Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

    Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
    You've posted this statement before, probably multiple times. And, of course, it is obviously correct. If there is no gun in a household, the likelihood of an accidental shooting, the likelihood of a shooting in response to a fight or violence, etc..., almost disappears. Someone would have to bring a gun to that household if any of those were to occur, obviously.

    I personally have not one, but many guns in my household, and I certainly don't want my household to be unsafe. However, here is why your statement/statistic doesn't frighten me, doesn't worry me, and doesn't cause me to remove the guns from my household. There has never been anything remotely close to an unsafe event in my home. There have been no accidental discharges of firearms, and my practice of keeping the guns unloaded, checking them immediately when they are picked up or before they are set down, storing them in a safe location, keeping them away from where the ammo is stored, etc..., basically removes all risk. I've never been frightened enough to load my weapon in the house. I've never even dreamed of loading my guns in anger in the house, or anywhere else.

    I'm not unusual in this regard. I dare say that a majority, if not a super-majority, if not like 95% or more of all gun owners have had the exact same experience as me. Which means we view the increased danger as being no greater than the increased danger of having a can full of lawnmower gas in my garage. Yes, conceivably that product could cause great harm to me and my family. But only if I'm an idiot. I'm not an idiot.
    I agree with you obviously, you probably did some research before owning a gun and took a hunter's safety course and could pass a mental health background check etc.

    The problem is there's way too many people out there that couldn't or don't do any of those things and can easily get a gun.
    Originally posted by 5mn_Major View Post
    So no offense, but I'm not concerned with your welfare - you know the risks. Its unfortunate for other adults living there. But the real injustice is for any children or guests. They don't have the knowledge of the dangers or the ability to affect them. In the end, youre desire for household security is increasing the danger for everyone that walks through your doorway.
    I don't disagree about your C&C point but this is ludicrous. If he has his guns locked away unloaded in a safe then no, there really isn't any danger to the guests.
    Last edited by trixR4kids; 09-05-2018, 12:09 PM.

    Comment


    • Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

      Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
      You've posted this statement before, probably multiple times. And, of course, it is obviously correct. If there is no gun in a household, the likelihood of an accidental shooting, the likelihood of a shooting in response to a fight or violence, etc..., almost disappears. Someone would have to bring a gun to that household if any of those were to occur, obviously.

      I personally have not one, but many guns in my household, and I certainly don't want my household to be unsafe. However, here is why your statement/statistic doesn't frighten me, doesn't worry me, and doesn't cause me to remove the guns from my household. There has never been anything remotely close to an unsafe event in my home. There have been no accidental discharges of firearms, and my practice of keeping the guns unloaded, checking them immediately when they are picked up or before they are set down, storing them in a safe location, keeping them away from where the ammo is stored, etc..., basically removes all risk. I've never been frightened enough to load my weapon in the house. I've never even dreamed of loading my guns in anger in the house, or anywhere else.

      I'm not unusual in this regard. I dare say that a majority, if not a super-majority, if not like 95% or more of all gun owners have had the exact same experience as me. Which means we view the increased danger as being no greater than the increased danger of having a can full of lawnmower gas in my garage. Yes, conceivably that product could cause great harm to me and my family. But only if I'm an idiot. I'm not an idiot.
      Then what do you need them for?
      What kind of cheese are you planning to put on top?

      Comment


      • Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

        Originally posted by 5mn_Major View Post
        Couple of things:

        1) Guns in the home - Fatalities appear to be about 5x higher in homes with guns (11x higher for children). If as you say 80ish% of gun owners have super awesome approaches to storage, then that would mean that the danger of fatalities could be not better than 3x in 'safe' gun households with the other households being much greater.

        So no offense, but I'm not concerned with your welfare - you know the risks. Its unfortunate for other adults living there. But the real injustice is for any children or guests. They don't have the knowledge of the dangers or the ability to affect them. In the end, youre desire for household security is increasing the danger for everyone that walks through your doorway.

        2) Outside of the home - 'C&C' makes all those super safe storage steps impossible. It also puts guns in direct contact of innocents and masses of them in public spaces where they would expect to be safe. The risk danger from gun accidents or misunderstandings goes through the roof.

