Reading those "shot with mother's gun" stories, over and over it's "tragic accident," "no charges filed." I think charges should always be filed when a child gets hold of the gun owner's gun and shoots himself or another.
There should be some sort of law that covers failure to keep control of the deadly weapon you choose to own. If a child gets it, then obviously you messed up and didn't take proper safety measures. In several of these cases she had a loaded weapon in her purse. How stupid is that?
When your gun falls into the hands of children or your Pit bull gets loose and kills someone you should spend time in jail, then maybe you'll think twice about buying those dangerous things to protect your own precious self.
The ammosexuals' standard response is that a) of course you carry it loaded, because bad guys won't give you time to load, and b) parents responsible for the death of their child have already suffered enough. And so the carnage continues.
Statistics for 12/31/2019
Total mass shootings (4 or more casualties): 0
Total deaths: 32
Total injuries: 88
Children under 12 killed: 0
Info courtesy of Gun Violence Archive.org.
Any errors mine.
The ammosexuals' standard response is that a) of course you carry it loaded, because bad guys won't give you time to load, and b) parents responsible for the death of their child have already suffered enough. And so the carnage continues.
a) is at least rational. Most people here recognize that, on average, carrying a gun is less safe than not carrying a gun ("my toddler shot me" type incidents outweigh "I saved myself with my gun" incidents). But there's no point at all in carrying the thing around unloaded. If you think you're not safer with a gun, leave the bloody thing locked up at home (or locked in a gun case if you're going shooting). If you think you are safer with a gun, then of course it's loaded, because an unloaded gun doesn't actually do anything.
Carrying a loaded gun is rational logic with a defective premise. Carrying an unloaded gun is just bad logic.
With respect to (b), of course parents whose kids accidentally shoot each other suffer. That's not the point - accident investigations, safety recalls, and all the rest of it are not done to make people suffer - they're done to try to prevent future suffering. Having an investigation call out the fact that the parents left their toddler unsupervised near an unfenced swimming pool isn't done to make them feel worse about their dead kid - it's done to make other people with swimming pools think about installing a fence.
But of course guns are magically different from any other thing that people buy.
Statistics for 1/1/2020
Total mass shootings (4 or more casualties): Three: 4 injured in Ohio; 7 inured in West Virginia; 3 dead and 1 injured in Missouri.
Total deaths: 49
Total injuries: 129
Children under 12 killed: One: father and 9-y.o. daughter killed in hunting accident in South Carolina.
Info courtesy of Gun Violence Archive.org.
Any errors mine.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us.
My God, those are staggering totals, even for a holiday.
Yes. Though I'm guessing that with suicides included, the totals might be higher. Many people are under too much pressure during the winter holidays ("Be happy! Give/get lots of perfect gifts! Have wonderful, loving, perfect times with family and friends! Plan for another great year of your great life!"). Add depression and easy access to a gun...
Plus family fights, in combination with the mentioned pressures. Guns given as gifts. Alcohol plus anything already mentioned.
Statistics for 1/2/2020
Total mass shootings (4 or more casualties): One: 4 injured in Brooklyn, NY.
Total deaths: 27
Total injuries: 53
Children under 12 killed: 0.
Info courtesy of Gun Violence Archive.org.
Any errors mine.
...
But of course guns are magically different from any other thing that people buy.
Unfortunately not magically, constitutionally. The writers had very specific reasons for including the 2nd amendment, but killing all the people behind those numbers was not it and they would be astonished at the weaponry Americans take for granted. Mythology aside, there was never a period in USA history where guns were as ubiquitous as today. They were hand-made and very expensive until mass production came along.
Pointing a unloaded gun at someone might deter him/her from action (provided, of course, that they don're unaware the gun is unloaded).
Pointing a gun at someone is more likely to make them react aggressively. If I had a gun and someone pointed a gun at me, I would shoot them.* A potential threat becomes an active threat.
