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.

I'd certainly like to think that the 11 year old didn't plan anything, he probably just saw his dad's gun, thought it was cool, and hell, probably wanted to show it off, and the 3 year old was probably the only one around who would have potentially been impressed and wouldn't have taken it from him. Doesn't excuse or condone anything, but again, I certainly hope that 11 year old didn't intend for that to happen.

I've known plenty of 11 year olds who would have planned and executed such a thing is they had the opportunity. Middle schoolers are not innocent.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I've known plenty of 11 year olds who would have planned and executed such a thing is they had the opportunity. Middle schoolers are not innocent.

Especially with the plenty of easily accessible TV shows to imitate. though that would be a parenting thing.

Honestly besides the cost, i wouldn't ever want an unsecured gun in my house. especially during gatherings, service calls and the likes. not that i would want the government telling me i have to. but a tax writeoff or insurance deduction would be welcomed.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
There really is no way to argue against that.

Except for the tiny little fact that the US has one of the highest rates of accidental firearms related deaths in the world.

You claimed, bluntly, gun safety and the US don't mix. I provided very clear evidence that is wrong. I showed that one of the largest gun advocacy agencies has many safety resources, I showed state and counties having programs, I showed the fact that literally hundreds of millions of guns are NEVER involved in a negligent incident. There is even a Federal program ( http://thecmp.org http://thecmp.org/safety/ ). And yet, you stick with your argument.

 CptJake wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
There really is no way to argue against that.

Except for the tiny little fact that the US has one of the highest rates of accidental firearms related deaths in the world.

You claimed, bluntly, gun safety and the US don't mix. I provided very clear evidence that is wrong. I showed that one of the largest gun advocacy agencies has many safety resources, I showed state and counties having programs, I showed the fact that literally hundreds of millions of guns are NEVER involved in a negligent incident. There is even a Federal program ( http://thecmp.org http://thecmp.org/safety/ ). And yet, you stick with your argument.

Just because we have all those things, does not mean people use them.

I can find some parallelism with all this since I own a couple "usable" swords under lock and key because I "like" them.
I also took Kendo so it ties in a bit with the sport/hobby.
It IS a dangerous thing to have around and could result in a similar outcome if taken out to be played with.

Having the State "invade your privacy" is common for other things like when I adopted my kid they inspected the home to see if it was suitably safe for placement.
I do agree with them that babies are dangerous.
I know the more paranoid gun collectors think the whole point is for the government to have no idea what everyone has so they cannot be rounded up when the dictatorship takes command.

There is little to be said on this matter other than lock the dangerous stuff away (like chemicals!) or keep control of it by being on your person.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
There really is no way to argue against that.

Except for the tiny little fact that the US has one of the highest rates of accidental firearms related deaths in the world.

You claimed, bluntly, gun safety and the US don't mix. I provided very clear evidence that is wrong. I showed that one of the largest gun advocacy agencies has many safety resources, I showed state and counties having programs, I showed the fact that literally hundreds of millions of guns are NEVER involved in a negligent incident. There is even a Federal program ( http://thecmp.org http://thecmp.org/safety/ ). And yet, you stick with your argument.

Just because we have all those things, does not mean people use them.

No, but the evidence does indeed suggest literally tens of millions of gun owners who go from birth to death without being involved in a negligent incident involving a firearm MUST be practicing some safety measures. Otherwise we would see an increase in safety related issues rather than a decrease, even as firearm ownership goes up.

So again, the premiss that gun safety and US firearm ownership don't mix is clearly wrong. The very vast majority of gun owners clearly practice some form of safety measures. It really is just ignorant to argue against that. You and Silent Puffin are free to do so, but it is ignorant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:

Having the State "invade your privacy" is common for other things like when I adopted my kid they inspected the home to see if it was suitably safe for placement.
I do agree with them that babies are dangerous.

This is one of my favorite arguments.

I too have adopted kids and have endured invasive home studies.

Yet the vast majority of kids are not adopted, and the state does not invade the privacy of potential parents having their own kids. Why does the state only care about some children? Why don't all potential parents have to accept the invasion of privacy?