        As you can see, my top concern is the risk posed to innocents. They didn't do anything to deserve this...and innocents are the largest gun casualties based on statistics - regardless of whether in the home or in public. But I would reluctantly support you putting all your house guests and children at risk...if we could stop putting the masses of innocents at risk due to c&c who didn't agree to be near you.
        The problem with your argument, and it's always been the problem with your argument, is your insistence that someone having guns safely stored at home creates a similar risk to guests, or "innocents" to use your terminology, that is created by someone walking into a nightclub with a loaded handgun just because they have a c&c permit.

        Almost all gun owners fall into the former and very, very few of us fall into the latter. Furthermore, there is virtually no similarity between the two. Gun owners who are responsible, and I think the vast, vast majority fall into that category, realize guns aren't toys or something to be paraded around town just because you can. It's the same reason I don't walk around Walmart with an operating chainsaw.

        Until you recognize the differences, and stop trying to equate all gun owners and the alleged dangers created by them to persons who walk around brandishing loaded weapons in public, we won't accept anything you say on the subject to be logical or worthy of consideration.
        That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

        Comment


        • Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

          Originally posted by rufus View Post
          Then what do you need them for?
          What do I need what for? My guns?

          First, I don't know that I actually "need" them, just like I probably don't "need" a car or golf clubs or a lawn mower or any of the hundreds of other personal property items I own.

          I choose to own my guns because I hunt with them. I don't "need" to hunt. I have a Costco membership, so I'm good there. But I enjoy the social activity and exercise associated with hunting, and the opportunity to be outdoors in the fall.
          That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

          Comment


          • Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

            How many guns do you need to hunt with?

            Small gauge and large gauge shotguns, and a good rifle.
            What kind of cheese are you planning to put on top?

            Comment


            • Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

              Originally posted by rufus View Post
              How many guns do you need to hunt with?

              Small gauge and large gauge shotguns, and a good rifle.
              I gotta be honest, you're sounding a lot like my wife.

              Seriously, at any point in time I only need one. But I have more than one, for a variety of reasons. Some of the reasons are practical, like a shotgun with a longer barrel and full choke for waterfowl, versus a shorter, lighter gun for upland game hunting. Other reasons are sentimental, such as the first gun I ever purchased, a couple of guns owned by my father and his father before him, etc...
              That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

              Comment


              • Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

                Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                The problem with your argument, and it's always been the problem with your argument, is your insistence that someone having guns safely stored at home creates a similar risk to guests, or "innocents" to use your terminology, that is created by someone walking into a nightclub with a loaded handgun just because they have a c&c permit.

                Almost all gun owners fall into the former and very, very few of us fall into the latter. Furthermore, there is virtually no similarity between the two. Gun owners who are responsible, and I think the vast, vast majority fall into that category, realize guns aren't toys or something to be paraded around town just because you can. It's the same reason I don't walk around Walmart with an operating chainsaw.
                Very very few might be a stretch...
                ∼1.69 million children in the United States <18 years old are living with loaded and unlocked household firearms.

                Comment


                • Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

                  Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                  I gotta be honest, you're sounding a lot like my wife.

                  Seriously, at any point in time I only need one. But I have more than one, for a variety of reasons. Some of the reasons are practical, like a shotgun with a longer barrel and full choke for waterfowl, versus a shorter, lighter gun for upland game hunting. Other reasons are sentimental, such as the first gun I ever purchased, a couple of guns owned by my father and his father before him, etc...
                  And I think the vast majority of people feel it should be legal to own those kinds of firearms, provided there is a clear but practical process in place to register them and keep them out of the hands of felons and people with documented mental or emotional disorders. I think the real disagreements arise for most people on issues of public carry and weapons that are not designed for hunting or typical target sport and present and increased capacity to kill that goes beyond hunting or target shooting.

