usual, nonsensical conclusion that the video "encourages" children to commit crimes, such as stealing the gun and then taking the weapon onto school property. The Citizen's Committee for the Right to Bear Arms, which is the other website belonging to the successful mail-order company known as the 2nd Amendment Foundation, declared that the video depicted six or perhaps seven different crimes.
Know what crime wasn't depicted in the video? The crime that would have occurred if that same kid had taken his mother's gun to school, walked into a classroom and opened fire at other students and adults. How do you think that Jaylen Fryberg got his hands on the gun he used to kill four students at Marysville High School on October 24? And it really didn't matter how many other crimes Fryberg committed that day in order to bring the gun into the school because after shooting the four other kids, he then used the gun to kill himself.
This PSA video has provoked such an intense reaction from the pro-gun community because it strikes directly at their most sacred cow, namely, the idea that guns in homes make us more safe. The gun industry has been tirelessly promoting this crap for the last 20 years ever since they noticed that the traditional reason for owning guns -- sport shooting and hunting -- were beginning to fade away. But if you can make people believe that the protection afforded by a gun far outweighs the risk of that weapon lying around, you've created a new and unending market for guns.
Let's take a minute and look at some numbers about whether guns really keep us safe from violent crime. The gun industry loves to tout the fact that there has been a 50 percent increase in gun sales while violent crime rates have declined by about the same amount over the last 20 years. The only problem with this bromide is that 95 percent of the decline took place between 1994-2003, while the number of guns bought by civilians began to show major increases after 2004.
If that argument doesn't work, let's try another one. According to the FBI, the number of felonies that were prevented by what is known as justifiable homicide using a gun runs around 225 per year. Meanwhile, the number of non-justifiable gun homicides sits above 10,000 annually -- wow, that's quite a safety record for guns, right? As for using a gun to prevent a crime, the NRA publishes a listing of such events on its Armed Citizen website, and the numbers run between 60-75 per year.
I happen to think that Stop Gun Violence is the best gun PSA I have ever seen. It says what we all know, namely, that a gun in the home is a safety risk and an unlocked gun is a much greater risk. I notice that all the critics who were busily counting up the felonies depicted in the film forgot to mention that in most states, leaving an unlocked gun around is not a crime at all. Shouldn't we be talking about that issue rather than attempting to discredit a teen-age boy who showed a lot more common sense than the owner of that gun?
I notice that all the critics who were busily counting up the felonies depicted in the film forgot to mention that in most states, leaving an unlocked gun around is not a crime at all.
Well Einstein, maybe they're not mentioning it for that exact ing reason. Its not a crime to leave a gun around the house, but it is a crime to steal a gun, conceal carry it onto school grounds, and take possession of a stolen gun.
Shouldn't we be talking about that issue rather than attempting to discredit a teen-age boy who showed a lot more common sense than the owner of that gun?
He suggests we totally ignore multiple felonies and threats to personal safety in favor of the rather nebulous threat of a gun just being in a house.
Truly this person should be removed from the genepool.
This is something that bothers me,
1: A gun that is used to defend your home isnt going to be locked up, the 5 sec it takes to unlock a safe is life/death situation
hotsauceman1 wrote: This is something that bothers me,
1: A gun that is used to defend your home isnt going to be locked up, the 5 sec it takes to unlock a safe is life/death situation
hotsauceman1 wrote: This is something that bothers me,
1: A gun that is used to defend your home isnt going to be locked up, the 5 sec it takes to unlock a safe is life/death situation
That's not necessarily true.
It's often the case, though. It's certainly the situation with my firearm.
hotsauceman1 wrote: This is something that bothers me,
1: A gun that is used to defend your home isnt going to be locked up, the 5 sec it takes to unlock a safe is life/death situation
So? If you're concerned about defending your home you can keep your gun next to you at all times while you're in the house. Having it locked up while you're gone (the time when there's the biggest risk of theft and/or accidents) doesn't interfere with your home defense plans at all.
hotsauceman1 wrote: This is something that bothers me,
1: A gun that is used to defend your home isnt going to be locked up, the 5 sec it takes to unlock a safe is life/death situation
That's not necessarily true.
It's often the case, though. It's certainly the situation with my firearm.
