Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

The Gun Culture is Somewhat In Denial About Gun Safety.

Page 9 of 24 [ 383 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 24  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

03 Jan 2015, 7:21 pm

Persimmonpudding wrote:
Hey, Jesus-boy....

Who? Is Jesus part of the topic? I suppose that He could be. After all, He said "...he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one" (Luke 22:36). Since the Roman Gladius sword was the state-of-the-art weapon of choice in Judea, Jesus was apparently advocating the quick acquisition of the most efficient weapon that was in use by the world's most powerful military of the time. In fact, they found two such weapons. Many say that the Gladius was the first-century version of the M-4 carbine rifle (and other M-16 variants) which is ubiquitous among U.S. military service members.


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

03 Jan 2015, 7:28 pm

alex wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Raptor,

Not sure if there is a legal definition of a light trigger. One that two year olds can pull? In these two cases, the guns belonged to women so they could have chosen ones that are easier to fire because women are like that, sometimes, and they want to be prepared.

And as far as your guns are concerned, if they are in a good location, fine, this topic isn't really about you. It's for those people that carry their guns in their purses or leave them loaded on the coffee table with kids around.


Technically, due to the relative strength of the thumb, a trigger might be too hard for a child to pull if it's pointed at someone else (the child would need enough strength in a finger other than his thumb to fire the gun while it was pointed at someone else. That child could, however, pull that same trigger with his thumb if the gun were pointed at himself.


True, and there's also the two finger method. In the case of a small child they cannot even get their hand around the grip frame of any but the smallest of handguns and without that they have nothing to pull against. These comparatively very rare mishaps are just going to occur from time to time.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

03 Jan 2015, 7:32 pm

Raptor wrote:
alex wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Raptor,

Not sure if there is a legal definition of a light trigger. One that two year olds can pull? In these two cases, the guns belonged to women so they could have chosen ones that are easier to fire because women are like that, sometimes, and they want to be prepared.

And as far as your guns are concerned, if they are in a good location, fine, this topic isn't really about you. It's for those people that carry their guns in their purses or leave them loaded on the coffee table with kids around.


Technically, due to the relative strength of the thumb, a trigger might be too hard for a child to pull if it's pointed at someone else (the child would need enough strength in a finger other than his thumb to fire the gun while it was pointed at someone else. That child could, however, pull that same trigger with his thumb if the gun were pointed at himself.


True, and there's also the two finger method. In the case of a small child they cannot even get their hand around the grip frame of any but the smallest of handguns and without that they have nothing to pull against. These comparatively very rare mishaps are just going to occur from time to time.


A friend of mine told me a woman might choose a handgun that is easier to fire and if this is true, it would also be easier for a child to fire as well. I didn't see the type of gun the child fired mentioned in the media.



Persimmonpudding
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 294

03 Jan 2015, 7:35 pm

AspieUtah wrote:
Persimmonpudding wrote:
Hey, Jesus-boy....

Who? Is Jesus part of the topic? I suppose that He could be. After all, He said "...he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one" (Luke 22:36). Since the Roman Gladius sword was the state-of-the-art weapon of choice in Judea, Jesus was apparently advocating the quick acquisition of the most efficient weapon that was in use by the world's most powerful military of the time. In fact, they found two such weapons. Many say that the Gladius was the first-century version of the M-4 carbine rifle (and other M-16 variants) which is ubiquitous among U.S. military service members.

So verse 51 from the same chapter has no meaning to you. Although the God of the Old Testament was a bastard, as evidenced in the verses Numbers 31:17-18, the man from Luke abhorred violence and, given a chance to avoid it, surrendered himself.

He had his friends carry a minimum of weaponry because there was a chance they would need to make an escape if his surrender did not defuse the situation.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

03 Jan 2015, 7:51 pm

cathylynn wrote:
the purpose of my post was to show that the safest condition is to not have a gun. my mom is a state NRA rifle championship contender and i'm not a bad target shooter. if your pleasure in having a gun outweighs the significantly increased chance of death, by all means have a gun. but don't get a gun for safety. "nothing stops a bad guy with a gun except a good guy with a gun." who's going to stop the good guy with a gun?

Just having a gun alone does not make anyone more or less safe. The user is the actual weapon the the firearm is the tool.

Quote:
my cousin-in-law is a police officer who shot himself in the hand while cleaning his gun.

It went off while I was cleaning it must be the oldest excuse in the history of accidental discharges. Of course, the fact that it is impossible to clean a loaded gun (think about it for a moment) seems to go over people's heads.

