It seems despite wanting everyone to have guns for defence, she left a loaded gun in the back of her car along with her 4-year-old who shot her. She survived and faces negligence charges, though the article isn't clear if that's because of the gun or the lack of booster seat.
How can people claim to be responsible gun owners whilst allowing that to happen to themselves? It's just another high profile example of a lot of Americans lack of care with guns. I wonder if she'll change her stance now?
That should be a fun visit from Child Protective Services. Bit of a double whammy for not having her kid in a booster seat and, you know, the whole unattended loaded weapon thing.
Fully a supporter of guns and having loaded weapons in the car ready for use. This woman was a negligent fool for keeping it where a child is. If a loaded gun is in the same area as a child, common sense is to have it inaccessible. A touch safe in the center console or glove compartment. Don't care about the gun owner, it's friggin lucky the child wasn't hurt.
SharkoutofWata wrote: Fully a supporter of guns and having loaded weapons in the car ready for use. This woman was a negligent fool for keeping it where a child is. If a loaded gun is in the same area as a child, common sense is to have it inaccessible. A touch safe in the center console or glove compartment. Don't care about the gun owner, it's friggin lucky the child wasn't hurt.
Yea a glove compartment ( or centre console ) is total safety I would keep my savings in it knowing full well no one could get near them. Those latches are a safe crackers nightmare.
SharkoutofWata wrote: Fully a supporter of guns and having loaded weapons in the car ready for use. This woman was a negligent fool for keeping it where a child is. If a loaded gun is in the same area as a child, common sense is to have it inaccessible. A touch safe in the center console or glove compartment. Don't care about the gun owner, it's friggin lucky the child wasn't hurt.
Seconded.
Instead of just calling people idiots for their beliefs lets try and keep this civil.
I'm genuinely glad this is an amusing irony and not a dead child story.
What use is a gun on the back seat anyway? Did she just throw her handbag in there with it inside or something?
SharkoutofWata wrote: Fully a supporter of guns and having loaded weapons in the car ready for use. This woman was a negligent fool for keeping it where a child is. If a loaded gun is in the same area as a child, common sense is to have it inaccessible. A touch safe in the center console or glove compartment. Don't care about the gun owner, it's friggin lucky the child wasn't hurt.
Yea a glove compartment ( or centre console ) is total safety I would keep my savings in it knowing full well no one could get near them. Those latches are a safe crackers nightmare.
I think that it's more to keep the kid away from the gun. A locked glove compartment would do that trick.
SharkoutofWata wrote: Fully a supporter of guns and having loaded weapons in the car ready for use. This woman was a negligent fool for keeping it where a child is. If a loaded gun is in the same area as a child, common sense is to have it inaccessible. A touch safe in the center console or glove compartment. Don't care about the gun owner, it's friggin lucky the child wasn't hurt.
Yea a glove compartment ( or centre console ) is total safety I would keep my savings in it knowing full well no one could get near them. Those latches are a safe crackers nightmare.
There are two main options for gun storage (other than the "near toddler and everyone else option" obviously):
The first option is to deter theft: that's where you are talking about a big safe at home, thick safety boxes bolted to the frame of the car, etc.
The second option is to deter access: that's where you are talking about a locked glove compartment, locked center console, $25 metal box with a simple key or combination access, $100 box with electronic lock on your night stand.
I accept that there is pretty much no way to guarantee that nobody is going to steal my gun if I leave it in the car, so unless I'm going somewhere where I cannot carry it stays on my person (either IWB covering the trigger or OWB covering the trigger). If I am going in a place where I cannot carry (bring my wife lunch at the grade school, post office, quick dash into work to drop something off) then depending on the car I am driving it either goes in the locked glove compartment (where I accept that it can be stolen fairly easy if someone wants to break into my car) or in a lock-box attached with a cable to the frame of the drivers seat (where I again accept that it can be stolen fairly easy if someone wants to break into my car).
I also don't have a big safe at home, so my guns are secured to prevent access and not theft there as well.
It seems despite wanting everyone to have guns for defence, she left a loaded gun in the back of her car along with her 4-year-old who shot her. She survived and faces negligence charges, though the article isn't clear if that's because of the gun or the lack of booster seat.
How can people claim to be responsible gun owners whilst allowing that to happen to themselves? It's just another high profile example of a lot of Americans lack of care with guns. I wonder if she'll change her stance now?
Nice way to turn the negligence of one person into an ideological pissing match.
The truth is that BOTH the child and weapon were unsecured and not under her full control. And this happens.
She should face charges for this, since both unsupervised access to firearms by children, and not having the child secured in a child safety seat, are both violations of the law.
This isn't about the gun debate. This is about a stupid parent and child endangerment.
This isn't about the gun debate. This is about a stupid parent and child endangerment.
It does, hoverer, often lead to the argument "if gun owners are to stupid to protect themselves and those around them, then we will have to pass laws to protect gun owners and those around them".
There are quite a few news stories that make me realize that the biggest thread to gun ownership comes from gun owners being stupid.
This isn't about the gun debate. This is about a stupid parent and child endangerment.
It does, hoverer, often lead to the argument "if gun owners are to stupid to protect themselves and those around them, then we will have to pass laws to protect gun owners and those around them".
There are quite a few news stories that make me realize that the biggest thread to gun ownership comes from gun owners being stupid.
Oh, I agree. Stupidity does hurt the image of gun owners. No argument there.
But in the end, the kid is safe and a valuable lesson can be learned from this. That what counts in my book.
Steve steveson wrote: I doubt it. Her stance is an ideological one, not a rational one. This won't change her argument about self defence.
Why should a negligent action change someone's stance? Her stance could be completely rational. That doesn't mean she wasn't negligent, and her being negligent really doesn't have anything to do with whether or not her stance is ideological or rational (or both). Someone can fully, rationally believe that something is good (or bad) and still make a horrible choice under certain circumstances. It happens all the time, and it doesn't mean that their stance is irrational. There doesn't seem to be very many people who claim that driving while drunk is a good thing, yet many people do it. Their stance is likely completely rational: most will probably say drunk driving is bad. But they still make bad decisions under certain circumstances. In the end, a person's stance doesn't really come into play that much when it comes to negligent actions. There are plenty of hugely pro-gun, pro-self defense people who have never had a negligent discharge and never allowed a child to have access to their firearms. I realize that doesn't lend it'self well to snarky comments by people who don't like or don't really understand the fact that others want to have firearms though.
It seems despite wanting everyone to have guns for defence, she left a loaded gun in the back of her car along with her 4-year-old who shot her. She survived and faces negligence charges, though the article isn't clear if that's because of the gun or the lack of booster seat.
How can people claim to be responsible gun owners whilst allowing that to happen to themselves? It's just another high profile example of a lot of Americans lack of care with guns. I wonder if she'll change her stance now?
Nice way to turn the negligence of one person into an ideological pissing match.
The truth is that BOTH the child and weapon were unsecured and not under her full control. And this happens.
She should face charges for this, since both unsupervised access to firearms by children, and not having the child secured in a child safety seat, are both violations of the law.
This isn't about the gun debate. This is about a stupid parent and child endangerment.
I would suggest that you are very wrong.
If this young lady, a paragon of gun ownership and competence such that she was held up as an example on a poster can suffer such a tragic fate in what would otherwise be a safe environment then in what danger are the 99.99% of gun owners and non-gun owners on if they not considered good /competent enough to maker the poster.
This isn't about the gun debate. This is about a stupid parent and child endangerment.
It does, hoverer, often lead to the argument "if gun owners are to stupid to protect themselves and those around them, then we will have to pass laws to protect gun owners and those around them".
There are quite a few news stories that make me realize that the biggest thread to gun ownership comes from gun owners being stupid.
It certainly doesn't help the fact that many media outlets seem to prefer portraying guns and gun owners in a negative light. Not that gun owners don't provide them with plenty of material, mind you, but outside of specifically pro-gun media, with a few exceptions, the overall trend seems to be negative ranging to grudgingly neutral at best.
What use is a gun on the back seat anyway? Did she just throw her handbag in there with it inside or something?
That is actually a fantastic question. 45s, like the ones pictured in the associated link, are generally a little big for purse, unless it's a gigantic purse, which is possible I suppose. Now that I think about it, she may well have been a concealed carry permit holder, and absent mindedly put her purse (with gun) in the back seat.
That's still a terrible reason for putting a gun in the back with her child, but it's the most likely one I can think of, honestly.
Well, that and the fact it happened in floriduh. That's about all the explanation you need for idiotic behavior (like last month when a guy shoved an alligator into a drive-thru window).
It seems despite wanting everyone to have guns for defence, she left a loaded gun in the back of her car along with her 4-year-old who shot her. She survived and faces negligence charges, though the article isn't clear if that's because of the gun or the lack of booster seat.
How can people claim to be responsible gun owners whilst allowing that to happen to themselves? It's just another high profile example of a lot of Americans lack of care with guns. I wonder if she'll change her stance now?
Nice way to turn the negligence of one person into an ideological pissing match.
The truth is that BOTH the child and weapon were unsecured and not under her full control. And this happens.
She should face charges for this, since both unsupervised access to firearms by children, and not having the child secured in a child safety seat, are both violations of the law.
This isn't about the gun debate. This is about a stupid parent and child endangerment.
I would suggest that you are very wrong.
If this young lady, a paragon of gun ownership and competence such that she was held up as an example on a poster can suffer such a tragic fate in what would otherwise be a safe environment then in what danger are the 99.99% of gun owners and non-gun owners on if they not considered good /competent enough to maker the poster.
She wasn't a paragon of gun ownership and competence. In regards to what danger are the majority of gun owners who are not poster children in, the majority of gun owners aren't having negligent discharges or allowing toddlers access to their weapons so the answer to that question would be "rather minimal," I think.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kap'n Krump wrote: Well, that and the fact it happened in floriduh. That's about all the explanation you need for idiotic behavior (like last month when a guy shoved an alligator into a drive-thru window).
Let's not generalize and stereotype an entire state's population. Besides being distasteful, quite frankly in the context of this discussion it's not useful information for anything.
It seems despite wanting everyone to have guns for defence, she left a loaded gun in the back of her car along with her 4-year-old who shot her. She survived and faces negligence charges, though the article isn't clear if that's because of the gun or the lack of booster seat.
How can people claim to be responsible gun owners whilst allowing that to happen to themselves? It's just another high profile example of a lot of Americans lack of care with guns. I wonder if she'll change her stance now?
Nice way to turn the negligence of one person into an ideological pissing match.
The truth is that BOTH the child and weapon were unsecured and not under her full control. And this happens.
She should face charges for this, since both unsupervised access to firearms by children, and not having the child secured in a child safety seat, are both violations of the law.
This isn't about the gun debate. This is about a stupid parent and child endangerment.
I would suggest that you are very wrong.
If this young lady, a paragon of gun ownership and competence such that she was held up as an example on a poster can suffer such a tragic fate in what would otherwise be a safe environment then in what danger are the 99.99% of gun owners and non-gun owners on if they not considered good /competent enough to maker the poster.
Here's the thing: It wasn't a "safe" environment. Her negligence MADE it an unsafe environment. If the weapon was secured, and the child properly secured in a DoT approved child safety seat, this wouldn't have happened. That is a fact.
The use of one person's stupidity, regardless of who they are, to smear us all is a classic exercise in agenda-mongering and broad-brushing. And considering that a personal tragedy had been narrowly averted, such is downright sickening. Being a "poster girl" for the "terrible, nasty old gun lobby", is completely irrelevant in the overall picture.
SharkoutofWata wrote: Fully a supporter of guns and having loaded weapons in the car ready for use. This woman was a negligent fool for keeping it where a child is. If a loaded gun is in the same area as a child, common sense is to have it inaccessible. A touch safe in the center console or glove compartment. Don't care about the gun owner, it's friggin lucky the child wasn't hurt.
Yea a glove compartment ( or centre console ) is total safety I would keep my savings in it knowing full well no one could get near them. Those latches are a safe crackers nightmare.
There are companies that manufacture biometric and key code quick-access safes designed to be installed in motor vehicles. I believe this is the type of thing he was referring to, not just "bunging the gun in the glovebox".
SharkoutofWata wrote: Fully a supporter of guns and having loaded weapons in the car ready for use. This woman was a negligent fool for keeping it where a child is. If a loaded gun is in the same area as a child, common sense is to have it inaccessible. A touch safe in the center console or glove compartment. Don't care about the gun owner, it's friggin lucky the child wasn't hurt.
Yea a glove compartment ( or centre console ) is total safety I would keep my savings in it knowing full well no one could get near them. Those latches are a safe crackers nightmare.
There are companies that manufacture biometric and key code quick-access safes designed to be installed in motor vehicles. I believe this is the type of thing he was referring to, not just "bunging the gun in the glovebox".
Or just carry concealed and solve the problem altogether. Maybe the next poster girl can spread the word about firearm safety.
SharkoutofWata wrote: Fully a supporter of guns and having loaded weapons in the car ready for use. This woman was a negligent fool for keeping it where a child is. If a loaded gun is in the same area as a child, common sense is to have it inaccessible. A touch safe in the center console or glove compartment. Don't care about the gun owner, it's friggin lucky the child wasn't hurt.
Yea a glove compartment ( or centre console ) is total safety I would keep my savings in it knowing full well no one could get near them. Those latches are a safe crackers nightmare.
There are companies that manufacture biometric and key code quick-access safes designed to be installed in motor vehicles. I believe this is the type of thing he was referring to, not just "bunging the gun in the glovebox".
Or just carry concealed and solve the problem altogether.
Concealed carry also includes off-body carry though. And you still have instances where you are carrying concealed and may have to enter a place that doesn't allow it so you have to store the gun temporarily.
feeder wrote: Right. Because the best way to be safe is to be armed. So you can shoot first? I have never been able to follow that one all the way through.
Congratulations, you just did.
Also, most defensive gun uses don't involve shooting someone.
I hope the gun owner faces charges for her negligence.
Knockagh wrote: Yea a glove compartment ( or centre console ) is total safety I would keep my savings in it knowing full well no one could get near them. Those latches are a safe crackers nightmare.
It doesn't have to be a safe cracker's nightmare - it just has to be an effective barrier to the child accessing the gun.
feeder wrote: Right. Because the best way to be safe is to be armed. So you can shoot first? I have never been able to follow that one all the way through.
Worked pretty well in the cold war...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Is the point of this thread just to point and laugh that someone got shot? If so it is a poor reflection on us as a community.
Considering that that is what happened, yes it probably was.
That really just sums it up. On average, these people are far more likely to be a danger to themselves, their families, and the public at large, than they ever will be of stopping a crime.
Yes, accidents happen. But this one could have been avoided if she had a) secured the kid in the booster seat and b) kept her gun in a more secure location ie the glove compartment. Or at the very least had one of those trigger padlock thingies
For anyone actually interested in more than taking glee from this unfortunate incident you may be interested to know that thankfully events like this are not only a definite minority, but negligent discharges have been trending downwards for a considerable period
angelofvengeance wrote: Yes, accidents happen. But this one could have been avoided if she had a) secured the kid in the booster seat and b) kept her gun in a more secure location ie the glove compartment. Or at the very least had one of those trigger padlock thingies
Or not had a gun in the first place, because statistically you are more likely to be the victim of an accident than an assault.
That really just sums it up. On average, these people are far more likely to be a danger to themselves, their families, and the public at large, than they ever will be of stopping a crime.
That is not the reason we yanks can own fire arms. That is not the reason we do not have knife surrender bins.
I find it sad that someone who descended in the Anglo Law tradition could miss the point so much...
The west has run its course, stuff like this, I just wish the socialist would just accelerate it and migrate and tax us into oblivion. I have no faith left in my civilization or any human civilization.
The west will fall, I hope I die soon so I don't have to see it.
That really just sums it up. On average, these people are far more likely to be a danger to themselves, their families, and the public at large, than they ever will be of stopping a crime.
Except that doesn't really tell the whole story, does it? Amazingly we have places in the US where loads of people own guns and there is very little gun violence. Of course it's easier for someone with no experience in the matter whatsoever, and very limited perspective, to speak condescendingly about it. The truth is, the average gun owner isn't a danger to anyone.
angelofvengeance wrote: Yes, accidents happen. But this one could have been avoided if she had a) secured the kid in the booster seat and b) kept her gun in a more secure location ie the glove compartment. Or at the very least had one of those trigger padlock thingies
Dreadclaw69 wrote: For anyone actually interested in more than taking glee from this unfortunate incident you may be interested to know that thankfully events like this are not only a definite minority, but negligent discharges have been trending downwards for a considerable period
Really? Cause this seems to be happening a lot lately...
The west will fall, I hope I die soon so I don't have to see it.
This escalated quickly...
Unlike the rest of you I have already accepted that my greatest accomplishment will be dying for a civilization that truly died 60 years ago that I will never experience. The greatest impact of my life will be becoming a statistic in coming wars.
The west will fall, I hope I die soon so I don't have to see it.
This escalated quickly...
Unlike the rest of you I have already accepted that my greatest accomplishment will be dying for a civilization that truly died 60 years ago that I will never experience. The greatest impact of my life will be becoming a statistic in coming wars.
That and forum posts.
The internet will never forget your contributions before your sacrifice!
Dreadclaw69 wrote: For anyone actually interested in more than taking glee from this unfortunate incident you may be interested to know that thankfully events like this are not only a definite minority, but negligent discharges have been trending downwards for a considerable period
Really? Cause this seems to be happening a lot lately...
The west will fall, I hope I die soon so I don't have to see it.
This escalated quickly...
Unlike the rest of you I have already accepted that my greatest accomplishment will be dying for a civilization that truly died 60 years ago that I will never experience. The greatest impact of my life will be becoming a statistic in coming wars.
That and forum posts.
The internet will never forget your contributions before your sacrifice!
That's just my perspective, don't tell me you have hope for this garbage heap we call the first world.
The west will fall, I hope I die soon so I don't have to see it.
This escalated quickly...
Unlike the rest of you I have already accepted that my greatest accomplishment will be dying for a civilization that truly died 60 years ago that I will never experience. The greatest impact of my life will be becoming a statistic in coming wars.
I suggest you travel to the Lost Hills bunker, speak to Talus, and claim the T-51b Power Armor found on level 3: it will aid you in your quest. You'll need a repair skill of at least 75 to fix it though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheMeanDM wrote: The point is that it shouldn't be happening EVER because...you know....GUN SAFETY
Something that people have been preaching but not following.
Considering that there are more guns than people in the US, it seems more like the majority of legal gun owners have been practicing gun safety rather well. The fact that events involving gun negligence make the news indicates that it is rare enough to be newsworthy - that is, outside the norm.
"It is lawful to possess a concealed firearm for self-defense or other lawful purposes within the interior of a private conveyance, without a license, if the firearm is securely encased or is otherwise not readily accessible for immediate use. A firearm other than a handgun may be carried anywhere in a private conveyance when such firearm is being carried for a lawful use.
This exemption does not authorize the carrying of a firearm concealed on the person."
(17) "Securely encased" means in a glove compartment, whether or not locked; snapped in a holster; in a gun case, whether or not locked; in a zippered gun case; or in a closed box or container which requires a lid or cover to be opened for access.
The Home Nuggeteer wrote: That's just my perspective, don't tell me you have hope for this garbage heap we call the first world.
I actually do.
I look at the advancements we are making in science, healthcare, agriculture.
I look at the improvements my community is making.
I actively participate in my community to make it a better place for me and the people around me and volunteer in my city, county, and state.
If I didn't have any hope I might as well just stop wasting my time and kill myself and my family so they don't have to suffer what you think we are all suffering from.
Hordini wrote: Of course it's easier for someone with no experience in the matter whatsoever, and very limited perspective, to speak condescendingly about it.
Well now who is being condescending? I have been following and debating this issue for literally years, and I've read dozens of the arguments and studies (from both sides of the debate), many posted by you, so telling me I have "no experience in the matter whatsoever", is just a sad ad hominem. But I suppose it's easier to attack me personally than it is to acknowledge that guns evidently do more harm than good.
Hordini wrote: The truth is, the average gun owner isn't a danger to anyone.
That's like saying the average landmine isn't a danger to anyone. We'll be back here soon enough, sometime in the next few weeks one of today's "average" "law abiding" gun owners is going to make the news again, and then a few weeks again after that. I'll look forward to us chatting again then.
Considering that there are more guns than people in the US, it seems more like the majority of legal gun owners have been practicing gun safety rather well.
The number of gun owners has been decreasing for a few decades now, despite the increasing number of guns.
Just something that should be clarified if we are bringing up the number of guns as an argument either way.
Breotan wrote: Or just carry concealed and solve the problem altogether. Maybe the next poster girl can spread the word about firearm safety.
Agree completely. Purse carry seems like a bad carry option to me. In my humble opinion, the only 3 places a firearm should be are in your hand, on your hip, or in your safe. Go IWB if you must.
Hordini wrote: Of course it's easier for someone with no experience in the matter whatsoever, and very limited perspective, to speak condescendingly about it.
Well now who is being condescending? I have been following and debating this issue for literally years, and I've read dozens of the arguments and studies (from both sides of the debate), many posted by you, so telling me I have "no experience in the matter whatsoever", is just a sad ad hominem. But I suppose it's easier to attack me personally than it is to acknowledge that guns evidently do more harm than good.
Hordini wrote: The truth is, the average gun owner isn't a danger to anyone.
That's like saying the average landmine isn't a danger to anyone. We'll be back here soon enough, sometime in the next few weeks one of today's "average" "law abiding" gun owners is going to make the news again, and then a few weeks again after that. I'll look forward to us chatting again then.
Well, of course I'm the one being condescending now, but only after you initiated with your opinion based on some supposed "average," without any actual context. Let me clarify: by lack of experience, I specifically mean that you live in a country with very few gun owners and very few guns, to the best of my knowledge have never lived in the United States, specifically in one of the many areas with high levels of gun ownership and very little gun violence. Hence the limited perspective provided primarily by involving yourself in discussions on an internet forum. The fact that you would compare the average gun owner to 'the average landmine" only illustrates exactly what I'm talking about.
It's a slight tangent, but have you ever used a firearm before? Have you ever handled one? I'm not asking in an attempt to discredit you. Obviously someone can have a well-thought out, well-reasoned opinion on firearms without ever having handled a gun. I'm legitimately curious.
angelofvengeance wrote: Only 500ish incidents in 2013. Well, that makes it ok then! Once in a blue moon that, isn't it?
If only you considered the population size, which was mentioned before, you might realize that 500 people out of 319,000,000 (or 0.0015%) is statistically insignificant as you can very easily round that down to zero.
Breotan wrote: Or just carry concealed and solve the problem altogether. Maybe the next poster girl can spread the word about firearm safety.
Agree completely. Purse carry seems like a bad carry option to me. In my humble opinion, the only 3 places a firearm should be are in your hand, on your hip, or in your safe. Go IWB if you must.
angelofvengeance wrote: Only 500ish incidents in 2013. Well, that makes it ok then! Once in a blue moon that, isn't it?
There are far, far too many negligent shootings in the US. Partially that is because we're awash in guns, and so with any large population, you're going to have a large population of idiots, but also in my opinion there are two other factors that contribute.
1.) Calling them "accidental shootings". This expression grinds my gears. There are virtually never truly accidental shootings - there are negligent shootings. If you leave a pistol under your couch and your toddler shoots his sister with it, it wasn't an accident. It was criminal negligence.
2.) A lack of will to prosecute people who have "accidental shootings", especially when a fatality occurred. Often it's thought that they were victims of a tragedy and have suffered enough. The fact is, these people were authors of a tragedy, and should be treated as such. This woman should be prosecuted and child protective services should investigate her since she has shown she is irresponsible with both firearms and children.
Considering that there are more guns than people in the US, it seems more like the majority of legal gun owners have been practicing gun safety rather well.
The number of gun owners has been decreasing for a few decades now, despite the increasing number of guns.
Just something that should be clarified if we are bringing up the number of guns as an argument either way.
Certainly true. I wonder if, overall, the fewer people who go to the trouble of keeping guns are trending towards the more gun safety-conscious of the firearm owning population? I just don't care for the context-less statement that "gun owners are more of a threat to themselves and their families than criminals." Even if technically true, due to the fact that self-defense gun uses are hard to quantify and many don't involve actually firing the weapon, coupled with the fact that crime isn't that high in many places and people have accidents with all kinds of things, it's not that hard to understand why someone would, when looking at raw statistics, be more likely to have an accident with a firearm than shoot a criminal with one. What that doesn't mean, however, is that the average gun owner is a danger to themselves, their family, and the general public, when the majority of gun owners aren't having negligence issues.
I think the real truth is closer to this: the average gun owner isn't a danger to anyone. I the problem is, this doesn't really support either side of the argument very well, so few people will cast it in a neutral light. Pro-gun people (and admittedly, I fall on the pro-gun side of the argument) tend to focus on defensive uses of weapons (however it is being defined), while anti-gun people focus on how people are more likely to injure themselves or a family member with a firearm than a criminal. But when looked at as a whole, the chances of either event happening are both very low - the average gun owner isn't a danger to anyone, criminal or otherwise.
Obviously she was a danger to her toddler. Why else would he pick up the gun and shoot her? People never have accidents with guns, the NRA representitive told me so
hotsauceman1 wrote: Obviously she was a danger to her toddler. Why else would he pick up the gun and shoot her? People never have accidents with guns, the NRA representitive told me so
What is your point regularly coming into threads and making posts like this? Is it supposed to be funny? Because it isn't.
Considering that there are more guns than people in the US, it seems more like the majority of legal gun owners have been practicing gun safety rather well.
The number of gun owners has been decreasing for a few decades now, despite the increasing number of guns.
Just something that should be clarified if we are bringing up the number of guns as an argument either way.
Certainly true. I wonder if, overall, the fewer people who go to the trouble of keeping guns are trending towards the more gun safety-conscious of the firearm owning population? I just don't care for the context-less statement that "gun owners are more of a threat to themselves and their families than criminals." Even if technically true, due to the fact that self-defense gun uses are hard to quantify and many don't involve actually firing the weapon, coupled with the fact that crime isn't that high in many places and people have accidents with all kinds of things, it's not that hard to understand why someone would, when looking at raw statistics, be more likely to have an accident with a firearm than shoot a criminal with one. What that doesn't mean, however, is that the average gun owner is a danger to themselves, their family, and the general public, when the majority of gun owners aren't having negligence issues.
I think the real truth is closer to this: the average gun owner isn't a danger to anyone. I the problem is, this doesn't really support either side of the argument very well, so few people will cast it in a neutral light. Pro-gun people (and admittedly, I fall on the pro-gun side of the argument) tend to focus on defensive uses of weapons (however it is being defined), while anti-gun people focus on how people are more likely to injure themselves or a family member with a firearm than a criminal. But when looked at as a whole, the chances of either event happening are both very low - the average gun owner isn't a danger to anyone, criminal or otherwise.
True.
My main thought with the "number of guns" vs "number of gun owners" distinction is that we would already expect the rate of gun-related accidents to go down as the rate of gun ownership is going down as well. Just looking at a statistic such as "accidental gun deaths decreased by X%" doesn't tell us the relevant information without also looking at the change in gun ownership rates during that same time period.