A problem with many American police responses is going into a tense situation with weapons at the ready. This is more likely to cause them to need to use them than if the weapons are down and attitude is not aggressive.
As Leorning Cniht said, either have the weapon loaded and ready to go or do not have it at all.
*Not that I want to shoot people, but putting myself into the place of those who do.
As Leorning Cniht said, either have the weapon loaded and ready to go or do not have it at all.
My choice would always be, do not have one at all, but if the woman thought she had a good reason to carry a gun (a stalker for example) she has a third choice. During the day while her children are running around keep the gun unloaded and locked away, then get it out, load it, and put it in her bedside drawer at night.
As Leorning Cniht said, either have the weapon loaded and ready to go or do not have it at all.
My choice would always be, do not have one at all, but if the woman thought she had a good reason to carry a gun (a stalker for example) she has a third choice. During the day while her children are running around keep the gun unloaded and locked away, then get it out, load it, and put it in her bedside drawer at night.
If one is to own a gun, own should be a responsible owner. A problem is that threats do not wait for the children to go to bed. There are more than one scenario in which having a loaded gun at the ready at all times is reasonable. This is, of course, if one accepts guns as a deterrent.
Even if one does, to be effective with a firearm requires more than just owning it. There is a reason the military doesn't just issue uniforms and weapons and place people in active service. There is a reason that even trained personnel do not have access to their weapons outside of combat zones and particular duties.
Statistics for 1/3/2020
Total mass shootings (4 or more casualties): One: 4 injured in Brooklyn, NY.
Total deaths: 22
Total injuries: 63
Children under 12 killed: 0.
Info courtesy of Gun Violence Archive.org.
Any errors mine.
Statistics for 1/4/2020
Total mass shootings (4 or more casualties): One: 1 dead, 3 injured in Florida
Total deaths: 23
Total injuries: 49
Children under 12 killed: 0.
Info courtesy of Gun Violence Archive.org.
Any errors mine.
As Leorning Cniht said, either have the weapon loaded and ready to go or do not have it at all.
My choice would always be, do not have one at all, but if the woman thought she had a good reason to carry a gun (a stalker for example) she has a third choice. During the day while her children are running around keep the gun unloaded and locked away, then get it out, load it, and put it in her bedside drawer at night.
If one is to own a gun, own should be a responsible owner. A problem is that threats do not wait for the children to go to bed. There are more than one scenario in which having a loaded gun at the ready at all times is reasonable. This is, of course, if one accepts guns as a deterrent.
Even if one does, to be effective with a firearm requires more than just owning it. There is a reason the military doesn't just issue uniforms and weapons and place people in active service. There is a reason that even trained personnel do not have access to their weapons outside of combat zones and particular duties.
Sometimes you have to weigh your odds a little bit. The chance of a crazed killer busting in, in the middle of the day, waving his gun around, vs the chance you're going to put your inviting, possibly candy filled purse down where your child will see it and open it.
As Leorning Cniht said, either have the weapon loaded and ready to go or do not have it at all.
My choice would always be, do not have one at all, but if the woman thought she had a good reason to carry a gun (a stalker for example) she has a third choice. During the day while her children are running around keep the gun unloaded and locked away, then get it out, load it, and put it in her bedside drawer at night.
If one is to own a gun, own should be a responsible owner. A problem is that threats do not wait for the children to go to bed. There are more than one scenario in which having a loaded gun at the ready at all times is reasonable. This is, of course, if one accepts guns as a deterrent.
Even if one does, to be effective with a firearm requires more than just owning it. There is a reason the military doesn't just issue uniforms and weapons and place people in active service. There is a reason that even trained personnel do not have access to their weapons outside of combat zones and particular duties.
Sometimes you have to weigh your odds a little bit. The chance of a crazed killer busting in, in the middle of the day, waving his gun around, vs the chance you're going to put your inviting, possibly candy filled purse down where your child will see it and open it.
