Gun ownership in this day and age

[prayerrider]

They are unitentional discharges. That is different than “accidents.” And where there is an unintentional discharge there is always negligence. It may not be tortable or criminal negligence but it’s still negligence.

As far as safety training yes, I made that commitment for myself when I bought my first firearm. And I was trained by my parents.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

What I asked was would you support making safety training legally mandatory for anyone who keeps a gun?

 

[prayerrider]

Responsible gun owners already do that. Gangbangers, probably not so much.

 

[pnewton]

There are no “accidents” anyway.

I find this simply rhetorical. Of course there are accidents, according to the exact definition of the word. If you define an accident so narrowly as something preventable with proper training and discipline, then you are simply begging the definition of the word.

It is a circular point.

 

[prayerrider]

If an accident is something that is unforseeable and unavoidable, then there are no firearms accidents.

 

[Dracarys]

Yes. It can be. Likewise, one might also morally own a gun to defend oneself, or the life of another.

How can it be immoral to either own a gun or to use it to defend you or your family?

Who died and left you boss?

Yeah really. I resent someone telling me what to do when they have no authority to do so.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

In response to this:

LeafByNiggle:

What I asked was would you support making safety training legally mandatory for anyone who keeps a gun?

prayerride posted this:

Responsible gun owners already do that. Gangbangers, probably not so much.

What this illustrates is a rejection of the communal obligations regarding safety. Prayerrider refuses to consider mandatory training as a requirement of civil law and simply re-interprets the suggestion of training as a “good idea” for a person to protect himself and his family. No thought at all is given to the requirement to protect the neighbor’s family, or to be protected from the neighbor’s negligence at leaving guns unattended, for example.

Also, the use of the word “responsible” avoids the fact that many gun owners are not responsible gun owners. Their negligence can cause not only death or injury to themselves and their family, but also death or injury to others in their neighborhood. “In this day and age” when people live next to each other in cities and towns and apartments, gun safety is not just a personal matter. It is a community matter. That is why I find it so incongruous that some gun advocates will say “training is the answer” but then will balk at making training mandatory. It seems to me that they mean “training is the answer for me, and I don’t care what happens to you…”

 

[Dracarys]

What I asked was would you support making safety training legally mandatory for anyone who keeps a gun?

Training is usually good, but just because someone got their ticket punched by attending some mandatory government program does not mean anything.

You are far too impressed with police training over civilian training too. Police do receive firearm training, but the bulk of their time is spent in class learning new laws and such. Currently it’s popular to give training in response to mentally I’ll and physically handicapped. SWAT receives significantly more firearm training, but they are usually the last to arrive. Their best use is barricaded gunmen.

From what I see the highest trained people are in the military elite units like Navy SEALs. These guys are very fit and they spend all day in kill rooms repetitively going over tactics and techniques.

Most people are never exposed to training at that level. Do you really need an instructor to tell you to secure your gun from children? Even if someone did take a class do you think having a firearms instructor give his Blessing will change the attitude of a careless person? No it won’t. You will always have reckless careless, and intoxicated people involved in car crashes, swimming pool and other water disasters, falling off ladders, kitchen injuries, and yes firearm issues.

 

[Dracarys]

Their negligence can cause not only death or injury to themselves and their family, but also death or injury to others in their neighborhood. “I

As I said above, you are naively far too impressed with formal classes for basic common sense issues. Why are you so frightened? Having an open pool in your yard is more dangerious than owing a gun.

Which is more dangerous: A gun or a swimming pool?

Swimming pools are much more dangerous than guns when you carefully analyze the statistics."

m1-garand-rifle.com

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Training is usually good, but just because someone got their ticket punched by attending some mandatory government program does not mean anything.

That’s the difference between a “necessary” condition and a “sufficient” condition. I am suggesting a “necessary” condition, and you are are saying it isn’t “sufficient.” It may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.

You are far too impressed with police training over civilian training too. Police do receive firearm training, but the bulk of their time is spent in class learning new laws and such.

I would like to see gun owners learn those new laws too. And the old ones.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

As I said above, you are naively far too impressed with formal classes for basic common sense issues.

Aren’t you being naively far to impressed with the common sense of the average gun owner? From the incidents I cited, apparently a lot of them do not have that common sense.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

We all want to be safe in our homes, but I don’t feel safer with a gun in my home.
Each to your own in this matter.
The only thing I have against fun ownership is that I don’t believe anyone needs to own any sort of semi-automatic or automatic weapon.
A lower calibre handgun will get the job done for protection and it is less likely to kill someone.
These are just my thoughts on the matter.

 

[prayerrider]

I have higher calibers. Revolvers. They go bang when I pull the trigger.

 

[Dracarys]

would like to see gun owners learn those new laws too. And the old ones.