So I just don't want us to fall into the trap of saying "there are more guns now than X years ago and accidental shootings are down Y%" instead of looking at the more accurate number of "households with guns" and "rate of accidental shootings adjusted for number of households with guns" and other statistics.
And for full disclosure, I haven't done the actual math, but the "scribbled something on a sticky note math" indicates that even adjusting for the decrease in gun-ownership the number of accidental deaths has decreased. Of course this could be because people are more responsible, advances in medicine, a shift in the population that owns guns towards a demographic with better access to a trauma center, or any other number of factors. I didn't spend a whole lot of time looking, but I couldn't find a good number of gun-related accidental injuries though.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Cause I dislike gun culture in the united states and how people like this women treat them like toys.
I don't think that's what is really happening here, and if you think that's the case I would question your understanding of "gun culture in the United States."
angelofvengeance wrote: Only 500ish incidents in 2013. Well, that makes it ok then! Once in a blue moon that, isn't it?
If only you considered the population size, which was mentioned before, you might realize that 500 people out of 319,000,000 (or 0.0015%) is statistically insignificant as you can very easily round that down to zero.
Let's get one thing straight. That's 500 or so people. They're not percentages for some flow chart. They're living breathing humans. So don't try and justify your gun safety facts with that hogwash. This young lady should consider herself extremely fething lucky that the kid didn't pop her one in the head.
And Ouze: in total agreement with your points. She should serve time and be banned from owning a firearm.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Obviously she was a danger to her toddler. Why else would he pick up the gun and shoot her? People never have accidents with guns, the NRA representitive told me so
What is your point regularly coming into threads and making posts like this? Is it supposed to be funny? Because it isn't.
Hordini wrote: Certainly true. I wonder if, overall, the fewer people who go to the trouble of keeping guns are trending towards the more gun safety-conscious of the firearm owning population? I just don't care for the context-less statement that "gun owners are more of a threat to themselves and their families than criminals." Even if technically true, due to the fact that self-defense gun uses are hard to quantify and many don't involve actually firing the weapon, coupled with the fact that crime isn't that high in many places and people have accidents with all kinds of things, it's not that hard to understand why someone would, when looking at raw statistics, be more likely to have an accident with a firearm than shoot a criminal with one. What that doesn't mean, however, is that the average gun owner is a danger to themselves, their family, and the general public, when the majority of gun owners aren't having negligence issues.
I think the real truth is closer to this: the average gun owner isn't a danger to anyone. I the problem is, this doesn't really support either side of the argument very well, so few people will cast it in a neutral light. Pro-gun people (and admittedly, I fall on the pro-gun side of the argument) tend to focus on defensive uses of weapons (however it is being defined), while anti-gun people focus on how people are more likely to injure themselves or a family member with a firearm than a criminal. But when looked at as a whole, the chances of either event happening are both very low - the average gun owner isn't a danger to anyone, criminal or otherwise.
There is certainly an issue with calculating whether there is an increase in the amount of the population owning guns. Most claims that gun ownership is on the decline come from the General Social Survey, which is based on what information people are willing to share with strangers either in person or over the phone. To counter this a Gallup poll in 2011 came to the conclusion that 47% of the population had a firearm. In reality there is no hard, definitive data and instead we are using imperfect data to make our conclusions. What is known is that the market for lady shooters has exploded, the National Sports Shooting Foundation has found that 20% of gun owners became gunowners in the past five years, that new CCW permit applications are are high levels, and that firearm sales are at record highs.
So either more people are buying firearms and it is becoming a more widespread practice, or a diminishing number of old, fat, white guys are applying for multiple CCW permits, buying crates of AR15's, and are buying garter holsters, flashbang bras, and pink camo guns.
Hordini wrote: based on some supposed "average," without any actual context.
The chances of an accident go up when you introduce a gun to your home, I feel that has been fairly well established. The chances of you needing a gun for a legitimate self defence, where no other security measure would have worked, are generally quite overstated.
Hordini wrote: Let me clarify: by lack of experience, I specifically mean that you live in a country with very few gun owners and very few guns.
I'm not sure what "experience" you are referring to here. If you are talking about experience shooting stuff, then I will grant you that it is not my thing, but shooting stuff does not make people more "sensible" or better informed about social issues. The fact that I come from a society with fewer guns, and have seen how the world still manages to turn, does not make my perspective any narrower than anybody else's.
Hordini wrote: The fact that you would compare the average gun owner to 'the average landmine" only illustrates exactly what I'm talking about.
I know that not all gun owners will have accidents or shoot people. My point was that criminals and idiots don't come with a label. They all look like honest law abiding people until they do something.
Hordini wrote: It's a slight tangent, but have you ever used a firearm before? Have you ever handled one? I'm not asking in an attempt to discredit you. Obviously someone can have a well-thought out, well-reasoned opinion on firearms without ever having handled a gun. I'm legitimately curious.
Yes, my father was keen on hunting, and owned shotguns, and I have fired a shotgun. I'm also hoping to go clay pigeon shooting later in the year, when the weather gets better.
This graph is just asinine stupid. All it does is try to play down the number of gun accidents by comparing them to something which is understandably huge and largely unrelated. Drawing a comparison with other developed nations would make more sense, though I expect such a graph would fail miserably at playing down the issue.
Smacks wrote: Yes, my father was keen on hunting, and owned shotguns, and I have fired a shotgun. I'm also hoping to go clay pigeon shooting later in the year, when the weather gets better.
Trap & skeet are far and away my favorite shooting sports.
angelofvengeance wrote: Only 500ish incidents in 2013. Well, that makes it ok then! Once in a blue moon that, isn't it?
If only you considered the population size, which was mentioned before, you might realize that 500 people out of 319,000,000 (or 0.0015%) is statistically insignificant as you can very easily round that down to zero.
Let's get one thing straight. That's 500 or so people. They're not percentages for some flow chart. They're living breathing humans. So don't try and justify your gun safety facts with that hogwash. This young lady should consider herself extremely fething lucky that the kid didn't pop her one in the head.
You can get off your moral high horse. Every loss of life to something preventable is something to be mourned. I apologize if you thought that I intended otherwise. That being said the facts are clearly on my side of the debate because it is statistically insignificant in terms of the US population. By way of comparison you are 78 times more likely to die as a result of the flu, and in fact you have pretty similar odds of being struck by lightening as killed by a negligent discharge.
The fact that you have used an appeal to emotion instead of actually rebutting my point is telling.
Breotan wrote: Or just carry concealed and solve the problem altogether. Maybe the next poster girl can spread the word about firearm safety.
Agree completely. Purse carry seems like a bad carry option to me. In my humble opinion, the only 3 places a firearm should be are in your hand, on your hip, or in your safe. Go IWB if you must.
One thing I also wonder is exactly what kind of gun this was to see if it may also have contributed to letting a 4 year old pull the trigger.
If it was a gun with an external safety, then the question is if it was engaged prior to the toddler getting a hold of the gun.
If it was a trigger safety, then I wonder if they had any work done on the trigger.
I know a few people that don't like the heavy and long trigger pulls on some guns which feature a trigger safety, and they sometimes do a lot of work to the gun to end up with a gun that has a trigger safety with a very short pull and a very light trigger.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Cause I dislike gun culture in the united states and how people like this women treat them like toys.
I don't think that's what is really happening here, and if you think that's the case I would question your understanding of "gun culture in the United States."
We're past the point in this thread where 'lol' posts and pointless, poorly spell/grammar checked posts are appropriate. They're considered spam at this point, so don't do it
The Home Nuggeteer wrote: That's just my perspective, don't tell me you have hope for this garbage heap we call the first world.
I actually do.
I look at the advancements we are making in science, healthcare, agriculture.
I look at the improvements my community is making.
I actively participate in my community to make it a better place for me and the people around me and volunteer in my city, county, and state.
If I didn't have any hope I might as well just stop wasting my time and kill myself and my family so they don't have to suffer what you think we are all suffering from.
A handgun was found on the floor in the back of the vehicle and there didn’t appear to be any bullet entry points on the exterior of the truck so Wells said the shot was most likely fired from inside.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Obviously she was a danger to her toddler. Why else would he pick up the gun and shoot her? People never have accidents with guns, the NRA representitive told me so
Clearly the toddler was defending themselves from the mother due to her lack of booster seat usage.
Breotan wrote: Or just carry concealed and solve the problem altogether. Maybe the next poster girl can spread the word about firearm safety.
Agree completely. Purse carry seems like a bad carry option to me. In my humble opinion, the only 3 places a firearm should be are in your hand, on your hip, or in your safe. Go IWB if you must.
One thing I also wonder is exactly what kind of gun this was to see if it may also have contributed to letting a 4 year old pull the trigger.
If it was a gun with an external safety, then the question is if it was engaged prior to the toddler getting a hold of the gun.
If it was a trigger safety, then I wonder if they had any work done on the trigger.
I know a few people that don't like the heavy and long trigger pulls on some guns which feature a trigger safety, and they sometimes do a lot of work to the gun to end up with a gun that has a trigger safety with a very short pull and a very light trigger.
This is the kicker if the gun pictured earlier was the exact model. That's a 1911 compact, which has an external trigger AND a dovetail safety so the gun practically must be in a 'shooting grip' to engage the trigger. AND it's a single action, which means the gun must have been cocked and chambered to go off. The gun was ready to fire, ignoring the three safe methods of storing the weapon (safety, hammer down, empty chamber). unless modifications were done to the gun, there's no excuse for a screw up of this magnitude. It's just gross negligence.
Hordini wrote: based on some supposed "average," without any actual context.
The chances of an accident go up when you introduce a gun to your home, I feel that has been fairly well established. The chances of you needing a gun for a legitimate self defence, where no other security measure would have worked, are generally quite overstated.
Yes, I understand that. I think most of us here do. My point is, even with the chances of a negligent discharge going up with a gun in the house (especially considering the chance of a negligent discharge is 0% if a gun isn't present, there is literally no way the chances couldn't go up), that doesn't mean the chances of having an ND are actually high. And to be clear, the chances of having an ND are not high.
motyak wrote: We're past the point in this thread where 'lol' posts and pointless, poorly spell/grammar checked posts are appropriate. They're considered spam at this point, so don't do it
Last time I say it, next person to be spamming will get a holiday instead of a warning, and the thread will probably just get closed instead of me repeating myself a 4th time.
Hordini wrote: That doesn't mean the chances of having an ND are actually high. And to be clear, the chances of having an ND are not high.
Well I think that depends on the individual. I posted recently about illusory superiority, which is a type of cognitive bias that leads 90% of people to believe themselves to be "above average" when it comes to driving safely. Some people even considered themselves above average, despite admitting to texting and sending emails whilst driving. Frankly, a lot of people are just plain delusional when it comes to assessing their own competence, even when they are able to identify other people's mistakes.
I have no doubt that there are people who are exceptionally competent when it comes to storing and securing firearms. Most people no doubt believe they are competent, but I expect (as with driving) many have bad habits, which they only find out about when/if something unlucky happens. Then there are people who are just accidents waiting to happen. I'm sure if you'd spoken to the girl in question a few weeks ago, she would likely have spouted all the usual lines from gun owners, things like: "why should I be punished because other people can't be trusted" and "I know how to handle my guns" etc... (actually, I have a good mind to go stalking through some of her posts, to see what she has written). It would have all sounded very believable too, right up until she had an accident which could have easily killed her or her child.
So people can claim they are "responsible" until they are blue in the face, I don't really believe it, and I certainly wouldn't want to bet my life on it.
Hordini wrote: That doesn't mean the chances of having an ND are actually high. And to be clear, the chances of having an ND are not high.
Well I think that depends on the individual. I posted recently about illusory superiority, which is a type of cognitive bias that leads 90% of people to believe themselves to be "above average" when it comes to driving safely. Some people even considered themselves above average, despite admitting to texting and sending emails whilst driving. Frankly, a lot of people are just plain delusional when it comes to assessing their own competence, even when they are able to identify other people's mistakes.
I have no doubt that there are people who are exceptionally competent when it comes to storing and securing firearms. Most people no doubt believe they are competent, but I expect (as with driving) many have bad habits, which they only find out about when/if something unlucky happens. Then there are people who are just accidents waiting to happen. I'm sure if you'd spoken to the girl in question a few weeks ago, she would likely have spouted all the usual lines from gun owners, things like: "why should I be punished because other people can't be trusted" and "I know how to handle my guns" etc... (actually, I have a good mind to go stalking through some of her posts, to see what she has written). It would have all sounded very believable too, right up until she had an accident which could have easily killed her or her child.
So people can claim they are "responsible" until they are blue in the face, I don't really believe it, and I certainly wouldn't want to bet my life on it.
The average gun owner doesn't have accidents like that though, and you certainly don't have to be "above average" to not have an ND. I get what you're saying about illusory superiority, but you seem to be approaching this like having NDs and negligently shooting people is the norm, and I don't think the statistics really bear that out. The number of people who have negligent discharges or accidentally shoot someone is still a tiny fraction of the number of people who own guns.
So smacks. This is an honest question. Do you believe we should just take anything remotely dangerous away because an accident can happen, and people can't be trusted.
I mean with that line of thinking we should take cars away. Because I don't want to bet my life on assuming everyone is responsible. And alcohol. And knives. Anything that can cause a fire.
Your forced to "trust" that people are responsible every day. We can't go thru life constantly worried about what other people will do.
All those things you mentioned though are not designed with the explicite means to kill someone, guns are.
And to have a car you have to have a test to prove you can handle it, guns you dont. you just have to pass a psych evaluation. Every Year I have to smog my car to make sure its maintained or I have to scrap it. But we never check up on Gun owners.
The fact is actually, Cars are more regulated then guns in my opinion.
That's not my point. Which is why I was asking smacks. Correct if I'm wrong but it seems like he is basically saying people can't be trusted. But you no choice but to trust people every day. If you want to base everything on trust then we would have to remove everything. Danger will always be present. Understand I'm not defending the woman. I'm trying to understand smacks meaning with his comment
yellowfever wrote: So smacks. This is an honest question. Do you believe we should just take anything remotely dangerous away because an accident can happen, and people can't be trusted.
I mean with that line of thinking we should take cars away. Because I don't want to bet my life on assuming everyone is responsible. And alcohol. And knives. Anything that can cause a fire.
Someone once told me that most accidents happen inside the home. I guess we need to get rid of homes.
I don't think the pro gun lobby in the states have any idea how it sounds in the rest of the western world to have a pistol in a car. I know you have a different culture with guns. The whole of Europe just cannot even come close to grasping why anyone would even think its ok.
Hordini wrote: The average gun owner doesn't have accidents like that though, and you certainly don't have to be "above average" to not have an ND. I get what you're saying about illusory superiority, but you seem to be approaching this like having NDs and negligently shooting people is the norm, and I don't think the statistics really bear that out. The number of people who have negligent discharges or accidentally shoot someone is still a tiny fraction of the number of people who own guns.
The relevant comparison isn't to the total number of guns, but to the total number of guns which are used in a useful sense in a year. To explain, consider that I gave everyone on Earth a tiny orange ball with some weird mechanism inside. It doesn't look nice, it doesn't do anything, it just sits there. 7 billion of them. 3 of them explode, killing the recipient. It was intentional, but just some manufacturing issues will end up with a few bad ones. People will, fairly understandably, ask 'what the hell sebster?' I might reply that 3 deaths isn't much, when there was 7 billion devices out there. But that defense would make no sense, because those devices were just out there doing nothing useful. The three deaths would have to be compared against what good the balls were doing, which was nothing.
Now, I'm not coming in to argue against guns, just pointing out that only a few deaths for all the gun owners is meaningless, you have to measure the deaths against all the times guns were useful or enjoyable. You'd then scale the enjoyable stuff down, because obviously one fun afternoon on the range isn't equal to getting shot by your child. All of that makes this an theoretical exercise, you couldn't ever quantify it.
I personally don't like the idea of leaving my gun in a car. My guns are locked up unless at the range or being carried. When I'm Carrying my gun it's on me. Not the glove box or a man purse or any other method. I wouldn't feel comfortable having it anywhere else.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Is the point of this thread just to point and laugh that someone got shot? If so it is a poor reflection on us as a community.
To us outsiders, all we hear about guns in the US is when someone unhinged gets access to a gun and goes on a rampage, or a so-called responsible gun owner gets accidentally killed/wounded by the gun they are using to protect their family. We never hear of any crime prevented by gun ownership, and it seems that those carrying guns (in their purse near a toddler especially) are much more likely to come to harm due to their own negligence than any crime. I guess we get the impression that a lot of gun owning americans are totally blase/ignorant/unconcerned when it comes to gun safety.
Over here, where knife crime used to be a big issue, statistically you were more likely to get stabbed if you carried a knife than if you didn't, because presenting it just caused the situation to escalate. They used the justification that it was for safety too, but it was totally ass-backwards.
I think my main point though, is that if she's so negligent as to do this, why is she allowed to own a gun in the first place? Is it normal to let a 4 year old go target shooting with a .22? That's well under the age of understanding. I wouldn't let a 4 year old near a nerf gun.
Well...IRL, you can't always be vigilant 24/7. The real problem is to make guns a casual thing - but they aren't, you have to be careful with their use.
From what I have read about this woman, she clearly takes her gun with her to feel safer. That's why she has it in her car.
And yeah, most of these tragic accidents come from carelessness. Some call that stupidity...I would rather call it "ignorance of the true nature of the things you own".
A weapon is made to kill. It's a killer's tool. That's what it is.
I think my main point though, is that if she's so negligent as to do this, why is she allowed to own a gun in the first place? Is it normal to let a 4 year old go target shooting with a .22? That's well under the age of understanding. I wouldn't let a 4 year old near a nerf gun.
Am not in the US (despite what the flag to the left thinks, but I do have a 4 year old - well, nearly. He'll be 4 in June. And in the nicest possible way, he's a complete fethwit. Would I give him access to any sort of REAL BLOODY GUN??? Hell no. It would be moronic. I also have a nearly-8-year-old, and know damn well that if I gave him any sort of gun the very first thing he'd do with it, no matter how many safety lectures, would be to shoot me in the nadgers with it...
I love guns - i lament and understand the firearm restrictions over here, and whenever i hear/see a story like this i facepalm.
I'm certain that every gun owner/fan is probably doing the same.
The reaction to demand banning/controlling firearms is kinda understandable, but is still based on an irrational assumption that your government can protect you from accidental death; and it's usually postualated immediately after an emotionally evocative incident like this.
Can you imagine how you would explain cars on a motorway to a H&S committee if they didn't exist already?
"so it's a metal box which weighs a ton and a half which can move more than 8 times as quickly than the peak running speed of the average human male and requires 40 gallons of highly flammable liquid in an unprotected tank in the back - these are then driven within 4 feet of each other at speeds exceeding that needed for fixed-wing flight with you and three other people inside"
Further to the 'risk in life' thing - in the UK 290 people a year die from falling out of bed.
Herzlos wrote: To us outsiders, all we hear about guns in the US is when someone unhinged gets access to a gun and goes on a rampage, or a so-called responsible gun owner gets accidentally killed/wounded by the gun they are using to protect their family. We never hear of any crime prevented by gun ownership, and it seems that those carrying guns (in their purse near a toddler especially) are much more likely to come to harm due to their own negligence than any crime. I guess we get the impression that a lot of gun owning americans are totally blase/ignorant/unconcerned when it comes to gun safety.
Over here, where knife crime used to be a big issue, statistically you were more likely to get stabbed if you carried a knife than if you didn't, because presenting it just caused the situation to escalate. They used the justification that it was for safety too, but it was totally ass-backwards.
I think my main point though, is that if she's so negligent as to do this, why is she allowed to own a gun in the first place? Is it normal to let a 4 year old go target shooting with a .22? That's well under the age of understanding. I wouldn't let a 4 year old near a nerf gun.
As someone who lived outside the US for almost 30 years hi there fellow outsider.
You are correct in the media tends to focus on negative events with firearms ad so statistically irrelevant events get more attention than is warranted. The simple reason for that is that media outlets can spend much more time speculating and fear mongering leads to higher ratings/internet traffic. Outside of the firearm community you are rarely going to hear about the child how defends his mother against her abusive boyfriend with her hand gun. If you look at https://www.reddit.com/r/dgu that actually gives an indication as to how common defensive gun uses can be. However many dgus go unreported as not shot is fired - put simply most criminals do not like victims that resist.
To answer your question as to why she was allowed a gun in the first place the answer is simple; that absent a crystal ball or what Carol/Cheryl's gypsy woman says she was not a prohibited person. Of course following this incident I would be happy to see her charged with a criminal negligent act with a maximum sentence that removes her right to keep arms.
hotsauceman1 wrote: All those things you mentioned though are not designed with the explicite means to kill someone, guns are.
And to have a car you have to have a test to prove you can handle it, guns you dont. you just have to pass a psych evaluation. Every Year I have to smog my car to make sure its maintained or I have to scrap it. But we never check up on Gun owners.
The fact is actually, Cars are more regulated then guns in my opinion.
So to buy a car you need to pass a criminal background check?
You cannot own a car if you suffer from mental illness?
Domestic abusers cannot own cars?
Cars under a certain length are banned in some states but allowed in others?
Cars that hold over X amount of people/material are banned?
Mufflers on cars must be registered, a $200 tax stamp paid, and a 4-12 month wait?
That politicians want to increase liability for car manufacturers so that any injury caused by a car used negligently by its owner will result in the manufacturer being sued, or the manufacturer being sued because their product was used as a getaway vehicle after a bank robbery?
Knockagh wrote: I don't think the pro gun lobby in the states have any idea how it sounds in the rest of the western world to have a pistol in a car. I know you have a different culture with guns. The whole of Europe just cannot even come close to grasping why anyone would even think its ok.
If you have a firearm for self defense why would you not have it in your vehicle? Do you think that motor vehicles are magical talismans that protect the occupants from criminal behaviour? How else do you transport your firearm if not in a vehicle?
Comparing guns to cars is asinine, whoever does it.
Cars are a requirement for a huge number of people to carry out their lives - getting to work, or to the store, or whatever.
Guns are a requirement for a much, much tinier proportion of the population. For sure, there are people who legitimately require one. But the numbers are just way smaller.
It isn't a valid comparison for that reason. It's such a bad comparison that I can't believe how often it gets brought up.
In this case, yeah, the woman was obviously a fool.
I understand your point, Dreadclaw69, but for all tales when having a gun at the right time at the right place, how many about when the gun owner didn't have that chance or that it was used against him? That's the true question, quite hard to answer since we will never have all the cases happened until now.
You can't always have your gun on you ready to use when you will get in danger. Also, it's true criminals don't like victims who resist. The only way to resist/defend yourself isn't only by showing a gun, just saying - there are other tools or way to react that are certainly not as potentially lethal but can be as well effective.
In all cases, gun or not, there is no zero risk. What changes is how you feel. I can understand people who feel safer with a weapon on themselves. But the fact is, people who have a potentially lethal weapon on them have to be extra careful. And another fact is, people aren't always aware of the true nature of what they own - they think that since you can buy it anywhere legally, then it's fine and they don't have to care that much about it. Quite dreadful to read some of that woman's commentary where she clearly states she will not hesitate to kill the offender to defend herself - like she's thinking no matter the situation, as long as she feels she does that in her defense, it will not be a crime. That doesn't work automatically like that all the time, and this is this kind of casual assumption that is really dangerous. I feel like it's very common nowadays to see that; people just think like it's harmless, like it was nothing - or maybe just an automatism.
To me, it's just a question of teaching people some things that may seem obvious to others, but were never said to them before. That goes for guns but also for many other things IRL, IMHO.
If all gun owners were responsible people, of course there would be less tragic accidents like this one. But if that was case, the world would be much less a mess than it is actually.. Some people don't know unless they are taught properly - it doesn't come naturally how to properly handle a gun and since it can have terrible consequences on others people than the owner, I think it's reasonable to ask for some mandatory formation for each gun owner. I don't believe it's actually the case in America, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Sarouan wrote: The only way to resist/defend yourself isn't only by showing a gun, just saying - there are other tools or way to react that are certainly not as potentially lethal but can be as well effective.
It is definitely important for people who wish to take personal responsibility for their defense to consider less than lethal options as well. Many people just get a gun and that's it, never considering that slipping a small canister of pepper spray into their pocket gives them another option with minimal effort to carry. As a concealed carry permit holder, there have been times where I have felt uneasy but that absolutely did not warrant drawing my pistol. That is why I also have pepper spray. It behooves individuals to have access to options when it comes to self defense, something that I feel is not highlighted as much as it should be amongst the concealed carry crowd.
Sarouan wrote: Some people don't know unless they are taught properly - it doesn't come naturally how to properly handle a gun and since it can have terrible consequences on others people than the owner, I think it's reasonable to ask for some mandatory formation for each gun owner. I don't believe it's actually the case in America, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Which is why I believe that firearm safety classes should be more widely available and heavily promoted, perhaps even within the education system itself. Instead of burying heads in the sand and constantly screaming for bans of this, that and the other, why not accept that guns are a fact of life in this country and take proactive steps to educate people of their operation and safe use? Instead of spending so much money on subscription rewards and bulk mailing, why can't the likes of the NRA heavily expand their safety and training classes? The most dangerous person to handle a firearm is a person who is ignorant of their operation, which many anti-gun advocates are because they would rather pretend they don't exist or they will never have to come into contact with one, and many gun owners are because they took a hunter safety course 30 years ago, fire 3 shots a year for Deer season and think they know it all. Knowledge of their function and of the rules of firearm safety should be something that every American possesses and practices on a regular basis.
To clarify, I'm not suggesting any kind of mandatory training to own a gun, but rather more opportunity and availability of education for everyone, whether they wish to own a gun or not.
You need to pass a safety course (driving and written test) in order to secure your liscence to legally operate a motor vehicle.
---You need no such training or education to operate a gun..
You can own a car without being able to legally drive it.
---You can own a gun without knowing how to safely use it
If you are caught driving without a liscence, it is a crime...and after so many times..you can go to jail.
---You are jailed for owning a gun if you are a felon, abuser, etc
A car is created primarily for transportation.
---A gun is created primarily for killing
I would argue it is easier to qualify for gun ownership than it is for car liscensure.
Gun ownership does not require what is essentially an intelligence check.
If you can't pass the two exams (and have insurance!) you are not legally allowed to drive.
TheMeanDM wrote: You need to pass a safety course (driving and written test) in order to secure your liscence to legally operate a motor vehicle.
---You need no such training or education to operate a gun..
You can own a car without being able to legally drive it.
---You can own a gun without knowing how to safely use it
If you are caught driving without a liscence, it is a crime...and after so many times..you can go to jail.
---You are jailed for owning a gun if you are a felon, abuser, etc
A car is created primarily for transportation.
---A gun is created primarily for killing
I would argue it is easier to qualify for gun ownership than it is for car liscensure.
Gun ownership does not require what is essentially an intelligence check.
If you can't pass the two exams (and have insurance!) you are not legally allowed to drive.
You're comparing a right to a privilege. Nobody has a constitutional right to own and drive a car, it's a privilege controlled by state licensure. You don't need to pass an exam to own a gun (just a background check) for the same reasons you don't have to pass an exam to exercise your right to free speech, freedom of assembly, or any other of your rights.