I believe that I did save myself from rape or worse, in my first apartment. There were several break-ins and rapes in the building. I borrowed my father's little friend Snubby; when my door creaked open at 2 a.m., I sat up, grabbed Snubby, and cocked it (even though, as a single-action, it didn't need cocking), the sound of which sent the would-be criminal hurtling down the stairs and the alley.
I believe in the Second Amendment right to bear arms, for hunters and for self-defense. Once you get past that, it's problematic.
I believe that I did save myself from rape or worse, in my first apartment. There were several break-ins and rapes in the building. I borrowed my father's little friend Snubby; when my door creaked open at 2 a.m., I sat up, grabbed Snubby, and cocked it (even though, as a single-action, it didn't need cocking), the sound of which sent the would-be criminal hurtling down the stairs and the alley.
I believe in the Second Amendment right to bear arms, for hunters and for self-defense. Once you get past that, it's problematic.
Roughly same idea: J's dad cleared a sneaker off their porch (who had driven slowly up the long driveway with his lights off, so he was clearly up to no good) by cocking his shotgun. A distinctive sound which the prowler obviously was familiar with.
@Rossweisse and @mousethief, while there are undoubtedly many, many circumstances where having a firearm can improve safety, stating such in isolation is logically fraught.
First, statistically speaking, the situations that are objectively improved safety-wise with a personal firearm are mostly in movies and tv. Despite our frantic consumption of such narratives, they remain fictional.
Second, and the one I think most relevant to both of your anecdotes, is that there are other non-gun solutions that are also perfectly viable. Mostly involving good locks and calling the police. Especially calling the police on speaker phone, behind a well-locked door. Some of those other solutions have none of the extremely 'Merica-only problems of facilitating a seemingly endless mechanism for human suffering and death in what would otherwise be just a healthcare system away from a modern society.
Oh, I take your point, RooK. And really, I agree. I don't own any guns, nor do I want to. But I think context matters. I live 4 blocks from the police station. J's family lived out in the far-flung toolies, before speakerphones, and the sheriff's deputy ("police" is for city slickers) could be half a county away. If the first thing you know is the sound of a foot on your front porch, calling the sheriff would probably not be an option. The guy on the porch would be able to hear you, because you can't move to the back room because that's not where the phone is. But my father-in-law's hope was that merely cocking the shotgun would have the desired effect. Fortunately, it did.
I certainly don't hold this up as something for everyone to emulate, or a template that proves that a good guy with a gun can stop crime any given % of the time. It's not, it's just an anecdote from a long-ago, far-away time and place.
Statistics for 1/5/2020
Total mass shootings (4 or more casualties): One: 4 injured in Florida
Total deaths: 31
Total injuries: 47
Children under 12 killed: One: 1-y.o. boy killed by shot intended for 20-y.o. uncle (wounded).
Info courtesy of Gun Violence Archive.org.
Any errors mine.
...Second, and the one I think most relevant to both of your anecdotes, is that there are other non-gun solutions that are also perfectly viable. Mostly involving good locks and calling the police. Especially calling the police on speaker phone, behind a well-locked door. ...
The problem with the locks is that, in this inexpensive rental building (the only kind I could afford back then), we were not allowed to change the locks. Management had to have access at any time. Management also employed some bad apples. I was awakened by the actual sound of the door being opened. If I could have called the police before he was upon me, I might still have been dead or badly injured by the time they got up there.
I don't own any guns, either, but I was very grateful to have access to that one at that time.
But my father-in-law's hope was that merely cocking the shotgun would have the desired effect. Fortunately, it did.
A former colleague, who moved back to the states 15 years or so ago, had a similar anecdote - except in his case it was the thought that someone was standing in his door, and it was only when cocking the shotgun elicited no reaction that he remembered he'd bought a life-size poster of Einstein which he'd put on the back of the door the day before. He suggested that rather than a bell or siren, burglar alarms should play a recording of a shotgun being cocked.
