<abbr title="Yet Another <abbr title="Gun Wars 2">GW2</abbr> Topic">YAGT</abbr>
-
-
It's a documentary shot in real-time. Like Highlander.
-
buying a gun is different than all of those examples in a fundamental way
You're engaging in commerce. How is that different?
You can kill someone with a baseball bat, a clothes--or tire--iron, or a car. Don't say "because guns are supposed to kill people." I've shot thousands of rounds out of my Taurus 9mm--hush, you, in the peanut gallery--and guess what, it's never killed anything other than paper targets.
And yes, I meant thousands. When I lived in Tampa I went to a shooting range up to 3x monthly sometimes, and typically shot a couple of hundred rounds. I am probably--I don't say this to brag, I am not exactly a leet marksman--probably a better shot than many, if not most, police, simply because many of them don't shoot except for annual qualifications, which is typically about 50 rounds, once a year.
-
It's a documentary shot in real-time. Like Highlander.
Much better. I guess you recovered from your heat-stroke or whatever it was.
-
There's no point in serious discussion with people whose brains are dried concrete.
-
Even if we assume that the new and improved laws/enforcement (that you propose) are effective how will the recent rise in cheaper CNC machines effect the prevalence of homemade weapons?
History has repeatedly shown us that the harder the government makes an item to obtain, the more people will create it themselves. With the decreased costs and ease with which firearms can be created, wont we simply see another war on drugs?
-
There's no point in serious discussion with people whose brains are dried concrete.
Oh no! A relapse! Quick, get yourself something to drink and lie down!
-
Yes, I'm sure all our non-american members can attest to the extremely prevalent homemade gun problem they're currently dealing with...
-
Yes, baseball bats, tire irons, and cars are all designed for one purpose: to cause death.
-
Yes, baseball bats, tire irons, and cars are all designed for one purpose: to cause death.
I dispute the assumption there. Guns can--and do--act as a deterrent. Nobody's ever died from a gun I own. And cars may not be designed to cause death, but they kill hundreds of thousands of people a year worldwide.
-
Few things:
- only over the last couple of years has it been affordable for someone to make a weapon themselves at home.
- There has to be a demand, the US clearly has a demand for firearms, while many other countries do not.
- It is possible that nothing will change and there will simply be an uptick in illegal firearm sales
Finally, it was ment as a question. Does anyone foresee this becoming an issue. I am unsure if it will or not, but I think it does warrant a discussion at the very least.
-
Yes, baseball bats, tire irons, and cars are all designed for one purpose: to cause death.
Well, guns have more usages than just causing death. I have several firearms that have shot thousands of rounds and never killed anything. Any guns that I have purchased on my own have only been used for target shooting, IIRC. The ones I have inherited from my father have all been used for hunting though.
Well, now that I think about it, there are some military surplus arms in there that I have no idea what their history was before I purchased them...
-
Nobody's ever died from a gun I own.
How do you know? Maybe your dog shot a dude when you weren't home.
I saw it in a movie.
-
1) only over the last couple of years has it been affordable for someone to make a weapon themselves at home.
Not necessarily. It has been affordable to make improvised weapons since weapons existed. It is just that now it has become as simple as downloading a file and printing it.
Homemade firearms have been around for a long time. Even semi-auto. Google "click-clack gun" for examples of homemade semi-auto firearms that can be made simply and relatively easily. They also are sometimes known as a "gill gun".
And that is before we even talk about pen guns and zip guns.
-
Oh, without a doubt. I was thinking more in terms of replicating existing weapons at home with download and print/mill tech.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
Also, Texas?
The Campus Carry law doesn't go into effect until next August. Also, it leaves open the possibility of having "gun-free zones" on campus, as decided by school administrators. My university's currently going through the process of having townhall meetings with faculty, staff, and students to determine where said zones should be. I've not been able to attend, but I'm told that at least half of each meeting has been devoted to "omg giving all these stupid freshmen guns is going to be a disaster"-type histeria, even though Campus Carry still restricts the ability to carry guns on college campuses to people who have Concealed Carry permits, which can only be obtained by those aged 21 and older after a day-long training course, written exam, and skills exam.