Nostromodamus wrote: [
Which is why I believe that firearm safety classes should be more widely available and heavily promoted, perhaps even within the education system itself. Instead of burying heads in the sand and constantly screaming for bans of this, that and the other, why not accept that guns are a fact of life in this country and take proactive steps to educate people of their operation and safe use?
Is there a good reason not to make them mandatory?
I mean, if people can just order and buy a weapon as dangerous as a handgun, shouldn't it be a requirement to either attend a course or prove some form of basic competency? I don't necessarily mean skill in using it, but at least confirming they have some idea of how to store it safely.
Is it a rights thing? Because there's a legal right to bear arms (to keep militias at bay), asking the prospective owner to prove they are competent to own it before taking possession is a violation of that right? So the only way you can prevent someone using it is to wait for them to become a convicted felon or have a recorded history or mental instability?
SirDonlad wrote: I love guns - i lament and understand the firearm restrictions over here, and whenever i hear/see a story like this i facepalm.
I'm certain that every gun owner/fan is probably doing the same.
The reaction to demand banning/controlling firearms is kinda understandable, but is still based on an irrational assumption that your government can protect you from accidental death; and it's usually postualated immediately after an emotionally evocative incident like this.
Can you imagine how you would explain cars on a motorway to a H&S committee if they didn't exist already?
"so it's a metal box which weighs a ton and a half which can move more than 8 times as quickly than the peak running speed of the average human male and requires 40 gallons of highly flammable liquid in an unprotected tank in the back - these are then driven within 4 feet of each other at speeds exceeding that needed for fixed-wing flight with you and three other people inside"
Further to the 'risk in life' thing - in the UK 290 people a year die from falling out of bed.
Rights are privileges granted in law; they can be revoked by following due process. They are not immutable foundations of the universe and all existance. It can in fact be said that the privilege of being able to drive is as much a right as gun ownership (in the USA at least); the law sets out who is able to drive and the conditions they must meet in order to drive on public roads. Similarly the law sets out who is able to own firearms and the conditions they must meet to purchase/use/etc them.
I can buy the argument that people want to carry a gun in their car to protect them from carjackers or robbers, but I don't understand why you would then keep it on the back seat.
If you're in the driver's seat, and you need your gun quickly, you have to reach back awkwardly, fight off a seat-belt that's impeding you, and then get yourself ready to aim and fire. That takes valuable seconds, so why have a gun on the back seat when the glovebox makes more sense?
Nostromodamus wrote: [
Which is why I believe that firearm safety classes should be more widely available and heavily promoted, perhaps even within the education system itself. Instead of burying heads in the sand and constantly screaming for bans of this, that and the other, why not accept that guns are a fact of life in this country and take proactive steps to educate people of their operation and safe use?
Is there a good reason not to make them mandatory?
I mean, if people can just order and buy a weapon as dangerous as a handgun, shouldn't it be a requirement to either attend a course or prove some form of basic competency? I don't necessarily mean skill in using it, but at least confirming they have some idea of how to store it safely.
Is it a rights thing? Because there's a legal right to bear arms (to keep militias at bay), asking the prospective owner to prove they are competent to own it before taking possession is a violation of that right? So the only way you can prevent someone using it is to wait for them to become a convicted felon or have a recorded history or mental instability?
Yes it is absolutely a rights thing. US citizens have a constitutionally guaranteed right to own firearms and US citizens also enjoy the legal right of presumptive innocence. A US citizen gets to exercise his/her right to keep and bear arms unless that person has already been legally found to have committed disqualifying acts or been found to be in a disqualifying state of mind. Until such time as that disqualification has been proven the govt doesn't have the right to restrict your constitutional right.
yellowfever wrote: So smacks. This is an honest question. Do you believe we should just take anything remotely dangerous away because an accident can happen, and people can't be trusted.
No I don't, and I never said that guns should be taken away.
yellowfever wrote: I mean with that line of thinking we should take cars away.
The car analogy is a fairly tired strawman. I think Sebster's post largely covered why, with his orange ball example, but I would add that (unlike many people who oppose gun control) I do not believe vehicle related deaths are just "acceptable losses", or see them as collateral for all the benefits of having cars. I would be very much in favour of measures that make cars safer, and remove them from areas where people wish to walk and cycle.
So to buy a car you need to pass a criminal background check? You cannot own a car if you suffer from mental illness? Domestic abusers cannot own cars? Cars under a certain length are banned in some states but allowed in others? Cars that hold over X amount of people/material are banned? Mufflers on cars must be registered, a $200 tax stamp paid, and a 4-12 month wait? That politicians want to increase liability for car manufacturers so that any injury caused by a car used negligently by its owner will result in the manufacturer being sued, or the manufacturer being sued because their product was used as a getaway vehicle after a bank robbery?
The regulations might not be exactly the same, but there are probably just as many (if not more). There are lots of conditions that disqualify people from driving, such as blindness and some types of epilepsy. There are also plenty of regulations about size (especially width) and roadworthyness/emissions. Manufactures are often criticized for making cars unsafe (too fast, bullbars etc...), and you (usually) need a licenses, registration and some form of insurance to use public highways.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If you're in the driver's seat, and you need your gun quickly, you have to reach back awkwardly, fight off a seat-belt that's impeding you, and then get yourself ready to aim and fire.
Indeed, even if you own a gun, it doesn't guarantee you will be able safe from criminals. Unless you sleep with it under your pillow, or carry it up your sleeve like Travis Bickle, there is a good to fair chance that someone who already has a gun drawn will have an advantage over you. Aside from the accident potential, having a gun might actually lull people into a false sense of security, and encourage behaviour that is less safe. Sometimes the gun itself is what criminals want, making the owner a target.
Prestor Jon nailed it. The United States is unique that our firearm ownership rights are guaranteed in the core document of governance- the Constitution, Amendment 2. The Supreme Court has generally been hostile to blanket ownership bans, but has allowed restrictions such as licensing, limitations on certain types of weaponry (automatic weaponry, explosives, etc.), and the like.
This creates scenarios where a state or city cannot ban firearms, but can ban other weapons such as knives, clubs, etc.
In my state of Texas, for example, as a civilian, I can be licensed to carry a pistol openly but cannot ever carry around a baton/club unless I am certified law enforcement or security. And knives over a certain size are right out.
Rights are privileges granted in law; they can be revoked by following due process. They are not immutable foundations of the universe and all existance. It can in fact be said that the privilege of being able to drive is as much a right as gun ownership (in the USA at least); the law sets out who is able to drive and the conditions they must meet in order to drive on public roads. Similarly the law sets out who is able to own firearms and the conditions they must meet to purchase/use/etc them.
Gun ownership is a right protected by federal and state constitutions and federal and state judicial precedent. Car ownership and/or use enjoys no such protections and can therefore be taken away or heavily restricted by legislative action without concern for legal challenges on constitutional grounds. There are no facts that would support the thesis that US citizens have an enumerated constitutional right to car ownership or use.
Prestor Jon wrote: Gun ownership is a right protected by federal and state constitutions and federal and state judicial precedent. Car ownership and/or use enjoys no such protections and can therefore be taken away or heavily restricted by legislative action without concern for legal challenges on constitutional grounds. There are no facts that would support the thesis that US citizens have an enumerated constitutional right to car ownership or use.
You are then drawing a distinction on two legally granted rights based on how much protection said right has from change?
Functionally you have a right to drive a car just as you have the right to own a gun. Both are granted by your government and both can be altered or withdrawn by your government.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Yeah, we know that American citizens have a constitutional right to own guns, but what has that got to do with
a) Gun safety and endangering a child's life through criminal negligence
b) leaving your gun in the back seat of your car, thus making it harder for you to defend yourself from criminals...
It has to do with people constantly pointing to someones negligence and criminal wrong doing, and then saying we need to restrict everyone elses rights because of it.
As Prestor said, that presumption of innocence is also one of our rights. Constantly attacking other rights because of "what ifs" kinda flies in the face of that presumption.
SirDonlad wrote: I love guns - i lament and understand the firearm restrictions over here, and whenever i hear/see a story like this i facepalm.
I'm certain that every gun owner/fan is probably doing the same.
The reaction to demand banning/controlling firearms is kinda understandable, but is still based on an irrational assumption that your government can protect you from accidental death; and it's usually postualated immediately after an emotionally evocative incident like this.
Can you imagine how you would explain cars on a motorway to a H&S committee if they didn't exist already?
"so it's a metal box which weighs a ton and a half which can move more than 8 times as quickly than the peak running speed of the average human male and requires 40 gallons of highly flammable liquid in an unprotected tank in the back - these are then driven within 4 feet of each other at speeds exceeding that needed for fixed-wing flight with you and three other people inside"
Further to the 'risk in life' thing - in the UK 290 people a year die from falling out of bed.
It makes no difference how many die of guns. There is no justification for the illogical act of banning one person, for instance Sir Donlad, from owning firearms because of the actions of another person that have no connection whatsoever to Sir Donlad. No amount of bad behavior exhibited by any number of other people guarantees similar as behavior will be done by Sir Donlad.
No lives are being saved from prohibiting Sir Donlad from owning guns unless you know for certain that Sir Donlad would, either through negligence or deliberate intent harm or murder someone with a gun if he owned one. Absent evidence proving such a certainty banning him from owning guns is a needless infringement on a citizens Liberty done purely to assuage the fears of others.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Yeah, we know that American citizens have a constitutional right to own guns, but what has that got to do with
a) Gun safety and endangering a child's life through criminal negligence
b) leaving your gun in the back seat of your car, thus making it harder for you to defend yourself from criminals...
Nobody in this thread has said that gun safety courses aren't worthwhile or that child endangerment via negligent handling of firearms shouldn't be a crime. Nobody has said that leaving a loaded gun on the backseat of your is a good idea or safe action either.
Unfortunately some people in this thread do seem to believe that negligent and/or criminal acts by some people justifies the collective punishment of everyone even in direct opposition to enumerated constitutional rights. Once that line of thought has been introduced into the thread you can expect others to post rebuttals to it.
Breotan wrote: Or just carry concealed and solve the problem altogether. Maybe the next poster girl can spread the word about firearm safety.
Agree completely. Purse carry seems like a bad carry option to me. In my humble opinion, the only 3 places a firearm should be are in your hand, on your hip, or in your safe. Go IWB if you must.
For many females (smaller body/frame and female clothing styles) purse carry is a very valid option.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Yeah, we know that American citizens have a constitutional right to own guns, but what has that got to do with
a) Gun safety and endangering a child's life through criminal negligence
b) leaving your gun in the back seat of your car, thus making it harder for you to defend yourself from criminals...
It has to do with people constantly pointing to someones negligence and criminal wrong doing, and then saying we need to restrict everyone elses rights because of it.
As Prestor said, that presumption of innocence is also one of our rights. Constantly attacking other rights because of "what ifs" kinda flies in the face of that presumption.
"Presumption of innocence" has nothing to do with the subject at hand, now does it?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Yeah, we know that American citizens have a constitutional right to own guns, but what has that got to do with
a) Gun safety and endangering a child's life through criminal negligence
b) leaving your gun in the back seat of your car, thus making it harder for you to defend yourself from criminals...
It has to do with people constantly pointing to someones negligence and criminal wrong doing, and then saying we need to restrict everyone elses rights because of it.
As Prestor said, that presumption of innocence is also one of our rights. Constantly attacking other rights because of "what ifs" kinda flies in the face of that presumption.
"Presumption of innocence" has nothing to do with the subject at hand, now does it?
What subject are you referring to? Everyone is always innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law. The woman in the OP article is technically innocent until her court case is decided.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Yeah, we know that American citizens have a constitutional right to own guns, but what has that got to do with
a) Gun safety and endangering a child's life through criminal negligence
b) leaving your gun in the back seat of your car, thus making it harder for you to defend yourself from criminals...
It has to do with people constantly pointing to someones negligence and criminal wrong doing, and then saying we need to restrict everyone elses rights because of it.
As Prestor said, that presumption of innocence is also one of our rights. Constantly attacking other rights because of "what ifs" kinda flies in the face of that presumption.
"Presumption of innocence" has nothing to do with the subject at hand, now does it?
I'd say it does, when we're saying that we need to take things away from them, to keep them from supposedly breaking the law. You're presuming guilt in that case.
Not really. Presumption of innocence is a legal presumption relevant to criminal proceedings, not firearms laws.
Basically, the issue is that no matter what the problems with firearms/gun violence/etc. are in the United States, you cannot simply prohibit firearm ownership except in limited circumstances.
Certainly that does not preclude consequences for actions taken with firearms (hence why assaults/thefts with firearms are generally more severely punished), nor does it make basic gun safety and safe storage a bad idea.
djones520 wrote: It has to do with people constantly pointing to someones negligence and criminal wrong doing, and then saying we need to restrict everyone elses rights because of it.
I feel that the operative word in that sentence was "constantly".
That's certainly an interesting perspective. I would argue that the number of deaths do make a difference. By your logic we shouldn't quarantine people exposed to ebola, because the number of lives that might be saved are irrelevant compared to restricting someone's freedom.
Prestor Jon wrote: There is no justification for the illogical act of banning one person, for instance Sir Donlad, from owning firearms because of the actions of another person that have no connection whatsoever to Sir Donlad.
Firstly, not all control is about banning. Secondly, you are being deliberately obtuse, if you are not able to understand why dangerous things might be reasonably restricted. Many chemicals, poisons, explosives, radioactive material, pornography, drugs, medication, animals, vehicles, machinery etc, etc, etc... are restricted. It shouldn't be an alien concept to you.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Yeah, we know that American citizens have a constitutional right to own guns, but what has that got to do with
a) Gun safety and endangering a child's life through criminal negligence
b) leaving your gun in the back seat of your car, thus making it harder for you to defend yourself from criminals...
Nobody in this thread has said that gun safety courses aren't worthwhile or that child endangerment via negligent handling of firearms shouldn't be a crime. Nobody has said that leaving a loaded gun on the backseat of your is a good idea or safe action either.
Unfortunately some people in this thread do seem to believe that negligent and/or criminal acts by some people justifies the collective punishment of everyone even in direct opposition to enumerated constitutional rights. Once that line of thought has been introduced into the thread you can expect others to post rebuttals to it.
Fair enough. For the record, I'm not calling for gun control/restrictions, because a) it's the wrong thread for that, and b) I'm generally sympathetic to law-abiding people using guns to defend their homes/property/life etc from armed criminals.
If the woman in question had left a knife with a 6 inch blade on the backseat next to her child, I'd be equally as mad. It's not an anti-gun thing from me.
djones520 wrote: It has to do with people constantly pointing to someones negligence and criminal wrong doing, and then saying we need to restrict everyone elses rights because of it.
I feel that the operative word in that sentence was "constantly".
That's certainly an interesting perspective. I would argue that the number of deaths do make a difference. By your logic we shouldn't quarantine people exposed to ebola, because the number of lives that might be saved are irrelevant compared to restricting someone's freedom.
Prestor Jon wrote: There is no justification for the illogical act of banning one person, for instance Sir Donlad, from owning firearms because of the actions of another person that have no connection whatsoever to Sir Donlad.
Firstly, not all control is about banning. Secondly, you are being deliberately obtuse, if you are not able to understand why dangerous things might be reasonably restricted. Many chemicals, poisons, explosives, radioactive material, pornography, drugs, medication, animals, vehicles, machinery etc, etc, etc... are restricted. It shouldn't be an alien concept to you.
No, you're the one trying to obfuscate what is being discussed. My comments are discussing firearm ownership; both in the US where it is less restricted and the EU where it is heavily restricted. If you want to change the subject to infectious disease quarrantines or regulations and laws regarding the handling of hazardous materials you should start another thread.
Even so, I will rebut your arguments anyway. Restricting my right to free assembly with a temporary quarrantine is legal because quarrantines are temporary and limited to people for whom there is evidence that shows possible exposure. As soon as that temporary threat is over freedom of movement and association is restored. That is clearly different from preventing citizens from owning firearms.
Bans =\= reasonable restrictions. The misuse of firearms by others is no justification to prohibit possession of firearms for other people that have not misused firearms.
Breotan wrote: Or just carry concealed and solve the problem altogether. Maybe the next poster girl can spread the word about firearm safety.
Agree completely. Purse carry seems like a bad carry option to me. In my humble opinion, the only 3 places a firearm should be are in your hand, on your hip, or in your safe. Go IWB if you must.
For many females (smaller body/frame and female clothing styles) purse carry is a very valid option.
Got wife one of these:
(snip)
Clips to the purse liner and protects the pistol.
There is no variation of purse carry equipment that will convince me leaving a gun inside a purse instead of on your body is a good idea. If you have to dress to accommodate a holster, then that is what you should do.
Breotan wrote: Or just carry concealed and solve the problem altogether. Maybe the next poster girl can spread the word about firearm safety.
Agree completely. Purse carry seems like a bad carry option to me. In my humble opinion, the only 3 places a firearm should be are in your hand, on your hip, or in your safe. Go IWB if you must.
For many females (smaller body/frame and female clothing styles) purse carry is a very valid option.
Got wife one of these:
(snip)
Clips to the purse liner and protects the pistol.
There is no variation of purse carry equipment that will convince me leaving a gun inside a purse instead of on your body is a good idea.
Agreed. From purse snatching to "I'll just sit this here for a second", it doesn't sit well with me.
Smacks wrote: Firstly, not all control is about banning. Secondly, you are being deliberately obtuse, if you are not able to understand why dangerous things might be reasonably restricted. Many chemicals, poisons, explosives, radioactive material, pornography, drugs, medication, animals, vehicles, machinery etc, etc, etc... are restricted. It shouldn't be an alien concept to you.
Bans =\= reasonable restrictions. The misuse of firearms by others is no justification to prohibit possession of firearms for other people that have not misused firearms.
You have quoted me, very clearly stating that not all control is about banning; do you actually read the posts you quote before spewing your stock replies?
You have also quoted me talking about reasonable restrictions, where I mentioned vehicles, which are reasonably restricted, yet are in no sense "banned". So if you had anything to say besides vapid rhetoric, I'm afraid your point was lost on me.
Smacks wrote: Firstly, not all control is about banning. Secondly, you are being deliberately obtuse, if you are not able to understand why dangerous things might be reasonably restricted. Many chemicals, poisons, explosives, radioactive material, pornography, drugs, medication, animals, vehicles, machinery etc, etc, etc... are restricted. It shouldn't be an alien concept to you.
Bans =\= reasonable restrictions. The misuse of firearms by others is no justification to prohibit possession of firearms for other people that have not misused firearms.
You have quoted me, very clearly stating that not all control is about banning, do you actually read the posts you quote before spewing your stock replies?
You have also quoted me talking about reasonable restrictions, where I mentioned vehicles, which are reasonably restricted, yet are in no sense "banned". So if you had anything to say besides vapid rhetoric, I'm afraid your point was lost on me.
None of the restrictions which constantly get bandied about are anywhere close to reasonable. Especially when you consider you are talking about a Constitutional right.
All of the proposed solutions, and most restrictions which are currently in place, are equivalent to limiting everyone's free speech because Bob used some racially charged language and hurt Steve's feelings.
Kilkrazy wrote: Shooting people is a bit different to shouting insults at them.
Not in terms of infringing on Constitutional rights.
The right to own weaponry is just as important as the right to free speech, religion, assembly, etc...
People would be horrified if equivalent restrictions were proposed in terms of those other rights, yet they are ok with it for weapons. Which is moronic.
No, it's not. Simply because free speech is considered more paramount to the protection of our rights than guns. You may disagree with that, and that may even be wrong, but that it why people are OK with limiting weapons, and not speech.
Kilkrazy wrote: Shooting people is a bit different to shouting insults at them.
Not in terms of infringing on Constitutional rights.
The right to own weaponry is just as important as the right to free speech, religion, assembly, etc...
People would be horrified if equivalent restrictions were proposed in terms of those other rights, yet they are ok with it for weapons. Which is moronic.
Kilkrazy wrote: Shooting people is a bit different to shouting insults at them.
Not in terms of infringing on Constitutional rights.
The right to own weaponry is just as important as the right to free speech, religion, assembly, etc...
People would be horrified if equivalent restrictions were proposed in terms of those other rights, yet they are ok with it for weapons. Which is moronic.
They are in term of killing people.
If that were true, we'd have more severe penalties in place for drunk driving.
Co'tor Shas wrote: No, it's not. Simply because free speech is considered more paramount to the protection of our rights than guns. You may disagree with that, and that may even be wrong, but that it why people are OK with limiting weapons, and not speech.
No, its definitely moronic. All your rights are equally important. And the right to own weaponry is actually paramount to defending your rights, just as much as free speech. Speech, ultimately, cannot protect you from tyranny. It only serves to pass along information, but information without action is useless.
Weapons are necessary as the last resort to protect your rights, and your own life. You can't stop an attacker with mere words, you aren't the Dragonborn.
Co'tor Shas wrote: No, it's not. Simply because free speech is considered more paramount to the protection of our rights than guns. You may disagree with that, and that may even be wrong, but that it why people are OK with limiting weapons, and not speech.
No, its definitely moronic. All your rights are equally important. And the right to own weaponry is actually paramount to defending your rights, just as much as free speech. Speech, ultimately, cannot protect you from tyranny. It only serves to pass along information, but information without action is useless.
Weapons are necessary as the last resort to protect your rights, and your own life. You can't stop an attacker with mere words, you aren't the Dragonborn.
As much as I'm in favor of responsible gun ownership, I'd disagree with you. MLK did plenty to protect and promote peoples' rights without resorting to violence. Feudal Japan and China also did as much without handguns, using the basic tools at hand.
You can defend your rights without an AK-47 or a 9mm.
But doesnt everyone having a gun mean more violant crimes? Like if everyone has a gun and I want to rob someone I maze well kill em to minimize the risk of harm. But I am out of here everytime I post on the board I get band because I disagree with americans admins that hate me.
Wtf something freaky is goin on here with me quotes
Again, I would say that if you can only think in those terms, then you are being deliberately obtuse, and missing the gaping void between the two things when viewed from any other perspective. If owning guns is really the equivalent to free speech then why isn't it in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? If it's so important then why did the UN human rights council not bother with it? Free speech is considered a basic right in every free nation, without it a nation could barely even call themselves "free". The right to bear arms doesn't even compare, it's just a weird idiosyncrasy that only Americans have (and perhaps a couple of SA countries modelled on the US constitution). The rest of the world doesn't have this weird gun obsession, and thinks it's nuts...
When no one else understands, that's usually a good sign that you're wrong.
Co'tor Shas wrote: No, it's not. Simply because free speech is considered more paramount to the protection of our rights than guns. You may disagree with that, and that may even be wrong, but that it why people are OK with limiting weapons, and not speech.
No, its definitely moronic. All your rights are equally important. And the right to own weaponry is actually paramount to defending your rights, just as much as free speech. Speech, ultimately, cannot protect you from tyranny. It only serves to pass along information, but information without action is useless.
Weapons are necessary as the last resort to protect your rights, and your own life. You can't stop an attacker with mere words, you aren't the Dragonborn.
As much as I'm in favor of responsible gun ownership, I'd disagree with you. MLK did plenty to protect and promote peoples' rights without resorting to violence. Feudal Japan and China also did as much without handguns, using the basic tools at hand.
You can defend your rights without an AK-47 or a 9mm.
Hence why I said "last resort".
Removing your last resort option to protect yourself and your rights is idiotic in the extreme. MLK was also quite in favor of the 2nd amendment you may recall(lots of gun control has roots in racism by the way).
Afterall, what happens when words don't work? And they quite often are not enough. Words are just words, actions are what gets stuff done. Be it voting in elections or overthrowing a tyrannical government, or shooting a home invader.
Again, I would say that if you can only think in those terms, then you are being deliberately obtuse, and missing the gaping void between the two things when viewed from any other perspective. If owning guns is really the equivalent to free speech then why isn't it in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? If it's so important then why did the UN human rights council not bother with it? Free speech is considered a basic right in every free nation, without it a nation could barely even call themselves"free". The right to bear arms doesn't even compare, it's just a weird idiosyncrasy that only Americans have (and perhaps a couple of SA countries modelled on the US constitution). The rest of the world doesn't have this weird gun obsession, and thinks it's nuts...
When no one else understands, that's usually a good sign that you're wrong.
Why? Because they made a mistake. A huge mistake. Consensus over a large group doesn't lead to less mistakes, usually its the opposite.
I think the UN is a useless organization by the way. Largely because they have zero ability to enforce anything. They're the perfect example of what only having words gets you, lots of hot air and no real substance.
Rifles and shotguns especially....pardon the need to clarify.
And yes..a handgun unless secured properly...is also a "no no" to keep loaded.
This is highly situational - all the states have very different rules on this. From my quick internet searches, in Colorado, for example, it is legal to carry a loaded pistol, but not a loaded rifle in your personal vehicle. In florida, it looks like it is legal to carry a loaded pistol in your personal vehicle, if the weapon is in a console or glovebox or other container.
In California or NY, for instance, carrying loaded guns of any type I think is a BIG no-no. In states like texas or Oklahoma, I imagine it's pretty lax.
I think the UN is a useless organization by the way. Largely because they have zero ability to enforce anything. They're the perfect example of what only having words gets you, lots of hot air and no real substance.
To be fair, it was in many respects designed intentionally that way by the Veto power nations, however, ask the Kuwaiti's and South Koreans how effective the UN can be when it wants to be (i.e. when the parties with Veto power dont quash things).
The UN also really does do a whole lot of good that usually never makes it into the news because it's not "flashy", stuff like food supplies, medical stuff and vaccinations, coordination for other organizations, setting up back channels, etc.
When no one else understands, that's usually a good sign that you're wrong.
given that the US has the 3rd or 4th largest population on the planet, its a pretty significant voice. Also, many other nations dont have governments that would allow people to have such rights because they're a threat to the state's power (and in such nations you may often find things like free speech arent functionally extant either). More fundamentally, we're getting into inherent cultural values and what people view as inherent natural rights will vary, there are certainly some societies where free speech, or protections from unreasonable searches and seizures, are not held to be fundamental rights either.
Co'tor Shas wrote: No, it's not. Simply because free speech is considered more paramount to the protection of our rights than guns. You may disagree with that, and that may even be wrong, but that it why people are OK with limiting weapons, and not speech.
No, its definitely moronic. All your rights are equally important. And the right to own weaponry is actually paramount to defending your rights, just as much as free speech. Speech, ultimately, cannot protect you from tyranny. It only serves to pass along information, but information without action is useless.
Weapons are necessary as the last resort to protect your rights, and your own life. You can't stop an attacker with mere words, you aren't the Dragonborn.
Has the UK become a tyranny? Has Japan?
Individual weapon ownership did once secure our rights, but I would argue that is no longer the case in most first world countries.
You do, however, bring up the point of personal defense. Now I, personally, am not concerned with such, but that is the reason why I am not opposed to individual weapon ownership. I just find the idea that if people weren't able to own guns we'd descend into some distopian nightmare world or whatever ludicrous to the extreme.