Quote:
my uncle-in-law committed suicide with a gun.
Sorry for your loss, but if he were bent on killing himself it's unlikely that the lack of a gun wouldn't have derailed that effort.

Quote:
i don't know tons of people, but among those few i know, adverse outcomes with guns happen way too much.
I know and have known lots and lots of gun owners and the only adverse outcomes have been one suicide. I do not consider the gun to be the cause of that or any other suicide. On the positive side some of the people I know have actually used a gun to protect themselves and to thwart breaking and enterings of their homes. This isnt even taking into account the fact that a deer or two in the freezer has provided meat that some of them wouldn't have had otherwise.

What I'm getting at is that guns are acted upon, they do nothing on their own.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Persimmonpudding
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 294

03 Jan 2015, 8:13 pm

Raptor wrote:
What I'm getting at is that guns are acted upon, they do nothing on their own.
Neither do nuclear weapons, so let's ship some to Iran. I understand their current president is a sweetheart.



cathylynn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,045
Location: northeast US

03 Jan 2015, 8:16 pm

Raptor wrote:
alex wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Raptor,

Not sure if there is a legal definition of a light trigger. One that two year olds can pull? In these two cases, the guns belonged to women so they could have chosen ones that are easier to fire because women are like that, sometimes, and they want to be prepared.

And as far as your guns are concerned, if they are in a good location, fine, this topic isn't really about you. It's for those people that carry their guns in their purses or leave them loaded on the coffee table with kids around.


Technically, due to the relative strength of the thumb, a trigger might be too hard for a child to pull if it's pointed at someone else (the child would need enough strength in a finger other than his thumb to fire the gun while it was pointed at someone else. That child could, however, pull that same trigger with his thumb if the gun were pointed at himself.


True, and there's also the two finger method. In the case of a small child they cannot even get their hand around the grip frame of any but the smallest of handguns and without that they have nothing to pull against. These comparatively very rare mishaps are just going to occur from time to time.

just about every day in my facebook feed, i get news of another accidental shooting. not rare at all. recently, a local boy was shot and killed when his father's handgun was jostled and went off from the glove compartment.



cathylynn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,045
Location: northeast US

03 Jan 2015, 8:38 pm

Raptor wrote:
cathylynn wrote:
the purpose of my post was to show that the safest condition is to not have a gun. my mom is a state NRA rifle championship contender and i'm not a bad target shooter. if your pleasure in having a gun outweighs the significantly increased chance of death, by all means have a gun. but don't get a gun for safety. "nothing stops a bad guy with a gun except a good guy with a gun." who's going to stop the good guy with a gun?

Just having a gun alone does not make anyone more or less safe. The user is the actual weapon the the firearm is the tool.

Quote:
my cousin-in-law is a police officer who shot himself in the hand while cleaning his gun.

It went off while I was cleaning it must be the oldest excuse in the history of accidental discharges. Of course, the fact that it is impossible to clean a loaded gun (think about it for a moment) seems to go over people's heads.

Quote:
my uncle-in-law committed suicide with a gun.
Sorry for your loss, but if he were bent on killing himself it's unlikely that the lack of a gun wouldn't have derailed that effort.

Quote:
i don't know tons of people, but among those few i know, adverse outcomes with guns happen way too much.
I know and have known lots and lots of gun owners and the only adverse outcomes have been one suicide. I do not consider the gun to be the cause of that or any other suicide. On the positive side some of the people I know have actually used a gun to protect themselves and to thwart breaking and enterings of their homes. This isnt even taking into account the fact that a deer or two in the freezer has provided meat that some of them wouldn't have had otherwise.

What I'm getting at is that guns are acted upon, they do nothing on their own.


actually, folks who try to commit suicide with a less lethal method than guns often survive and get help, then go on to happy lives.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

03 Jan 2015, 8:48 pm

Persimmonpudding wrote:
Raptor wrote:
About the NRA and racism or whatever; if we're going to hold people's feet to the fire over past transgressions let's not forget that it was the Democrats that wanted to keep blacks enslaved. Does every democrat deserve to have their nose punched?

I was referring to the attitude of individuals like yourself. You are arrogant to the point of undermining yourself. You are incapable of having a civil discussion.

Mmm hmm, but you're the one that wants to punch out all NRA members you encounter.

Quote:
You are incapable of seeing this as anything other than a zero-sum game because you lack the moral development.

I've not seen you bring anything to this but some kind of tale about the NRA having racist roots or whatever.

Quote:
It is not only possible to virtually eradicate violence in general without touching anyone's guns or reducing people's access to guns, but it can be done more cheaply and more effectively while preserving the current laws. The most cost-effective methods involve targeted law-enforcement initiatives.