-
There was also a story recently of a puppy who stepped on a guy's gun while he was preparing to shoot said puppy and its six littermates, shooting the guy instead. I don't know the details, because I saw the story when I didn't have time to read it, and I have no idea if it's legit or not, but, still.
-
Class, you mean. Professions are like tailoring and cooking. The Ranger class is the one that has pets.
-
Can we stretch the definition of "school shooting" to cover that guy in Norway who killed 80 or so teenagers who were, IIRC, at a school-related function or camp of some kind?
Only if we can stretch the definition of "Sweden" to include "Norway". Idiot.
They don't require EXTREEEEM CAAARREEEEE!
So keeping a loaded, prepped gun in your purse within reach of your toddler-- who then takes it and kills themselves or sibling (again, see the multiple links above) does that fall under:
- Was taking enough care, and sometimes children just get murdered and that's ok?
- Was NOT taking enough care, even though the scenario doesn't technically fall under your 4 "simple" rules, and that person shouldn't have owned a gun?
Because either you're a fucking idiot, or guns are extremely dangerous devices that easily kill people when mishandled and mismanaged.
(I'm putting my money on "you're an idiot")
There's no point in serious discussion with people whose brains are dried concrete.
I like this advice. I agree with whatever @blakeyrat just said
-
You're saying if you follow the 4 rules it's impossible to have a gun accident, right?
Nah, he broke a showbiz rule:
Never work with dogs or children.
-
Nope, those are crafting disciplines.
-
Never work with dogs or children.
Or robots.
Unless you kill them by the end of the episode.
Filed under: Watch Babylon 5 now. It's better than The Internet.
-
How do you know? Maybe your dog shot a dude when you weren't home.
So the dog got the gun out of a locked case in a closed closet, switched the empty magazine out of the pistol for a full mag, racked the slide, shot someone, and then cleaned up the mess and put everything back?
You drastically overestimate my dog's intelligence. We're talking about a 6 year old dog that just last week walked nose-first into the apartment door when I didn't open it as fast as she was expecting.
And not for the first time.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
Only if we can stretch the definition of "Sweden" to include "Norway". Idiot.
You say that like I care about the difference, for expository purposes, between the two countries.
@Lorne_Kates said:
So keeping a loaded, prepped gun
No, Commodore Strawman, I don't agree with anything like that. Keeping the gun unloaded in a locked case in a closet is good enough for children old enough to be told to stay out. Get some clean underpants ready: when I got my first gun I let the kids handle it, after making sure it was unloaded, so they could see what it was like, and to dispel the mystery and the desire to go looking for it. Then I told them if they wanted to touch it again in the future they could, as long as they asked me instead of going to get it themselves, and for them not to touch it without me.
And my children, being responsible for their age, and having the cachet of snooping taken away, stayed away from it! Unlike Canadians, who are apparently unable to obey their parents.
You stupid twit.
-
Well then there are no professions in Guild Wars 2, except for NPC's!
-
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Profession
Are you smoking the WoW?
-
You say that like I care about the difference, for expository purposes, between the two countries.
So "idiot". Noted.
Strawman
A strawman is making up a fake boogeyman to blame instead of using facts.
Since you seem to be reading impaired, I'll requote for you:
@Lorne_Kates said:
When guns aren't controlled, the only people being killed by guns will be the [url="http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/20/us/missouri-boy-shoots-baby-brother/"]baby brother of a 5 year old who took a gun from his mom's purse.[/url].
Wait, I must have that wrong. It should be when guns aren't controlled, the only people being killed by guns will be the [url="http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/boy-2-fatally-shoots-mom-at-idaho-wal-mart-by-reaching-gun-in-her-purse-1.2166956"]parent of a 2 year old who took a gun from his mom's purse[/url].
Wait wait no, I must be getting that mixed up again. When guns aren't controlled, the only people being killed by guns will be the [url="http://www.wlwt.com/news/police-hamilton-3yearold-found-gun-in-purse-shot-self/33544288"]toddlers killing themselves with the gun they find in their mom's purse[/url].