Co'tor Shas wrote: No, it's not. Simply because free speech is considered more paramount to the protection of our rights than guns. You may disagree with that, and that may even be wrong, but that it why people are OK with limiting weapons, and not speech.
No, its definitely moronic. All your rights are equally important. And the right to own weaponry is actually paramount to defending your rights, just as much as free speech. Speech, ultimately, cannot protect you from tyranny. It only serves to pass along information, but information without action is useless.
Weapons are necessary as the last resort to protect your rights, and your own life. You can't stop an attacker with mere words, you aren't the Dragonborn.
Has the UK become a tyranny? Has Japan?
Individual weapon ownership did once secure our rights, but I would argue that is no longer the case in most first world countries.
You do, however, bring up the point of personal defense. Now I, personally, am not concerned with such, but that is the reason why I am not opposed to individual weapon ownership. I just find the idea that if people weren't able to own guns we'd descend into some distopian nightmare world or whatever ludicrous to the extreme.
It doesn't automatically mean you will turn into that, but it does mean that if the process ever does get started you'll lack the ability to resist as effectively. Its a safety mechanism.
And given the tighter government control all countries are experiencing you can't claim the threat isn't there.
Guns are like fire extinguishers. You hope you never have to use them, but if you do you'll be glad you had them.
Co'tor Shas wrote: No, it's not. Simply because free speech is considered more paramount to the protection of our rights than guns. You may disagree with that, and that may even be wrong, but that it why people are OK with limiting weapons, and not speech.
No, its definitely moronic. All your rights are equally important. And the right to own weaponry is actually paramount to defending your rights, just as much as free speech. Speech, ultimately, cannot protect you from tyranny. It only serves to pass along information, but information without action is useless.
Weapons are necessary as the last resort to protect your rights, and your own life. You can't stop an attacker with mere words, you aren't the Dragonborn.
Has the UK become a tyranny? Has Japan
To be fair, the Japanese justice system is notoriously awful, relying on social pressures and often outright physical abuse to coerce confessions out of almost anyone arrested, resulting in something like a 99.9% conviction rate (and police basically can do anything for any reason and have it stand up in court) while the UK (and many parts of the US) is increasingly becoming a surveillance rich nanny state where increaingly absurd things are banned or restricted. They also have different cultures and social constructs that mean living there has different risks and threats than in the US.
Are you really going to stoop to the republican method of debate? "If all else fails, say you're opponent hates America, and feign outrage!". Please spare me the theatrics.
I said that no one else in the world considers it a human right, so YOU insisting it is exactly the same as free speech (which the majority of the free world considers to be a human right), is likely wrong I.e. YOU are wrong and purposefully being obtuse, because there are clear and pronounced differences between gun rights and free speech.
Are you really going to stoop to the republican method of debate? "If all else fails, say you're opponent hates America, and feign outrage!". Please spare me the theatrics.
I said that no one else in the world considers it a human right, so YOU insisting it is exactly the same as free speech (which the majority of the free world considers to be a human right), is likely wrong I.e. YOU are wrong and purposefully being obtuse, because there are clear and pronounced differences between gun rights and free speech.
1) I was referring to OgreChubs now deleted post.
2) Given that the US Constitution has the Right to Bear Arms in the same document and with the same importance as Free Speech you are hardly in a position to say that they are not equivalent.
So no, in America they are of equivalent importance. You can say they aren't, but the Constitution says you are wrong. And I'll go with that over your ramblings about global consensus.
Grey Templar wrote: Given that the US Constitution has the Right to Bear Arms in the same document and with the same importance as Free Speech you are hardly in a position to say that they are not equivalent.
So no, in America they are of equivalent importance. You can say they aren't, but the Constitution says you are wrong. And I'll go with that over your ramblings about global consensus.
1: Sorry, Reds8n made the topic difficult to follow with his usual heavy-handed brand of editing. Sorry for my mistake.
2: As I said before, if you are only able to look at it in that single narrow context, and insist it is therefore the same, when it is clearly not the same in every other context, then you are doing the argument equivalent of burying your head in the sand.
If the constitution also said you had the right to free goggles, would you also insist goggles are as fundamental to freedom as free speech?
Smacks wrote: Firstly, not all control is about banning. Secondly, you are being deliberately obtuse, if you are not able to understand why dangerous things might be reasonably restricted. Many chemicals, poisons, explosives, radioactive material, pornography, drugs, medication, animals, vehicles, machinery etc, etc, etc... are restricted. It shouldn't be an alien concept to you.
Bans =\= reasonable restrictions. The misuse of firearms by others is no justification to prohibit possession of firearms for other people that have not misused firearms.
You have quoted me, very clearly stating that not all control is about banning; do you actually read the posts you quote before spewing your stock replies?
You have also quoted me talking about reasonable restrictions, where I mentioned vehicles, which are reasonably restricted, yet are in no sense "banned". So if you had anything to say besides vapid rhetoric, I'm afraid your point was lost on me.
The reasonable restrictions regarding things like radiological materials have no bearing on the immoral prohibition against Sir Donlad owning firearms in the UK that was imposed on him due to the actions of 3rd parties with whom he has no involvement or connection. Your interjection of restrictions on things that are not analogous to firearm ownership is a deliberate act to try to make use of the transitive property with things that are wholly dissimilar. I thought I was clear in making the point that restrictions on pornography are not in any way equitable to prohibiting gun ownership.
Grey Templar wrote: Given that the US Constitution has the Right to Bear Arms in the same document and with the same importance as Free Speech you are hardly in a position to say that they are not equivalent.
So no, in America they are of equivalent importance. You can say they aren't, but the Constitution says you are wrong. And I'll go with that over your ramblings about global consensus.
1: Sorry, Reds8n made the topic difficult to follow with his usual heavy-handed brand of editing. Sorry for my mistake.
2: As I said before, if you are only able to look at it in that single narrow context, and insist it is therefore the same, when it is clearly not the same in every other context, then you are doing the argument equivalent of burying your head in the sand.
If the constitution also said you had the right to free goggles, would you also insist goggles are as fundamental to freedom as free speech?
If that hypothetical right was in the same document as free speech, yes it would indeed be just as important. But something trivial like that would not be put into a document of this importance.
All of the rights in the Bill of Rights go put there because they were all viewed as being extremely important, and we aren't told there was any sort of order to the list so therefore they are all equally important.
Grey Templar wrote: If that hypothetical right was in the same document as free speech, yes it would indeed be just as important. But something trivial like that would not be put into a document of this importance.
I beg to differ seeing as guns ended up in there. And who are you to say goggles are trivial? They could save your eyesight, eyesight is pretty damned important. Goggles are kind of like fire extinguishers, better to have them and not need them I say.
Grey Templar wrote: Given that the US Constitution has the Right to Bear Arms in the same document and with the same importance as Free Speech you are hardly in a position to say that they are not equivalent.
So no, in America they are of equivalent importance. You can say they aren't, but the Constitution says you are wrong. And I'll go with that over your ramblings about global consensus.
1: Sorry, Reds8n made the topic difficult to follow with his usual heavy-handed brand of editing. Sorry for my mistake.
2: As I said before, if you are only able to look at it in that single narrow context, and insist it is therefore the same, when it is clearly not the same in every other context, then you are doing the argument equivalent of burying your head in the sand.
If the constitution also said you had the right to free goggles, would you also insist goggles are as fundamental to freedom as free speech?
Enumerated constitutional rights don't have to be qualified or justified. The right of private citizens to be protected from the government quarter in troops in their homes could be viewed as not as integral to individual liberty as free speech but that has no bearing on the level of legal protection enjoyed by that right. Every right in our Bill of Rights enjoys the same level of legal importance and protection. Every amendment conveys an equal amount of legs influence. That's the way our system works. You don't have to like the system but you look silly arguing that the system doesn't work that way.
Again we don't have to qualify or justify our rights and legal system to the rest of the world. It's the way we want it, it's been like this for centuries and we've never developed anything close to the leve of consensus required to change it. If we wanted to be just like the UK or the EU then we wouldn't have revolted in the first place. You guys should keep your colonial imperialism tendencies in check.
It's not a straw man, your argument was that anything in the bill of rights must be equivalent to free speech, by virtue of being in the bill of rights. That's rather circular reasoning to begin with. All I have done is exposed the ridiculousness of that attitude by replacing guns with any other piece of personal protective equipment, and showing how exactly the same arguments can be made. I'm not misrepresenting what you said. If it sounds ridiculous, that's because your argument sounds ridiculous, you just can't see it.
Prestor Jon wrote: Enumerated constitutional rights don't have to be qualified or justified.
How convenient for you.
However, I disagree, when people are dying as collateral for a so called "right" not to be restricted, then I would argue that is does need to be qualified and justified.
Grey Templar wrote: If that hypothetical right was in the same document as free speech, yes it would indeed be just as important. But something trivial like that would not be put into a document of this importance.
I beg to differ seeing as guns ended up in there. And who are you to say goggles are trivial? They could save your eyesight, eyesight is pretty damned important. Goggles are kind of like fire extinguishers, better to have them and not need them I say.
The states' representatives to our constitutional convention negotiating on our behalf decided what was important enough to be included as a constitutional amendment. For over 200 years our representative republic hasn't reached a consensus to remove that amendment so the will of the people is that we get to keep our guns. If the people want an amendment for goggles we have a process by which we can get one ratified.
It's not a straw man, your argument was that anything in the bill of rights must be equivalent to free speech, by virtue of being in the bill of rights. That's rather circular reasoning to begin with. All I have done is exposed the ridiculousness of that attitude by replacing guns with any other piece of personal protective equipment, and showing how exactly the same arguments can be made. I'm not misrepresenting what you said. If it sounds ridiculous, that's because your argument sounds ridiculous, you just can't see it.
Prestor Jon wrote: Enumerated constitutional rights don't have to be qualified or justified.
How convenient for you.
However, I disagree, when people are dying as collateral for a so called "right" not to be restricted, then I would argue that is does need to be qualified and justified.
Fortunately, that's not how it works in our system.
I don't get this. Someone proposes that that gun laws should change, and the argument against it is that the Constitution doesn't allow that, completely ignoring the fact that the right to bear arms was added in a change to the Constitution in the first place. Arguing that a law cannot be changed because the law currently says something else is not a valid argument.
And before someone jumps me for it, tighter gun laws probably wouldn't do much in the US, you'd be better off combatting socioeconomic issues like poverty.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I don't get this. Someone proposes that that gun laws should change, and the argument against it is that the Constitution doesn't allow that
Right.
So if you want to enact laws that infringe upon gun ownership, you must first amend the Constitution to nullify the part that specifically protects against infringement on gun ownership.
Just like if Trump wanted to ban Islam in the US, we would first have to amend the Constitution to nullify the part that protects freedom of religion.
This is what puzzles me. The constitution protects the right to bear arms. Why are states allowed to pass laws that infringe the right to bear arms? Why are swords illegal? They were common weapons -- de rigeur for gentlemen, in fact -- at the time the constitition was worked out.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I don't get this. Someone proposes that that gun laws should change, and the argument against it is that the Constitution doesn't allow that
Right.
So if you want to enact laws that infringe upon gun ownership, you must first amend the Constitution to nullify the part that specifically protects against infringement on gun ownership.
Just like if Trump wanted to ban Islam in the US, we would first have to amend the Constitution to nullify the part that protects freedom of religion.
Both are unlikely to happen.
That's the thing: if I'm wanting to change the law, retorting with "you can't do that, you'd have to change the law" sounds like something from the Department of Redundancy Department, which is what it sounds like.
Most weapon laws I've seen cover more than firearms but apply to everything covered (hence a stun gun or pepper spray is just as illegal as my Glock on a federal installation).
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I don't get this. Someone proposes that that gun laws should change, and the argument against it is that the Constitution doesn't allow that
Right.
So if you want to enact laws that infringe upon gun ownership, you must first amend the Constitution to nullify the part that specifically protects against infringement on gun ownership.
Just like if Trump wanted to ban Islam in the US, we would first have to amend the Constitution to nullify the part that protects freedom of religion.
Both are unlikely to happen.
That's the thing: if I'm wanting to change the law, retorting with "you can't do that, you'd have to change the law" sounds like something from the Department of Redundancy Department, which is what it sounds like.
That is because you seem to be confusing 'the law' with 'the constitution'. All laws must pass constitutionality tests. Any changes to gun laws must be 'constitutional'. If you want to change these laws or pass new ones beyond what the 2nd amendment allows/forbids, you must amend the constitution. Which is a lot different from changing/passing a law.
CptJake wrote: Where are swords illegal that guns are not?
Most weapon laws I've seen cover more than firearms but apply to everything covered (hence a stun gun or pepper spray is just as illegal as my Glock on a federal installation).
I think it's pretty rare but when I lived in NYC, guns were very difficult to get legally, but it was possible, whereas cane swords, switchblades, throwing stars, knives over a few inches, and tasers were flat out illegal, period, full stop.
In Iowa, it's like what you describe with the latter: my conceal carry permit also covers a variety of other weapons like switchblades etc.
SirDonlad wrote: I love guns - i lament and understand the firearm restrictions over here, and whenever i hear/see a story like this i facepalm.
I'm certain that every gun owner/fan is probably doing the same.
The reaction to demand banning/controlling firearms is kinda understandable, but is still based on an irrational assumption that your government can protect you from accidental death; and it's usually postualated immediately after an emotionally evocative incident like this.
Can you imagine how you would explain cars on a motorway to a H&S committee if they didn't exist already?
"so it's a metal box which weighs a ton and a half which can move more than 8 times as quickly than the peak running speed of the average human male and requires 40 gallons of highly flammable liquid in an unprotected tank in the back - these are then driven within 4 feet of each other at speeds exceeding that needed for fixed-wing flight with you and three other people inside"
Further to the 'risk in life' thing - in the UK 290 people a year die from falling out of bed.
It makes no difference how many die of guns. There is no justification for the illogical act of banning one person, for instance Sir Donlad, from owning firearms because of the actions of another person that have no connection whatsoever to Sir Donlad. No amount of bad behavior exhibited by any number of other people guarantees similar as behavior will be done by Sir Donlad.
No lives are being saved from prohibiting Sir Donlad from owning guns unless you know for certain that Sir Donlad would, either through negligence or deliberate intent harm or murder someone with a gun if he owned one. Absent evidence proving such a certainty banning him from owning guns is a needless infringement on a citizens Liberty done purely to assuage the fears of others.
The university of sydney (?) state that in 2011 there were 146 gun deaths, down from 165 in 2010.
But from a purely accidental death basis...
Accidental gun deaths in 2011 for uk=2 usa=586
Population in 2011 in uk=63.26million usa=311.7
So, rough numbers have 2 accidental gun death in the uk for 118.9296118 in the us of a - i don't think thats too bad.
edit - i divided the accidental gun deaths by the populus of the usa and then multiplied the result by the number of people in the uk to reach that figure
CptJake wrote: Where are swords illegal that guns are not?
Most weapon laws I've seen cover more than firearms but apply to everything covered (hence a stun gun or pepper spray is just as illegal as my Glock on a federal installation).
I think it's pretty rare but when I lived in NYC, guns were very difficult to get legally, but it was possible, whereas cane swords, switchblades, throwing stars, knives over a few inches, and tasers were flat out illegal, period, full stop.
In Iowa, it's like what you describe with the latter: my conceal carry permit also covers a variety of other weapons like switchblades etc.
In MI, I cannot legally carry a fixed blade (except a hunting knife while out hunting), even with a concealed carry licence, because our licences (called a CPL) only cover pistols.
I see it as unconstitutional, but law is law so I follow it.
I think spring loaded blades are illegal in NY state general (IIRC). I don't think swords themselves are illegal here, although wearing them openly may vary from place to place. They certainly don't give a gak where I live, or at least they don't care enough to enforce it.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: That's the thing: if I'm wanting to change the law, retorting with "you can't do that, you'd have to change the law" sounds like something from the Department of Redundancy Department, which is what it sounds like.
I personally feel that the idea is just to wear opposition down, by forcing them to beat their heads against an impenetrable wall of ignorance, before any actual discussion can take place. That's the problem with any argument against the conservative right, they have an endless supply of chump blockers who will argue that CO2 is made up, and cavemen rode on dinosaurs. Defeat one and two more will pop up, repeating the same flawed rhetoric, and forcing you to debunk it over and over again ad nauseam. That's why I always join in these discussions, arguing until people puke is my favourite kind of arguing
Could we argue that a gun is somewhat unsafe by design?
Is it not reasonable to have few controls to ensure a certain minimum level of safety is held?
In Canada that handgun would have required the following:
"Restricted and prohibited firearms •Unload the firearms; and
•Attach secure locking devices to the firearms; and
•Lock the firearms in a sturdy, non-transparent container; and
•Remove the bolts or bolt carriers from any automatic firearms (if removable).
Any one of the above items would have averted this needless scary moment.
I know us as Canadians we hold our beer as close to a constitutional right but we did not overthrow our government for the various alcohol controls that keep us from driving vehicles around under the influence.
Ok.. Since this has become a gun debate again, I would like to turn the question around. Many people are saying "you can't restrict access to something because of someone else's dangerous actions".
What I want to know is, what makes guns such a special case? Many other things, such as cars or explosives, have restrictions on their ownership or use, and requirements for licences, which can be changed in light of incidents and technology. What makes guns such a special case? Because it's in the constitution is not a reasonable answer, I'm looking for an objective reason why guns are sacrosanct from any change, but other things are not.
For the record! this is coming from a British gun owner, who feels our laws go too far, but US gun culture (which the very liberal laws are an expression of) result in incidents like this. My feeling is that accross the US gun laws should reflect good gun safty. Not a ban, but more restrictions on how they are stored, carried and handled, and a cultural change where people like the woman in the OP stop treating them like toys and treat them with respect.
Steve steveson wrote: Ok.. Since this has become a gun debate again, I would like to turn the question around. Many people are saying "you can't restrict access to something because of someone else's dangerous actions".
What I want to know is, what makes guns such a special case? Many other things, such as cars or explosives, have restrictions on their ownership or use, and requirements for licences, which can be changed in light of incidents and technology. What makes guns such a special case? Because it's in the constitution is not a reasonable answer, I'm looking for an objective reason why guns are sacrosanct from any change, but other things are not.
I'm confused. Is your premise that currently there are no restrictions on guns?
As for 'special case', things like 'the right to drive cars' are not constitutionally protected. Your argument that explosives are regulated backs up my question, there ARE regulations and restrictions on 'arms' as it stands.
Smacks wrote:That's why I always join in these discussions, arguing until people puke is my favourite kind of arguing
So you admit to trolling threads about people getting hurt/dying in order to provoke people who object to having their rights eroded because someone else was stupid.
Classy.
Steve steveson wrote:What makes guns such a special case? Because it's in the constitution is not a reasonable answer, I'm looking for an objective reason why guns are sacrosanct from any change, but other things are not.
Because of the Constitution.
You might not see it as a reasonable answer, but it is the answer.
CptJake wrote: I'm confused. Is your premise that currently there are no restrictions on guns?
And up goes the wall!
He spelled it out pretty clearly for you, it's the part in speech marks: "you can't restrict access to something because of someone else's dangerous actions". This argument has already been used in this topic, and gets used a lot. The challenge (should you choose to accept it) is to say why that is true for guns and not for other restricted things, without invoking the constitution (which we have already established is not a valid explanation).
"I'm confused", "I don't understand" and "are you saying something, you're obviously not saying?" are also not valid answers.
Steve steveson wrote:Because it's in the constitution is not a reasonable answer
Because of the Constitution.
More walling? Maybe if you just keep saying it, he'll go away, and stop asking difficult questions.
Nostromodamus wrote: So you admit to trolling threads about people getting hurt/dying in order to provoke people who object to having their rights eroded because someone else was stupid.
No, I don't. That sounds more like something you pulled out your ass.
What I will say is that there is a clique here who I have seen bully and browbeat other people (other Americans) on this issue until they no longer wish to discuss it. I don't think that's right, you can't win arguments just by being stubborn, you need to make good points. I always join these conversations so that any person who wants to chime in and say "I'm in favour of gun control", won't be on their own, and anyone who wants to just stubbornly repeat the same bad arguments over and over, will really have to commit to it
What I will say is that there is a clique here who I have seen bully and browbeat other people (other Americans) on this issue until they no longer wish to discuss it. I don't think that's right, you can't win arguments just by being stubborn, you need to make good points. I always join these conversations so that any person who wants to chime in and say "I'm in favour of gun control", won't be on their own.
Ah yes, the clique that constantly drones on about how Americans in favor of gun rights are stupid compared to the rest of the world, that our country is backward and "wrong", and that the Constitution is not valid. Because that clique very much exists and they do as much bullying and browbeating as anyone else. Don't try and make it sound like you're some sort of white knight for the poor, opressed anti-gun crowd.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: That's the thing: if I'm wanting to change the law, retorting with "you can't do that, you'd have to change the law" sounds like something from the Department of Redundancy Department, which is what it sounds like.
I personally feel that the idea is just to wear opposition down, by forcing them to beat their heads against an impenetrable wall of ignorance, before any actual discussion can take place. That's the problem with any argument against the conservative right, they have an endless supply of chump blockers who will argue that CO2 is made up, and cavemen rode on dinosaurs. Defeat one and two more will pop up, repeating the same flawed rhetoric, and forcing you to debunk it over and over again ad nauseam. That's why I always join in these discussions, arguing until people puke is my favourite kind of arguing
You're not admitting to intentionally arguing to start a flame war and/or trolling, are you?
Nostromodamus wrote: [Because of the Constitution.
You might not see it as a reasonable answer, but it is the answer.
But the actual text says:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The weasel-clause in all this is a "well regulated militia".
Never mind most things that can be proposed would not prevent people "to keep and bear arms".
(Note, most information I am getting from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution).
In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." This makes sense that is exactly in the wording of the second amendment.
So there are a few interpretations all of which below point to a civic level of responsibility.
It really does make the case that a gun owner must be committed to upholding the state.
It would not be a far cry off to require gun owner to "register" with a militia and some commitment in writing for the right to bear arms.
Food for thought anyway, the intent of the founding fathers had a few considerations due to what was going on back in the day.
I do not see much there where an armed populous answerable to no-one was the desired outcome.
Thanks guys, now I know a whole bunch about a government that is not my own.
Spoiler:
"The first, known as the "states' rights" or "collective right" model, held that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals; rather, it recognizes the right of each state to arm its militia. Under this approach, citizens "have no right to keep or bear arms, but the states have a collective right to have the National Guard".
"The second, known as the "sophisticated collective right model", held that the Second Amendment recognizes some limited individual right. However, this individual right could only be exercised by actively participating members of a functioning, organized state militia."
"The third, known as the "standard model", held that the Second Amendment recognized the personal right of individuals to keep and bear arms.[123] Supporters of this model argued that "although the first clause may describe a general purpose for the amendment, the second clause is controlling and therefore the amendment confers an individual right 'of the people' to keep and bear arms".[152] Additionally, scholars who favored this model argued the "absence of founding-era militias mentioned in the Amendment's preamble does not render it a 'dead letter' because the preamble is a 'philosophical declaration' safeguarding militias and is but one of multiple 'civic purposes' for which the Amendment was enacted"."
You might not see it as a reasonable answer, but it is the answer.
Except that is little more than set of laws that can be changed, like any other law. Things have been added to it, and even then removed from it response to the needs of society. It is not some divine mandate etched into the very fabric reality so long as America should exist. That the barriers to changing are higher, and the required political will far greater don't really change that.
Positions that call out demands for change that might fly in the face of the constitutional gun protections, or take positions in which guns are compared to things that aren’t' constitutionally protected can simply be taken as pointing out that perhaps the constitutional protections afforded guns should be modified to at least some extent, up to and including removal in the most extreme cases. Simply pointing out that "Hey that's not constitutional" isn't particularly clever or insightful because obviously the strength of those constitutional protections is part of the "Problem" that party sees in the first place.
While it would probably be fair to say such changes are so unlikely to actually happen as to be not worth consideration that's a matter of practicality. I'm not sure it has much bearing on what would be "Ideal", "Right" or the "Correct" way to do things. It certainly has no bearing on what's fair or moral or decent, etc.. . There exist some laws that are crap laws, there have existed things in the constitution that by explicit mention or omission have been crap. That something is in the constitution is not a defence for that thing in and of itself.
It should be able to stand up to challenge, criticism and questioning on it's own merits as proof of the validity the law giving it such fierce protection, that it should be in the constitution.
This is not me taking any particular stance on the 2nd adornment or any specific arguments or comparsions that have been made. Simply that "but because constitution" is piss-poor way of addressing anything.
CptJake wrote: Where are swords illegal that guns are not?
Most weapon laws I've seen cover more than firearms but apply to everything covered (hence a stun gun or pepper spray is just as illegal as my Glock on a federal installation).
Many states differentiate firearms and other weaponry. I gave my example of Texas where a carry permit means you can carry a firearm openly or concealed, but there is no such method to carry a blade over 5.5 inches long. A club is likewise out of the question, with the only exceptions being for certified law enforcement and security officers. So if I would prefer to carry a collapsible baton for self defense, I do not have that option but could carry a .44 mag or a shotgun (that last one doesn't even need a permit!). But Texas may be kind of an extreme example on lax on guns strict on everything else not guns.
For whatever reason, the right to bear arms only ever seems to apply to firearms.
Oh and "strict constitutionalists" pretty much ignore the "well regulated militia" part here.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: That's the thing: if I'm wanting to change the law, retorting with "you can't do that, you'd have to change the law" sounds like something from the Department of Redundancy Department, which is what it sounds like.
I personally feel that the idea is just to wear opposition down, by forcing them to beat their heads against an impenetrable wall of ignorance, before any actual discussion can take place. That's the problem with any argument against the conservative right, they have an endless supply of chump blockers who will argue that CO2 is made up, and cavemen rode on dinosaurs. Defeat one and two more will pop up, repeating the same flawed rhetoric, and forcing you to debunk it over and over again ad nauseam. That's why I always join in these discussions, arguing until people puke is my favourite kind of arguing
Why do you hate weapons so much? Do you believe that only the government and criminals should have a complete monopoly on violence, and that ordinary people should always be at the mercy of either one or the other? If you think the average person isn't competent enough to be able to handle a weapon, how on earth do you think the average person should be able to have a car, even with licensing and registration? You seem like a person who is, quite honestly, terrified of other people. In fact, in this case you seem more afraid of people who bear you no ill will than those that potentially do.
You might not see it as a reasonable answer, but it is the answer.
Except that is little more than set of laws that can be changed, like any other law. Things have been added to it, and even then removed from it response to the needs of society. It is not some divine mandate etched into the very fabric reality so long as America should exist. That the barriers to changing are higher, and the required political will far greater don't really change that.
Positions that call out demands for change that might fly in the face of the constitutional gun protections, or take positions in which guns are compared to things that aren’t' constitutionally protected can simply be taken as pointing out that perhaps the constitutional protections afforded guns should be modified to at least some extent, up to and including removal in the most extreme cases. Simply pointing out that "Hey that's not constitutional" isn't particularly clever or insightful because obviously the strength of those constitutional protections is part of the "Problem" that party sees in the first place.
