Gun Control is ridiculous

[Quad4_72]

I guess thats where I see the main problem. For a weapon to be usefull for defence it has to be available chambered and ready to go. I fail to see a locked unloaded and responsibly stored weapon as usefull for defence and I don't see a cocked handy firearm as safe to have in a household.

Thats what I can never figure out.

You see its statements like that that demonstrate someone who is not very familiar with guns. I keep mine right by my nightstand. The ONLY way for that firearm to discharge is if you take the safety off and pull the trigger. Or, you can even just put the clip in and only cock it if you are ready to shoot. Accidents happen when people are complete morons. You HAVE to pull that trigger for the weapon to fire (Unless there is something defective with the gun). Additionally, for that weapon to cause damage to some one, it has to be pointed at a human being.

How hard is it to not pull a trigger and to not point the gun at another human being? I will answer it for you. ITS NOT. Irresponsible people who are not properly educated about their firearms end up making stupid mistakes. Thats where the problem is. And if you don't educate your kids about your gun, that is also a problem. Plus how hard is it to lock your damn door? If you are out of the house, you can even keep the gun in a safe if you dont want to carry it on you. This way, your kids can't get to it. When nighttime rolls around, take the gun out of the safe and put it by your nightstand. This is all VERY simple and all accidents could be avoided if just simple precautions were taken.

 

[Ranb]

But that's completely irrelevant...

If these statistics are to be believed, a gun in the house makes you and your friends and family more at risk of injury or death, not less.

Which, it seems, undermines your entire argument.

Statistics are not always relevant either. How can you apply a mere statistic to any one person? You can't in this case. If a person chooses his friends carelessly, and ends up showing off guns to psychopaths, druggies and killers, then he or she is at risk of getting shot by the friends more than a person who has friends that are stable and trustworthy around firearms.

Are you still claiming that I want to execute drug addicts?

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

I guess thats where I see the main problem. For a weapon to be usefull for defence it has to be available chambered and ready to go. I fail to see a locked unloaded and responsibly stored weapon as usefull for defence and I don't see a cocked handy firearm as safe to have in a household.

There are safes available that allow rapid access to a firearm, but keep it secure from unauthorized use.

Ranb

 

[The Fool]

You see its statements like that that demonstrate someone who is not very familiar with guns. I keep mine right by my nightstand. The ONLY way for that firearm to discharge is if you take the safety off and pull the trigger.

you are a genius...Take the safety off....pull the trigger you say?? Never knew that. But anyway...when a child has shot another child while showing off dad's gun while the responsible owner snores in bed I'm sure the fact that the safety had to be removed (if it has one) and the trigger had to be pulled would make all the difference. Yes, I know you are far too responsible for anything like this to ever happen to you....all these responsible gun owners.... 100% so far....never spoke to a gun owner on this forum who is not 100% responsible and absolutely flawlessly perfect...I wonder who has all the accidents then??

Or, you can even just put the clip in and only cock it if you are ready to shoot. Accidents happen when people are complete morons. You HAVE to pull that trigger for the weapon to fire (Unless there is something defective with the gun). Additionally, for that weapon to cause damage to some one, it has to be pointed at a human being.

How hard is it to not pull a trigger and to not point the gun at another human being? I will answer it for you. ITS NOT. Irresponsible people who are not properly educated about their firearms end up making stupid mistakes. Thats where the problem is. And if you don't educate your kids about your gun, that is also a problem. Plus how hard is it to lock your damn door? If you are out of the house, you can even keep the gun in a safe if you dont want to carry it on you. This way, your kids can't get to it. When nighttime rolls around, take the gun out of the safe and put it by your nightstand. This is all VERY simple and all accidents could be avoided if just simple precautions were taken.

thanks for the lecture on the obvious......I'm sorry but if you are happy to have loaded firearms lying around your house thats your business. But you should be carefull before you make conclusions about the relative experience of people where guns are concerned. I know how a lot of people like to wrap themselves in a cloak of authority and proclaim that people that make statements they don't agree with are not "familiar with guns".....You have no idea about my experience or lack of experience, I suggest you use that as your starting point rather than a presumption of ignorance.