Okay, totes got that one wrong again. Okay, let me try one more time. When guns aren't controlled, the only people being killed by guns will be [url="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tDdEot0Z-mwJ:www.fox5ny.com/news/30318690-story+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca"]an 8 year old girl shot to death with a shotgun INTENTIONALLY by an 11-year old bully.[/url].
Wait, wait, wait-- maybe one MORE time. When guns aren't controlled, the only people being killed by guns will be [url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting"]20 kindergarten children shot by legally owned firearms[/url].
In all those cases, there were legally owned firearms in the hands of someone who wasn't the legal owner, murdering children and/or a child causing their own death. So fuck you "strawman".
So again, I'll ask you again, since these don't follow your "rules", in these cases, where the firearms were not adequately controlled by their legal, rightful owner:
- was this a sufficiently level of control and enough care (EXTREEEEEM CARE as you childishly put it) exercised? In which case, all these murdered children are "okay, whatever, it happens"?
- was this an insufficient****strong text level of control, and not enough extreme care given? If this is the case, what more care & control is needed?
It's pretty binary. Either there was enough control and this is an acceptable outcome, or there was not enough control and more is needed. Which is it?
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
So "idiot". Noted.
Excellent job of missing the point by nitpicking over an irrelevant detail!
@Lorne_Kates said:
It's pretty binary. Either there was enough control and this is an acceptable outcome, or there was not enough control and more is needed. Which is it?
I reject your premise. Obviously these people didn't bother to be safe. You, as a typical hoplophobe, reject the idea that people could actually be safe around guns without stupid extremes. Must be something in the air in Toronto.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
It's pretty binary.
Maybe to an idiot. Or a Canadian. And probably Australians.
I am glad you have such a black and white view of the subject. There is a bit more to it than that though. These are isolated incidents of idiots. There are millions of firearms, owned by millions of people, and relatively few incidents comparatively speaking.
Yeah, if Canada had the numbers of incidents that we do it would be alarming. But that number would also take out all 12 people that live there, and a fair number of elk.
Forgive me if I don't go all SJW when isolated tragic incidents occur. I am not willing to shit all over our rights for something that won't fucking do anything anyway, just because I have a feeling it might help.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
So again, I'll ask you again, since these don't follow your "rules", in these cases, where the firearms were not adequately controlled by their legal, rightful owner:
Are you always reading impaired or just when you can't think straight BECAUSE GUNS?
But yes, if you follow these rules, you will never shoot someone without meaning to. If you leave your gun lying around where your cat can shoot you with it, and you didn't teach it the rules, that's your fault, even tho the cat didn't follow the rules.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
Which is it?
I pose an alternate question to you: if I set a gun down on a table in front of you and said "Don't touch it, Lorne," how long would it take you to grab that thing and shoot your eye out? Because you seem like the kind of person who's shit himself in terror if he saw a real gun, even if it wasn't loaded.
-
Are you always reading impaired or just when you can't think straight BECAUSE GUNS?
Lorne is obviously not interested in a rational discussion, only demagogueing, on this issue, like a good subject of the Queen.
-
like a good subject of the Queen
That is where a good deal of the disconnect lies. Our system of laws started fundamentally differently. In countries that started as monarchies, their rights were given to them by the monarch. Those that start as democracies retain all rights until they are ceded to government.
In monarchies, the power of government was derived from the monarch. In democracies, the power of government lies in the consent of the people to be governed.
He just wants our King or Queen to take our firearms from us. Because raisins.
-
Maybe to an idiot. Or a Canadian. And probably Australians.
I am glad you have such a black and white view of the subject. There is a bit more to it than that though. These are isolated incidents of idiots. There are millions of firearms, owned by millions of people, and relatively few incidents comparatively speaking.
Yeah, if Canada had the numbers of incidents that we do it would be alarming. But that number would also take out all 12 people that live there, and a fair number of elk.
Forgive me if I don't go all SJW when isolated tragic incidents occur. I am not willing to shit all over our rights for something that won't fucking do anything anyway, just because I have a feeling it might help.