While it would probably be fair to say such changes are so unlikely to actually happen as to be not worth consideration that's a matter of practicality. I'm not sure it has much bearing on what would be "Ideal", "Right" or the "Correct" way to do things. It certainly has no bearing on what's fair or moral or decent, etc.. . There exist some laws that are crap laws, there have existed things in the constitution that by explicit mention or omission have been crap. That something is in the constitution is not a defence for that thing in and of itself.
It should be able to stand up to challenge, criticism and questioning on it's own merits as proof of the validity the law giving it such fierce protection, that it should be in the constitution.
This is not me taking any particular stance on the 2nd adornment or any specific arguments or comparsions that have been made. Simply that "but because constitution" is piss-poor way of addressing anything.
If the question is what are the "right" or "correct" or "ideal" laws to regulate firearm ownership in a utopian society than the content of the US constitution would be irrelevant. Since we seem to be discussing firearm ownership in the US at our current time then we need to acknowledge that the 2nd amendment enjoys very special and specific legal standing and that directly affects the ability to regulate or prohibit firearm ownership in the US. The constitutional protection of gun ownership can't be dismissed while discussing US gun ownership because it is of tantamount legal importance.
If the question is what are the "right" or "correct" or "ideal" laws to regulate firearm ownership in a utopian society than the content of the US constitution would be irrelevant. Since we seem to be discussing firearm ownership in the US at our current time then we need to acknowledge that the 2nd amendment enjoys very special and specific legal standing and that directly affects the ability to regulate or prohibit firearm ownership in the US. The constitutional protection of gun ownership can't be dismissed while discussing US gun ownership because it is of tantamount legal importance.
Then there is no discussion to be had at all. Something with guns happen: "Constitution. No gun restrictions. No gun law changes. End of story", that's our reality. The only space for discussion is one that takes place outside the our immediate political reality. Because the immediate political reality is that there can't and won't be any change, full stop. Thread over before it starts.
But hey, that's just one 3/5ths of a person's view on what makes for interesting or relevant discussion.
Prestor Jon wrote: The constitutional protection of gun ownership can't be dismissed while discussing US gun ownership because it is of tantamount legal importance.
Otherwise you're just discussing a cultural issue in a cultural vacuum, which is the most pointless way of discussing the issue that I can think of.
If the question is what are the "right" or "correct" or "ideal" laws to regulate firearm ownership in a utopian society than the content of the US constitution would be irrelevant. Since we seem to be discussing firearm ownership in the US at our current time then we need to acknowledge that the 2nd amendment enjoys very special and specific legal standing and that directly affects the ability to regulate or prohibit firearm ownership in the US. The constitutional protection of gun ownership can't be dismissed while discussing US gun ownership because it is of tantamount legal importance.
Then there is no discussion to be had at all. Something with guns happen: "Constitution. No gun restrictions. No gun law changes. End of story", that's our reality. The only space for discussion is one that takes place outside the our immediate political reality. Because the immediate political reality is that there can't and won't be any change, full stop. Thread over before it starts.
But hey, that's just one 3/5ths of a person's view on what makes for interesting or relevant discussion.
I don't think someone claiming that the Constitution isn't completely irrelevant to the issue is the same as someone ending the discussion before it stops.
I don't think someone claiming that the Constitution isn't completely irrelevant to the issue is the same as someone ending the discussion before it stops.
What I mean is that if you confine the discussion to political and legal reality:
If the question is what are the "right" or "correct" or "ideal" laws to regulate firearm ownership in a utopian society than the content of the US constitution would be irrelevant. Since we seem to be discussing firearm ownership in the US at our current time then we need to acknowledge that the 2nd amendment enjoys very special and specific legal standing and that directly affects the ability to regulate or prohibit firearm ownership in the US. The constitutional protection of gun ownership can't be dismissed while discussing US gun ownership because it is of tantamount legal importance.
Then that isn't a discussion. The legal reality is that any meaningful restrictions on gun ownership in general are by definition, unconstitutional. If we set the space for discussion on changes in law strictly to what is constitutional, than the discussion must by definition be either affirming we change nothing or moving to readily increase gun access. Since only one side of the potential debate is on board with either of those options, there is by definition no debate or discussion to be had at least with regards to the law.
The only space for any kind weighing of ideas to occur is in the space of "Should the constitutional protections be as strong as they are, why or why not. If not what are the alternatives?".
Kind of a "loaded" question. I could ask you in return why do you love weapons so much? But I wouldn't presume that about you.
Hordini wrote: Do you believe that only the government and criminals should have a complete monopoly on violence, and that ordinary people should always be at the mercy of either one or the other?
No.
Hordini wrote: If you think the average person isn't competent enough to be able to handle a weapon, how on earth do you think the average person should be able to have a car, even with licensing and registration?
I don't really, people are often grossly irresponsible with cars. I look forward to them being self driving.
Hordini wrote: You seem like a person who is, quite honestly, terrified of other people. In fact, in this case you seem more afraid of people who bear you no ill will than those that potentially do.
I'm not really sure why you think that about me. seems quite personal though.
Steve steveson wrote: Ok.. Since this has become a gun debate again, I would like to turn the question around. Many people are saying "you can't restrict access to something because of someone else's dangerous actions".
What I want to know is, what makes guns such a special case? Many other things, such as cars or explosives, have restrictions on their ownership or use, and requirements for licences, which can be changed in light of incidents and technology. What makes guns such a special case? Because it's in the constitution is not a reasonable answer, I'm looking for an objective reason why guns are sacrosanct from any change, but other things are not.
I'm confused. Is your premise that currently there are no restrictions on guns?
As for 'special case', things like 'the right to drive cars' are not constitutionally protected. Your argument that explosives are regulated backs up my question, there ARE regulations and restrictions on 'arms' as it stands.
Are you intentionaly ignoring half my words? "which can be changed in light of incidents and technology"... Constitional protection is not an objective reason for not looking at change.
I won't bother replying to all the others who have just said "because constitution", as the question remains. What is the problem with looking at the law, without just saying "becuase constitution", because the constitution can, and has, been changed. Why not again?
Steve steveson wrote: Ok.. Since this has become a gun debate again, I would like to turn the question around. Many people are saying "you can't restrict access to something because of someone else's dangerous actions".
What I want to know is, what makes guns such a special case? Many other things, such as cars or explosives, have restrictions on their ownership or use, and requirements for licences, which can be changed in light of incidents and technology. What makes guns such a special case? Because it's in the constitution is not a reasonable answer, I'm looking for an objective reason why guns are sacrosanct from any change, but other things are not.
For the record! this is coming from a British gun owner, who feels our laws go too far, but US gun culture (which the very liberal laws are an expression of) result in incidents like this. My feeling is that accross the US gun laws should reflect good gun safty. Not a ban, but more restrictions on how they are stored, carried and handled, and a cultural change where people like the woman in the OP stop treating them like toys and treat them with respect.
keep in mind that with cars, regulation is tied to their use on public infrastructure. If a vehicle is only ever used on private property, very little regulations apply. Cars also arent covered by the bill of rights.
Explosives are also a bit different. They aren't really "arms" in and of themselves typically (rather a component), and aren't really something a citizen soldier would historically be supplying either beyond ammunition components (which you can generally buy over the counter without any issues most places here). It's just not something that really affects much of anyone directly so few are bothered about it.
CptJake wrote: I'm confused. Is your premise that currently there are no restrictions on guns?
And up goes the wall!
He spelled it out pretty clearly for you, it's the part in speech marks: "you can't restrict access to something because of someone else's dangerous actions". This argument has already been used in this topic, and gets used a lot. The challenge (should you choose to accept it) is to say why that is true for guns and not for other restricted things, without invoking the constitution (which we have already established is not a valid explanation).
"I'm confused", "I don't understand" and "are you saying something, you're obviously not saying?" are also not valid answers.
Is there a single enumerated right in the US constitution (including all the amendments) that is more heavily regulated on a federal and/or state and/or local level than firearm ownership? I don't believe you'll find any if you look.
What property items do you believe are already restricted from civilian ownership in the US specifically because an innocent person might hypothetically do something bad with it in a similar fashion to some bad behavior previously exhibited by a third party? You dismiss arguments against the collective punishment of innocents but provide no evidence that we use that line of reasoning to prohibit the ownership of other things.
Ouze wrote: There is no variation of purse carry equipment that will convince me leaving a gun inside a purse instead of on your body is a good idea. If you have to dress to accommodate a holster, then that is what you should do.
Agreed. Off body carry is a terrible idea
OgreChubbs wrote: But doesnt everyone having a gun mean more violant crimes? Like if everyone has a gun and I want to rob someone I maze well kill em to minimize the risk of harm. But I am out of here everytime I post on the board I get band because I disagree with americans admins that hate me.
Wtf something freaky is goin on here with me quotes
Violent crime has been declining steady for many years. This is another of those "common sense myths" that people like to use as evidence of why owning a gun is bad. It is as commonly used as the "blood in the streets" every time laws around firearms are relaxed... and both are without merit
Kilkrazy wrote: This is what puzzles me. The constitution protects the right to bear arms. Why are states allowed to pass laws that infringe the right to bear arms? Why are swords illegal? They were common weapons -- de rigeur for gentlemen, in fact -- at the time the constitition was worked out.
Perhaps because swords are a less efficient way to defend yourself than firearms? Knives are much easier to carry, and more practical for more tasks than defense
Kilkrazy wrote: IDK, it's something I read earlier in the thread.
And you felt it appropriate to repeat the line without confirming that fact?
Nostromodamus wrote: In MI, I cannot legally carry a fixed blade (except a hunting knife while out hunting), even with a concealed carry licence, because our licences (called a CPL) only cover pistols.
I see it as unconstitutional, but law is law so I follow it.
Indiana is very open on carrying items to defend yourself. Autoknives were just recently permitted back into civilian ownership. Spring assisted blades are also no issue here. And for handguns you apply for a license to carry - you can determine whether you open or conceal.
Talizvar wrote: Could we argue that a gun is somewhat unsafe by design?
You could argue it, and I would like to hear your justification that firearms are "unsafe by design"
Talizvar wrote: But the actual text says:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The weasel-clause in all this is a "well regulated militia".
Never mind most things that can be proposed would not prevent people "to keep and bear arms".
(Note, most information I am getting from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution).
In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." This makes sense that is exactly in the wording of the second amendment.
So there are a few interpretations all of which below point to a civic level of responsibility.
It really does make the case that a gun owner must be committed to upholding the state.
It would not be a far cry off to require gun owner to "register" with a militia and some commitment in writing for the right to bear arms.
Even if we accept your premise that the Second Amendment is a collective right (spoiler alert; it isn't) you may wish to know the following;
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
And "well regulated" meant "in good working order" at the time the Second Amendment was drafted.
Prestor Jon wrote: What property items do you believe are already restricted from civilian ownership in the US specifically because an innocent person might hypothetically do something bad with it in a similar fashion to some bad behavior previously exhibited by a third party? You dismiss arguments against the collective punishment of innocents but provide no evidence that we use that line of reasoning to prohibit the ownership of other things.
You say that, but I mentioned a long list of things earlier in the topic, which you even quoted...
Smacks wrote: Firstly, not all control is about banning. Secondly, you are being deliberately obtuse, if you are not able to understand why dangerous things might be reasonably restricted. Many chemicals, poisons, explosives, radioactive material, pornography, drugs, medication, animals, vehicles, machinery etc, etc, etc... are restricted. It shouldn't be an alien concept to you.
If I had to pick one to talk about, I think I'd go with medication, though radioactive material might also be interesting.
Prestor Jon wrote: What property items do you believe are already restricted from civilian ownership in the US specifically because an innocent person might hypothetically do something bad with it in a similar fashion to some bad behavior previously exhibited by a third party? You dismiss arguments against the collective punishment of innocents but provide no evidence that we use that line of reasoning to prohibit the ownership of other things.
You say that, but I mentioned a long list of things earlier in the topic, which you even quoted...
Smacks wrote: Firstly, not all control is about banning. Secondly, you are being deliberately obtuse, if you are not able to understand why dangerous things might be reasonably restricted. Many chemicals, poisons, explosives, radioactive material, pornography, drugs, medication, animals, vehicles, machinery etc, etc, etc... are restricted. It shouldn't be an alien concept to you.
If I had to pick one to talk about, I think I'd go with medication, though radioactive material might also be interesting.
We already have over 20,000 Federal, State, County/Parish, and Local laws on the books regulating firearms in some shape, form, or fashion. That's more than enough without getting into the territory of "infringement".
Maybe that should be a clue that we'll get further by addressing "people problems" instead of using hype and fear to demonize inanimate objects, and stepping on inalienable rights, in the interests of political agendas and failed social engineering techniques.
Prestor Jon wrote: What property items do you believe are already restricted from civilian ownership in the US specifically because an innocent person might hypothetically do something bad with it in a similar fashion to some bad behavior previously exhibited by a third party? You dismiss arguments against the collective punishment of innocents but provide no evidence that we use that line of reasoning to prohibit the ownership of other things.
You say that, but I mentioned a long list of things earlier in the topic, which you even quoted...
Smacks wrote: Firstly, not all control is about banning. Secondly, you are being deliberately obtuse, if you are not able to understand why dangerous things might be reasonably restricted. Many chemicals, poisons, explosives, radioactive material, pornography, drugs, medication, animals, vehicles, machinery etc, etc, etc... are restricted. It shouldn't be an alien concept to you.
If I had to pick one to talk about, I think I'd go with medication, though radioactive material might also be interesting.
None of the items you previously mentioned are restricted for the reason that you claim guns should be restricted. I thought that was clear in my post. Do you really think radioactive materials are restricted because somebody murdered school students with some or because somebody left some radiological materials out where an unsupervised toddler got into it and caused someone harm? Try to speak with specificity with your examples of possible.
What medication do you believe I'm prohibited from taking because somebody else abused it? If we get into our failed drug war and how prohibition doesn't restrict access we should probably start a new thread. There are restrictions on prescription drugs but none of those restrictions prohibit me from getting prescription drugs if I want them.
CptJake wrote: Where are swords illegal that guns are not?
Most weapon laws I've seen cover more than firearms but apply to everything covered (hence a stun gun or pepper spray is just as illegal as my Glock on a federal installation).
Wow. I just looked up some articles about switchblades and apparently you can't even own them anywhere, even on Indian lands unless you're a member of the armed forces and are issued one. Or have only one arm.
CptJake wrote: Where are swords illegal that guns are not?
Most weapon laws I've seen cover more than firearms but apply to everything covered (hence a stun gun or pepper spray is just as illegal as my Glock on a federal installation).
Wow. I just looked up some articles about switchblades and apparently you can't even own them anywhere, even on Indian lands unless you're a member of the armed forces and are issued one. Or have only one arm.
In some jurisdictions in the United States, OC pepper spray, stun guns, tasers, and other less-lethal/non-lethal defensive devices are restricted by law, or require permits to purchase/carry.
Here in N.C., you need a handgun purchase permit, or have a valid CCW, to purchase a crossbow.
No such thing as an inalieable right. Just stuff we've made up. The universe doesn't give the slightest gak if you have a gun or not, or if you continue to breathe in and out for that matter.
The whole argument on both sides is based on semantics and cultural bias and you're as likely to be able to pull yourself inside out as you are to convince anyone of your argument on the Internet.
Guns are dangerous if not handled correctly. I think that someone who is blasé about a weapon around kids is fething mental, and this woman should consider herself incredibly lucky that the kid didn't blow it's face off in front of her.
That's much worse for any parent than being shot in the head yourself.
If she ever gets to pick up a gun again, I hope she fething well remembers that.
I don't think someone claiming that the Constitution isn't completely irrelevant to the issue is the same as someone ending the discussion before it stops.
What I mean is that if you confine the discussion to political and legal reality:
If the question is what are the "right" or "correct" or "ideal" laws to regulate firearm ownership in a utopian society than the content of the US constitution would be irrelevant. Since we seem to be discussing firearm ownership in the US at our current time then we need to acknowledge that the 2nd amendment enjoys very special and specific legal standing and that directly affects the ability to regulate or prohibit firearm ownership in the US. The constitutional protection of gun ownership can't be dismissed while discussing US gun ownership because it is of tantamount legal importance.
Then that isn't a discussion. The legal reality is that any meaningful restrictions on gun ownership in general are by definition, unconstitutional. If we set the space for discussion on changes in law strictly to what is constitutional, than the discussion must by definition be either affirming we change nothing or moving to readily increase gun access. Since only one side of the potential debate is on board with either of those options, there is by definition no debate or discussion to be had at least with regards to the law.
The only space for any kind weighing of ideas to occur is in the space of "Should the constitutional protections be as strong as they are, why or why not. If not what are the alternatives?".
That's only if the discussion is revolving around ways to address the issue that further decrease access. Perhaps there are other ways to address it? Since we've been mostly talking about negligence, accidents, and otherwise unintentional shootings in this thread, maybe we could propose some ways to improve the situation that don't revolve around making guns less accessible to law-abiding citizens. Lately, I've heard more talk about casting guns as a public health issue. While I don't entirely agree with this characterization, maybe there's some merit in approaching the issue with that mindset. Maybe we could focus on some education people and providing gun safety training. Many high schools teach sexual education as part of the health class curriculum in the United States. Maybe, if we can honestly accept that firearms are a part of American culture that aren't going away, we could start taking steps like including some basic gun safety information as part of health classes to students. It wouldn't even need to involve hands-on time with firearms. Just the basic safety rules (modified as necessary per age group), illustrating what they are capable of, and why children shouldn't be messing with them. If we don't want health teachers or PE teachers or whatever teaching that content, then schools could bring in volunteers to do short courses every once in awhile, similar to how some schools integrate outdoor education into their curriculum. After we do that for awhile, we can reassess and see if it seems to be having an impact on negligent shootings or accidents involving children, and then go from there.
There. I just made a suggestion on a potential thing that might do something to help improve the situation that doesn't involve further restricting a constitutional right. It can be done, we all just need to frame the issue as something other than "Guns are bad. We need to restrict them more," or "Guns are good. We should have less restriction on them." Those two stances are certainly not the only two ways to approach the issue.
I said the very same thing a few pages back. Not a mandatory "you must take this to own a gun" class, just making education on the subject more readily available.
Kind of a "loaded" question. I could ask you in return why do you love weapons so much? But I wouldn't presume that about you.
Hordini wrote: Do you believe that only the government and criminals should have a complete monopoly on violence, and that ordinary people should always be at the mercy of either one or the other?
No.
Hordini wrote: If you think the average person isn't competent enough to be able to handle a weapon, how on earth do you think the average person should be able to have a car, even with licensing and registration?
I don't really, people are often grossly irresponsible with cars. I look forward to them being self driving.
Hordini wrote: You seem like a person who is, quite honestly, terrified of other people. In fact, in this case you seem more afraid of people who bear you no ill will than those that potentially do.
I'm not really sure why you think that about me. seems quite personal though.
Maybe "hate" is too strong of a word. "Strongly dislike" might have been a better way for me to phrase it. I suppose I don't love weapons, but it's a fair question. I like them, because they, particularly firearms, level the playing field a bit. For example, a gun allows someone who is small and petite to defend themselves from an attacker of any size, or a group of attackers. It's difficult for me to see that as anything other than a positive, as even if guns didn't exist, physically strong people who wish to do harm to physically weak people would still exist, as would groups of people who wish to do harm to individuals.
As far as the being terrified of other people, you've made multiple posts now indicating how irresponsible you think others are, and how normal people shouldn't have guns because they can't be trusted with them, and that you will be happy when cars are self driving since you seem to think normal people can't be trusted with driving their own car either.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nostromodamus wrote: I said the very same thing a few pages back. Not a mandatory "you must take this to own a gun" class, just making education on the subject more readily available.
If we make a point to teach children from a young age as part of a public school education, even if they don't ever want to have a gun, at least they will have some knowledge on the subject and understand that they are not toys, which could literally save their life should they ever encounter a firearm.
I don't think someone claiming that the Constitution isn't completely irrelevant to the issue is the same as someone ending the discussion before it stops.
What I mean is that if you confine the discussion to political and legal reality:
If the question is what are the "right" or "correct" or "ideal" laws to regulate firearm ownership in a utopian society than the content of the US constitution would be irrelevant. Since we seem to be discussing firearm ownership in the US at our current time then we need to acknowledge that the 2nd amendment enjoys very special and specific legal standing and that directly affects the ability to regulate or prohibit firearm ownership in the US. The constitutional protection of gun ownership can't be dismissed while discussing US gun ownership because it is of tantamount legal importance.
Then that isn't a discussion. The legal reality is that any meaningful restrictions on gun ownership in general are by definition, unconstitutional. If we set the space for discussion on changes in law strictly to what is constitutional, than the discussion must by definition be either affirming we change nothing or moving to readily increase gun access. Since only one side of the potential debate is on board with either of those options, there is by definition no debate or discussion to be had at least with regards to the law.
The only space for any kind weighing of ideas to occur is in the space of "Should the constitutional protections be as strong as they are, why or why not. If not what are the alternatives?".
That's only if the discussion is revolving around ways to address the issue that further decrease access. Perhaps there are other ways to address it? Since we've been mostly talking about negligence, accidents, and otherwise unintentional shootings in this thread, maybe we could propose some ways to improve the situation that don't revolve around making guns less accessible to law-abiding citizens. Lately, I've heard more talk about casting guns as a public health issue. While I don't entirely agree with this characterization, maybe there's some merit in approaching the issue with that mindset. Maybe we could focus on some education people and providing gun safety training. Many high schools teach sexual education as part of the health class curriculum in the United States. Maybe, if we can honestly accept that firearms are a part of American culture that aren't going away, we could start taking steps like including some basic gun safety information as part of health classes to students. It wouldn't even need to involve hands-on time with firearms. Just the basic safety rules (modified as necessary per age group), illustrating what they are capable of, and why children shouldn't be messing with them. If we don't want health teachers or PE teachers or whatever teaching that content, then schools could bring in volunteers to do short courses every once in awhile, similar to how some schools integrate outdoor education into their curriculum. After we do that for awhile, we can reassess and see if it seems to be having an impact on negligent shootings or accidents involving children, and then go from there.
There. I just made a suggestion on a potential thing that might do something to help improve the situation that doesn't involve further restricting a constitutional right. It can be done, we all just need to frame the issue as something other than "Guns are bad. We need to restrict them more," or "Guns are good. We should have less restriction on them." Those two stances are certainly not the only two ways to approach the issue.
Right but my comments were specifically about approaching the conversation on the matter of the law. If we're not talking about legal steps the constitution is not at all relevant because we're not dealing with anything that constitutionality touches. Things that aren't discussions of the laws around guns are fine discussions to have and probably more productive ones. However it's a total non-sequitur in terms of specifically dealing with a potential gun law discussion, which was the line of conversation I was addressing.
My position stands. If we are to talk about the laws around guns (as the comments I was addressing were), there is no real discussion to be had if the Constitution in it's current form is held as sacrosanct. If we're to have a conversation about education, training, mental health support or any number of other things those are valid discussions. However they're not the gun law discussion and not relevant to my comments on the form the gun law discussion needs to take.
I don't think someone claiming that the Constitution isn't completely irrelevant to the issue is the same as someone ending the discussion before it stops.
What I mean is that if you confine the discussion to political and legal reality:
If the question is what are the "right" or "correct" or "ideal" laws to regulate firearm ownership in a utopian society than the content of the US constitution would be irrelevant. Since we seem to be discussing firearm ownership in the US at our current time then we need to acknowledge that the 2nd amendment enjoys very special and specific legal standing and that directly affects the ability to regulate or prohibit firearm ownership in the US. The constitutional protection of gun ownership can't be dismissed while discussing US gun ownership because it is of tantamount legal importance.
Then that isn't a discussion. The legal reality is that any meaningful restrictions on gun ownership in general are by definition, unconstitutional. If we set the space for discussion on changes in law strictly to what is constitutional, than the discussion must by definition be either affirming we change nothing or moving to readily increase gun access. Since only one side of the potential debate is on board with either of those options, there is by definition no debate or discussion to be had at least with regards to the law.
The only space for any kind weighing of ideas to occur is in the space of "Should the constitutional protections be as strong as they are, why or why not. If not what are the alternatives?".
That's only if the discussion is revolving around ways to address the issue that further decrease access. Perhaps there are other ways to address it? Since we've been mostly talking about negligence, accidents, and otherwise unintentional shootings in this thread, maybe we could propose some ways to improve the situation that don't revolve around making guns less accessible to law-abiding citizens. Lately, I've heard more talk about casting guns as a public health issue. While I don't entirely agree with this characterization, maybe there's some merit in approaching the issue with that mindset. Maybe we could focus on some education people and providing gun safety training. Many high schools teach sexual education as part of the health class curriculum in the United States. Maybe, if we can honestly accept that firearms are a part of American culture that aren't going away, we could start taking steps like including some basic gun safety information as part of health classes to students. It wouldn't even need to involve hands-on time with firearms. Just the basic safety rules (modified as necessary per age group), illustrating what they are capable of, and why children shouldn't be messing with them. If we don't want health teachers or PE teachers or whatever teaching that content, then schools could bring in volunteers to do short courses every once in awhile, similar to how some schools integrate outdoor education into their curriculum. After we do that for awhile, we can reassess and see if it seems to be having an impact on negligent shootings or accidents involving children, and then go from there.
There. I just made a suggestion on a potential thing that might do something to help improve the situation that doesn't involve further restricting a constitutional right. It can be done, we all just need to frame the issue as something other than "Guns are bad. We need to restrict them more," or "Guns are good. We should have less restriction on them." Those two stances are certainly not the only two ways to approach the issue.
Right but my comments were specifically about approaching the conversation on the matter of the law. If we're not talking about legal steps the constitution is not at all relevant because we're not dealing with anything that constitutionality touches. Things that aren't discussions of the laws around guns are fine discussions to have and probably more productive ones. However it's a total non-sequitur in terms of specifically dealing with a potential gun law discussion, which was the line of conversation I was addressing.
My position stands. If we are to talk about the laws around guns (as the comments I was addressing were), there is no real discussion to be had if the Constitution in it's current form is held as sacrosanct. If we're to have a conversation about education, training, mental health support or any number of other things those are valid discussions. However they're not the gun law discussion and not relevant to my comments on the form the gun law discussion needs to take.
I guess my point is, if we are willing to approach the problem from another angle, there might not be a need for a gun law discussion.
I don't think someone claiming that the Constitution isn't completely irrelevant to the issue is the same as someone ending the discussion before it stops.
What I mean is that if you confine the discussion to political and legal reality:
If the question is what are the "right" or "correct" or "ideal" laws to regulate firearm ownership in a utopian society than the content of the US constitution would be irrelevant. Since we seem to be discussing firearm ownership in the US at our current time then we need to acknowledge that the 2nd amendment enjoys very special and specific legal standing and that directly affects the ability to regulate or prohibit firearm ownership in the US. The constitutional protection of gun ownership can't be dismissed while discussing US gun ownership because it is of tantamount legal importance.
Then that isn't a discussion. The legal reality is that any meaningful restrictions on gun ownership in general are by definition, unconstitutional. If we set the space for discussion on changes in law strictly to what is constitutional, than the discussion must by definition be either affirming we change nothing or moving to readily increase gun access. Since only one side of the potential debate is on board with either of those options, there is by definition no debate or discussion to be had at least with regards to the law.