There is no benefit to the general public to learn how to seek diversionary programs for a person with mental illness. Now I am starting to think you simply want to make things as hard as possible on gun owners so you can further some anti gun agenda.

Aren’t you being naively far to impressed with the common sense of the average gun owner? Fro

My posted article above shows that swimming pools are far more dangerious than guns. I may also add trampolines, electric sockets, power tools, etc. So let’s mandate training for all the above. Let’s abandon traditional education and fill everyone’s days with endless classes on safety.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

would like to see gun owners learn those new laws too. And the old ones.

There is no benefit to the general public to learn how to seek diversionary programs for a person with mental illness.

You refuse to acknowledge any benefit from training programs, yet you say “training is the answer.” Pick a lane.

My posted article above shows that swimming pools are far more dangerious than guns.

Cost/benefit analysis for guns has nothing to do with swimming pools. If you want to debate the cost/benefit analysis of swimming pools, that would be a different topic.

 

[Dracarys]

The only thing I have against fun ownership is that I don’t believe anyone needs to own any sort of semi-automatic or automatic weapon.

Automatic weapons are Illegal. Semiautomatic just means a cartridge will fire each time you pull the trigger.

 

[Dracarys]

You refuse to acknowledge any benefit from training programs, yet you say “training is the answer.” Pick a lane.

Training for things like room entry, using stairs etc teach techniques so the gun owner is safe. That is more advanced.

If someone wants a carry permit I know they will be taking a mandatory class covering all the things you discussed. If a total newbie is just buying a gun I would suggest a gun safety course given at range. However, I do not trust or recommend a government mandated course.

Cost/benefit analysis for guns has nothing to do with swimming pools. If you want to debate the cost/benefit analysis of swimming pools, that would be a different topic.

That’s a strawman arguement. I did not equate swim pools to cost benefit.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

You refuse to acknowledge any benefit from training programs, yet you say “training is the answer.” Pick a lane.

Training for things like room entry, using stairs etc teach techniques so the gun owner is safe. That is more advanced.

If someone wants a carry permit I know they will be taking a mandatory class covering all the things you discussed. If a total newbie is just buying a gun I would suggest a gun safety course given at range. However, I do not trust or recommend a government mandated course.

Then what if the law mandates that very same gun safety course given at the very same range that you like?

As I said to prayerrider, the purpose of the law is not to protect you from yourself. It is to protect others from you.

Cost/benefit analysis for guns has nothing to do with swimming pools. If you want to debate the cost/benefit analysis of swimming pools, that would be a different topic.

That’s a strawman arguement. I did not equate swim pools to cost benefit.

Then I don’t know why you brought up swimming pools in a debate about the benefits vs the costs of gun ownership.

 

[Dracarys]

You have to have some evidence that they would have died if they didn’t have a gun. And then you have to have enough of them to balance out the people who actually did die because they had guns. That’s how you do a cost/benefit analysis.

When a lifeguard pulls a struggling swimer to safety we say he saved a life. Using your logic unless we absolutely can prove that person would have died unless that lifeguard intervened we can’t count it as a save. Therefore let’s fire all lifeguards. Then let’s eliminate seat belts, because in any given car accident we can’t prove that those seat belts saved any lives. We can surmise, but we will never be certain.

So let’s eliminate air bags, life jackets on boats, flotation devices on airplanes, etc. While we’re at it let’s get rid of all laws that require toys to not have sharp edges, or small objects that a kid can choke on. We can all ditch safety measures because LeafByNiggle has told us that unless one can definitively PROVE that a given person would be dead except for a given safety measure any danger does not exist.

So in the news report I mentioned above where a gun brandished at the site of a carjacking that scared away the attacker does not matter. The tens of thousands of cases reported where gun owners brandished firearms to would be home Invaders does not matter. LeafByNiggle has assured us that because some people commit suicide and some people stupidly make mistakes those of you who saved your life and the lives of your loved ones don’t matter. All of you should be disarmed because LeafByNiggle says you don’t really exist in his world since you are not a recorded statistic as being dead.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

You have to have some evidence that they would have died if they didn’t have a gun. And then you have to have enough of them to balance out the people who actually did die because they had guns. That’s how you do a cost/benefit analysis.

When a lifeguard pulls a struggling swimer to safety we say he saved a life. Using your logic unless we absolutely can prove that person would have died unless that lifeguard intervened we can’t count it as a save.

No, that counts as a save. But all you are doing is pointing to the difficulty of establishing your point - that guns save more lives than they cost. I can’t help it if it is a difficult claim to prove. You are the one who chose to support that claim. If you can’t prove, that is your problem, not mine. I did prove my claim because the people I cited actually did die. I chose a claim that is easy to prove. Don’t blame me for supporting an easy claim.