                  For one thing, there is no way in he!! the government is going to, or should be able to, prevent Joe Citizen from owning and using the Winchester Model 12 his grandfather used for duck hunting.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNHDxnabADM

                    Comment


                    • Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

                      Originally posted by Wisko McBadgerton View Post
                      As a practical matter, how would you propose to implement your ideas? Obviously restrictions could be placed on newly manufactured guns by some sort of change in the laws. But how do you propose to address the millions of existing guns in private hands that don't meet your criteria?
                      At the moment, there's not much anyone can do. We should ban the repeater BS that the Nevada shooter did- that should made 100% illegal, and people should be encouraged to turn them in or face huge penalties if caught using them.

                      Legal users should be encouraged to follow the law. Non legal ones should have their guns taken as soon as they use their weapons illegally. All of their guns.

                      But because you can't do anything with the current population of guns does not mean we should do nothing for future ones. That's a very lame excuse, and one that should be dismissed as a "do nothing" argument.

                      Comment


                      • Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

                        Originally posted by alfablue View Post
                        At the moment, there's not much anyone can do. We should ban the repeater BS that the Nevada shooter did- that should made 100% illegal, and people should be encouraged to turn them in or face huge penalties if caught using them.

                        Legal users should be encouraged to follow the law. Non legal ones should have their guns taken as soon as they use their weapons illegally. All of their guns.

                        But because you can't do anything with the current population of guns does not mean we should do nothing for future ones. That's a very lame excuse, and one that should be dismissed as a "do nothing" argument.
                        Let me see if I can address your points.

                        First, you propose banning bump stocks. Ok, I really don't have a problem with that, although it's a little like trying to solve drunk driving by banning Amaretto. As far as I can tell, taking that step would have resulted in a change to only one event, the one in Las Vegas. But even without a bump stock do we know he wouldn't have killed a bunch of people? But fine, you want to ban bump stocks, I really have no objection. Just don't claim you've accomplished anything.

                        As for "encouraging" legal users to follow the law, we are required to follow the law. That's why it's the law. If we don't, we can be prosecuted for it.

                        As for confiscating the guns of users who use them illegally, I'm not in law enforcement or the prosecution business, but I think this is already done.

                        You admit there is nothing that can be done about the current population of guns, but suggest that doesn't mean we should do nothing about future ones. What exactly do you propose? That's the question we keep asking.

                        Do you propose a ban on all future manufacture and sales of guns? If that's your proposal, tell me ahead of time so that I don't accidentally get stampeded at the entrance of a Cabelas or some such place. You would instantly convert the number of guns owned by private citizens in this country from about 3 million to about 6 million overnight, as every single gun currently held by retailers and manufacturers would be snapped up instantaneously, to say nothing of the output that would occur as your proposed legislation was debated.

                        You decry "do nothing" arguments, but I say to you, if you're going to do something, accomplish something. Don't ban bump stocks or a particular model of gun, then pat yourself on the back and pretend like you've made the world safer for democracy.

                        If you want to solve gun deaths by way of legislating the weapons themselves, then you need to be prepared to do what other countries have done and basically make it illegal to own or carry weapons. That will solve your problem. But that's a big hill for you to climb, and will probably require constitutional amendment, so you better get working on it.

                        Everything else falls in the "do something, accomplish nothing" category.
                        That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                        Comment


                        • Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

                          Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                          The problem with your argument, and it's always been the problem with your argument, is your insistence that someone having guns safely stored at home creates a similar risk to guests, or "innocents" to use your terminology...
                          Originally posted by trixR4kids View Post
                          If he has his guns locked away unloaded in a safe then no, there really isn't any danger to the guests.
                          If as you (Hov) suggest 80ish% of gun households are 'super safe', then 3-5 times mortality rates in gun households dictates that 'safe gun' households are far, far more dangerous than you suggested. The math doesn't work any other way because 300 to 500% (1,100% for children) greater fatalities are huge numbers.

                          Alternatively, there could be a much, much smaller number of 'safe storage' households than you assert. That's the only other possibility.

                          Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                          Until you recognize the differences, and stop trying to equate all gun owners and the alleged dangers created by them to persons who walk around brandishing loaded weapons in public, we won't accept anything you say on the subject to be logical or worthy of consideration.
                          Help me through the above math then.

                          Don't get me wrong...I don't think guns should be outlawed. But people should know that in spite of perceived 'home protection', guns make everyone around them much, much less safe.