The answer lies in the fact that many of the kids being adopted are in state care until adopted out, and that the state is involved in every adoption to some extent (an adoption is a legal process done through the courts).

This is why it is in no way similar to gun ownership.

Would it be better to say that Mandatory gun safety and 'merica! don't mix?

 sebster wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
kid probably could have figured out where a key for a lock was at some point too. If someone is aware of something, really wants it, and has physical access to it, locked up or no, they can probably eventually get it. If someone is aware of something, really wants it, and has physical access to it, locked up or no, they can probably eventually get it. Same reason no IT professional or Locksmith is going to guarantee data security against someone with physical access to a device.

No set of locks is going to prevent break in, but insurance companies will still require locks before they insure you, because those locks are effective in greatly reducing the likelihood of break in. That's the central principal here - increased measures will never reduce the chance to zero, but they will greatly reduce the overall chance.

What you're arguing, in effect, is that it becomes okay to make no effort, or minimal effort, at prevention, because it's possible that greater prevention might not have worked anyway. I don't see how any legal system, or society in general, can work on that concept.

Instead I think this establishes a pretty reasonable standard – if you bring a gun in to a situation and take little to no measures to ensure that gun doesn’t end up in the hands of a child, you’re responsible for what the child does with that gun.

I'm not saying he shouldn't have locked up the firearm, he should have, just that I think that with the circumstances present, between the kid's apparent planning and determination, and the two adults actually present at the time failing to properly keep an eye on things, I think that lumping everything on the father is inappropriate.

I guess its no so much that I disagree with the verdict as the situation in general. There was a multitude of things that went wrong here, failure to properly store the firearm is just one, with the heavy emphasis on that singular aspect being selectively applied in a situation where its *possible* (and not like 1-in-a-million possible, but practically possible) proper storage may not have made a difference. At least from my perspective, if the other adults were there and knew a gun was in the house, they should all be facing the charge or none of them should.

 CptJake wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
There really is no way to argue against that.

Except for the tiny little fact that the US has one of the highest rates of accidental firearms related deaths in the world.

You claimed, bluntly, gun safety and the US don't mix. I provided very clear evidence that is wrong. I showed that one of the largest gun advocacy agencies has many safety resources, I showed state and counties having programs, I showed the fact that literally hundreds of millions of guns are NEVER involved in a negligent incident. There is even a Federal program ( http://thecmp.org http://thecmp.org/safety/ ). And yet, you stick with your argument.

Just because we have all those things, does not mean people use them.

No, but the evidence does indeed suggest literally tens of millions of gun owners who go from birth to death without being involved in a negligent incident involving a firearm MUST be practicing some safety measures. Otherwise we would see an increase in safety related issues rather than a decrease, even as firearm ownership goes up.

So again, the premiss that gun safety and US firearm ownership don't mix is clearly wrong. The very vast majority of gun owners clearly practice some form of safety measures. It really is just ignorant to argue against that. You and Silent Puffin are free to do so, but it is ignorant.

Not really, it is ignorant to assume that the vast majority of gun owners practice safety measures just because there is not a huge amount of incidences. What proof do you have that these gun owners clearly practice some form of safety measures? Just because somebody goes their whole life without being in a vehicle accident while intoxicated, does that mean that person never drives drunk?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
There really is no way to argue against that.

Except for the tiny little fact that the US has one of the highest rates of accidental firearms related deaths in the world.

You claimed, bluntly, gun safety and the US don't mix. I provided very clear evidence that is wrong. I showed that one of the largest gun advocacy agencies has many safety resources, I showed state and counties having programs, I showed the fact that literally hundreds of millions of guns are NEVER involved in a negligent incident. There is even a Federal program ( http://thecmp.org http://thecmp.org/safety/ ). And yet, you stick with your argument.

Just because we have all those things, does not mean people use them.

No, but the evidence does indeed suggest literally tens of millions of gun owners who go from birth to death without being involved in a negligent incident involving a firearm MUST be practicing some safety measures. Otherwise we would see an increase in safety related issues rather than a decrease, even as firearm ownership goes up.

So again, the premiss that gun safety and US firearm ownership don't mix is clearly wrong. The very vast majority of gun owners clearly practice some form of safety measures. It really is just ignorant to argue against that. You and Silent Puffin are free to do so, but it is ignorant.

