Gun ownership in this day and age

[Moose]

I’m afraid that most of you anti-ownership sjw’s Are missing the most salient point.
I have a right guaranteed by the 2-A of this nation’s constitution to possess a gun. And I shall.
And neither you nor any government you elect shall change that without absolute chaos in this country.

Now, you may go on arguing this using your mostly sad and scary pointless factoids, but it does not change the above referenced incontrovertible truth.

Until YOU Expend this sort of time, effort and logic changing the evil in the hearts of those individuals who perpetrate murder and mayhem on innocent and, sometimes, unarmed victims you should leave alone those of us who have decided not to allow you to make us victims.

Why don’t you, instead, volunteer at CC or SVdP - they need your kind hearts and good nature.
Leave me and my right to peace and safety alone.

 

[Cruciferi]

Leave me and my right to peace and safety alone.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I’m afraid that most of you anti-ownership sjw’s Are missing the most salient point.

This thread has nothing to do with 2nd amendment. It’s not even strictly about the US. But if you want to talk about 2-A and political chances of this or that, you are welcome to do so. But don’t insist that I join you.

Now, you may go on arguing this using your mostly sad and scary pointless factoids

That’s exactly how I describe gun-lovers stories about dangerous maniacs breaking into homes and and making “rivers of blood and mountains of bones”. (with apologies to Laika) (look it up.)

 

[John10]

It is clear you do not care about facts only about your agenda.

 

[pnewton]

I’m afraid that most of you anti-ownership sjw’s Are missing the most salient point.

You missed a very salient point. This thread started, and is mostly about, whether one should own a gun, not whether or not one has a right to own a gun. One can support the Second Amendment and want nothing to do with guns on grounds of prudence or morality.

Why don’t you, instead, volunteer at CC or SVdP - they need your kind hearts and good nature.

Also, there is a false dichotomy in assuming that anyone here who does not own a gun must somehow not volunteer. One has nothing to do with another. It would be like if I said instead of owning a gun you should wear a tie instead.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Training is not an answer if people do not get the training, and most people do not get that training because it is not mandated.

I disagree. Every gun owner I know is interested in guns and want to learn how to shoot and tacticaly use their gun. Do you have proof that people don’t get training or are you just assuming again?

The accidents I cited above in my list of news articles about accidents happened. And you said “the answer is training.” Well, if training is the answer, those people certainly didn’t get it. And there is this: 30% of American adults say they own a gun. That is more than 75 million people. Do you honestly believe that all 75 million of them attended a safety training class? Since you obviously know a lot of gun owners, just do a poll yourself. Go around an ask them if they have attended a formal gun safety training class. Not just a class on how to shoot straight and get the most out of your gun, but a class that covers the laws and regulations required of gun owners - where they are allowed to shoot, and what measures they are required to take to secure their guns from children. Don’t just assume that everyone is naturally interested in these things and will find them out on their own without a class. If you say training is the answer, put your money where your mouth is and commit to it.

In my state those seeking a carry permit must get training.

A carry permit. But not for a gun that they do not intend to carry around in public.

I think all the accidents I cited above had nothing to do with concealed carry, so the requirement to attend that class (which you oppose anyway) would not have helped the accidents I listed.

You “think” that do you? Well again you ASSUME wrong. If you bothered to even examine the syllabus …

You are barking up the wrong tree. I didn’t say the training courses were inadequate in any way! I said the accidents I listed (way way above now) were not accidents as a result of concealed carry. So any requirements for training classes for concealed carry would not have affected them.

Gun accidents occur for the same reason car accidents occur. People get careless or they have been drinking. That is no reason to punish the other millions of gun owners.

Requiring that everyone with a gun take a gun safety class is not “punishment.” It is what they should be doing anyway.

Do yourself a favor and go and sit down with an emergency room med tech and have that person describe to you all the instances of firearms accidents they have to handle.

I would wager that firearm “accidents” seen in the ER is quite small.