                          Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                          ...that is created by someone walking into a nightclub with a loaded handgun just because they have a c&c permit.
                          Great! It appears we have USCHO consensus that conceal and carry is extremely dangerous for all and therefore, its terrible policy that should be eliminated.
                          Go Gophers!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by 5mn_Major View Post
                            If as you (Hov) suggest 80ish% of gun households are 'super safe', then 3-5 times mortality rates in gun households dictates that 'safe gun' households are far, far more dangerous than you suggested. The math doesn't work any other way because 300 to 500% (1,100% for children) greater fatalities are huge numbers.

                            Alternatively, there could be a much, much smaller number of 'safe storage' households than you assert. That's the only other possibility.



                            Help me through the above math then.

                            Don't get me wrong...I don't think guns should be outlawed. But people should know that in spite of perceived 'home protection', guns make everyone around them much, much less safe.



                            Great! It appears we have USCHO consensus that conceal and carry is extremely dangerous for all and therefore, its terrible policy that should be eliminated.
                            It’s such a rare event that it makes your percentages meaningless. Kids are much more likely to die via car accident, drowning, etc. Driving/riding in a car is by far the most dangerous thing the vast majority of people do.
                            Originally posted by BobbyBrady
                            Crosby probably wouldn't even be on BC's top two lines next year

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                              Let me see if I can address your points.

                              First, you propose banning bump stocks. Ok, I really don't have a problem with that, although it's a little like trying to solve drunk driving by banning Amaretto. As far as I can tell, taking that step would have resulted in a change to only one event, the one in Las Vegas. But even without a bump stock do we know he wouldn't have killed a bunch of people? But fine, you want to ban bump stocks, I really have no objection. Just don't claim you've accomplished anything.

                              As for "encouraging" legal users to follow the law, we are required to follow the law. That's why it's the law. If we don't, we can be prosecuted for it.

                              As for confiscating the guns of users who use them illegally, I'm not in law enforcement or the prosecution business, but I think this is already done.

                              You admit there is nothing that can be done about the current population of guns, but suggest that doesn't mean we should do nothing about future ones. What exactly do you propose? That's the question we keep asking.

                              Do you propose a ban on all future manufacture and sales of guns? If that's your proposal, tell me ahead of time so that I don't accidentally get stampeded at the entrance of a Cabelas or some such place. You would instantly convert the number of guns owned by private citizens in this country from about 3 million to about 6 million overnight, as every single gun currently held by retailers and manufacturers would be snapped up instantaneously, to say nothing of the output that would occur as your proposed legislation was debated.

                              You decry "do nothing" arguments, but I say to you, if you're going to do something, accomplish something. Don't ban bump stocks or a particular model of gun, then pat yourself on the back and pretend like you've made the world safer for democracy.

                              If you want to solve gun deaths by way of legislating the weapons themselves, then you need to be prepared to do what other countries have done and basically make it illegal to own or carry weapons. That will solve your problem. But that's a big hill for you to climb, and will probably require constitutional amendment, so you better get working on it.

                              Everything else falls in the "do something, accomplish nothing" category.
                              Have you not been paying attention?

                              5 round limit on magazines
                              A fire rate limit slower than finger speed.

                              I’ve proposed that many times.

                              That way people can play army and have guns that look cool, but it still lowers the rate and number of rounds that can be gotten off, which will reduce the severity of mass shootings.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

                                Originally posted by 5mn_Major View Post
                                If as you (Hov) suggest 80ish% of gun households are 'super safe', then 3-5 times mortality rates in gun households dictates that 'safe gun' households are far, far more dangerous than you suggested. The math doesn't work any other way because 300 to 500% (1,100% for children) greater fatalities are huge numbers.

                                Alternatively, there could be a much, much smaller number of 'safe storage' households than you assert. That's the only other possibility.
                                The latter point is probably correct, you have a lot of idiots owning guns and we don't have a well-regulated militia by any stretch of the imagination. That is a problem.

                                Hovey locking up his guns safely isn't a problem to his guests or anyone else though.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X