The only space for any kind weighing of ideas to occur is in the space of "Should the constitutional protections be as strong as they are, why or why not. If not what are the alternatives?".
That's only if the discussion is revolving around ways to address the issue that further decrease access. Perhaps there are other ways to address it? Since we've been mostly talking about negligence, accidents, and otherwise unintentional shootings in this thread, maybe we could propose some ways to improve the situation that don't revolve around making guns less accessible to law-abiding citizens. Lately, I've heard more talk about casting guns as a public health issue. While I don't entirely agree with this characterization, maybe there's some merit in approaching the issue with that mindset. Maybe we could focus on some education people and providing gun safety training. Many high schools teach sexual education as part of the health class curriculum in the United States. Maybe, if we can honestly accept that firearms are a part of American culture that aren't going away, we could start taking steps like including some basic gun safety information as part of health classes to students. It wouldn't even need to involve hands-on time with firearms. Just the basic safety rules (modified as necessary per age group), illustrating what they are capable of, and why children shouldn't be messing with them. If we don't want health teachers or PE teachers or whatever teaching that content, then schools could bring in volunteers to do short courses every once in awhile, similar to how some schools integrate outdoor education into their curriculum. After we do that for awhile, we can reassess and see if it seems to be having an impact on negligent shootings or accidents involving children, and then go from there.
There. I just made a suggestion on a potential thing that might do something to help improve the situation that doesn't involve further restricting a constitutional right. It can be done, we all just need to frame the issue as something other than "Guns are bad. We need to restrict them more," or "Guns are good. We should have less restriction on them." Those two stances are certainly not the only two ways to approach the issue.
Right but my comments were specifically about approaching the conversation on the matter of the law. If we're not talking about legal steps the constitution is not at all relevant because we're not dealing with anything that constitutionality touches. Things that aren't discussions of the laws around guns are fine discussions to have and probably more productive ones. However it's a total non-sequitur in terms of specifically dealing with a potential gun law discussion, which was the line of conversation I was addressing.
My position stands. If we are to talk about the laws around guns (as the comments I was addressing were), there is no real discussion to be had if the Constitution in it's current form is held as sacrosanct. If we're to have a conversation about education, training, mental health support or any number of other things those are valid discussions. However they're not the gun law discussion and not relevant to my comments on the form the gun law discussion needs to take.
i think I understand the parameters in which you wish to frame the discussion but I'm not sure what practical purpose would be served by placing such parameters on the discussion.
Over the course of the last few decades more states have become more permissive with firearm ownership. More states offer concealed carry permits with less restrictive application processes than ever. A large majority of the 50 states have language in their state constitutions that affirms the right of state residents to keep and bear arms with language that is as strong and clear if not more so than the federal constitution. More states have passed castle doctrine and stand your ground laws. The Supreme Court has affirmed the right to private gun ownership in multiple high profile cases. Gun sales are up, more NICS checks are run every year. The FBI crime states show that violent crime and gun crime is trending down on a consistent basis.
Given the current legal and cultural climate in the US regarding gun ownership I don't think it's pragmatic to discuss gun rights in terms of starting over from scratch when we are more entrenched than ever in maintaining a right to kee and bear arms that is in keeping with the 2nd amendment.
oldravenman3025 wrote: Maybe that should be a clue that we'll get further by addressing "people problems" instead of using hype and fear to demonize inanimate objects, and stepping on inalienable rights, in the interests of political agendas and failed social engineering techniques.
Of course, I'm sure that doesn't work for you.
Well it might work for me if you tone down the hyperbole. I disagree that "hype and fear" are the exclusive property of gun control advocates, there is a lot of hype and fear about home invasion and a "tyrannical government" which is perpetuated by the other side. I also disagree that guns are being "demonized", they are legitimately lethal and aught to be treated with caution and respect.
But aside from all that, I agree. We would get further addressing "people problems". Though I don't agree that guns shouldn't or can't also be addressed.
Prestor Jon wrote: None of the items you previously mentioned are restricted for the reason that you claim guns should be restricted.
Well now you are just moving the goalposts to somewhere unreasonable. It's hardly surprising that the only thing "exactly" like a gun, is "a gun". Things which aren't guns are, by definition, going to be different to guns, and present slightly different risks. The things I mentioned are restricted because they present a risk if misused. They are restricted even to people who have never in the past misused them, which aught to (reasonably) fulfil your criteria.
Prestor Jon wrote: Do you really think radioactive materials are restricted because somebody murdered school students with some or because somebody left some radiological materials out where an unsupervised toddler got into it and caused someone harm?
Yes, children have been killed by playing with radioactive material. In 1987 Leide Ferreira (age 6), died after her father unwittingly gave her Caesium-137 from his scrap yard to play with. It was very sad, reports said that she painted it on her skin because she thought it was pretty. People have also been murdered using radioactive material. I can't think of anyone specifically murdering school children (people usually favour a gun for that), but of course, a dirty bomb has been a national security concern for some time.
Prestor Jon wrote: What medication do you believe I'm prohibited from taking because somebody else abused it? If we get into our failed drug war and how prohibition doesn't restrict access we should probably start a new thread. There are restrictions on prescription drugs but none of those restrictions prohibit me from getting prescription drugs if I want them.
Sorry, you really aren't making much sense. You're asking about restricted things, and then going off on tangents about semi related things. Is there some point to this? I have answered your question. If you want a specific restricted medicine, then I choose antibiotics (tetracyclines if you want even more specific), they're not even especially dangerous, yet they are still restricted. Why is that such a difficult concept for you?
Hordini wrote: I suppose I don't love weapons, but it's a fair question. I like them, because they, particularly firearms, level the playing field a bit. For example, a gun allows someone who is small and petite to defend themselves from an attacker of any size, or a group of attackers. It's difficult for me to see that as anything other than a positive, as even if guns didn't exist, physically strong people who wish to do harm to physically weak people would still exist, as would groups of people who wish to do harm to individuals.
Well I appreciate you sharing, you certainly have a fair point. Perhaps if only petite women had guns, instead of asshats like George Zimmerman, I would share your enthusiasm for them.
Hordini wrote: As far as the being terrified of other people, you've made multiple posts now indicating how irresponsible you think others are, and how normal people shouldn't have guns because they can't be trusted with them, and that you will be happy when cars are self driving since you seem to think normal people can't be trusted with driving their own car either.
A lot of people can be trusted, but unfortunately there are idiots out there who spoil it for everyone. The question is not "why should I be punished for their mistake", the question is "how do we stop those idiots hurting other people", if you can't think of a good answer to the second question, then you might have inadvertently answered the first question.
To the people in favour of greater gun laws, do you think there are any existing gun laws that are excessively burdensome and not that useful, that you would support removing?
And to the people in favour of less gun laws, do you think there are any possible gun laws that would increase safety without placing too great a burden on gun laws?
I'm just looking to see if this really is a case one side vs the other, with no compromise possible, or if it is possible to find better gun laws than what is in place now.
sebster wrote: To the people in favour of greater gun laws, do you think there are any existing gun laws that are excessively burdensome and not that useful, that you would support removing?
Yes, I didn't see much value in the so called "assault weapon" laws. I think longer rifles and weapons used primarily for hunting, or valued by collectors, should not be tarred with the same brush as weapons that are frequently used in crimes. I would tend to be very liberal towards hunting rifles and such.
Restrictions an magazine size, I don't think is a necessarily a bad thing, but I also don't feel it accomplishes much either. (not that useful)
oldravenman3025 wrote: Maybe that should be a clue that we'll get further by addressing "people problems" instead of using hype and fear to demonize inanimate objects, and stepping on inalienable rights, in the interests of political agendas and failed social engineering techniques.
Of course, I'm sure that doesn't work for you.
Well it might work for me if you tone down the hyperbole. I disagree that "hype and fear" are the exclusive property of gun control advocates, there is a lot of hype and fear about home invasion and a "tyrannical government" which is perpetuated by the other side. I also disagree that guns are being "demonized", they are legitimately lethal and aught to be treated with caution and respect.
But aside from all that, I agree. We would get further addressing "people problems". Though I don't agree that guns shouldn't or can't also be addressed.
I never said that they were exclusive to the anti-gun lobby. I would ask that you don't "put words in my mouth".
And if you believe that the possibility of a violent home invasion is a fantasy and fear mongering, then (in my opinion) you're living in a fantasy land. It happens every freakin' day throughout the United States. And people have been raped and murdered in the process. Hell, I've had somebody try to come in on me and my family in the past, on more than one occasion. I've seen it during my time in law enforcement, having gone on numerous calls for break-ins and forcible entry. When working in corrections later on, a good portion of the inmates we had were in for breaking into homes (sometimes when people were home). And I live in a rural County in the American Southeast. Violent crime can happen anywhere, especially with the proliferation of the drug trade into rural areas over the last 30 years. Including home invasions.
In some of the cases, the victims took preventative measures to increase security Cameras, alarms, barred windows, etc. All except for that "fire extinguisher" I mentioned in past posts on this thread: A gun or some other personal means of defense. It ended badly for them. You make sure to have a smoke alarm in the house, buy what to you do when a grease fire starts? Do you run out of the house, call the fire department, and watch your house burn down while you wait? Or do you keep a proper extinguisher on hand to put out that fire yourself? The same basic principle applies to owning a gun, in addition to taking preventative measures to secure yourself, your family, and your home.
The part about tyrannical government is something that's blown out of proportion in some quarters, I agree. But as the old saying goes, "never say never". And we have skirted the edge of it (along with genocide) in the past.
As for the last part, guns HAVE been addressed. On ALL levels of government (the part you edited out of your reply). And while some of that regulation has been beneficial, a lot of it is just feel-good BS for politicians to drum up support and look good to the voters. Everything points to more than enough, short of outright bans and confiscation (a physical and political impossibility), being done, with questionable results. That's the part that you seem to miss or ignore.
Anyway, that's my position. You have yours. Neither of us are going to change each other's minds on the matter. I'm going to take a "agree to disagree" position a skip out on the remainder of this thread. Not to mention, remember to keep to my policy of not arguing with control control advocates and anti-gunners, and avoiding the resulting headaches.
oldravenman3025 wrote: Maybe that should be a clue that we'll get further by addressing "people problems" instead of using hype and fear to demonize inanimate objects, and stepping on inalienable rights, in the interests of political agendas and failed social engineering techniques.
Of course, I'm sure that doesn't work for you.
Well it might work for me if you tone down the hyperbole. I disagree that "hype and fear" are the exclusive property of gun control advocates, there is a lot of hype and fear about home invasion and a "tyrannical government" which is perpetuated by the other side. I also disagree that guns are being "demonized", they are legitimately lethal and aught to be treated with caution and respect.
But aside from all that, I agree. We would get further addressing "people problems". Though I don't agree that guns shouldn't or can't also be addressed.
Prestor Jon wrote: None of the items you previously mentioned are restricted for the reason that you claim guns should be restricted.
Well now you are just moving the goalposts to somewhere unreasonable. It's hardly surprising that the only thing "exactly" like a gun, is "a gun". Things which aren't guns are by definition going to different to guns, and present slightly different risks. The things I mentioned are restricted because they present a risk if misused. They are restricted even to people who have never in the past misused them, which aught to (reasonably) fulfil your criteria.
Prestor Jon wrote: Do you really think radioactive materials are restricted because somebody murdered school students with some or because somebody left some radiological materials out where an unsupervised toddler got into it and caused someone harm?
Yes, children have been killed by playing with radioactive material. In 1987 Leide Ferreira (age 6), died after her father unwittingly gave her Caesium-137 from his scrap yard to play with. It was very sad, reports said that she painted it on her skin because she thought it was pretty. People have also been murdered using radioactive material. I can't think of anyone specifically murdering school children (people usually favour a gun for that), but of course, a dirty bomb has been a national security concern for some time.
Prestor Jon wrote: What medication do you believe I'm prohibited from taking because somebody else abused it? If we get into our failed drug war and how prohibition doesn't restrict access we should probably start a new thread. There are restrictions on prescription drugs but none of those restrictions prohibit me from getting prescription drugs if I want them.
Sorry, you really aren't making much sense. You're asking about restricted things, and then going off on tangents about semi related things. Is there some point to this? I have answered your question. If you want a specific restricted medicine, then I choose antibiotics (tetracyclines if you want even more specific), they're not even especially dangerous, yet they are still restricted. Why is that such a difficult concept for you?
I'm not moving any goal posts. You want to discuss US gun laws and I am trying to keep you on topic. You have tried to bring in other forms of property into the discussion that aren't analogous to guns in any meaningful way and even after acknowledging that they are fundamentally different from guns you still claim that they are relevant. They are not.
The majority of US laws governing the possession of, handling of and disposal of radioactive materials predate 1987. Radioactive materials are a terrible example for you to use anyway because they are inherently a direct and active threat to your health. A gun sitting on a table is an inanimate object that must be operated by a person to be dangerous. Radioactive material sitting on a table bombards people with lethal radiation constantly without needin human actions to make it dangerous.
Hundreds of millions of guns owned by tens of millions of US citizens safely get through the day without harming anyone. Radioactive materials emit harmful radiation every day. One is a clear public health hazard the other are objects that can be safely handled by anyone without the need of any special equipment.
Antibiotics aren't restricted in any fashion that's analogous to the 20,000 gun laws on the books here in the US. People are free to get a prescription for antibiotics from their doctor anytime any day without having to pass a background check or pay special taxes or get permission from local law enforcement.
sebster wrote: To the people in favour of greater gun laws, do you think there are any existing gun laws that are excessively burdensome and not that useful, that you would support removing?
Yes, I didn't see much value in the so called "assault weapon" laws. I think longer rifles and weapons used primarily for hunting, or valued by collectors, should not be tarred with the same brush as weapons that are frequently used in crimes. I would tend to be very liberal towards hunting rifles and such.
Restrictions an magazine size, I don't think is a necessarily a bad thing, but I also don't feel it accomplishes much either. (not that useful)
"Assault weapons" or long guns of any type are used in an extremely small number of crimes. There is no significant difference in the lethality of "hunting" rifles and "assault" rifles. Both can kill with a single shot, both can be used at long ranges and both can be used to kill large numbers of people. When gun laws are scrutinized one finds that they don't target guns based on statistical evidence like incidence rates but instead target guns that have features that give them aesthetics that are in line with scary/military guns. They have more to do with the politics of pandering to people's fears than they do with creating sound policies that enhance public safety.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I think spring loaded blades are illegal in NY state general (IIRC). I don't think swords themselves are illegal here, although wearing them openly may vary from place to place. They certainly don't give a gak where I live, or at least they don't care enough to enforce it.
I live in Buffalo and there is no way I could get away with carrying a sword. I wish I could,as you never truly know when the next Highlander will get picked. Maybe in CNY, where they don't have morals you can, but we respect the rule of law here dammit! It is funny I can buy a bolt-action rifle that can hit at 100yds relatively easy out of the box, but throwing stars are faux paslol.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: Not sure why you equate pro gun with being a conservative right issue. The majority of democrats are pro 2nd amendment too.
Sadly I dunno if that's true. It's definitely not a con/lib issue, but Democrats nationwide don't seem majority pro-2nd. Definitely a large percentage, but I dunno about majority. Unless you count anti-Republican as Democrats.
sebster wrote: To the people in favour of greater gun laws, do you think there are any existing gun laws that are excessively burdensome and not that useful, that you would support removing?
Yes, I didn't see much value in the so called "assault weapon" laws. I think longer rifles and weapons used primarily for hunting, or valued by collectors, should not be tarred with the same brush as weapons that are frequently used in crimes. I would tend to be very liberal towards hunting rifles and such.
Restrictions an magazine size, I don't think is a necessarily a bad thing, but I also don't feel it accomplishes much either. (not that useful)
The thing is, how do you define a "longer rifle or weapon used primarily for hunting"? Barrel length? Caliber? By and far rifles aren't "weapons that are frequently used in crimes" that would be cheap, smaller caliber handguns. But since none of these regulations are trying to address that, then what are they trying to address?
I've come to the belief that the 2nd Amendment wasn't put in there to stop the US Army, rather the US police forces. Anybody that's studied any history of totalitarian regimes can see that it never starts with the military, at least in modern times. It's the police. And now that they outgun the vast majority of American citizens, the 2nd is kinda well, outdated. And outside looking in, I can totally see it looking outdated and therefore superfluous. But it's still a huge part of our (American) common heritage that we at least have the option.
oldravenman3025 wrote: I never said that they were exclusive to the anti-gun lobby. I would ask that you don't "put words in my mouth".
I don't want to put anything in your mouth. You mentioned hype and fear mongering, which no one has been doing in this topic really, and then you went on to say that anyone without a gun is almost certain to get raped and murdered in their own home (even steel bars can't protect you). But yeah, lets accuse the other side of fear mongering.
oldravenman3025 wrote: And if you believe that the possibility of a violent home invasion is a fantasy and fear mongering, then (in my opinion) you're living in a fantasy land. It happens every freakin' day throughout the United States.
People win lotteries every day too, that doesn't mean it's even remotely likely to happen to you. The chances of shooting yourself with your own gun are higher.
oldravenman3025 wrote: Anyway, that's my position. You have yours. Neither of us are going to change each other's minds on the matter. I'm going to take a "agree to disagree" position a skip out on the remainder of this thread. Not to mention, remember to keep to my policy of not arguing with control control advocates and anti-gunners, and avoiding the resulting headaches.
I said it might work for me? I thought we were getting along quite well...
Prestor Jon wrote: I'm not moving any goal posts. You want to discuss US gun laws and I am trying to keep you on topic.
No, you claimed that things shouldn't be restricted from a person who had never misused that thing. Then you said that it never happens, and asked me to name some things that are restricted, so I did. You're the one who can't seem to follow a consistent train of thought.
Prestor Jon wrote: You have tried to bring in other forms of property into the discussion that aren't analogous to guns in any meaningful way and even after acknowledging that they are fundamentally different from guns you still claim that they are relevant.
I brought them up because you asked me to, but then you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "analogous". You are really twisting my words saying that I acknowledged they are fundamentally different from guns. I acknowledged that they are not literally guns. If the only thing you consider analogous to a gun is another gun, then you clearly don't know what analogous means, and are ,in fact, moving the goalposts to a place which I can only describe as stupid.
Prestor Jon wrote: Radioactive materials are a terrible example for you to use anyway because they are inherently a direct and active threat to your health.
Not if it's handled responsibly. Why should someone who has never hurt anyone with radioactive material not be allowed to play with it?
Prestor Jon wrote: In the US. People are free to get a prescription for antibiotics from their doctor anytime any day without having to pass a background
The doctor might prescribe them for you if he thinks you need them, he will probably want to know some of your medical history first. That doesn't mean you are free to get them as you please. He could also turn you down and send you away.
sebster wrote: And to the people in favour of less gun laws, do you think there are any possible gun laws that would increase safety without placing too great a burden on gun laws?
Talizvar wrote: Could we argue that a gun is somewhat unsafe by design?
You could argue it, and I would like to hear your justification that firearms are "unsafe by design"
I am a bit speechless over this.
The thing is designed to fire a projectile at high velocity with the intent of blowing a hole through something at range merely by pulling a trigger.
Mousetraps are freaking unsafe, it is just a matter of the degree of consequence: death is pretty high for the mouse anyway.
An untriggerlocked loaded gun in the hands of a small child as discussed by the OP is unsafe as the mother found out.
At work we lock-out-tag-out to prevent machines we are working on from being turned on and removing limbs.
Responsible control of the firearm is necessary to prevent accidental deaths.
Until we start charging $5000 a bullet for better control of discharges, better controls are needed.
To the people in favour of greater gun laws, do you think there are any existing gun laws that are excessively burdensome and not that useful, that you would support removing?
And to the people in favour of less gun laws, do you think there are any possible gun laws that would increase safety without placing too great a burden on gun laws?
I'm just looking to see if this really is a case one side vs the other, with no compromise possible, or if it is possible to find better gun laws than what is in place now.
In regards to the latter, I'd really like to see some sort of firearm usage/safety component in schools. Something that will drill the 4 basic rules of firearm safety into everyone, even if they never touch a gun, and allow them to be safe if they encounter a firearm somehow other than just sitting there going "wat do?", and can at least safely operate one, if for no other reason than to unload & verify the weapon is safe. It's kinda silly that we have an established constitutional right that effectively is taboo in the educational system even from that perspective, and I think such a program could save a lot more grief than additional restrictions.
That said, I also think schools should teach stuff about basic finance, preparing personal taxes, using a credit card, etc, which is also apparently a taboo subject in the educational system
EDIT: To expand on the issue of additional or lesser restrictions, when you look at places with huge restrictions on firearms vs almost none in the US, the difference often isn't what one would expect.
Lets look at Portland vs San Francisco. Both large, tech heavy, west coast states that like to think of themselves as trendy cultural centers, and I've spent a whole lot of time in both.
In Portland, if you have a CHL (Shall-Issue state, relatively easy and straightforward to get), you can legally carry a loaded, fully automatic machine gun sporting a 100 round ammo belt with an underslung grenade launcher (if you can afford these things and own them in compliance with Federal NFA laws) and walk through the middle of the city or on public transportation, and be completely and totally hammered drunk while doing so. That's a completely legal thing believe it or not. If you don't have a CHL, you can do this anywhere outside a major metropolitan area as long as it's openly carried. You can go into a gun store, do your background check in a few minutes, and walk out with a standard Title 1 Firearm (anything that isn't an NFA firearm like a machinegun or SBR) such as an AR-15 or a Glock handgun very quickly and easily.
In San Francisco, getting a CHL is nearly impossible (may-issue state and the Bay Area is effectively NO-Issue) making concealed carry effectively banned, Open Carry is banned CHL or no, owning either of the above two types weapons is illegal, possessing a weapon while intoxicated is illegal, and possessing a weapon that is belt fed or that is using a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds is illegal (assuming you didn't own it before 1999), along with a long list of specifically banned weapons and banned features (e.g. a pistol grip *and* a detachable magazine makes an illegal "assault weapon"), in addition to a 10-day waiting period after purchase to take possession of any firearm, and SF now has laws regarding mandatory videotaping of firearms related transactions (leading to the last gun store within city limits to close their doors).
The mindset in Portland & Oregon is that basically anything bad you'd do in such a situation is already illegal, such as a negligent discharge within city limits or shooting someone, so banning the original thing is kinda pointless. I read something in some scifi book (might have been Starship Troopers) where there was a line about how it wasn't against regulations to be drunk on duty, only being unfit for duty, which aren't necessarily exclusive, and that fits the mindset of a place like Portland. It's also just one of those things where just because it's legal doesn't mean people actually go out and do it, particularly with any sort of regularity, and thus banning it isn't really changing anything. As we can see, despite being able to own much more powerful weaponry and carry it practically anywhere, even while intoxicated, Portland isn't overrun with drunken gun battles, while San Francisco, despite having far more restrictions and safety legislation, has far more murders.
Smacks wrote: Yes, I didn't see much value in the so called "assault weapon" laws. I think longer rifles and weapons used primarily for hunting, or valued by collectors, should not be tarred with the same brush as weapons that are frequently used in crimes. I would tend to be very liberal towards hunting rifles and such.
Restrictions an magazine size, I don't think is a necessarily a bad thing, but I also don't feel it accomplishes much either. (not that useful)
Yeah, I think those are both reasonable points. The issue with many US gun laws is they're driven by fear of spree killings, when by far most common death related to firearms is suicide, and the second most common are single murders, where the victim knew the killer. And handguns do most of those killings.
Vaktathi wrote: In regards to the latter, I'd really like to see some sort of firearm usage/safety component in schools. Something that will drill the 4 basic rules of firearm safety into everyone, even if they never touch a gun, and allow them to be safe if they encounter a firearm somehow other than just sitting there going "wat do?", and can at least safely operate one, if for no other reason than to unload & verify the weapon is safe. It's kinda silly that we have an established constitutional right that effectively is taboo in the educational system even from that perspective, and I think such a program could save a lot more grief than additional restrictions.
Interesting answer. It's maybe kind of a bit of cheating, because you're answering with a bit of legislation that actually increases the presences of guns in people's lives, but the answer was interesting enough I'll let that pass
Anyhow, I'm not sure firearm education is needed, certainly not universally. Gun ownership is down to around 40% of homes, and slowly drifting down. Guns are a big part of some people's lives, and a big part of the culture in some areas, but for many other places they exist in movies and in endless gun debates, not actually as part of their lives. In terms of competing for scarce class time and resources, it isn't really up there with first aid classes, or basic finance, or anything else like that.
I do certainly agree that classes that like would be great for anyone buying a gun. They could be handled through a local range, or by local police forces.
That said, I also think schools should teach stuff about basic finance, preparing personal taxes, using a credit card, etc, which is also apparently a taboo subject in the educational system
Definitely agree. Just doing a simple example - if you want a $2,000 holiday, how much will it cost if you save $50 a month on 5% interest, and how much will it cost if you borrow for the holiday now and repay $50 at 10% interest? It blows people's minds because they've never had the maths laid out in front of them. It's $1,900 vs $2,450, by the way
EDIT: To expand on the issue of additional or lesser restrictions, when you look at places with huge restrictions on firearms vs almost none in the US, the difference often isn't what one would expect.
You can't just pick two cities and compare. There are so many factors that go in to murder rates (average income, income disparity, long term unemployed rate, rate of drug use etc), that whatever impact gun laws are having will be absolutely dwarfed, making it very easy to cherry pick favourable comparisons.
Actually extracting the impact guns have on murder rates is very difficult. There is almost certainly a factor, because nothing else can adequately explain the massive difference US murder rates compared to other developed countries. But beyond that, it gets extremely difficult.
To the people in favour of greater gun laws, do you think there are any existing gun laws that are excessively burdensome and not that useful, that you would support removing?
And to the people in favour of less gun laws, do you think there are any possible gun laws that would increase safety without placing too great a burden on gun laws?
I'm just looking to see if this really is a case one side vs the other, with no compromise possible, or if it is possible to find better gun laws than what is in place now.
I'm sort of in the middle on this. There are some gun laws that are very, very stupid. I won't go into any extended detail because that's a bit beyond the scope of this thread, but the entire National Firearms Act needs to be reworked. Suppressors should not be on there, and nor should short barrelled shotguns or rifles. At the very least, the rules regarding such need to be less stupid.
This is my AR-pistol:
Spoiler:
Totally legal. However, if I put a stock on it, it's a felony. If I put a vertical foregrip on it, and it's less than 26" total, it's a felony. Angled foregrip as pictured is legal, arm "brace" is legal", bringing that arm brace to my shoulder is a legal grey area. This is very, very stupid by I suspect any reasonable measure.
I would definitely support some specific gun control measures as well (tests for proficiency, much-much-much harder to acquire pistols, etc) but all of the things I would support would not be constitutional, in my opinion.
You do, however, bring up the point of personal defense. Now I, personally, am not concerned with such, but that is the reason why I am not opposed to individual weapon ownership. I just find the idea that if people weren't able to own guns we'd descend into some distopian nightmare world or whatever ludicrous to the extreme.