The question isn’t whether a gun ever stopped something bad, but what is the overall effectiveness vs the dangers.
Kinda feel that the danger significantly overshadows the benefit.
For every scared burglar, how many dead family members?
Statistics for 1/6/2020
Total mass shootings (4 or more casualties): 0
Total deaths: 23
Total injuries: 61
Children under 12 killed: 0
Info courtesy of Gun Violence Archive.org.
Any errors mine.
The question isn’t whether a gun ever stopped something bad, but what is the overall effectiveness vs the dangers.
Kinda feel that the danger significantly overshadows the benefit.
For every scared burglar, how many dead family members?
The statistics seem to say that there are more accidental shootings than "saved by the gun" incidents. Many people are of the opinion that most of the accidental shootings are caused by people being far more careless with their guns than they would ever be, and so the statistics don't apply to them.
Perhaps that is true, or perhaps this is a bit like everyone being an above average driver...
The question isn’t whether a gun ever stopped something bad, but what is the overall effectiveness vs the dangers.
Kinda feel that the danger significantly overshadows the benefit. ...
Not in my case, honey.
Kinda feel that you have an opinion on everything, and that in many cases it's one that's not entirely backed up by facts. You need to get over that.
The problem with the locks is that, in this inexpensive rental building (the only kind I could afford back then), we were not allowed to change the locks. Management had to have access at any time. Management also employed some bad apples.
It seems to me that while owning a gun was the right decision for you at the time, as a matter of public policy, the problem would be better solved by granting more rights to tenants.
I'm not pro guns. But I can think of situations where I might seriously consider getting one: stalker; living in a very dangerous area where the cops respond rarely or not quickly enough; living way out in the boonies with no cops, or cops that are far away, and/or dangerous activity in the area (violent biker gang, drug import/export, etc.); and situations like Rossweisse's.
The problem with saying that one particular idea/principle is The One & Only Absolute Truth, of whatever sort, is that there are edges and exceptions.
Why a gun over say, pepper spray, a tazer, a guard dog etc ?
GK can explain her thinking, but IME people in the US arm themselves with guns in self-defense because they figure the bad guys have guns. Non-lethal measures don't seem like enough.
Why a gun over say, pepper spray, a tazer, a guard dog etc ?
Because, believe it or not, in some places bear spray and tasers are restricted/illegal while guns are not. And a dog is a lot of work and expenses and responsibility.
Canadians have to take and pass a course before getting a permit to purchase a gun. Guns in the home must be stored securely, unloaded.
I have a tentative retirement plan for bear country, so I'll definitely be getting some sort of protection at that time.
Why a gun over say, pepper spray, a tazer, a guard dog etc ?
Because, believe it or not, in some places bear spray and tasers are restricted/illegal while guns are not. And a dog is a lot of work and expenses and responsibility.
Canadians have to take and pass a course before getting a permit to purchase a gun. Guns in the home must be stored securely, unloaded.
I have a tentative retirement plan for bear country, so I'll definitely be getting some sort of protection at that time.
We have bears all the time near our cabin. I see them on the golf course they plowed out among the forest. I see wolf kills while cross country skiiing there, usually white tailed deer. I've spent up to 2 months at a time in the north canoeing, and seen bears while hiking in the Rockies.
You do not need "protection". You need smart behaviour, consider that you are the guest in their home, handle your human-created stuff including cooking smells and cosmetics properly. You do not need protection. And if you really want to get some, get bear spray (it's pepper spray), which, if you ever use it, you need to review what you did wrong that you used it.
All of the above, unless you speaking of polar bears.
The question isn’t whether a gun ever stopped something bad, but what is the overall effectiveness vs the dangers.
Kinda feel that the danger significantly overshadows the benefit.
For every scared burglar, how many dead family members?
The statistics seem to say that there are more accidental shootings than "saved by the gun" incidents. Many people are of the opinion that most of the accidental shootings are caused by people being far more careless with their guns than they would ever be, and so the statistics don't apply to them.