Just out of interest, which definition of "isolated" are you using?
-
Well, shit. I've only ever seen them called classes.
-
It's funny how they love to take things out of context, and then act like you're wrong for "saying" what they've twisted your meaning into, isn't it? I agree with your premise here: people need to take better care of their own goddamn firearms, at all times.
-
I agree with your premise here: people need to take better care of their own goddamn firearms, at all times.
I don't think that's his premise. I say that, because when people have said basically that, they were accused of not caring that some kids died.
-
Well I haven't been following the discussion since the last time I posted about it, and that post was the first one I saw upon returning to the thread. Based on that post by itself, that appears to be his premise, and people are acting like he's saying that because kids get a hold of guns and use them improperly, all guns should be banned, when there is no indication that I've seen in that post or earlier in the thread to indicate that that is his position.
-
I pose an alternate question to you: if I set a gun down on a table in front of you and said "Don't touch it, Lorne," how long would it take you to grab that thing and shoot your eye out?
That is completely equivalent to toddlers grabbing a gun.
Let me post an alternate alternate question to you: if I set a gun down on a table in front of a two-year-old and said "don't touch it", how long until you realize you're an idiot?
Are you always reading impaired
Do you mean do I read post A, then respond with post B, then get back answer C which doesn't answer the question, then ask again... then some 100 posts later in an unrelated conversation he gives a hypothetical answer to a joke question that still doesn't answer B?
Then yes, I guess by that metric I'm reading impaired.
Maybe to an idiot. Or a Canadian. And probably Australians.
I am glad you have such a black and white view of the subject
Then explain to me the nuanced and subtle layers of how it isn't binary. Here, let me repeat the question. You can pick which one: 5-year old finds gun in home, murders toddler brother-- or 2 year old grabs gun from mom's purse and shoots her. Both are cases where a legally owned gun was taken by a child and used to kill. (The second one was a valid conceal-carry, so a gun safe or vault obviously isn't the answer).
My thesis: guns are extremely dangerous devices, and require extreme care when handling and storing. If extreme care is not taken, it can be misused by the owner, or the owner (though negligence) can allow the gun to fall into the hands of someone who will misuse it. The non-legal owner may misuse it intentionally (crime spree), or by accident.
By this thread's own admission, there are rules that must be followed, and that people who don't follow it are not properly handling a gun.
In either of the above quoted cases:
Was a sufficient level of care being exercised by that gun owner? Yes or no. Either they were careful enough with the gun or not. This is a question that would have to be answered by police and prosecutors when deciding if they should file charges against the gun owner, so it is a valid question, and has a binary answer. If it does not have a binary answer, please elaborate.
IF SUFFICIENT CARE WAS TAKEN
Okay, so those deaths were accidental. Are there any other steps the owner could have taken to prevent this from happening? That is, could they have taken more reasonable care and caution to prevent the death?IF THEY COULD HAVE TAKEN MORE CARE
Then what steps could they have taken? Does this imply that they were taking an insufficient amount of care, or does this reveal further care and control needed to prevent those deaths?IF THEY COULD NOT HAVE TAKEN MORE CARE
Then we've come to the conclusion that some people are just gonna die by accident. Children, mothers, whoever happens to have bad luck around a gun. Is this an acceptable amount of death? If not, then what is an acceptable amount of death? There's already stats for deaths / 10,000. You can quantify it.Back to the original question...
THE DID NOT TAKE ENOUGH CARE WITH THEIR GUN
Then the deaths are through negligence. What was the negligence? Can such negligence be prevented?IF IT CANNOT BE PREVENTED
Then again we come down to "what is an acceptable number of deaths / 10,000 that we can attribute to negligence"? How much death is acceptable?IF IT CAN BE PREVENTED
How? Training? Certification? Mandatory handling assessment? Spot checking? Revocation of concealed-carry? What real, actual solution is "acceptable"?