It doesn't automatically mean you will turn into that, but it does mean that if the process ever does get started you'll lack the ability to resist as effectively. Its a safety mechanism.
And given the tighter government control all countries are experiencing you can't claim the threat isn't there.
Guns are like fire extinguishers. You hope you never have to use them, but if you do you'll be glad you had them.
I don't get this at all. You're allowed a pretty limited range of small caliber weaponry, and the government is shafting you and taking away your freedoms all the time.
1. When do you decide to react and have your armed uprising?
2. What do you think the odds are of that happening since you're so utterly outgunned, and outskilled by the national guard and US military wings?
Owning personal guns makes sense in the perverted sense that everyone else has them and you need them for personal safety, but as a tool to oppose state oppression that ship sailed before the civil war. No longer do you have the ability to form meaningful local militias to keep the goverment and the British from bossing your townships about. So the only real solution is to allow the population to own armoured cars and military grade equipment?
In that way, I can understand Afghani hill farmers owning AK-47's to defend themselves from bandits, militias and the US, same with a lot of other tribal areas in the world, and mega remote places like US ranches, but in anywhere vaguely populated? I don't get it.
As far as the being terrified of other people, you've made multiple posts now indicating how irresponsible you think others are, and how normal people shouldn't have guns because they can't be trusted with them, and that you will be happy when cars are self driving since you seem to think normal people can't be trusted with driving their own car either.
This is interesting, as it cuts right to the heart of the debate.
The lust to own weapons, apart from the childish compulsion to own boys' toys like the ones we owned as kids, is one part paranoia - that you need a weapon to level the playing fields against the threats all around us - and one part a dangerous over-confidence: I should own a weapon, because I am more responsible than average, just like those dreadful drivers who all think they're better than average. This is what Smacks is referring to .
The Constitution is entirely a red herring here, as there's plenty of evidence that the NRA perpetrated "a fraud on the American republic" in establishing it as justifying widespread ownership of weapons. Yet beyond morality, there are simply statistics. Handguns are an addiction, bought to "protect" people when instead they kill them, as this foolish woman's kid nearly did to her, and result in gun-death rate 10 times as high as other developed nations.
I'm not sure I would call the constitution a red herring. However it does tend to get used as a reason for owning guns, rather than enabling responsible ownership of guns because it has been determined that guns are a good thing.
For instance, the revolutionary was won partly by help of the militia, so it must have made sense to put in the 2nd amendment. However the conditions of warfare that the US is likely to find in the present day make a part time citizen militia consisting of all adult men useless.
Did the gun not have a safety? Surely a toddler cannot operate a safety catch, let alone understand the safety catch's existance, without some sort of demonic, Omen-esque, interference.
That type of pistol shown is a version of a Colt M1911.
AFAIK it has two safeties. One is a catch on the slide. The other one is the grip safety, to lock the trigger unless the user is holding it properly. Also it is a single-action gun, meaning you have to cock it before being able to fire.
It seems unlikely that a toddler would have the hand size and strength to get all this done. But the fact is the mother did somehow manage to get herself shot in the back.
sebster wrote: To the people in favour of greater gun laws, do you think there are any existing gun laws that are excessively burdensome and not that useful, that you would support removing?
Yes, I didn't see much value in the so called "assault weapon" laws. I think longer rifles and weapons used primarily for hunting, or valued by collectors, should not be tarred with the same brush as weapons that are frequently used in crimes. I would tend to be very liberal towards hunting rifles and such.
Restrictions an magazine size, I don't think is a necessarily a bad thing, but I also don't feel it accomplishes much either. (not that useful)
You do know 'assault rifles', no matter how you want to define them, are very rarely used in crimes. The gun 'frequently used in crimes' is a handgun.
Talizvar wrote: I am a bit speechless over this.
The thing is designed to fire a projectile at high velocity with the intent of blowing a hole through something at range merely by pulling a trigger.
Mousetraps are freaking unsafe, it is just a matter of the degree of consequence: death is pretty high for the mouse anyway.
An untriggerlocked loaded gun in the hands of a small child as discussed by the OP is unsafe as the mother found out.
At work we lock-out-tag-out to prevent machines we are working on from being turned on and removing limbs.
Responsible control of the firearm is necessary to prevent accidental deaths.
Until we start charging $5000 a bullet for better control of discharges, better controls are needed.
You still have not shown how firearms are "unsafe by design". If guns were so unsafe then the figure for deaths by negligent discharge would be significantly higher than ~500 out of the 359,000,000 (or .00014% of) firearms in the hands of US citizens. All you have shown is that the mother was negligent with her firearm, which is something that everyone in this thread agrees with. Please explain how firearms are "unsafe by design".
I'm curious as to what "controls" you believe are needed.
Deadshot wrote: Did the gun not have a safety? Surely a toddler cannot operate a safety catch, let alone understand the safety catch's existance, without some sort of demonic, Omen-esque, interference.
It is my understanding that all firearms have some sort of safety. I heard the the pistol was a Kimber, so if that is accurate then it is likely a 1911 style pistol with a grip safety, and a thumb safety. There is no indication that the thumb safety was engaged. I sincerely hope that your last sentence is satire.
The fact that guns are designed to shoot lethal projectiles might be a reason to consider them unsafe in a way that a smartphone isn't. Maybe a toddler could manage to remove and swallow the battery, or choke on the SIM card.
Of course if you follow safety procedure, and remove and store the ammunition separately, an unloaded gun is just an inert machine.
Talizvar wrote: I am a bit speechless over this.
The thing is designed to fire a projectile at high velocity with the intent of blowing a hole through something at range merely by pulling a trigger.
Mousetraps are freaking unsafe, it is just a matter of the degree of consequence: death is pretty high for the mouse anyway.
An untriggerlocked loaded gun in the hands of a small child as discussed by the OP is unsafe as the mother found out.
At work we lock-out-tag-out to prevent machines we are working on from being turned on and removing limbs.
Responsible control of the firearm is necessary to prevent accidental deaths.
Until we start charging $5000 a bullet for better control of discharges, better controls are needed.
You still have not shown how firearms are "unsafe by design". If guns were so unsafe then the figure for deaths by negligent discharge would be significantly higher than ~500 out of the 359,000,000 (or .00014% of) firearms in the hands of US citizens. All you have shown is that the mother was negligent with her firearm, which is something that everyone in this thread agrees with. Please explain how firearms are "unsafe by design".
I'm curious as to what "controls" you believe are needed.
Deadshot wrote: Did the gun not have a safety? Surely a toddler cannot operate a safety catch, let alone understand the safety catch's existance, without some sort of demonic, Omen-esque, interference.
It is my understanding that all firearms have some sort of safety. I heard the the pistol was a Kimber, so if that is accurate then it is likely a 1911 style pistol with a grip safety, and a thumb safety. There is no indication that the thumb safety was engaged. I sincerely hope that your last sentence is satire.
Yes. As Kilkrazy said, the hand size and grip strength needed to disengage all the safety features, so they weren't engaged correctly, therefore, either the safeties were not engaged properly, else it would have to be something impossibly like demonic possession or the hand of god himself to put this situation in reality. Thus the gun was not properly made safe.
Kimber's operating manuals are available online for full details of the safety features.
Having read those, I think the most likely scenario is that the woman loaded and cocked the gun, and let down the hammer on to a chambered round. The toddler knocked it off the seat, and the shock when it hit the floor cause the firing pin to strike the round in the chamber.
"Series II" Kimber pistols have an additional safety feature that locks the firing pin block until the grip safety has been correctly disengaged. Perhaps this was a Series I pistol.
I believe that Frazzled owns a Kimber and could give us more information on these points.
I own a 1911, though not a Kimber - it's functionally the same but with a longer barrel. My guess is it was cocked and unlocked, and the kid simply grasped the grip and pulled the trigger. A drop fire is possible, but unlikely.
This is hers:
Spoiler:
I would say it's a Ultra Raptor II but some stuff doesn't match - I don't see an option to get a blued slide and mag release\safety\slide stop\grip safety the way she did. I don't know if you can factory customize them or not.
Wasn't there a tweet/post from this lady where she talked about her toddler already firing a .22 on the range? My guess would be this kid knows already how to point and shoot a gun - because she took her son to the range and let him load/fire guns - but he is too young to understand what actually happens when you point a gun at people and pull the trigger. That and/or she neglected that part of gun safety, which seems also possible the way she tweeted about her "new toy".
The 'toy' thing doesn't bother me a bit. Plenty of adults consider fast cars, motorcycles, boats, remote control aircraft and yes, guns as 'toys' in that they buy them to play with. My Colt rimfire .22lr M4 is my 'toy'. It is purely for target shooting/fun activities. To think just because I consider it a toy means I don't understand it is a dangerous toy would be silly of anyone.
Granted, it could simply be a turn of phrase, however the performance of this particular individual in allowing a loaded, cocked gun into the hands of a four-year-old, and thereby getting herself shot, lays her open to the charge that she does not share your mature understanding of the nature of lethal weapons.
CptJake wrote: The 'toy' thing doesn't bother me a bit. Plenty of adults consider fast cars, motorcycles, boats, remote control aircraft and yes, guns as 'toys' in that they buy them to play with. My Colt rimfire .22lr M4 is my 'toy'. It is purely for target shooting/fun activities. To think just because I consider it a toy means I don't understand it is a dangerous toy would be silly of anyone.
I agree with you that, in general, there's no severe problem in calling something that you buy for recreational activities (like shooting) a toy. I only have a problem with THIS case because this lady also posted these gritty memes about rights to protect her son with her gun. If you are a poster girl for the right for self-defense, and underline this with "srs bsns think of the children" posts, then I think calling her gun a toy is a bit...meh.
CptJake wrote: The 'toy' thing doesn't bother me a bit. Plenty of adults consider fast cars, motorcycles, boats, remote control aircraft and yes, guns as 'toys' in that they buy them to play with. My Colt rimfire .22lr M4 is my 'toy'. It is purely for target shooting/fun activities. To think just because I consider it a toy means I don't understand it is a dangerous toy would be silly of anyone.
A fast car is not a weapon. It can be dangerous, but it is not a weapon.
A motorcycle is not a weapon. It can be dangerous, but it is not a weapon.
A RC Plane is not a weapon. Most probably aren't lethally dangerous, and again it's not a weapon.
A gun is a weapon.That you and others have found other recreational purposes for it is fine but a gun is still a weapon. Weapons have the distinction of being the only class of human invention created specifically, and solely for the purpose of hostile destruction. This singularity of purpose puts weapons in a special class, that makes calling them "toys" feel at minimum distasteful to most I'd imagine.
Kilkrazy wrote: Granted, it could simply be a turn of phrase, however the performance of this particular individual in allowing a loaded, cocked gun into the hands of a four-year-old, and thereby getting herself shot, lays her open to the charge that she does not share your mature understanding of the nature of lethal weapons.
It is. I refer to my firearms as toys every now and again. Doesn't mean I treat them carelessly. 2nd Edition Dreadnoughts are "toys" as well, and you can't tell me those can't be deadly as hell.
CptJake wrote: The 'toy' thing doesn't bother me a bit. Plenty of adults consider fast cars, motorcycles, boats, remote control aircraft and yes, guns as 'toys' in that they buy them to play with. My Colt rimfire .22lr M4 is my 'toy'. It is purely for target shooting/fun activities. To think just because I consider it a toy means I don't understand it is a dangerous toy would be silly of anyone.
A fast car is not a weapon. It can be dangerous, but it is not a weapon.
A motorcycle is not a weapon. It can be dangerous, but it is not a weapon.
A RC Plane is not a weapon. Most probably aren't lethally dangerous, and again it's not a weapon.
A gun is a weapon.That you and others have found other recreational purposes for it is fine but a gun is still a weapon. Weapons have the distinction of being the only class of human invention created specifically, and solely for the purpose of hostile destruction. This singularity of purpose puts weapons in a special class, that makes calling them "toys" feel at minimum distasteful to most I'd imagine.
No, not all guns are created 'specifically and solely for the purpose of hostile destruction'. My my 22lr M4 is a good example. Just because YOU consider it distasteful does not make it any less true that some guns are indeed bought not as weapons, but as toys. There is no 'singularity of purpose' that magically and uniquely falls upon all guns. That really is an ignorant line of thinking, which is why folks like you who subscribe to it get the push back from gun owners that you do.
CptJake wrote: The 'toy' thing doesn't bother me a bit. Plenty of adults consider fast cars, motorcycles, boats, remote control aircraft and yes, guns as 'toys' in that they buy them to play with. My Colt rimfire .22lr M4 is my 'toy'. It is purely for target shooting/fun activities. To think just because I consider it a toy means I don't understand it is a dangerous toy would be silly of anyone.
A fast car is not a weapon. It can be dangerous, but it is not a weapon.
A motorcycle is not a weapon. It can be dangerous, but it is not a weapon.
A RC Plane is not a weapon. Most probably aren't lethally dangerous, and again it's not a weapon.
A gun is a weapon.That you and others have found other recreational purposes for it is fine but a gun is still a weapon. Weapons have the distinction of being the only class of human invention created specifically, and solely for the purpose of hostile destruction. This singularity of purpose puts weapons in a special class, that makes calling them "toys" feel at minimum distasteful to most I'd imagine.
No, not all guns are created 'specifically and solely for the purpose of hostile destruction'. My my 22lr M4 is a good example. Just because YOU consider it distasteful does not make it any less true that some guns are indeed bought not as weapons, but as toys. There is no 'singularity of purpose' that magically and uniquely falls upon all guns. That really is an ignorant line of thinking, which is why folks like you who subscribe to it get the push back from gun owners that you do.
A weapon is a weapon. That you bought it with no intent shoot at any living thing and no other's property makes it no less of a weapon. It is not ignorant to call a gun a weapon because a gun is a weapon.
One can buy a car "as display piece" leave parked in the garage and never drive, but it remains a vehicle. It remains something invented for the purposes of transportation.
One can buy a computer "as a doorstop" never plug it in and leave it propping open your door all the time, but it remains an electronic device meant for doing computation.
One can buy a skillet "as a weapon" and use it to cave someone's head in, but it remains a pan meant for cooking for food.
Your designs on and personal intent with an object do not change it's class, purpose, or the reason humanity came up with the thing. Your intent with your gun is recreational shooting of non-living things you have permission to shoot, and that's fine. However despite that it remains a weapon. It will always be a weapon. It was invented for the purpose of hostile destruction that's what a weapon is.
We can argue taste until we're blue in the face as it's subjective. I doubt I'm alone in finding it distasteful to call weapons "Toys" where calling other serious dangerous things "Toys" isn't as much. You don't, OK. I'm not going to argue my distaste is "Right" and your lack of it "Wrong". However let's not pretend that the distaste of those who have is not rooted in something real. Let's also not indulge in any fantasies that guns aren't weapons, and that weapons are not tools created by humans for the purposes of hostile destruction.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: You still have not shown how firearms are "unsafe by design". If guns were so unsafe then the figure for deaths by negligent discharge would be significantly higher than ~500 out of the 359,000,000 (or .00014% of) firearms in the hands of US citizens. All you have shown is that the mother was negligent with her firearm, which is something that everyone in this thread agrees with. Please explain how firearms are "unsafe by design".
I'm curious as to what "controls" you believe are needed.
I see you are intentionally going with the tack of "when properly used, a firearm is safe.".
I suppose I should have said "guns are typically safe for the person using it, but terribly dangerous for those it is pointed at."
If guns were "safe" they would not necessitate the couple safeties being discussed.
It would not require laws to regulate their purchase and use.
In this case, is not the intended purpose of a gun to put a hole in a target, whatever that may be?
The REAL interest is we paint this lady with being "negligent", how so?
Was she contrary to USA laws?
Should not the need to cock the gun and disarm two safeties been sufficient to prevent the child from discharging the firearm?
You want to know what my "controls" would be?
Easy.
When transporting / carrying a firearm the weapon must be controlled by the owner.
- All safeties must be enabled on the weapon.
- The weapon must be in a holster, gun rack or a closed, locked opaque container during transport.
- If a weapon cannot be secured for some reason, a trigger lock must be applied to the firearm.
So, your turn.
How is a firearm to be controlled to avoid being negligent thus the PERSON being unsafe... not the weapon.
<edit> Yes the statistics look pretty and all but a gun advocate got shot in the back by her son. One too many you think?
This is not a knee-jerk reaction to "All guns must be banned! they are evil!", it is more around the line that "common sense" is not all that common and a certain minimum standard of safety needs to be enforced against stupidity.
Might as well complain over the oppression of speed limit signs.
Tried checking various state laws: what a mess.
They seem to largely agree that a gun unloaded and put in a case in the trunk of the vehicle is the way to go.
BUT I see too many words like "may", "should" which reads to me as "un-enforceable".
Talizvar wrote: Could we argue that a gun is somewhat unsafe by design?
You could argue it, and I would like to hear your justification that firearms are "unsafe by design"
I am a bit speechless over this.
The thing is designed to fire a projectile at high velocity with the intent of blowing a hole through something at range merely by pulling a trigger.
Mousetraps are freaking unsafe, it is just a matter of the degree of consequence: death is pretty high for the mouse anyway.
An untriggerlocked loaded gun in the hands of a small child as discussed by the OP is unsafe as the mother found out.
At work we lock-out-tag-out to prevent machines we are working on from being turned on and removing limbs.
Responsible control of the firearm is necessary to prevent accidental deaths.
Until we start charging $5000 a bullet for better control of discharges, better controls are needed.
Every legally purchased firearm comes with a manual that describes safe handling procedures and a locking mechanism for the gun. We have multiple laws on the books that criminalize improper handling or storage of firearms. If people choose to handle guns improperly in an unsafe manner they run the risk of criminal prosecution. We already treat the unsafe handling/storage of guns the same way we treat the unsafe handling and storage of other dangerous tools/items. That doesn't guarantee that some peopel won't do something stupid, it still happens and it's not unique to guns.
To the people in favour of greater gun laws, do you think there are any existing gun laws that are excessively burdensome and not that useful, that you would support removing?
And to the people in favour of less gun laws, do you think there are any possible gun laws that would increase safety without placing too great a burden on gun laws?
I'm just looking to see if this really is a case one side vs the other, with no compromise possible, or if it is possible to find better gun laws than what is in place now.
In regards to the latter, I'd really like to see some sort of firearm usage/safety component in schools. Something that will drill the 4 basic rules of firearm safety into everyone, even if they never touch a gun, and allow them to be safe if they encounter a firearm somehow other than just sitting there going "wat do?", and can at least safely operate one, if for no other reason than to unload & verify the weapon is safe. It's kinda silly that we have an established constitutional right that effectively is taboo in the educational system even from that perspective, and I think such a program could save a lot more grief than additional restrictions.
That said, I also think schools should teach stuff about basic finance, preparing personal taxes, using a credit card, etc, which is also apparently a taboo subject in the educational system
Some states do teach gun safety classes or hunting safety classes in school. Virginia has had a law on the books since 2010 mandating gun safety classes in elementary schools. The NRA has a whole program dedicated to teaching gun safety to children, which is in a partnership with Virginia public schools. There are plenty of options available for people both online and in person to learn gun safety at no cost or low costs but it's not mandatory. Some states also include mandatory classes as a requirement for obtaining a concealed carry permit. Since gun safety classes aren't mandatory some people aren't going to bother taking them and even if people do take them that doesn't preclude them from having careless/negligent moments in the future.
CptJake wrote: The 'toy' thing doesn't bother me a bit. Plenty of adults consider fast cars, motorcycles, boats, remote control aircraft and yes, guns as 'toys' in that they buy them to play with. My Colt rimfire .22lr M4 is my 'toy'. It is purely for target shooting/fun activities. To think just because I consider it a toy means I don't understand it is a dangerous toy would be silly of anyone.
A fast car is not a weapon. It can be dangerous, but it is not a weapon.
A motorcycle is not a weapon. It can be dangerous, but it is not a weapon.
A RC Plane is not a weapon. Most probably aren't lethally dangerous, and again it's not a weapon.
A gun is a weapon.That you and others have found other recreational purposes for it is fine but a gun is still a weapon. Weapons have the distinction of being the only class of human invention created specifically, and solely for the purpose of hostile destruction. This singularity of purpose puts weapons in a special class, that makes calling them "toys" feel at minimum distasteful to most I'd imagine.
No, not all guns are created 'specifically and solely for the purpose of hostile destruction'. My my 22lr M4 is a good example. Just because YOU consider it distasteful does not make it any less true that some guns are indeed bought not as weapons, but as toys. There is no 'singularity of purpose' that magically and uniquely falls upon all guns. That really is an ignorant line of thinking, which is why folks like you who subscribe to it get the push back from gun owners that you do.
A weapon is a weapon. That you bought it with no intent shoot at any living thing and no other's property makes it no less of a weapon. It is not ignorant to call a gun a weapon because a gun is a weapon.
Your designs on and personal intent with an object do not change it's class, purpose, or the reason humanity came up with the thing. Your intent with your gun is recreational shooting of non-living things you have permission to shoot, and that's fine. However despite that it remains a weapon. It will always be a weapon. It was invented for the purpose of hostile destruction that's what a weapon is.
We can argue taste until we're blue in the face as it's subjective. I doubt I'm alone in finding it distasteful to call weapons "Toys" where calling other serious dangerous things "Toys" isn't as much. You don't, OK. I'm not going to argue my distaste is "Right" and your lack of it "Wrong". However let's not pretend that the distaste of those who have is not rooted in something real. Let's also not indulge in any fantasies that guns aren't weapons, and that weapons are not tools created by humans for the purposes of hostile destruction.
Not all guns are created/invented " for the purpose of hostile destruction". I've given one example of MANY that your premise just does not hold true for. Heck, a hunting rifle is not made for 'hostile' destruction.
So, yeah, you are arguing a viewpoint that is ignorant.
There are lots of potentially dangerous things you can buy or use without safety training or a licence, including gas cookers, power tools, and toilet cleaning chemicals.
There are lots of other potentially dangerous things you can only buy or use after getting a licence; such as cars, explosives, and controlled drugs.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Thinking about it, would this woman have qualified for a Darwin award if she had died?
Kilkrazy wrote: Except revolvers. They don't have a safety catch.
There are lots of potentially dangerous things you can buy or use without safety training or a licence, including gas cookers, power tools, and toilet cleaning chemicals.
There are lots of other potentially dangerous things you can only buy or use after getting a licence; such as cars, explosives, and controlled drugs.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Thinking about it, would this woman have qualified for a Darwin award if she had died?
Given that it was her own offspring that pulled the trigger, I believe she is already incapable of receiving such an award.
Prestor Jon wrote: Every legally purchased firearm comes with a manual that describes safe handling procedures and a locking mechanism for the gun.
Not true.
New firearms come as such, but used firearms normally don't. You can legally buy a used firearm and not get any of the accoutrements it came with when new.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Except revolvers. They don't have a safety catch.
Some don't, but some do. My father in law has a Heritage Rough Rider revolver that has a safety, for example.
Vaktathi wrote: In regards to the latter, I'd really like to see some sort of firearm usage/safety component in schools. Something that will drill the 4 basic rules of firearm safety into everyone, even if they never touch a gun, and allow them to be safe if they encounter a firearm somehow other than just sitting there going "wat do?", and can at least safely operate one, if for no other reason than to unload & verify the weapon is safe. It's kinda silly that we have an established constitutional right that effectively is taboo in the educational system even from that perspective, and I think such a program could save a lot more grief than additional restrictions.
Interesting answer. It's maybe kind of a bit of cheating, because you're answering with a bit of legislation that actually increases the presences of guns in people's lives, but the answer was interesting enough I'll let that pass
Anyhow, I'm not sure firearm education is needed, certainly not universally. Gun ownership is down to around 40% of homes, and slowly drifting down.
So, much like our voting turnout rate?
Guns are a big part of some people's lives, and a big part of the culture in some areas, but for many other places they exist in movies and in endless gun debates, not actually as part of their lives. In terms of competing for scarce class time and resources, it isn't really up there with first aid classes, or basic finance, or anything else like that.
They could simply be part of something like that. Fold it into 9th grade health class or something. It doesn't need to be a whole class on its own, spend a week or two on it for a single class period and you're probably good. For something that's a constitutional right and that does have a safety component and that everyone is likely to encounter at some point in their lives (even if just passively), it could help a lot, and do a lot to remove excuses for people being negligent with firearms and up the "social" safety factor where greater awareness increases adherence to safety rules.
I do certainly agree that classes that like would be great for anyone buying a gun. They could be handled through a local range, or by local police forces.
There's a lot of places where this just wouldn't fly, particularly in places like SF where local ranges have all increasingly been pushed out to not be so "local" and the SFPD certainly has zero desire or intent to put something like that on themselves. Additionally, having anything like that go through police raises all sorts of hackles, and distrust of police, for an array of reasons (both justified and unjustified), makes that an awkward proposition, with many people having an active desire for the police *not* to know they own a firearm.
That said, I also think schools should teach stuff about basic finance, preparing personal taxes, using a credit card, etc, which is also apparently a taboo subject in the educational system
Definitely agree. Just doing a simple example - if you want a $2,000 holiday, how much will it cost if you save $50 a month on 5% interest, and how much will it cost if you borrow for the holiday now and repay $50 at 10% interest? It blows people's minds because they've never had the maths laid out in front of them. It's $1,900 vs $2,450, by the way
Right? This should be something basic people get before they get out into the real world
EDIT: To expand on the issue of additional or lesser restrictions, when you look at places with huge restrictions on firearms vs almost none in the US, the difference often isn't what one would expect.
You can't just pick two cities and compare. There are so many factors that go in to murder rates (average income, income disparity, long term unemployed rate, rate of drug use etc), that whatever impact gun laws are having will be absolutely dwarfed, making it very easy to cherry pick favourable comparisons.
In many respects you are correct, but that would also appear to back the reasoning that further firearm restrictions are so low impact as to be unreasonably burdensome. I picked two cities I happened to have lots of experience with and that were relatively similar, where just about all of the above metrics (income, unemployment, etc) would ostensibly be in SF's favor and the gulf in differences in gun laws was as enormous as I could possibly find.
Some states do teach gun safety classes or hunting safety classes in school. Virginia has had a law on the books since 2010 mandating gun safety classes in elementary schools. The NRA has a whole program dedicated to teaching gun safety to children, which is in a partnership with Virginia public schools. There are plenty of options available for people both online and in person to learn gun safety at no cost or low costs but it's not mandatory. Some states also include mandatory classes as a requirement for obtaining a concealed carry permit. Since gun safety classes aren't mandatory some people aren't going to bother taking them and even if people do take them that doesn't preclude them from having careless/negligent moments in the future.
I didn't know Virginia had that law, that I think is a great idea on their part. I did know that the NRA has some programs as well as other outfits, but it'd be nice to see it as just a universal thing that everyone goes through at some point.
CptJake wrote: The 'toy' thing doesn't bother me a bit. Plenty of adults consider fast cars, motorcycles, boats, remote control aircraft and yes, guns as 'toys' in that they buy them to play with. My Colt rimfire .22lr M4 is my 'toy'. It is purely for target shooting/fun activities. To think just because I consider it a toy means I don't understand it is a dangerous toy would be silly of anyone.