Perhaps that is true, or perhaps this is a bit like everyone being an above average driver...
Yeah, Everyone is an idiot except me. Unfortunately, this sort of thinking perpetuates problems.
The problem with the locks is that, in this inexpensive rental building (the only kind I could afford back then), we were not allowed to change the locks. Management had to have access at any time. Management also employed some bad apples.
It seems to me that while owning a gun was the right decision for you at the time, as a matter of public policy, the problem would be better solved by granting more rights to tenants.
Solving the problems would reduce much of the need for self-protection. But that is a whole 'nother kettle of fish, one that many of the pro-gun demographic also votes against.
The question isn’t whether a gun ever stopped something bad, but what is the overall effectiveness vs the dangers.
Kinda feel that the danger significantly overshadows the benefit. ...
Not in my case, honey.
Kinda feel that you have an opinion on everything, and that in many cases it's one that's not entirely backed up by facts. You need to get over that.
YOur response doesn't make sense. My post acknowledges that particular circumstances happen in which the possession of a gun works to the benefit of a potential victim. Like Duh.
Let me put my statement another way: Is your safety/life worth all the dead from gunshot children?
Because that is the question.
Why a gun over say, pepper spray, a tazer, a guard dog etc ?
Because, believe it or not, in some places bear spray and tasers are restricted/illegal while guns are not. And a dog is a lot of work and expenses and responsibility.
Canadians have to take and pass a course before getting a permit to purchase a gun. Guns in the home must be stored securely, unloaded.
Guns are not going to be banned in the US anytime soon. Better laws controlling their ownership are a reasonable thing. The majority of Americans, and even the majority of the NRA members, support that idea. The problem comes to fear, though. Many of those that support the idea also fear it being implemented too harshly and impinging their personal rights. Add on the "it can't happen to me" people that Dafyd describes, and you get far less impetus for change, even from the sympathetic.
Let me put my statement another way: Is your safety/life worth all the dead from gunshot children?
Because that is the question.
No, that's not the question. That's a really stupid question. That question is so unavoidably dense, it's already turned into neutronium and is emitting x-rays.
Ross is only responsible for her situation. Ross is not responsible for whether mom should be carrying a loaded gun in her handbag, with zero safety features to prevent its accidental firing by her inquisitive crotchfruit.
Let me put my statement another way: Is your safety/life worth all the dead from gunshot children?
Because that is the question.
No, that's not the question. That's a really stupid question. That question is so unavoidably dense, it's already turned into neutronium and is emitting x-rays.
Ross is only responsible for her situation. Ross is not responsible for whether mom should be carrying a loaded gun in her handbag, with zero safety features to prevent its accidental firing by her inquisitive crotchfruit.
Fucking please. The availability of guns is going to force that equation. It is unavoidable. And that is the real question. How much is one person's need/perceived need of self protection worth against the safety of others?
If a person thinks that having a gun is necessary for their self-protection, they are accepting the risk of negligent deaths. Better gun control laws can reduce this, but they cannot eliminate it.
It is literally the thing that you argue all the time, IIRC. That the equation applied at a person level doesn't change anything.
If a person wants legal gun ownership, they own the accidental deaths.
All I see here is stupid. Ross is not culpable in Junior shooting mom or his sister. Applying this at a person level, as you so eloquently put it, is mind-numbingly stupid. That there are much wider systemic failings in the US legal system (that encompass gun law, police numbers, probation, mental health provision, and apparently tenants' rights - in the UK, landlords cannot access a rented property without prior notice and the tenant's permission) is a separate argument to whether Ross should have thrown herself on the altar of wokeness as a sacrifice to your ideals.
My argument - that unlicensed, unregulated gun ownership is absolutely batshit crazy and you should probably do something about that - can stand quite happily alongside Ross's actions.