Well, yes, that's true too. I'm more referring to some of the quick open safes with biometric capabilities and things like that. And that 5 seconds isn't necessarily life/death, although I do admit that it could be, it isn't necessarily so.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Bringing in laws that require all weapons to be securely locked up, in a gun safe which the child has no access to (so probably number code rather than key in case the key is misplaced), when not in use might.
But reality fails to back up your claim. Here in South Dakota we have no laws regarding storage of firearms. Children have ready access to all manner of guns. My son has access to three modern guns and a large collection of antique replicas. My brother's kids can lay hands on any one of a dozen shotguns and twice that number of rifles and pistols. His home is not unusual for our state. Yet we have zero school shootings. While cities where strict storage laws are in place have school shootings.
No matter how you slice it, more laws do not equal more safety. Violent people will do violent things. Take away guns and they use knives, baseball bats, explosives or vehicles. You simply cannot legislate away bad people.
And how many suicides by firearm? How many accidental discharges resulting in death?
Far fewer than accidental deaths in auto accidents or poisoning. In fact so few it does not make the top 10 for most age groups in the US (it is number 10 for 10-14 year olds with 22 deaths).
Less than 700 deaths by accidental discharge in 2009. Less than 900 in 2001 (where stats below seem to come from).
And though each accidental death is tragic and sad to the family and friends of the deceased, thinking we need additional legislation and enforcement for the millions of legal gun owners due to less than 1000 accidental deaths a year is silly.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Though if you were to look at the first graphic you would see that intentional suicide with a firearm ranks quite high.
Some of those could also be prevented by adding an obstacle to actually carrying out the act as many suicides come from convenience.
'Some' could be prevented. Got a percentage or number or evidence? 'Some' would just use another means. Mental health is the issue there, not the means. Legislating the means is a huge failure in addressing the real issue.
Mike Weisser wrote:
Know what crime wasn't depicted in the video? The crime that would have occurred if that same kid had taken his mother's gun to school, walked into a classroom and opened fire at other students and adults. How do you think that Jaylen Fryberg got his hands on the gun he used to kill four students at Marysville High School on October 24? And it really didn't matter how many other crimes Fryberg committed that day in order to bring the gun into the school because after shooting the four other kids, he then used the gun to kill himself.
I'm enjoying that the only two outcomes that the author can possibly comprehend of the situation is that the kid is either such a pinkboy that he gets rid of his mommy's gun behind her back "because scary", or this unstable suicidal "troubled angel" who, having beheld a gun, will immediately take it up and kill a bunch of kids and himself. Nope. Apparently those are the only two outcomes when you have guns around.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Though if you were to look at the first graphic you would see that intentional suicide with a firearm ranks quite high.
Some of those could also be prevented by adding an obstacle to actually carrying out the act as many suicides come from convenience.
'Some' could be prevented. Got a percentage or number or evidence? 'Some' would just use another means. Mental health is the issue there, not the means. Legislating the means is a huge failure in addressing the real issue.
Well, when the UK introduced restrictions on the amount of paracetamol which could be sold in a single transaction we saw suicide by overdose drop by around 765 deaths over a period of ten years from what was predicted by the trend before the law was passed.
The simple barrier of having to go to multiple shops or queue multiple times to get a lethal dose meant less people died.
Yes, mental health is the main issue. However adding that little extra barrier between them and an easy method of killing themselves gets that little extra time which can make all the difference. It can mean the difference between someone killing themselves or picking up the phone and calling the Samaritans or some other helpline or their doctor or whatever.
Well, when the UK introduced restrictions on the amount of paracetamol which could be sold in a single transaction we saw suicide by overdose drop by around 765 deaths over a period of ten years from what was predicted by the trend before the law was passed.
The simple barrier of having to go to multiple shops or queue multiple times to get a lethal dose meant less people died.
Yes, mental health is the main issue. However adding that little extra barrier between them and an easy method of killing themselves gets that little extra time which can make all the difference. It can mean the difference between someone killing themselves or picking up the phone and calling the Samaritans or some other helpline or their doctor or whatever.
How were the overall suicide/unintentional overdose rates after the change. While suicide by overdose dropped by 765 (which really also needs a percentage difference to mean anything) did the actual suicide rate drop? Where people just throwing themselves under buses, or shooting themselves, instead. Were unintentional overdoses cut by this measure?