Not really, it is ignorant to assume that the vast majority of gun owners practice safety measures just because there is not a huge amount of incidences. What proof do you have that these gun owners clearly practice some form of safety measures? Just because somebody goes their whole life without being in a vehicle accident while intoxicated, does that mean that person never drives drunk?

If theyre actually driving drunk on a routine basis (i.e. more than just the once or twice in college type deal) then they almost assuredly have either been in an accident or gotten a DUI. Nobody is perfect, but poor firearm safety, much like drinking and driving, gets very obvious very quickly when someone does it as a matter of course as opposed to a brief hiccup one or twice over the course of their entire life.

Given how statistically rare negligent discharge deaths are out of a population of 315 million + with as many guns to boot, I'd say theyre pretty damn safe overall.

Vaktathi wrote:If theyre actually driving drunk on a routine basis (i.e. more than just the once or twice in college type deal) then they almost assuredly have either been in an accident or gotten a DUI. Nobody is perfect, but poor firearm safety, much like drinking and driving, gets very obvious very quickly when someone does it as a matter of course as opposed to a brief hiccup one or twice over the course of their entire life.

While I wish you were right about this, you are really not. Quite a few places are very lax on drinking and driving. I mean, look at Mississippi. It is legal there.....

Carrying a firearm in public (concealed or openly) while intoxicated is legal where I live, but that doesnt mean people do it (anything bad you'd do in such a situation is already illegal anyway) or that we have more shootings and negligent discharges than anywhere else (far fewer than many places with strict public intoxication and firearms laws in fact). Generally however, if people are engaging in this kind of behavior routinely, theyre going to muck themselves up quickly.

Also, using Mississippi as an example is basically cheating, I mean...that place is just so...well, they make Florida look organized and respectable

 Vaktathi wrote:
Carrying a firearm in public (concealed or openly) while intoxicated is legal where I live, but that doesnt mean people do it (anything bad you'd do in such a situation is already illegal anyway) or that we have more shootings and negligent discharges than anywhere else (far fewer than many places with strict public intoxication and firearms laws in fact). Generally however, if people are engaging in this kind of behavior routinely, theyre going to muck themselves up quickly.

See, there is your problem. You are generalizing the issue. A lot of people do not get caught in this behavior, even if they do it routinely. You are saying if somebody is doing something wrong, they will eventually get caught. That is just not true.

 d-usa wrote:
Via CNN:

The 11-year-old initially faced manslaughter and felony firearm charges in connection with the death, but he was cleared of the charges after he was diagnosed as developmentally disabled, Barney said.

This is the part that chaffs my arse. The kid took premeditated action to evade being seen with the gun and then used it to kill a child. He was a threat then and without any charges is still a threat now. Except that he's likely learned that his disability, whatever it is, is now a license to keep him out of trouble in the future. Yea, the father deserved being charged because he neglected to lock up his firearm, but the kid needed some sort of penalty levied against him, too.

I'm generalizing because I'm talking about a wide ranging issue in a nation of hundreds of millions of people with hundreds of millions of guns, in close proximity to people all the time. With yearly accidental firearms deaths about ~500-600, compared with ~11-13 thousand yearly drunk driving deaths (about ~2200% higher), I think its ok to say that, for lethal devices, people are overwhelmingly acting in safe and responsible manners.

Sure, sometimes people never get caught. They are exceptions, rare ones, at least if we're talking people engaging in such behavior routinely, because, by their very nature, these acrivities have odds that catch up.

 Breotan wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Via CNN:

The 11-year-old initially faced manslaughter and felony firearm charges in connection with the death, but he was cleared of the charges after he was diagnosed as developmentally disabled, Barney said.

This is the part that chaffs my arse. The kid took premeditated action to evade being seen with the gun and then used it to kill a child. He was a threat then and without any charges is still a threat now. Except that he's likely learned that his disability, whatever it is, is now a license to keep him out of trouble in the future. Yea, the father deserved being charged because he neglected to lock up his firearm, but the kid needed some sort of penalty levied against him, too.