On one extreme, everyone should have guns with no restrictions. On the other, no one gets guns, they're banned. In the middle is called "gun control". Whatever form of control is in place now, in this scenario, is obviously insufficient, since we've identified unacceptable deaths that could have been prevented.You will notice, however, it all comes down to a series of binary decisions. Do you want guns, yes/no? Do you accept they're dangerous, yes/no? Is 1 death/year acceptable, yes/no? Is 2-- is 4-- is 8-- and so on until you binary search to an acceptable number. Are you having more deaths per year than are acceptable, yes/no? Is the cause X [negligence, accident, poor manufacturing, homicide, suicide] causing those deaths, yes/no? Will control Y lower those deaths, yes/no? (For Y you have waiting periods, training, no concealed-carry, limit number/calibre people can own, and so forth). Did implementing control Y solve the issue, yes/no? If no, GOTO 1. If yes, remonitor death toll.
I don't think that's his premise. I say that, because when people have said basically that, they were accused of not caring that some kids died.
That is part of my premise. People are taking insufficient care of firearms. Therefore the only way to bring about sufficient care is to force control over firearms somehow. But then people come back with no amount of control is acceptable. Therefore, kids dying is acceptable. It's like the inverse relationship between security and freedom. Set the marker to how much you want, and accept the consequences of the rest.
I can't even get people to admit that guns are dangerous and need to be handled with care, even when in the same breath those people say "but those no-true-Scotsmen using guns wrong are just using them wrong because they don't respect how dangerous and special these toys are"
-
...when there is no indication that I've seen in that post or earlier in the thread to indicate that that is his position.
It was definitely in there earlier. Or possibly in that other thread where gun talk happened. And he was definitely accusing American of not caring about kids dying.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
Do you mean do I read post A, then respond with post B, then get back answer C which doesn't answer the question, then ask again... then some 100 posts later in an unrelated conversation he gives a hypothetical answer to a joke question that still doesn't answer B?
I think you just want to yell at people because you're upset or something. Making sense and communicating seems like a distant priority for you.
@Lorne_Kates said:
Was a sufficient level of care being exercised by that gun owner? Yes or no.
Do you think anyone will say, "Yes?" I wouldn't. @FrostCat has said as much as that he didn't.
@Lorne_Kates said:
Therefore the only way to bring about sufficient care is to force control over firearms somehow. But then people come back with no amount of control is acceptable. Therefore, kids dying is acceptable.
Go away with your strawmen. No one has said that no amount of control is acceptable.
@Lorne_Kates said:
I can't even get people to admit that guns are dangerous and need to be handled with care,
People have been giving lectures in here about that. See? This is that reading thing again.
-
No one has said that no amount of control is acceptable.
The what amount of control is?
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
The what amount of control is?
I think the amount now is pretty good. There are some states and cities that have way too much.
I know you'll interpret this as the pro-dead-kid position, but it's a tradeoff and you can fuck off and give me money if you think I'm interested in killing kids. I get that most people in countries like Canada care about different things than I do. I get that idiots don't understand the value in the potential of armed resistance, whether against criminals or governments. I'm not exactly OK with that, but I'm not an hysterical mess like you are on this topic, either.
Just because you can't be safe without someone holding your hand doesn't mean that everyone else requires that. Please stay in Canada because we already have too many people who want a nanny state.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
By this thread's own admission, there are rules that must be followed, and that people who don't follow it are not properly handling a gun.
In either of the above quoted cases:
Was a sufficient level of care being exercised by that gun owner? Yes or no.
The two are not as related as you keep insisting. The rules that @FrostCat mentioned earlier are, as you stated fohandling a gun. In the unfortunate scenarios you specified, the owner of the weapon you keep asking about was not handling the weapon, so the listed rules don't apply. Stop trying to make them apply.
Now, as to the situations where a woman has a gun in her purse and her child reaches in and manages to set off the firearm, in every case I've read the firearm was not being properly concealed. When carrying concealed, the firearm should be in a holster that covers the trigger to prvevnt anything accidentally pressing the trigger. Every case I have read about where a woman carrying in her purse experiences some sort of negligent discharge, such as when her child reaches in her purse, there was nothing covering the trigger: nothing to prevent an accidental discharge. These are situations where the carrier was not carrying responsibly.
