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.

 Smacks wrote:

 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

No, people cant be trusted, but we can mitigate the problems by having some damn intelligence, which alot of gun nuts like this women.

Parenting license revoked!

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.

Your making the same point I made.

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.

Herzlos wrote:

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.

http://money.aol.co.uk/2014/10/03/what-s-more-likely-winning-the-lottery-or-being-killed-by-your/

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.

http://money.aol.co.uk/2014/10/03/what-s-more-likely-winning-the-lottery-or-being-killed-by-your/

How many die of guns?

Prestor Jon wrote:
You're comparing a right to a privilege.

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?

Herzlos wrote:

 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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
You're comparing a right to a privilege.

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.