I dunno man, I did a lot of things when I was young that put other kids in harms way. A lot of my friends did things when I was younger that personally put me in harms way. We did not intend to harm or kill each other, we were just stupid kids doing dumb things. We never used handguns, but I had plenty of BB gun wars that could have maimed and/or killed depending on trajectory.(Caught a BB on the side of my eye socket one day, decided I was done after realizing how lucky I was) Had some sword battles with "real"(crappy forged, not sharpened blades) that could have killed and/or maimed if swung hard enough and in the right spot. Never with the intention of maiming or killing.

I am not 100% sure, but I would assume that an 11 year old would not take the weapon with the intention of harming another. He probably did not have a good grasp on life and death, which I would assume is why they did not seek legal action against him.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'm generalizing because I'm talking about a wide ranging issue in a nation of hundreds of millions of people with hundreds of millions of guns, in close proximity to people all the time. With yearly accidental firearms deaths about ~500-600, compared with ~11-13 thousand yearly drunk driving deaths (about ~2200% higher), I think its ok to say that, for lethal devices, people are overwhelmingly acting in safe and responsible manners.

Sure, sometimes people never get caught. They are exceptions, rare ones, at least if we're talking people engaging in such behavior routinely, because, by their very nature, these acrivities have odds that catch up.

Are accidental firearms deaths the only deaths you can relate to improperly stored firearms? Furthermore, should we only be worried about accidental discharges when they end in a death?

 CptJake wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Maybe the NRA could do a subscription scheme so members would get a guy coming round their house to set up their gun safe.

Or maybe the multitude of training programs they offer, not just to members, is already available and can be taken advantage of.

Why do you insist on trying to tie the NRA to cases like this? Anything in the article tie the negligent gun owner to the NRA? Do you somehow see the NRA as responsible for the actions of every individual gun owner (they are not, nor should they be.)

Is the idea of personal responsibility too hard to grasp? The guy in the article failed and has been convicted. What are you looking for here?

The NRA is the world's foremost organisation promoting gun rights and keeping the law out of gun control. Clearly it's tied to this kind of case, don't you think?

 Dreadwinter wrote:


Are accidental firearms deaths the only deaths you can relate to improperly stored firearms?

Probably not, but they're the only ones we can directly tie in with actual data rather than getting into the vagueries of what-ifs and whatabouts, just like we cant calculate deaths and damages from DUIs from the effects of stuff like delayed traffic and mental anguish. AFAIK theres no reliable data for stuff like stolen guns if thats what you are asking.

Furthermore, should we only be worried about accidental discharges when they end in a death?

No, but the numbers I was pulling was to show in general the scales we are talking about here. Mainly I wanted to highlight how relative to other issues like drunk driving, people being negligent with firearms is not a major problem given the numbers involved. Out of 300 million + firearms in the US, having 500-600 deaths amounts to one in half a million people per year for the US. For potentially lethal devices, thats insanely good.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Probably not, but they're the only ones we can directly tie in with actual data rather than getting into the vagueries of what-ifs and whatabouts, just like we cant calculate deaths and damages from DUIs from the effects of stuff like delayed traffic and mental anguish. AFAIK theres no reliable data for stuff like stolen guns if thats what you are asking.

Seems like a gun registry could solve that

A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Probably not, but they're the only ones we can directly tie in with actual data rather than getting into the vagueries of what-ifs and whatabouts, just like we cant calculate deaths and damages from DUIs from the effects of stuff like delayed traffic and mental anguish. AFAIK theres no reliable data for stuff like stolen guns if thats what you are asking.

Seems like a gun registry could solve that

Actually, it would not. It would just be a more expensive, and ineptly run, version of the system of dealer held 4473s we have now.

Kilkrazy wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Maybe the NRA could do a subscription scheme so members would get a guy coming round their house to set up their gun safe.

Or maybe the multitude of training programs they offer, not just to members, is already available and can be taken advantage of.

Why do you insist on trying to tie the NRA to cases like this? Anything in the article tie the negligent gun owner to the NRA? Do you somehow see the NRA as responsible for the actions of every individual gun owner (they are not, nor should they be.)