-
The point is that the owner should've taken steps to ensure that their firearm did not fall into the wrong hands. That's why the two are related. If you are properly controlling your firearm, it should be practically impossible for an infant to manage to fire it.
-
I think the amount now is pretty good.
Your gun deaths per capita would disagree. Most of the world looks at those numbers are shits themselves in disbelief that it's an acceptable amount of deaths per year.
I know you'll interpret this as the pro-dead-kid position
Yup. Because if "we have enough" includes letting people walk around with loaded, ready-to-use weapons in their purse-- or being allowed to keep loaded shotguns outside of gun safes to be taken into the hands of psychotic 11-year olds-- then yes, that's a pro-dead-kid position.
it's a tradeoff and you can fuck off and give me money if you think I'm interested in killing kids.
I don't think you, personally, Boomzilla, are going to go off and kill kids. But you're okay with it happening. Your own words, right there, "It's a tradeoff". You're accepting that so many deaths per year, even of children, are
to keep your guns.Then that falls under one of my questions. How many deaths per year is too much? How many will be enough for you to say "whoa, maybe we need to reign it in a bit". Like, there were so many deaths per year, so seatbelts became mandatory because hey, cars are dangerous, and this makes sense. People are too stupid to control themselves, as a populace, so let's make it a law. And hey, too many kids are falling out of windows each year. No one wants kid-proof screens because of the inconvenience and cost, so let's make it a law.
I get that idiots don't understand the value in the potential of armed resistance, whether against criminals or governments.
EVERY nation with guns understands that. That's why guns exist. Gun owners don't understand that you can still have that benefit without a pile of dead children to go along with it.
And seriously, America, if there was ever a time to rise up in arms against your government, now's the time. Put up or shut the fuck up with that "g'vrnment" bullcrap. They're literally robbing you blind and selling out your heart, soul and body at every turn. But that's a whole other rant.
you
I still love that I've never once stated my own stance on guns, or if I even own one. But you keep on shooting in the dark there. (Hey get it, it's a pun).
doesn't mean that everyone else requires that.
There are obviously people who do. Since the response to any example or statistic I raise about unsafe gun handling is met with "some idiots just can't handle guns"-- then yes, quite literally, some people should not own or handle guns. Just like some people should not own or operate cars, or airplanes, or construction equipment, or install gas lines, or high voltage wires, or build skyscrapers, or do any other number of things because they are provably unqualified and not responsible enough to do so.
so the listed rules don't apply. Stop trying to make them apply.
That's kinda my point. @FrostCat said that as long as those rules are followed, no one gets hurt. But the rules don't seem to include "CONTROL YOUR FUCKING WEAPON YOU FUCKING IDIOT".
My point is: GUNS ARE FUCKING DANGEROUS AND YOU NEED TO EXERCISE CAUTION WHEN OWNING OR OPERATING THEM. To which everyone replies "nuh-uh, controls is bad and I know how to handle a gun". Which isn't the point at all. How does someone as dumb-fuckedly stupid as the people in question get a gun?
I know my own driving skill. I know the conditions of the road. I'm sure I could easily do 30-40 over safely. But I don't. Guess why.
When carrying concealed, the firearm should be in a holster that covers the trigger to prvevnt anything accidentally pressing the trigger. Every case I have read about where a woman carrying in her purse experiences some sort of negligent discharge, such as when her child reaches in her purse, there was nothing covering the trigger: nothing to prevent an accidental discharge. These are situations where the carrier was not carrying responsibly.
Thank you, at least one person can actually come up with a solution. Yes, concealed carry can be done safely, because when it isn't bad things can happen. How do you ensure those carrying concealed do so safely? Do you police it, like traffic offenders? Do you demand more rigorous training and certification? Because I'm sure @FrostCat nor @Mot555 would carry a weapon in a bag without a trigger safety. Because they've had gun safety drilled into them-- their behavior controlled. You Just. Don't. Fucking. Do. That. Period, full stop, with no exceptions. That isn't being done. Actually, here, Idaho (where the mom-killed incident occurred):
Apply to the sheriff. You MAY need to take a course, but it is not required. You are not required to take a test. You are not required to show firearms proficiency, or even basic knowledge of firearm safety.