 

[Quad4_72]

you are a genius...Take the safety off....pull the trigger you say?? Never knew that. But anyway...when a child has shot another child while showing off dad's gun while the responsible owner snores in bed I'm sure the fact that the safety had to be removed (if it has one) and the trigger had to be pulled would make all the difference. Yes, I know you are far too responsible for anything like this to ever happen to you....all these responsible gun owners.... 100% so far....never spoke to a gun owner on this forum who is not 100% responsible and absolutely flawlessly perfect...I wonder who has all the accidents then??


thanks for the lecture on the obvious......I'm sorry but if you are happy to have loaded firearms lying around your house thats your business. But you should be carefull before you make conclusions about the relative experience of people where guns are concerned. I know how a lot of people like to wrap themselves in a cloak of authority and proclaim that people that make statements they don't agree with are not "familiar with guns".....You have no idea about my experience or lack of experience, I suggest you use that as your starting point rather than a presumption of ignorance.

Please, do explain how being responsible and educating yourself and kids would not prevent these accidents. A child taking the gun while the adult is sleeping huh? What happened to the locking the door part? Most home invasions take place at night. So in the day, you can either take the gun with you where ever you go, or lock it up in a safe. At night, take it out, put it in a concealed place next to your bed, and lock your door. What is so hard about this?

There is not a single situation where education and responsibility would not solve the problem of accidents at home.

 

[Lonewulf]

thanks for the lecture on the obvious......I'm sorry but if you are happy to have loaded firearms lying around your house thats your business. But you should be carefull before you make conclusions about the relative experience of people where guns are concerned. I know how a lot of people like to wrap themselves in a cloak of authority and proclaim that people that make statements they don't agree with are not "familiar with guns".....You have no idea about my experience or lack of experience, I suggest you use that as your starting point rather than a presumption of ignorance.

Someone who leaves their weapon out in the open, with the safety off, for a child to lay their hands on, makes me think of someone that has little firearms safety training, or someone that disregards that training.

I do not get why I would be wrong to think this?

 

[The Fool]

There is not a single situation where education and responsibility would not solve the problem of accidents at home.

And there is not a single problem in society where I don't listen to someone chirping that "education and responsibility" is all it takes....and normally providing themselves as the suitable model for the educated and responsible ideal citizen.

so we accept you are educated and responsible and if all americans were like you there would not be a problem...can we move on now?

 

[Lonewulf]

And there is not a single problem in society where I don't listen to someone chirping that "education and responsibility" is all it takes....and normally providing themselves as the suitable model for the educated and responsible ideal citizen.

And the arguments of Baron and yourself are that increased laws are the only way to make citizens responsible?

I keep hearing that the only way to prevent gun crimes is to go for extreme measures, such as ban guns nation-wide. Yes... that solves everything, and would so work in the U.S., which can't even keep out drugs, illegals, or alcohol when it passes legislation against it.

But yes, banning guns will automatically work. I'm sure it will. I mean, some guy in the internets said it would work, so it must.

 

[The Fool]

Someone who leaves their weapon out in the open, with the safety off, for a child to lay their hands on, makes me think of someone that has little firearms safety training, or someone that disregards that training.

I do not get why I would be wrong to think this?

Or they are drunk maybe? Or they are rather less accepting of the virtues of adult education.... possibly illiterate.....or they just don't f****** care. Maybe they think that anyone who suggests education or wussy storage is a commie gun grabber........but they are not us are they....we are responsible, educated, caring.......

 

[Lonewulf]

Maybe they think that anyone who suggests education or wussy storage is a commie gun grabber........but they are not us are they....we are responsible, educated, caring.......

You know, there was earlier in this discussion where you actually were somewhat rational and capable of giving a good point.

Where'd that version of "The Fool" go? I kinda miss him.

 

[Quad4_72]

So The Fool, am I to understand that you agree that education and responsibility will solve accidents in the home with firearms?

 

[The Fool]

So The Fool, am I to understand that you agree that education and responsibility will solve accidents in the home with firearms?

I agree it is an important aspect and a vital part of any sound approach to Guns in society.

Do you think it should be legislated? No training no gun? what would be your reply to someone who said you are a "anti gun" for suggesting no training no gun? Mandating training is an example of gun control..... which the title of this thread proclaims as rediculous. maybe only gun controls you regard as beyond some line in the sand are rediculous. In that case, whats so special about your particular line in the sand?

 

[Lonewulf]

maybe only gun controls you regard as beyond some line in the sand are rediculous. In that case, whats so special about your particular line in the sand?

For one, I get the choice to go hunting, range shooting, and have the ability to defend myself.

 

[Quad4_72]

I agree it is an important aspect and a vital part of any sound approach to Guns in society.

Do you think it should be legislated? No training no gun? what would be your reply to someone who said you are a "anti gun" for suggesting no training no gun? Mandating training is an example of gun control..... which the title of this thread proclaims as rediculous. maybe only gun controls you regard as beyond some line in the sand are rediculous. In that case, whats so special about your particular line in the sand?