Let me put my statement another way: Is your safety/life worth all the dead from gunshot children?
Because that is the question.
No, that's not the question. That's a really stupid question. That question is so unavoidably dense, it's already turned into neutronium and is emitting x-rays.
Ross is only responsible for her situation. Ross is not responsible for whether mom should be carrying a loaded gun in her handbag, with zero safety features to prevent its accidental firing by her inquisitive crotchfruit.
Fucking please. The availability of guns is going to force that equation. It is unavoidable. And that is the real question. How much is one person's need/perceived need of self protection worth against the safety of others?
If a person thinks that having a gun is necessary for their self-protection, they are accepting the risk of negligent deaths. Better gun control laws can reduce this, but they cannot eliminate it.
It is literally the thing that you argue all the time, IIRC. That the equation applied at a person level doesn't change anything.
If a person wants legal gun ownership, they own the accidental deaths.
Er, what? "The availability of guns is going to force that equation. It is unavoidable." ?? I'm sorry, but how exactly does this work?
According to Pew Research, fewer than 1/3 of Americans own guns, despite the stupendous, irresistible pressure LB sees bearing down on all of us to arm ourselves to the teeth. I grant you, 30% is (IMO) way too high a percentage, given the horrifying daily carnage which results.
Despite the breathtaking ease with which Americans can acquire guns, nearly 70% of us apparently find this relentless, crushing pressure completely resistible.
As for my being responsible for what someone else does with a gun I own but failed to secure adequately, I am certainly responsible for my own negligence. I am not responsible for actions taken by others.
Applying this at a person level, as you so eloquently put it, is mind-numbingly stupid.
It is incredibly stupid to take the personal out of the equation. Because that affects how people vote. It is one reason gun laws are what they are in America. Most people support changes in gun laws until they think they might be affected.
That there are much wider systemic failings in the US legal system (that encompass gun law, police numbers, probation, mental health provision, and apparently tenants' rights - in the UK, landlords cannot access a rented property without prior notice and the tenant's permission) is a separate argument to whether Ross should have thrown herself on the altar of wokeness as a sacrifice to your ideals.
Whole bunch of fallacy right there. Yes, there are many other problems that need to be fixed. More guns make them worse, not better.
My argument - that unlicensed, unregulated gun ownership is absolutely batshit crazy and you should probably do something about that - can stand quite happily alongside Ross's actions.
Interesting, I had you down as the gun ownership is unnecessary and a bad thing crowd.
So, you are saying that gun ownership in America is a good thing, as long as it is regulated?
Comments
There should be some sort of law that covers failure to keep control of the deadly weapon you choose to own. If a child gets it, then obviously you messed up and didn't take proper safety measures. In several of these cases she had a loaded weapon in her purse. How stupid is that?
When your gun falls into the hands of children or your Pit bull gets loose and kills someone you should spend time in jail, then maybe you'll think twice about buying those dangerous things to protect your own precious self.
Statistics for 12/31/2019
Total mass shootings (4 or more casualties): 0
Total deaths: 32
Total injuries: 88
Children under 12 killed: 0
Info courtesy of Gun Violence Archive.org.
Any errors mine.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us.
a) is at least rational. Most people here recognize that, on average, carrying a gun is less safe than not carrying a gun ("my toddler shot me" type incidents outweigh "I saved myself with my gun" incidents). But there's no point at all in carrying the thing around unloaded. If you think you're not safer with a gun, leave the bloody thing locked up at home (or locked in a gun case if you're going shooting). If you think you are safer with a gun, then of course it's loaded, because an unloaded gun doesn't actually do anything.
Carrying a loaded gun is rational logic with a defective premise. Carrying an unloaded gun is just bad logic.
With respect to (b), of course parents whose kids accidentally shoot each other suffer. That's not the point - accident investigations, safety recalls, and all the rest of it are not done to make people suffer - they're done to try to prevent future suffering. Having an investigation call out the fact that the parents left their toddler unsupervised near an unfenced swimming pool isn't done to make them feel worse about their dead kid - it's done to make other people with swimming pools think about installing a fence.