Come to think of it, she may not have even been inline with Idaho's laws. "Yes, you may carry a weapon on your person in Idaho as long as the weapon is clearly visible." OR if it is concealed it must be "Disassembled and unloaded". In a purse isn't clearly visible, and loaded isn't unloaded. So I guess Idaho doesn't have sufficient preventative measures to keep guns out of the hands of idiots.
If you are properly controlling your firearm, it should be practically impossible for an infant to manage to fire it.
Yes. As above. It should either have been clearly visible-- thus in a holster and (even though not stated BY LAW) with a holster snap or trigger cover. Or since it was in a purse, it should have been unloaded.
-
I think the amount now is pretty good.
Milwaukee
Get data on a variety of issues pertaining to Milwaukee and the rest of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin.
97 people killed by guns in one city this year. I play a lot of video games and there aren't even 97 people in most cities.
-
The point is that the owner should've taken steps to ensure that their firearm did not fall into the wrong hands. That's why the two are related.
No, they aren't. The four rules are all about properly handling a firearm to avoid damaging something or injuring someone you did not intend to. They are not intended to tell you how to store it or keep it away from others. I already explained this, so stop being thick.
If you are properly controlling your firearm, it should be practically impossible for an infant to manage to fire it.
Controlling != handling. The rules are about handling. As I explained earlier, if you conceal carry, the trigger should be covered so that nothing can accidentally press it. Is that one of the four rules @FrostCat mentioned? Nope. Is it part of handling a firearm? Nope. So try being a bit less willfully ignorant.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
Your gun deaths per capita would disagree.
I don't think they can talk.
@Lorne_Kates said:
Then that falls under one of my questions. How many deaths per year is too much? How many will be enough for you to say "whoa, maybe we need to reign it in a bit".
I'm going to stop you right there. What the people were doing was, in at least some of those cases, illegal. So...we already have that amount of control.
@Lorne_Kates said:
Gun owners don't understand that you can still have that benefit without a pile of dead children to go along with it.
This is just so much, "WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN‽"
@Lorne_Kates said:
I still love that I've never once stated my own stance on guns, or if I even own one. But you keep on shooting in the dark there. (Hey get it, it's a pun).
You've certainly stated a lot about your stance on guns. That's what I've been talking about.
-
They are not intended to tell you how to store it or keep it away from others.
But we keep bringing them up because they were @FrostCat 's answer to the original point about "guns are dangerous and require extreme care to keep safely".
@Lorne_Kates said:
There's massive public education campaigns about [harmful household chemicals]
Me: (sorry for the screencap, I'm only willing to put up with so much Discosearch before I go nuts and shoot someone)http://i.imgur.com/xPQoVAs.png
Followed by FrostCat:
Spoken like someone who doesn't have much experience with them. They don't require EXTREEEEM CAAARREEEEE! Four simple rules will absolutely protect you from shooting someone.1. all guns are loaded2. don't point the gun at something you aren't willing to kill/destroy3. keep your booger hook off the bang switch until you're ready to shoot4. be aware of your target and what's beyond it, IOW if you're shooting (say) rifle-caliber bullets at someone, the bullet can go on through them and hit something else.
(fucked up formatting courtesy of Discourse)
So we were talking about guns being dangerous and need extreme care while handling, because of the way people have mishandled their guns. For all intensive porpises, not controlling your weapon & letting it fall into dangerous hands is mishandling it. We were talking about dangerous household chemicals in that context-- that if not handled and stored properly, kids get a hold of them and die.
The Four Rules don't cover making sure to lock up / holster your gun. And suggesting that people be TAUGHT The Four Rules and pass tests on The Four Rules and be licensed on The Four Rules is "gun control" and bad. Therefore, The Four Rules are more "four good suggestions that people should know before handling a gun, but fuck it. Dead kids is ok."