Yeah, much better to sit back and wager what happens in ERs than to actually go an speak to someone.

 

[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.

That’s ridiculous and it’s a limit you created. It is a fact that people defend themselves with guns frequently. The media frequently shows this. Any time someone points a gun at you it’s safe to assume they intend to kill you. The victims don’t and can’t prove to you that they would have died. Actually potential death is not a requirement by law. To use deadly force there must be an immediate clear and present danger to the victim. The assailant does not have to be armed for this to occur. It is highly unchairitable of you to ignore an entire segment of the population who obviously need to defend themselves. You want them ignored, not counted, and thrown under the bus because you don’t see them in your compiled statistics. You should be ashamed.

You can find examples of people who saved their lives by having a gun. I can find examples of people who lost their lives because they had a gun. Neither of those efforts will answer the question of which costs more lives.

You can’t compare responsible free US citizens using firearms to preserve their lives and liberty against evil assailants to citizens who CHOOSE to kill themselves or have accidents when they clean their gun with one in the chamber. The former depend on firearms to preserve their lives . The latter are abusing firearms. Bug dufference.!

certainly trust nationwide statistics more than anecdotes that you select.

I did not select them they just occur. Obviously you don’t care about the weak, handicapped, senior citizens, etc. who fall victim to crime. You have an anti gun agenda and you don’t care if you leave millions of Americans defenseless.

 

[Dracarys]

Do you honestly believe that all 75 million of them attended a safety training class? Since you obviously know a lot of gun owners, just do a poll yourself. Go around an ask them if they have attended a formal gun safety training class. Not just a class on how to shoot straight and get the most out of your gun, but a class that covers the laws and regulations required of gun owners - where they are allowed to shoot, and what measures they are required to take to secure their guns from childre

All the above is covered in any class related to guns. I know you’ll find this hard to believe but most responsible gun owners have enough common sense to know it’s bad to point the gun at a target you don’t intend to destroy.

Yeah, much better to sit back and wager what happens in ERs than to actually go an speak to someone.

I’ve personally spent hours in urban hospital ERs. Most weapon victims are from attacks.

 

[Dracarys]

One can support the Second Amendment and want nothing to do with guns on grounds of prudence or morality.

Are you saying it can be immoral to own or use a gun to defend yourself and/or your family, or the lives of other innocents.?

 

[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.

That’s ridiculous and it’s a limit you created.

I did not create the number of people killed because they had guns. That is just a fact.

It is a fact that people defend themselves with guns frequently.

It is also a fact that people die frequently because of accidents with guns they had.

Any time someone points a gun at you it’s safe to assume they intend to kill you.

I’ve never had anyone point a gun at me, so I guess it does not happen very often. And no, it is not safe to assume that. Most gun-pointing does not end in killing.

It is highly unchairitable of you to ignore an entire segment of the population who obviously need to defend themselves.

Is it not also uncharitable to ignore the larger segment of the population that is killed by having a gun?

You should be ashamed.

Discuss the issues, not the character of other members. That is a rule here.

You can find examples of people who saved their lives by having a gun. I can find examples of people who lost their lives because they had a gun. Neither of those efforts will answer the question of which costs more lives.

You can’t compare responsible free US citizens using firearms to preserve their lives and liberty against evil assailants to citizens who CHOOSE to kill themselves or have accidents when they clean their gun with one in the chamber. The former depend on firearms to preserve their lives . The latter are abusing firearms.

Many of the cases I cited were children who got access to guns because their parents were negligent. The children died. Don’t blame them for abusing firearms. And even if the harm does come to the same person who was negligent, I think we should still care about his fate.

certainly trust nationwide statistics more than anecdotes that you select.

I did not select them they just occur.