But of course guns are magically different from any other thing that people buy.
Statistics for 1/1/2020
Total mass shootings (4 or more casualties): Three: 4 injured in Ohio; 7 inured in West Virginia; 3 dead and 1 injured in Missouri.
Total deaths: 49
Total injuries: 129
Children under 12 killed: One: father and 9-y.o. daughter killed in hunting accident in South Carolina.
Info courtesy of Gun Violence Archive.org.
Any errors mine.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us.
My God, those are staggering totals, even for a holiday.
Plus family fights, in combination with the mentioned pressures. Guns given as gifts. Alcohol plus anything already mentioned.
{:votive:}
Statistics for 1/2/2020
Total mass shootings (4 or more casualties): One: 4 injured in Brooklyn, NY.
Total deaths: 27
Total injuries: 53
Children under 12 killed: 0.
Info courtesy of Gun Violence Archive.org.
Any errors mine.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us.
Unfortunately not magically, constitutionally. The writers had very specific reasons for including the 2nd amendment, but killing all the people behind those numbers was not it and they would be astonished at the weaponry Americans take for granted. Mythology aside, there was never a period in USA history where guns were as ubiquitous as today. They were hand-made and very expensive until mass production came along.
A problem with many American police responses is going into a tense situation with weapons at the ready. This is more likely to cause them to need to use them than if the weapons are down and attitude is not aggressive.
As Leorning Cniht said, either have the weapon loaded and ready to go or do not have it at all.
*Not that I want to shoot people, but putting myself into the place of those who do.
Even if one does, to be effective with a firearm requires more than just owning it. There is a reason the military doesn't just issue uniforms and weapons and place people in active service. There is a reason that even trained personnel do not have access to their weapons outside of combat zones and particular duties.
Statistics for 1/3/2020
Total mass shootings (4 or more casualties): One: 4 injured in Brooklyn, NY.
Total deaths: 22
Total injuries: 63
Children under 12 killed: 0.
Info courtesy of Gun Violence Archive.org.
Any errors mine.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us.
Statistics for 1/4/2020
Total mass shootings (4 or more casualties): One: 1 dead, 3 injured in Florida
Total deaths: 23
Total injuries: 49
Children under 12 killed: 0.
Info courtesy of Gun Violence Archive.org.
Any errors mine.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us.
I believe in the Second Amendment right to bear arms, for hunters and for self-defense. Once you get past that, it's problematic.
Roughly same idea: J's dad cleared a sneaker off their porch (who had driven slowly up the long driveway with his lights off, so he was clearly up to no good) by cocking his shotgun. A distinctive sound which the prowler obviously was familiar with.
First, statistically speaking, the situations that are objectively improved safety-wise with a personal firearm are mostly in movies and tv. Despite our frantic consumption of such narratives, they remain fictional.
Second, and the one I think most relevant to both of your anecdotes, is that there are other non-gun solutions that are also perfectly viable. Mostly involving good locks and calling the police. Especially calling the police on speaker phone, behind a well-locked door. Some of those other solutions have none of the extremely 'Merica-only problems of facilitating a seemingly endless mechanism for human suffering and death in what would otherwise be just a healthcare system away from a modern society.
I certainly don't hold this up as something for everyone to emulate, or a template that proves that a good guy with a gun can stop crime any given % of the time. It's not, it's just an anecdote from a long-ago, far-away time and place.
Statistics for 1/5/2020
Total mass shootings (4 or more casualties): One: 4 injured in Florida
Total deaths: 31
Total injuries: 47
Children under 12 killed: One: 1-y.o. boy killed by shot intended for 20-y.o. uncle (wounded).
Info courtesy of Gun Violence Archive.org.
Any errors mine.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us.
I don't own any guns, either, but I was very grateful to have access to that one at that time.