Putting a small barrier may just divert rather than prevent and may just divert into less predictable, observable and/or controllable behaviours.
I'm sure the kid would feel great about stealing his parents' firearm and turning it in if he were to get home from school to find his mother lying on the kitchen floor, raped and beaten because she couldn't find her defensive handgun.
#1) A woman is raped and strangled to death with her own pantyhose.
#2) A woman defended herself from a potential rapist with a firearm.
I chose #2. How about you?
Or how about #3) Woman is dead on Walmart floor because her two year old reached into her purse and accidentally fired her legally carried weapon?
Her legally carried weapon which had the safety off and a round in the chamber whilst rattling loose in a handbag.
And that is a result of her own negligence. Not seeing how Constitutional Rights are to be tossed aside due to peoples own stupidity. If that was the case, the 1st would have been tossed ages ago.
#1) A woman is raped and strangled to death with her own pantyhose.
#2) A woman defended herself from a potential rapist with a firearm.
I chose #2. How about you?
Or how about #3) Woman is dead on Walmart floor because her two year old reached into her purse and accidentally fired her legally carried weapon?
Her legally carried weapon which had the safety off and a round in the chamber whilst rattling loose in a handbag.
As already shown, accidental deaths due to firearms are VERY rare (note that in the 1-4 age category accidental gunshot is not in the top 10 causes of injury deaths, and the tenth had an order of magnitude less cases than drowning) . But go ahead and create scenarios without regards to facts.
#1) A woman is raped and strangled to death with her own pantyhose.
#2) A woman defended herself from a potential rapist with a firearm.
I chose #2. How about you?
Or how about #3) Woman is dead on Walmart floor because her two year old reached into her purse and accidentally fired her legally carried weapon?
Her legally carried weapon which had the safety off and a round in the chamber whilst rattling loose in a handbag.
As already shown, accidental deaths due to firearms are VERY rare (note that in the 1-4 age category accidental gunshot is not in the top 10 causes of injury deaths, and the tenth had an order of magnitude less cases than drowning) . But go ahead and create scenarios without regards to facts.
He's referring to a story posted a little while ago.
#1) A woman is raped and strangled to death with her own pantyhose.
#2) A woman defended herself from a potential rapist with a firearm.
I chose #2. How about you?
Or how about #3) Woman is dead on Walmart floor because her two year old reached into her purse and accidentally fired her legally carried weapon?
Her legally carried weapon which had the safety off and a round in the chamber whilst rattling loose in a handbag.
As already shown, accidental deaths due to firearms are VERY rare (note that in the 1-4 age category accidental gunshot is not in the top 10 causes of injury deaths, and the tenth had an order of magnitude less cases than drowning) . But go ahead and create scenarios without regards to facts.
He's referring to a story posted a little while ago.
Or how about #3) Woman is dead on Walmart floor because her two year old reached into her purse and accidentally fired her legally carried weapon?
Her legally carried weapon which had the safety off and a round in the chamber whilst rattling loose in a handbag.
I take it you are pro-rapist then?
Hey, in my view the woman shouldn't need to defend herself from the rapist as she shouldn't be at risk from rape in the first place.
Why are you supporting the rapists by saying women need guns for protection? Why do they have to choose between walking around with a gun and being raped? Does that mean any woman without a gun was asking to be raped?
A Town Called Malus wrote: Hey, in my view the woman shouldn't need to defend herself from the rapist as she shouldn't be at risk from rape in the first place.
Certainly. How exactly do you plan to make that happen? Mandate all men get castrated? Seems like the line you're following. Take away guns because a few people misuse them. Since a few men misuse their "equipment" we should take that away too.
Hhhhmmmmm
Men are predators. Women are vindictive so they aim lower and hope to hit a middle extremity. My wife knee capped a "wanna be rapist" way before I met her
owning an arsenal of AR15s for house "protection" and B.) Confiscating every gun any civilian ever bought and destroying it, simply make guns unavailable to people from choice a)???? Never actually researched about firearms laws in Croatia, but since my Grandfather was a military doctor during a war, he was given a TT57 (I THINK) hand gun. He was allowed to keep it after the war, since he was deemed sane for a proper use of firearms , but since he had to go on those "annoying psychology tests which costed about a kidney" he decided to simply disable it and hand it to me as a souvenir.