Well throughout this thread, that has actually what I have been saying this whole time. Requiring education and training is not regulating or controlling your right to own a gun. It is not infringing any rights. Just like you have to pass a drivers test to drive a car. Requiring training to own a firearm does not sound like too bad of an idea does it?

 

[The Fool]

Well throughout this thread, that has actually what I have been saying this whole time. Requiring education and training is not regulating or controlling your right to own a gun. It is not infringing any rights. Just like you have to pass a drivers test to drive a car. Requiring training to own a firearm does not sound like too bad of an idea does it?

Requiring education is not restricting gun ownership? Education Requirements are restrictions, they are a gun controls. Can I buy that gun? Have you attended the training? No.....sorry, you are not allowed a gun. You are banned from owning a gun because you have not done a course.

Where did your founding fathers ok denying someone a gun because they have not satisfied a training requirement? Why isn't compulsory training as a method of regulating gun ownership rediculous as proclaimed in the thread title....

Why are you not to be regarded as anti gun? You are just another gun control advocate like me.....defying the clear intentions of your founding fathers by desiring to place restrictions on peoples right to bear arms.

 

[Lonewulf]

Requiring education is not restricting gun ownership? Education Requirements are restrictions, they are a gun controls. Can I buy that gun? Have you attended the training? No.....sorry, you are not allowed a gun. You are banned from owning a gun because you have not done a course.

Where did your founding fathers ok denying someone a gun because they have not satisfied a training requirement? Why isn't compulsory training as a method of regulating gun ownership rediculous as proclaimed in the thread title....

Why are you not to be regarded as anti gun? You are just another gun control advocate like me.....defying the clear intentions of your founding fathers by desiring to place restrictions on peoples right to bear arms.

Who's actually been denying that we're for what we view as a more moderate stand on gun control? Besides the title of the thread? Are you judging this entire viewpoint on the title of this thread?

 

[The Fool]

For one, I get the choice to go hunting, range shooting, and have the ability to defend myself.

That doesn't deal with why you are an acceptable gun control advocate but I am not. what is the line that I have crossed and you have not?

 

[Lonewulf]

That doesn't deal with why you are an acceptable gun control advocate but I am not. what is the line that I have crossed and you have not?

I consider your suggested controls to be too harsh. What, I can't be entitled to my opinion? I NEED to go the route you and Baron go, and can't hold my own position?

 

[volatile]

Statistics are not always relevant either. How can you apply a mere statistic to any one person? You can't in this case. If a person chooses his friends carelessly, and ends up showing off guns to psychopaths, druggies and killers, then he or she is at risk of getting shot by the friends more than a person who has friends that are stable and trustworthy around firearms.

Would you like the government to check everyone who wants a gun's friends before giving them one? Or is that becoming so unwieldy and unviable that it really starts to become absurd?

More pointedly should public policy be made on a one-to-one basis? Or should they use the evidence based on general experience?

If the evidence is correct (and as a good sceptic I have no reason to doubt quixotecoyote's evidence, do you?), having a gun in the house manifestly makes you and your family more at risk of danger and injury. If your rationale for owning a gun is "protection" (as many in this thread have argued), then that is bizarre to the extreme. It's like claiming you want to own a car because it makes you more likely to walk places...

 

[quixotecoyote]

If the evidence is correct (and as a good sceptic I have no reason to doubt quixotecoyote's evidence, do you?), having a gun in the house manifestly makes you and your family more at risk of danger and injury. If your rationale for owning a gun is "protection" (as many in this thread have argued), then that is bizarre to the extreme. It's like claiming you want to own a car because it makes you more likely to walk places...

Not to nitpick, but my evidence included all gun injuries. The point was to show that for a US resident:

Given the most generous interpretation, guns are 280% as likely to cause injury or death compared to being used for self defense. Using the lowest self-denfese #'s brings the figure to 1313% as likely. If we were using a stricily utilitarian policy analysis, this would be the end of it here, before we even consider that this same source shows 340700 incidents of firearm theft a year (incidents, not guns stolen).

.....

Given a 70 lifespan and assuming an even risk, you have a half percent chance of being one of the people injured by guns over your lifetime.
Given those same assumptions you have half of a thousandth of a percent chance of using a gun against an armed criminal.

What I said doesn't specifically state guns in the home are particularly dangerous as compared to any other guns. My point was that the chance of using a gun for self defense pales in comparison to being injured by a firearm, to the point where lowering the number of guns in the population seems the obvious choice. It's not practical because people love guns, but just because many people hold to a belief doesn't make it correct.