Is the idea of personal responsibility too hard to grasp? The guy in the article failed and has been convicted. What are you looking for here?

The NRA is the world's foremost organisation promoting gun rights and keeping the law out of gun control. Clearly it's tied to this kind of case, don't you think?

Insofar as mentioning that the NRA offers training and safety programs for members and non-members alike, sure.



But being an old hat to the internet, and based on your posts (in this thread and the GAP thread), anybody who has spent five minutes on 4chan or Something Awful can tell that you're trolling. At least, in these two trending threads.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Probably not, but they're the only ones we can directly tie in with actual data rather than getting into the vagueries of what-ifs and whatabouts, just like we cant calculate deaths and damages from DUIs from the effects of stuff like delayed traffic and mental anguish. AFAIK theres no reliable data for stuff like stolen guns if thats what you are asking.

Seems like a gun registry could solve that

Probably not. We have registries of various sorts. Have for decades. Anything controlled under the NFA (machine guns, short barreled rifles, rockets, etc) is on one. The ATF has no idea how many machine gun records it has lost, but its a fair few. Every year people find something in an attic and rush to find paperwork so they can show the ATF its registered because the ATF cant keep track of it.

Likewise, California has an "assault weapon" registry. My father owned weapons that had to be registered, and over a decade after he sold them out of state, multiple phone calls *and* certified letters later, he couldnt get *off* the list so CA still thinks he owns them...even though he hasnt for many years and no longer lives in the state. Furthermore, I cant recall nor find any examples of a crime having been solved via these registries.

Oh, do the 4473's track firearm sales and register them nationally in a government databank to their owners and then track thefts?

Edit: Man, quote fail!

 CptJake wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Having the State "invade your privacy" is common for other things like when I adopted my kid they inspected the home to see if it was suitably safe for placement.
I do agree with them that babies are dangerous.

This is one of my favorite arguments.
I too have adopted kids and have endured invasive home studies.
Yet the vast majority of kids are not adopted, and the state does not invade the privacy of potential parents having their own kids. Why does the state only care about some children? Why don't all potential parents have to accept the invasion of privacy?
The answer lies in the fact that many of the kids being adopted are in state care until adopted out, and that the state is involved in every adoption to some extent (an adoption is a legal process done through the courts).

Yes and all they are doing is their "due diligence" to avoid being blamed later if something unfortunate happens, so yeah you have an agreement.
I have mused over the fact that people who have children born to them do not seem to get the guidance of an adoption.
The threat of a "spot" inspection being possible could help ensure certain minimum standards are met.
OSHA is not required to inform ahead of time of an inspection as an example for keeping companies honest.

This is why it is in no way similar to gun ownership.

I had not stated anywhere at all that it is "similar" to gun ownership.
I was making the point that they "could" enforce inspection for other things like safety for their "ward" so why not for gun safety?
Owning a gun can be a "legal process", it sure is in Canada.
I suppose people in the USA equate it as going out to buy a blender but really now.

I suppose there is precious little point in the government poking it's nose into citizen's homes to ensure they are not being stupid.
Darwin handles that readily enough.

I think the thing that gets my nose out of joint is this outlook that it is a God-given right to own a gun and pretty much do what you want with it without many words like accountability and responsibility being used until someone inappropriate gets a hole put in them and then it is dismissed as the person being "stupid" with their firearm... nothing to see here.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Oh, do the 4473's track firearm sales and register them nationally in a government databank to their owners and then track thefts?

Edit: Man, quote fail!

No. 4473 forms are stored by the retailer\dealer for 20 of years, but the government does not have any record of this data.

There is no general federal firearm registration in the US. Some states require and maintain registries, and the federal government does track NFA items, but these are both very, very rare.

 Ouze wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Oh, do the 4473's track firearm sales and register them nationally in a government databank to their owners and then track thefts?

Edit: Man, quote fail!

No. 4473 forms are stored by the retailer\dealer for 20 of years, but the government does not have any record of this data.

There is no general federal firearm registration in the US. Some states require and maintain registries, and the federal government does track NFA items, but these are both very, very rare.