Yeah, more cops making further nuances of themselves is just what we need.

Quote:
Your type are over-reliant on distorted statistics and dubious, discredited studies. Statistically, the laws that are currently on the books are highly effective. An outright gun ban, on the other hand, would simply be a waste of money.

I rarely use statistics and studies. If I have to bother to do all that I'd better get paid or at least college credits for my efforts.

Quote:
The part that you are not going to like is that the same study explains why Lott's conclusions are faulty: countries where gun crime has never been a problem simply do not have any reason to impose gun bans. Since gun bans really don't have any impact either way, they end up with high violent crime and a lot of frustrated gun enthusiasts...and a lot of money down the crapper.

If I just dismiss your whole study there'll be no need to like or dislike it.

Quote:
In the end, reasonable gun laws--like those currently in place--constitute a win-win outcome. Those who want guns, if they follow the law and are generally of sound mind, may have them, but restricting the access of people who have a history of violent behavior helps keep us safe. Far from being a compromise, it is an ideal outcome.

Here's the worm in that apple: It's not like when all these wonderful laws are enforced that they will pertain to only newly manufactured guns being sold. We are a country comparatively awash in existing guns and trying to track/regulate the transfer all of those will be about as futile as the "War on Drugs".


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


cberg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,183
Location: A swiftly tilting planet

03 Jan 2015, 8:49 pm

Guns are just cowardly and backwards. I want my rights to particle beams protected.

/thread


_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos :mrgreen:


Persimmonpudding
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 294

03 Jan 2015, 8:50 pm

Has anyone noticed that I am one of the few people here who have cited a source that does not have an obvious agenda, and sources in question support something close to the status quo?



1401b
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 May 2012
Age: 125
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,590

03 Jan 2015, 8:51 pm

Persimmonpudding wrote:
Raptor wrote:
What I'm getting at is that guns are acted upon, they do nothing on their own.
Neither do nuclear weapons, so let's ship some to Iran. I understand their current president is a sweetheart.

Did you get hacked?
I almost always feel that your posts are insightful, logical, rational, thoughtful and objective.
This is pure false equivalence fallacy.


_________________
(14.01.b) cogito ergo sum confusus


Persimmonpudding
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 294

03 Jan 2015, 9:05 pm

1401b wrote:
Persimmonpudding wrote:
Raptor wrote:
What I'm getting at is that guns are acted upon, they do nothing on their own.
Neither do nuclear weapons, so let's ship some to Iran. I understand their current president is a sweetheart.

Did you get hacked?
I almost always feel that your posts are insightful, logical, rational, thoughtful and objective.
This is pure false equivalence fallacy.
No, I have just dealt with one too many idiotic gun-advocates who cannot handle the idea of someone who supports a moderate policy, which is not inherently appropriate but happens to work in this particular case. I certainly don't advocate moderation for moderation's sake and use the concept parsimoniously.

Besides, my retort was a valid demonstration of the idiocy of Raptor's arguments. It is actually equivalent in the context of his asinine argument.

Our current laws are among the best there could be. The problems in our culture related to violent crime are largely due to dysfunctions in our culture. The glamorization of violence is the problem, not our laws. Our gun laws are one of the few things our country has gotten right, for the most part.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

03 Jan 2015, 9:15 pm

I notice after one of these accidents someone familiar with guns and gun safety issues a statement to the media about trigger locks. What I want to know is, if someone is planning to use the gun for personal protection, how practical is a trigger lock? Won't that make it harder to protect yourself if need be?



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

03 Jan 2015, 9:19 pm

Persimmonpudding wrote:
Well, another point is that I consider those people who view themselves as the "good guy with a gun" are pretty dangerous unto themselves. They have this fantasy that they are heroes out of some western, and they see guns as a solution to their problems. How should we expect them to behave when a landlord trying to collect rent becomes the villain in their fantasy?

The only real "good guy with a gun" is someone who has a realistic perception of guns.


Subjective stuff that means nothing insofar as laws are concerned.



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

03 Jan 2015, 9:24 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
I notice after one of these accidents someone familiar with guns and gun safety issues a statement to the media about trigger locks. What I want to know is, if someone is planning to use the gun for personal protection, how practical is a trigger lock? Won't that make it harder to protect yourself if need be?


Depends on what they mean by a trigger lock.

But yes, they're silly if you use a firearm for defense (hold on good sir, I must now unlock this firearm; please refrain from your attack until I have done such).

The media should be talking about putting pistols in holsters that cover the trigger guard when they're loose for defensive purposes (especially in a pack where the mechanical functioning may be compromised). That's what sensible people should be talking about.