Kinda feel that the danger significantly overshadows the benefit.
For every scared burglar, how many dead family members?
Statistics for 1/6/2020
Total mass shootings (4 or more casualties): 0
Total deaths: 23
Total injuries: 61
Children under 12 killed: 0
Info courtesy of Gun Violence Archive.org.
Any errors mine.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us.
The statistics seem to say that there are more accidental shootings than "saved by the gun" incidents. Many people are of the opinion that most of the accidental shootings are caused by people being far more careless with their guns than they would ever be, and so the statistics don't apply to them.
Perhaps that is true, or perhaps this is a bit like everyone being an above average driver...
Kinda feel that you have an opinion on everything, and that in many cases it's one that's not entirely backed up by facts. You need to get over that.
The problem with saying that one particular idea/principle is The One & Only Absolute Truth, of whatever sort, is that there are edges and exceptions.
GK can explain her thinking, but IME people in the US arm themselves with guns in self-defense because they figure the bad guys have guns. Non-lethal measures don't seem like enough.
Because, believe it or not, in some places bear spray and tasers are restricted/illegal while guns are not. And a dog is a lot of work and expenses and responsibility.
Canadians have to take and pass a course before getting a permit to purchase a gun. Guns in the home must be stored securely, unloaded.
I have a tentative retirement plan for bear country, so I'll definitely be getting some sort of protection at that time.
You do not need "protection". You need smart behaviour, consider that you are the guest in their home, handle your human-created stuff including cooking smells and cosmetics properly. You do not need protection. And if you really want to get some, get bear spray (it's pepper spray), which, if you ever use it, you need to review what you did wrong that you used it.
All of the above, unless you speaking of polar bears.
Contradictions are the stuff of life being lived. Yay for contradictions.
Let me put my statement another way: Is your safety/life worth all the dead from gunshot children?
Because that is the question.
No, that's not the question. That's a really stupid question. That question is so unavoidably dense, it's already turned into neutronium and is emitting x-rays.
Ross is only responsible for her situation. Ross is not responsible for whether mom should be carrying a loaded gun in her handbag, with zero safety features to prevent its accidental firing by her inquisitive crotchfruit.
If a person thinks that having a gun is necessary for their self-protection, they are accepting the risk of negligent deaths. Better gun control laws can reduce this, but they cannot eliminate it.
It is literally the thing that you argue all the time, IIRC. That the equation applied at a person level doesn't change anything.
If a person wants legal gun ownership, they own the accidental deaths.
My argument - that unlicensed, unregulated gun ownership is absolutely batshit crazy and you should probably do something about that - can stand quite happily alongside Ross's actions.
Er, what? "The availability of guns is going to force that equation. It is unavoidable." ?? I'm sorry, but how exactly does this work?
According to Pew Research, fewer than 1/3 of Americans own guns, despite the stupendous, irresistible pressure LB sees bearing down on all of us to arm ourselves to the teeth. I grant you, 30% is (IMO) way too high a percentage, given the horrifying daily carnage which results.
Despite the breathtaking ease with which Americans can acquire guns, nearly 70% of us apparently find this relentless, crushing pressure completely resistible.
As for my being responsible for what someone else does with a gun I own but failed to secure adequately, I am certainly responsible for my own negligence. I am not responsible for actions taken by others.
It is incredibly stupid to take the personal out of the equation. Because that affects how people vote. It is one reason gun laws are what they are in America. Most people support changes in gun laws until they think they might be affected. Whole bunch of fallacy right there. Yes, there are many other problems that need to be fixed. More guns make them worse, not better. Interesting, I had you down as the gun ownership is unnecessary and a bad thing crowd.
So, you are saying that gun ownership in America is a good thing, as long as it is regulated?
Link fixed. That was oddly difficult, though. I'll report it backstage.
DT
HH
So next time a black man gets shot by US police, we don't look beyond the individual circumstances. Got that.