Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.

 Smacks wrote:

 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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Really? Cause this seems to be happening a lot lately...

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2016/mar/09/mother-could-face-pristoddlers-accidental-sho/354252/

http://fox40.com/2016/03/08/2-year-old-shoots-herself-in-south-sacramento/

http://wncn.com/2016/03/05/michigan-gun-owner-toddler-shooting-mom-in-the-head-a-total-accident/

Really

Spoiler:

]

 angelofvengeance wrote:

Only 500ish incidents in 2013. Well, that makes it ok then! Once in a blue moon that, isn't it?

Only 500ish fatalities.

This doesn't include injuries caused by firearm accidents.

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

Bingo

 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.

 d-usa wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

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.

Cause I dislike gun culture in the united states and how people like this women treat them like toys.

 Hordini wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

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."

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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.

 Hordini wrote:

 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.

I laughed.

Am I going to hell now?

 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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

That graph looks a lot like this graph...


Maybe it's just coincidence...

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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.

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

 Hordini wrote:

 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."

Enlighten me then

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

 d-usa wrote:

 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.

Well for both our sakes I pray your right.

I am far too cynical to assume otherwise.

It was a pistol/handgun.

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.

http://m.jacksonville.com/news/crime/2016-03-08/story/woman-tells-putnam-county-deputy-son-4-shot-her-back-while-she-was#article=6802A7B815EA5C87BA9C52D3DB7FB5A92259

Seriously, no spamming. Come on.

 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.

 d-usa wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

 Smacks wrote:

 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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
They who live by the gun...

...are less likely to be invaded by Russia?

Then again, by 'gun' I mean nuclear annihilation.

 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

 motyak wrote:
Seriously, no spamming. Come on.

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.