So what you are saying is, a theoretical federally run gun registry and No. 4473 forms have absolutely nothing in common?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What is the NRA's advice on gun storage?

http://training.nra.org/nra-gun-safety-rules.aspx

Store guns so they are not accessible to unauthorized persons.
Many factors must be considered when deciding where and how to store guns. A person's particular situation will be a major part of the consideration. Dozens of gun storage devices, as well as locking devices that attach directly to the gun, are available. However, mechanical locking devices, like the mechanical safeties built into guns, can fail and should not be used as a substitute for safe gun handling and the observance of all gun safety rules.

 treslibras wrote:
(http://everytown.org/)

A gun control advocacy group, so not an impartial source

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
So checking on the conditions where firearms are stored is a criminal matter so they aren't checked at all? The US mindset is a very strange place.

When I had firearms the police checked where they would be stored as part of the whole process of applying for a license. This can only be a good thing, of course gun safety and the US go together like oil and water.

The US has plenty of gun safety measures. We just do not think that law abiding citizens should be disturbed and have their private residences entered at any time by the police without either probable cause, or a warrant.

This helpful chart showing data from the CDC should show you that you are very much mistaken in your belief that "gun safety and the US go together like oil and water."

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Maybe the NRA could do a subscription scheme so members would get a guy coming round their house to set up their gun safe.

They already provide resources; http://www.nrafamily.org/articles/2013/12/26/options-for-safe-gun-storage/
Also just about every new gun comes with a lock, or one may be easily obtained through the NSSF. Of course it should be noted that the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, a gun control advocacy group, actually opposed plans by the DoJ to assist with this program.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
Except for the tiny little fact that the US has one of the highest rates of accidental firearms related deaths in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Number 12 in the world. Luxembourg has a higher rate of accidental firearm death, which much fewer firearms in the country.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
Of course your home is safe, if they are invading it you can shoot them.....

I genuinely have no idea why having a mandatory physical check of your gun storage arrangements is in someway equating to some kind of totalitarian state.

Speaking of asinine statements.
If you are uncertain as to why you feel that the police should have absolute power to enter your home at any time, with no notice, and without probable cause then I do not know how I can explain that to you.

Household chemicals cause more deaths per year than firearms. Should the police be able to inspect private residences at will to ensure that those are stored safely?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The NRA is the world's foremost organisation promoting gun rights and keeping the law out of gun control. Clearly it's tied to this kind of case, don't you think?

Please clarify what you mean by "tied to this case". Is AAA tied to any case involving a traffic accident caused by negligence?

You are going to have to explain to me how that chart you linked proves anything you are arguing here. It just proves that there are less accidental deaths from firearms than everything else combined. Which makes sense.....

Also, not a single person has said that police should have absolute power to enter your home at any time, with no notice, and without probable cause.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
You are going to have to explain to me how that chart you linked proves anything you are arguing here. It just proves that there are less accidental deaths from firearms than everything else combined. Which makes sense.....

My apologies if I was unclear, I thought that it was patently obvious that if the claim that gun safety and the US are like oil and water then the accidental deaths would be significantly higher than they are.

As to your second point one poster here was arguing that the ownership of firearms should give the police automatic right to enter a private residence. That in effect gives them "absolute power to enter your home at any time, with no notice, and without probable cause"

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
You are going to have to explain to me how that chart you linked proves anything you are arguing here. It just proves that there are less accidental deaths from firearms than everything else combined. Which makes sense.....

My apologies if I was unclear, I thought that it was patently obvious that if the claim that gun safety and the US are like oil and water then the accidental deaths would be significantly higher than they are.

As to your second point one poster here was arguing that the ownership of firearms should give the police automatic right to enter a private residence. That in effect gives them "absolute power to enter your home at any time, with no notice, and without probable cause"

I don't think that chart puts out the information you think it does. I don't even know what the numbers are on those columns or what any of the other accidental deaths are. It is not obvious even a little bit.

Also, just because the police have a right to mandatory inspection does not mean they have "absolute power to enter your home at any time, with no notice, and without probably cause" at all. Not even a little bit. You know, you can have mandatory inspections that are scheduled? Did you also know that it can still be illegal for an inspection to occur without you there? Did you know that you could write these things in to a law in order to stop things like you have suggested from happening?