Lots of things occur. The things you cited. The things I cited. They all happened. But you only cited the things that support your point. That is selection, and that is why selected anecdotes are unreliable in proving statistical claims.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Do you honestly believe that all 75 million of them attended a safety training class? Since you obviously know a lot of gun owners, just do a poll yourself. Go around an ask them if they have attended a formal gun safety training class. Not just a class on how to shoot straight and get the most out of your gun, but a class that covers the laws and regulations required of gun owners - where they are allowed to shoot, and what measures they are required to take to secure their guns from childre

All the above is covered in any class related to guns. I know you’ll find this hard to believe but most responsible gun owners have enough common sense to know it’s bad to point the gun at a target you don’t intend to destroy.

Things get destroyed that a gun owner did not intend to destroy. It is not at all obvious to me that all gun owners know enough about how to prevent that if they have not taken a formal class in gun safety.

Yeah, much better to sit back and wager what happens in ERs than to actually go an speak to someone.

I’ve personally spent hours in urban hospital ERs. Most weapon victims are from attacks.

Many of those attacks are the result of a dispute between two people where neither one has pure motives. In the case of two people arguing with each other on the street corner, how do you decide which party deserves to have the bigger gun?

 

[Dracarys]

This thread has nothing to do with 2nd amendment. It’s not even strictly about the US. Bu

Who died and left you boss? This thread is about gun use. The second amendment is integral to that. Unless your a moderator stop telling people what to do.

did not create the number of people killed because they had guns. That is just a fact.

Yo do want to exclude those who defend themselves everyday by pointing or brandishing a gun.

is also a fact that people die frequently because of accidents with guns they had.

Your comparing apples to oranges. Accidents and suicides are

preventable. Attacks on citizens like car jackings, muggings, rapes, active shooter attacks can’t always be avoided. They happen.

And no, it is not safe to assume that. Most gun-pointing does not end in killing.

Really? How do you know that? Where is your evidence? Anyone pointing a gun at police is guaranteed to be dealt with using deadly force. Ask any cop.

it not also uncharitable to ignore the larger segment of the population that is killed by having a gun?

Wow just HAVING a gun kills more people? Are these guns growing legs and sneaking into their owners bedrooms to kill them?

Many of the cases I cited were children who got access to guns because their parents were negligent. The

Kids die in swimming pools very frequently too. Blame irresponsible parents not the gun.

Lots of things occur. The things you cited. The things I cited. They all happened. But

But what I cited was people defending themselves from criminals. If you had your way these people would be denied the means of self defense.

 

[Dracarys]

intend to destroy. It is not at all obvious to me that all gun owners know enough about how to prevent that if they have not taken a formal class in gun safety.

As I said people interested in guns do want to learn. However your insistence on formal classes is a false reliance. At the risk of once again offending you I must say your naive.

Many of those attacks are the result of a dispute between two people where neither one has pure motives. In the case of two people arguing with each other on the street corner, how do you decide which party deserves to have the bigger gun?

If a gun is used during an argument then you have a crime. Call the police. There will be a trial to determine guilt. If an innocent person is walking down a street and a violent person commits assaultive behavior against that innocent person we have a far different crime. You do see the dufference?

 

[pnewton]

Are you saying it can be immoral to own or use a gun to defend yourself and/or your family, or the lives of other innocents.?

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

Who died and left you boss?

Really?

 

[Convert3]

1193 posts and still going…

 

[prayerrider]

There are no “accidents” anyway. There is only negligence, which is preventable with proper training and strict adherence to the four cardinal rules of firearm handling (as well as storage, of course)

 

[prayerrider]

And the reasonable tone and rational arguments of the firearms owners here are no doubt largely responsible for that.

 

[Convert3]

It takes two to tango…

 

[prayerrider]

Not “is,” rather “may become.”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There no “accidents” anyway. There is only negligence, which is preventable with proper training and strict adherence to the four cardinal rules of firearm handling (as well as storage, of course)

They are still accidents even if they were the result of negligence. Also, the training you speak of - will you commit to requiring that all gun owners to get that safety training? Training does not do any good unless one gets the training.