A fast car is not a weapon. It can be dangerous, but it is not a weapon.
A motorcycle is not a weapon. It can be dangerous, but it is not a weapon.
A RC Plane is not a weapon. Most probably aren't lethally dangerous, and again it's not a weapon.
A gun is a weapon.That you and others have found other recreational purposes for it is fine but a gun is still a weapon. Weapons have the distinction of being the only class of human invention created specifically, and solely for the purpose of hostile destruction. This singularity of purpose puts weapons in a special class, that makes calling them "toys" feel at minimum distasteful to most I'd imagine.
There are gobs of guns out there that were never designed or intended to ever be shot at anything living nor destroy anything, unless you count shooting paper targets to be "destruction", a Biathlon rifle for example.
Kilkrazy wrote: Except revolvers. They don't have a safety catch.
There are lots of potentially dangerous things you can buy or use without safety training or a licence, including gas cookers, power tools, and toilet cleaning chemicals.
There are lots of other potentially dangerous things you can only buy or use after getting a licence; such as cars, explosives, and controlled drugs.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Thinking about it, would this woman have qualified for a Darwin award if she had died?
Revolvers tend to be double action IIRC? I'm not an expert on firearms by any stretch but from what I remember, most revolvers, or at least modern ones, tend to be double action, which if I understand it right mean you have to fully depress the trigger (which requires grip strength) to fire it, meaning you don't get accidents by touching the trigger, meaning that any time you fire it, it's because you intended to?
How would this weird situation have been avoided and not get the NRA's knickers in a knot? Remember this was a pickup truck so the trunk is not an option.
Revolvers tend to be double action IIRC? I'm not an expert on firearms by any stretch but from what I remember, most revolvers, or at least modern ones, tend to be double action, which if I understand it right mean you have to fully depress the trigger (which requires grip strength) to fire it, meaning you don't get accidents by touching the trigger, meaning that any time you fire it, it's because you intended to?
They can be double or single action. New production single action revolvers are still very much a thing. A lot of people actually carry tiny single actions made by North American Arms.
Single action means that when you pull the trigger, it releases the hammer, thus you must manually cock the hammer before each shot. Double action means that when you pull the trigger, it cocks and then releases the hammer. Double actions typically have a MUCH heavier trigger pull than single actions.
In any event, revolvers can still have safeties, and many feature a mechanism to lock the trigger via a small key when not in use.
Prestor Jon wrote: Every legally purchased firearm comes with a manual that describes safe handling procedures and a locking mechanism for the gun.
Not true.
New firearms come as such, but used firearms normally don't. You can legally buy a used firearm and not get any of the accoutrements it came with when new.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Except revolvers. They don't have a safety catch.
Some don't, but some do. My father in law has a Heritage Rough Rider revolver that has a safety, for example.
True. I meant new but didn't include that specificity.
In October 2005, as part of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, Congress passed and the President signed into law legislation making it unlawful for any licensed importer, manufacturer or dealer to sell or transfer any handgun unless the transferee is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device.1 A “secure gun storage or safety device” is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(34) as:
(A) a device that, when installed on a firearm, is designed to prevent the firearm from being operated without first deactivating the device;
(B) a device incorporated into the design of the firearm that is designed to prevent the operation of the firearm by anyone not having access to the device; or
(C) a safe, gun safe, gun case, lock box, or other device that is designed to be or can be used to store a firearm and that is designed to be unlocked only by means of a key, a combination, or other similar means.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: You still have not shown how firearms are "unsafe by design". If guns were so unsafe then the figure for deaths by negligent discharge would be significantly higher than ~500 out of the 359,000,000 (or .00014% of) firearms in the hands of US citizens. All you have shown is that the mother was negligent with her firearm, which is something that everyone in this thread agrees with. Please explain how firearms are "unsafe by design".
I'm curious as to what "controls" you believe are needed.
I see you are intentionally going with the tack of "when properly used, a firearm is safe.".
I suppose I should have said "guns are typically safe for the person using it, but terribly dangerous for those it is pointed at."
If guns were "safe" they would not necessitate the couple safeties being discussed.
It would not require laws to regulate their purchase and use.
In this case, is not the intended purpose of a gun to put a hole in a target, whatever that may be?
The REAL interest is we paint this lady with being "negligent", how so?
Was she contrary to USA laws?
Should not the need to cock the gun and disarm two safeties been sufficient to prevent the child from discharging the firearm?
You want to know what my "controls" would be?
Easy.
When transporting / carrying a firearm the weapon must be controlled by the owner.
- All safeties must be enabled on the weapon.
- The weapon must be in a holster, gun rack or a closed, locked opaque container during transport.
- If a weapon cannot be secured for some reason, a trigger lock must be applied to the firearm.
So, your turn.
How is a firearm to be controlled to avoid being negligent thus the PERSON being unsafe... not the weapon.
<edit> Yes the statistics look pretty and all but a gun advocate got shot in the back by her son. One too many you think?
This is not a knee-jerk reaction to "All guns must be banned! they are evil!", it is more around the line that "common sense" is not all that common and a certain minimum standard of safety needs to be enforced against stupidity.
Might as well complain over the oppression of speed limit signs.
Tried checking various state laws: what a mess.
They seem to largely agree that a gun unloaded and put in a case in the trunk of the vehicle is the way to go.
BUT I see too many words like "may", "should" which reads to me as "un-enforceable".
Florida already has this covered:
(5) POSSESSION IN PRIVATE CONVEYANCE.—Notwithstanding subsection (2), it is lawful and is not a violation of s. 790.01 for a person 18 years of age or older to possess a concealed firearm or other weapon for self-defense or other lawful purpose within the interior of a private conveyance, without a license, if the firearm or other weapon is securely encased or is otherwise not readily accessible for immediate use. Nothing herein contained prohibits the carrying of a legal firearm other than a handgun anywhere in a private conveyance when such firearm is being carried for a lawful use. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize the carrying of a concealed firearm or other weapon on the person. This subsection shall be liberally construed in favor of the lawful use, ownership, and possession of firearms and other weapons, including lawful self-defense as provided in s. 776.012.
790.174 Safe storage of firearms required.—(1) A person who stores or leaves, on a premise under his or her control, a loaded firearm, as defined in s. 790.001, and who knows or reasonably should know that a minor is likely to gain access to the firearm without the lawful permission of the minor’s parent or the person having charge of the minor, or without the supervision required by law, shall keep the firearm in a securely locked box or container or in a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure or shall secure it with a trigger lock, except when the person is carrying the firearm on his or her body or within such close proximity thereto that he or she can retrieve and use it as easily and quickly as if he or she carried it on his or her body.
(2) It is a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, if a person violates subsection (1) by failing to store or leave a firearm in the required manner and as a result thereof a minor gains access to the firearm, without the lawful permission of the minor’s parent or the person having charge of the minor, and possesses or exhibits it, without the supervision required by law:
(a) In a public place; or
(b) In a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner in violation of s. 790.10.
This subsection does not apply if the minor obtains the firearm as a result of an unlawful entry by any person.
The woman broke Florida law and will suffer the consequences. We have laws to punish bad behavior; laws don't physically stop people from still behaving badly anyway.
sebster wrote: To the people in favour of greater gun laws, do you think there are any existing gun laws that are excessively burdensome and not that useful, that you would support removing?
Yes, I didn't see much value in the so called "assault weapon" laws. I think longer rifles and weapons used primarily for hunting, or valued by collectors, should not be tarred with the same brush as weapons that are frequently used in crimes. I would tend to be very liberal towards hunting rifles and such.
Restrictions on magazine size, I don't think is necessarily a bad thing, but I also don't feel it accomplishes much either (not that useful).
You do know 'assault rifles', no matter how you want to define them, are very rarely used in crimes. The gun 'frequently used in crimes' is a handgun.
Yes, which is why I just said the "assault weapon" laws had little value (excessively burdensome and not that useful). Prestor Jon also attacked me on that point, even though I'm pretty sure I was agreeing with you guys.
I thought the responses to Sebster's idea might be interesting, but these counter responses turned out to be far more enlightening than I would have ever anticipated...
sebster wrote: To the people in favour of greater gun laws, do you think there are any existing gun laws that are excessively burdensome and not that useful, that you would support removing?
Yes, I didn't see much value in the so called "assault weapon" laws. I think longer rifles and weapons used primarily for hunting, or valued by collectors, should not be tarred with the same brush as weapons that are frequently used in crimes. I would tend to be very liberal towards hunting rifles and such.
Restrictions on magazine size, I don't think is necessarily a bad thing, but I also don't feel it accomplishes much either (not that useful).
You do know 'assault rifles', no matter how you want to define them, are very rarely used in crimes. The gun 'frequently used in crimes' is a handgun.
Yes, which is why I just said the "assault weapon" laws had little value (excessively burdensome and not that useful). Prestor Jon also attacked me on that point, even though I'm pretty sure I was agreeing with you guys.
I thought the responses to Sebster's idea might be interesting, but these counter responses turned out to be far more enlightening than I would have ever anticipated...
I expounded on a point you made. There is nothing in that post of mine that remotely resembles an attack on you. Seriously, what part of that post do you consider an attack on you?
Prestor Jon wrote: I expounded on a point you made. There is nothing in that post of mine that remotely resembles an attack on you. Seriously, what part of that post do you consider an attack on you?
Well okay, perhaps I was mistaken. I ignored it at first, because I wasn't sure what you were doing. It sounded like you were trying to contradict something, but I guess you were just explaining my own post back to me... thanks
Prestor Jon wrote: I expounded on a point you made. There is nothing in that post of mine that remotely resembles an attack on you. Seriously, what part of that post do you consider an attack on you?
Well okay, perhaps I was mistaken. I ignored it at first, because I wasn't sure what you were doing. It sounded like you were trying to contradict something, but I guess you were just explaining my own post back to me... thanks
There was information and opinion I wanted to present. Since it was inspired by your post and covered much of the same ground I quoted it for reference and to keep similar information/posts grouped together. It was directed at others more than you, in the spirit of, since you brought up that point here's some more info and my $0.02.
Prestor Jon wrote: There was information and opinion I wanted to present. Since it was inspired by your post and covered much of the same ground I quoted it for reference and to keep similar information/posts grouped together. It was directed at others more than you, in the spirit of, since you brought up that point here's some more info and my $0.02.
Well I agree 99% with what you said. Though I don't think it is true of "all" gun laws, but certainly "some". I would also add that while I agree the laws in question were/are stupid, I don't believe it's because the law makers are inept. I think part of the issue is that their hands are tied, so those kind of useless token gestures (ban pistol grips) is all they can offer people who are asking for better control.
Since you did quote me, and Sebster, I feel like it might have been appropriate to also answer Sebster's question. I appreciate that there is information and opinion you want to present, but I put my shoe on the other foot and tried to engage with you. For you to then quote me, put your shoe on the same foot you always have it on, and then keep running with it... That was a bit of a cheap-shot.
Prestor Jon wrote: Every legally purchased firearm comes with a manual that describes safe handling procedures and a locking mechanism for the gun.
New firearms come as such, but used firearms normally don't. You can legally buy a used firearm and not get any of the accoutrements it came with when new.
They do - a very heavy trigger pull in double action.
Kilkrazy wrote: The fact that guns are designed to shoot lethal projectiles might be a reason to consider them unsafe in a way that a smartphone isn't. Maybe a toddler could manage to remove and swallow the battery, or choke on the SIM card.
Of course if you follow safety procedure, and remove and store the ammunition separately, an unloaded gun is just an inert machine.
"unsafe by design" means that the design itself is inherently dangerous to the operator of those that are in it's vicinity, even without human input. The false comparison to a smart phone is deserving of no further comment.
Deadshot wrote: Yes. As Kilkrazy said, the hand size and grip strength needed to disengage all the safety features, so they weren't engaged correctly, therefore, either the safeties were not engaged properly, else it would have to be something impossibly like demonic possession or the hand of god himself to put this situation in reality. Thus the gun was not properly made safe.
How much pressure do you think is required to operate a manual safety on a gun, or a grip safety?
Kilkrazy wrote: Kimber's operating manuals are available online for full details of the safety features.
Having read those, I think the most likely scenario is that the woman loaded and cocked the gun, and let down the hammer on to a chambered round. The toddler knocked it off the seat, and the shock when it hit the floor cause the firing pin to strike the round in the chamber.
"Series II" Kimber pistols have an additional safety feature that locks the firing pin block until the grip safety has been correctly disengaged. Perhaps this was a Series I pistol.
I believe that Frazzled owns a Kimber and could give us more information on these points.
Having a firearm discharge by being dropped would be very unusual as firearms are almost all drop safe.
Ouze wrote: My guess is it was cocked and unlocked, and the kid simply grasped the grip and pulled the trigger.
This seems the most likely scenario.
Yup, especially given the image shown of her firearm
Talizvar wrote: I suppose I should have said "guns are typically safe for the person using it, but terribly dangerous for those it is pointed at."
Correct
Talizvar wrote: The REAL interest is we paint this lady with being "negligent", how so?
Was she contrary to USA laws?
Should not the need to cock the gun and disarm two safeties been sufficient to prevent the child from discharging the firearm?
The tort of negligence
Talizvar wrote: So, your turn.
How is a firearm to be controlled to avoid being negligent thus the PERSON being unsafe... not the weapon.
Follow the Four Rules, and do not leave firearms where other can get them
Talizvar wrote: Yes the statistics look pretty and all but a gun advocate got shot in the back by her son. One too many you think?
This is not a knee-jerk reaction to "All guns must be banned! they are evil!", it is more around the line that "common sense" is not all that common and a certain minimum standard of safety needs to be enforced against stupidity.
If you are arguing from a Utopian perspective and demanding absolute perfection you are going to be sorely disappointed. What "minimum safety" standards are you proposing, and who enforces them? We already have laws for safe storage, handling, and the punishment for negligent use of firearms.
Talizvar wrote: Tried checking various state laws: what a mess.
They seem to largely agree that a gun unloaded and put in a case in the trunk of the vehicle is the way to go.
BUT I see too many words like "may", "should" which reads to me as "un-enforceable".
If you are transporting it across State lines and with a permit that does not have reciprocity with the state you are travelling through.
Talizvar wrote: How would this weird situation have been avoided and not get the NRA's knickers in a knot? Remember this was a pickup truck so the trunk is not an option.
Deadshot wrote: Yes. As Kilkrazy said, the hand size and grip strength needed to disengage all the safety features, so they weren't engaged correctly, therefore, either the safeties were not engaged properly, else it would have to be something impossibly like demonic possession or the hand of god himself to put this situation in reality. Thus the gun was not properly made safe.
How much pressure do you think is required to operate a manual safety on a gun, or a grip safety?
On a pistol, can't say for sure, never held one. The only weapon I've held is the L98A2 GP cadet rifle. It doesn't take much to hit that trigger, it's more about the dexterity and strength to hold the weapon while operating the mechanism. My 13 year old brother has a airsoft m9 (its mine but I left it at home, no ammo), he's a bit weedy for his age but he's stronger than a toddler, and holding the gun presents him some difficulty. He isn't able to pull the spring loaded slide. A toddler wouldn't be able to hold the thing.
In a four-year-old it's about hand size as much as anything. Perhaps the boy was able to use both hands to grasp the gun, compress the grip safety and pull the trigger. It still would have required him to cock the weapon if it wasn't already cocked.
I'm not saying this is impossible, but it seems fairly unlikely. I don't find it super easy to cock my Beretta PX4 and it's only an air pistol.
Deadshot wrote: Yes. As Kilkrazy said, the hand size and grip strength needed to disengage all the safety features, so they weren't engaged correctly, therefore, either the safeties were not engaged properly, else it would have to be something impossibly like demonic possession or the hand of god himself to put this situation in reality. Thus the gun was not properly made safe.
How much pressure do you think is required to operate a manual safety on a gun, or a grip safety?
On a pistol, can't say for sure, never held one. The only weapon I've held is the L98A2 GP cadet rifle. It doesn't take much to hit that trigger, it's more about the dexterity and strength to hold the weapon while operating the mechanism. My 13 year old brother has a airsoft m9 (its mine but I left it at home, no ammo), he's a bit weedy for his age but he's stronger than a toddler, and holding the gun presents him some difficulty. He isn't able to pull the spring loaded slide. A toddler wouldn't be able to hold the thing.
Then please stop making statements such as "something impossibly like demonic possession or the hand of god himself to put this situation in reality" or "demonic, Omen-esque, interference". Thumb safeties on pistols are very easy to operate, and require very little pressure. Grip safeties likewise require little pressure. The ability to operate the slide is immaterial because it is safe to say that the lady carried it in Condition 1 (round in chamber, hammer back, safety on), and the trigger in most 1911's are usually fairly light.
Kilkrazy wrote: In a four-year-old it's about hand size as much as anything. Perhaps the boy was able to use both hands to grasp the gun, compress the grip safety and pull the trigger. It still would have required him to cock the weapon if it wasn't already cocked.
I'm not saying this is impossible, but it seems fairly unlikely. I don't find it super easy to cock my Beretta PX4 and it's only an air pistol.
I personally do not carry my 1911 with a round in the chamber, but that's a personal choice - it's designed to be safely carried in condition 1 ("cocked and locked"); one in the chamber, hammer cocked, safety on. I'd rather trade off a little readiness vs not accidentally putting one in your foot or thigh on the draw, but as someone once pointed out, that extra second or two could cost me my life at some point so there are advantages and disadvantages to both. Point is, one in the chamber and cocked is a strong possibility.
Evidentially that second or two nearly cost this woman her life.
It's always better to have a gun with its ammunition not in the chamber. The act of making ready itself can be enough to deter attack. It certainly ratchets up the threat level.
Or does the wild west still exist, and you still have quick draw shoot outs in the street? ;-)
Mind you, if you feel so threatened that you have to carry a firearm, the condition of that weapon is almost immaterial. But let's put it in perspective. On a day to day stroll about in camp Bastion, I never had a round in my chamber, until we went outside the wire.
How bloody dangerous is the suburban United states?
Having a round in the chamber is not only a matter of speed. What if your other hand/arm is disabled? What if you are having to use it to hold off your attacker? Perhaps you are using it to shield another person? There are many possibilities where you may have to employ your firearm with the other hand/arm unavailable to you, which means that chambering a round in such a situation will be made much more difficult, or even impossible.
Of course, it is up to the individual how they carry, but many experts and instructors recommend carrying with a round chambered.
I would think the state of readiness is rather moot when it is rattling around the floor of your truck.
It would have more relevance if holstered which appears to be the favored way this issue could have been avoided.
If I needed to defend myself in my vehicle, I think the first response would be to focus on driving away or over the threat...
r_squared wrote: How bloody dangerous is the suburban United states?
Terrorists, the corrupt government, muggers, rapists, random psychos, children with their parents guns and gang members regularly have to fight it out over who actally gets to assault anyone they identify as not carrying a gun. Really inconvenient for all concerned.
r_squared wrote: Evidentially that second or two nearly cost this woman her life.
It's always better to have a gun with its ammunition not in the chamber. The act of making ready itself can be enough to deter attack. It certainly ratchets up the threat level.
That is another urban myth, and one that should not be relied upon. If it were that advantageous to utilize a strategy of making a firearms ready then most people would carry in Condition Butterscotch
**discretion advised - possible language warning**
Of course making a firearm ready is much more complicated when operating a motor vehicle, dealing with a child etc., unless the owner of the firearm has octopus DNA
I usually carry Consition Three, just because I have a toddler. Yes, the gun is on my body in a holster that covers the trigger (and all my carry guns have a trigger safety only) and if it's not on my hip it's unloaded and locked away.
It's simply a piece of mind thing for me. Carry condition is one of those things everybody should decide for themselves, just like what type of gun, what caliber, what holster, etc (although I personally would never advocate condition one for off-body carry).
Deadshot wrote: Yes. As Kilkrazy said, the hand size and grip strength needed to disengage all the safety features, so they weren't engaged correctly, therefore, either the safeties were not engaged properly, else it would have to be something impossibly like demonic possession or the hand of god himself to put this situation in reality. Thus the gun was not properly made safe.
How much pressure do you think is required to operate a manual safety on a gun, or a grip safety?
On a pistol, can't say for sure, never held one. The only weapon I've held is the L98A2 GP cadet rifle. It doesn't take much to hit that trigger, it's more about the dexterity and strength to hold the weapon while operating the mechanism. My 13 year old brother has a airsoft m9 (its mine but I left it at home, no ammo), he's a bit weedy for his age but he's stronger than a toddler, and holding the gun presents him some difficulty. He isn't able to pull the spring loaded slide. A toddler wouldn't be able to hold the thing.
Then please stop making statements such as "something impossibly like demonic possession or the hand of god himself to put this situation in reality" or "demonic, Omen-esque, interference". Thumb safeties on pistols are very easy to operate, and require very little pressure. Grip safeties likewise require little pressure. The ability to operate the slide is immaterial because it is safe to say that the lady carried it in Condition 1 (round in chamber, hammer back, safety on), and the trigger in most 1911's are usually fairly light.
Which was my original point. The baby would not have the strength to pull a slide, I know that much. Therefore the woman has left the gun in a state the child can easily fire it. She is thus responsible (and in my opinion got what she deserved for such stupidity.
Deadshot wrote: Which was my original point. The baby would not have the strength to pull a slide, I know that much. Therefore the woman has left the gun in a state the child can easily fire it.
Deadshot wrote: Did the gun not have a safety? Surely a toddler cannot operate a safety catch, let alone understand the safety catch's existance, without some sort of demonic, Omen-esque, interference.
Deadshot wrote: Yes. As Kilkrazy said, the hand size and grip strength needed to disengage all the safety features, so they weren't engaged correctly, therefore, either the safeties were not engaged properly, else it would have to be something impossibly like demonic possession or the hand of god himself to put this situation in reality. Thus the gun was not properly made safe.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:How much pressure do you think is required to operate a manual safety on a gun, or a grip safety?
On a pistol, can't say for sure, never held one. The only weapon I've held is the L98A2 GP cadet rifle. It doesn't take much to hit that trigger, it's more about the dexterity and strength to hold the weapon while operating the mechanism. My 13 year old brother has a airsoft m9 (its mine but I left it at home, no ammo), he's a bit weedy for his age but he's stronger than a toddler, and holding the gun presents him some difficulty. He isn't able to pull the spring loaded slide. A toddler wouldn't be able to hold the thing.
The slide is typically not considered a safety feature, and it appears that you already knew we were not discussing the slide.
Deadshot wrote: She is thus responsible (and in my opinion got what she deserved for such stupidity.
Has anyone disputed that she was not responsible for the consequences of her negligence?
Deadshot wrote: Which was my original point. The baby would not have the strength to pull a slide, I know that much. Therefore the woman has left the gun in a state the child can easily fire it.
Deadshot wrote: Did the gun not have a safety? Surely a toddler cannot operate a safety catch, let alone understand the safety catch's existance, without some sort of demonic, Omen-esque, interference.
Deadshot wrote: Yes. As Kilkrazy said, the hand size and grip strength needed to disengage all the safety features, so they weren't engaged correctly, therefore, either the safeties were not engaged properly, else it would have to be something impossibly like demonic possession or the hand of god himself to put this situation in reality. Thus the gun was not properly made safe.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:How much pressure do you think is required to operate a manual safety on a gun, or a grip safety?
On a pistol, can't say for sure, never held one. The only weapon I've held is the L98A2 GP cadet rifle. It doesn't take much to hit that trigger, it's more about the dexterity and strength to hold the weapon while operating the mechanism. My 13 year old brother has a airsoft m9 (its mine but I left it at home, no ammo), he's a bit weedy for his age but he's stronger than a toddler, and holding the gun presents him some difficulty. He isn't able to pull the spring loaded slide. A toddler wouldn't be able to hold the thing.
The slide is typically not considered a safety feature, and it appears that you already knew we were not discussing the slide.
Deadshot wrote: She is thus responsible (and in my opinion got what she deserved for such stupidity.
Has anyone disputed that she was not responsible for the consequences of her negligence?
How is anything I said there different to what I said I said?
r_squared wrote: Evidentially that second or two nearly cost this woman her life.
It's always better to have a gun with its ammunition not in the chamber. The act of making ready itself can be enough to deter attack. It certainly ratchets up the threat level.
That is another urban myth, and one that should not be relied upon. If it were that advantageous to utilize a strategy of making a firearms ready then most people would carry in Condition Butterscotch
**discretion advised - possible language warning**
Of course making a firearm ready is much more complicated when operating a motor vehicle, dealing with a child etc., unless the owner of the firearm has octopus DNA
Kind of laborious to try and make a point, and not even a very good one. Any competent and trained individual can make a weapon ready in seconds. The only time anyone should realistically expect to have a weapon ready to fire from the safety, is in a state of high threat level.
If you're going shopping with a toddler and you have to have a firearm in that condition, then you are either in some futuristic nightmare dystopia like mega city one, or apparently any urban or extra urban area of the United States.
Knockagh wrote: I don't think the pro gun lobby in the states have any idea how it sounds in the rest of the western world to have a pistol in a car. I know you have a different culture with guns. The whole of Europe just cannot even come close to grasping why anyone would even think its ok.
r_squared wrote: I very much doubt that those women would agree with you. But I'm not in a position to make any assertion on their behalf, but then neither are you.
I don't know, some of the self defense laws in Europe are pants-on-head crazy, a gang rape in public should be enough to shock some of the delusion right out of someone.
r_squared wrote: I very much doubt that those women would agree with you. But I'm not in a position to make any assertion on their behalf, but then neither are you.
I don't know, some of the self defense laws in Europe are pants-on-head crazy, a gang rape in public should be enough to shock some of the delusion right out of someone.
You'd think that the murder of school children would do the same to Americans as well, but it's different strokes for different folks.
r_squared wrote: I very much doubt that those women would agree with you. But I'm not in a position to make any assertion on their behalf, but then neither are you.
Uh, i saw this...
Protesters held aloft a sign reading, "Arm Cologne" as up to 500 people rallied against attacks by members of the migrant community during the city's New Year celebrations, and the authorities’ failure to stop dozens of sexual assaults which took place.
Apart from an inflamatory placard at a demo, there's no serious campaign to attempt to arm women with guns in cologne.
Anyway, stop trying to deflect away from Americas inability to deal with its obsession with private gun ownership. If the President of the United States, the supposed most powerful man in the world cannot bring the NRA to heel and effect his vision of effective gun control to his own country, I would think very carefully before criticising any other Nation.
r_squared wrote: If the President of the United States, the supposed most powerful man in the world cannot bring the NRA to heel and effect his vision of effective gun control to his own country, I would think very carefully before criticising any other Nation.
r_squared wrote: I very much doubt that those women would agree with you. But I'm not in a position to make any assertion on their behalf, but then neither are you.
I don't know, some of the self defense laws in Europe are pants-on-head crazy, a gang rape in public should be enough to shock some of the delusion right out of someone.
You'd think that the murder of school children would do the same to Americans as well, but it's different strokes for different folks.
Horrible events like that are not caused by allowing citizens to own and carry around weaponry. They're caused by people having psychotic episodes.
1 guy flipping his lid is no reason to trample of the rights of millions of others.
