Revolvers for Everyone!

  • Thread starter Thread starter TinaG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Beau_Ouiville said:
Those are apolitical facts. It is difficult not to know of city children killed in gun accidents.

FRANKTON, Ind. - Police say a central Indiana teenager died in an apparent accidental shooting committed by his older brother. (1/18/10)

NORTH MYRTLE BEACH - Authorities have released the name of a North Myrtle Beach boy killed Friday evening following an accidental shooting. (1/21/10)

PITTSBURGH (KDKA) --A local father charged in connection with his 9-year-old son’s accidental shooting death is back in Pittsburgh today after being found in Vietnam. (1/23/10)
Click to expand...
This is still far less than the 12 per day number I hear thrown around with such emotion by the anit gun crowd.

And, while I agree that even one is a tragedy and worthy of preventing, I believe that some sort of national basic firearms safety and proficiency training (similar to the Switzerland deal where everyone serves a small stint in the military) would greatly reduce these terrible accidents and have far more reaching effect than legislating away the rights of people like me to own guns and teach my kids to responsibly use them. My three year old can recite the 4 rules of gun safety for kiddos from memory… I often catch him singing them while he’s at play… “Stop, dont touch, leave the area, go tell an adult”. My 5 year old knows the grown up rules by heart as well… Treat every gun as if its loaded, never point at anything you dont intend to destroy (kill), be sure of your target and what lies downrange of it, keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.

If more citizens had this kind of training and approach to gun safety I daresay there’d be even fewer accidental shootings than there already are.
 
chriso said:
This is still far less than the 12 per day number I hear thrown around with such emotion by the anit gun crowd.

And, while I agree that even one is a tragedy and worthy of preventing, I believe that some sort of national basic firearms safety and proficiency training (similar to the Switzerland deal where everyone serves a small stint in the military) would greatly reduce these terrible accidents and have far more reaching effect than legislating away the rights of people like me to own guns and teach my kids to responsibly use them. My three year old can recite the 4 rules of gun safety for kiddos from memory… I often catch him singing them while he’s at play… “Stop, dont touch, leave the area, go tell an adult”. My 5 year old knows the grown up rules by heart as well… Treat every gun as if its loaded, never point at anything you dont intend to destroy (kill), be sure of your target and what lies downrange of it, keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.

If more citizens had this kind of training and approach to gun safety I daresay there’d be even fewer accidental shootings than there already are.
Click to expand...
It sounds like you are doing a great job teaching your children about gun safety.

Unfortunately, the government needs an excuse to ban guns in America. Gun safety is the hot button.

.
 
Gun Control
by Ron Paul

Today, gun control makes people demonstrably less safe – as any honest examination of criminal statistics reveals. In his book “More Guns, Less Crime,” scholar John Lott demolishes the myth that gun control reduces crime. On the contrary, Lott shows that cities with strict gun control – like Washington DC – experience higher rates of murder and violent crime. It is no coincidence that violent crime flourishes in the nation’s capital, where the individual’s right to defend himself has been most severely curtailed.

Understand that residents of DC can be convicted of a felony and put in prison simply for having a gun in their home, even if they live in a very dangerous neighborhood. The DC gun ban is no joke, and the legal challenges to the ban are not simply academic exercises. People’s lives and safety are at stake.

Gun control historically serves as a gateway to tyranny. Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government.

March 13, 2007

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
Do you see where you were wrong about children and gun accidents?

By the way, my babysitter’s son was killed by accident. No crime was involved.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry to hear of the tragic loss of life so close to you. No disrespect intended, but I’m a volunteer firefighter and our chief of training saved his daughter and sons lives with his handgun.

I still believe that firearms save far more innocent lives than those that are taken by accident.
 
TinaG said:
This is a premise that I heard and I thought worthy of debate. I tend to lean against it because it sounds absurd.

The premise is that we would have a much safer country and a much more polite society if everyone was required to wear a loaded sidearm at all times.

One side seems to think people are capable of rational behavior and this would help us control ourselves. It would eliminate a number of crimes, particularly those in which a weapon is used as a means of exerting power over others.

The other side seems to think there would be a perpetual bloodbath.

What do you think? Why?

-Tina “Presently Unarmed” G:)
Click to expand...
I once heard someone say that you could get rid of a lot of traffic accidents if you replace the airbags in cars with a long blade sticking out of the stearing column. The premis being that people would have an obvious reminder about the results of bad driving instead of thinking they are immune from harm when driving in their vehicles.

I have also heard several people say they are much more polite themselves when armed because they know that an argument that got out of hand could put them in a possition where they were forced to use the weapon. Of course that would probably only refer to law abiding citizens, criminals may feel empowered to be more aggressive when armed or as part of a gang.
 
royal_archer said:
I once heard someone say that you could get rid of a lot of traffic accidents if you replace the airbags in cars with a long blade sticking out of the stearing column. The premis being that people would have an obvious reminder about the results of bad driving instead of thinking they are immune from harm when driving in their vehicles.

QUOTE]

Airbags are a MORAL HAZARD. Auto Insurance is also a moral hazard. We would not follow the car in front of us so closely if there were no auto insurance to bail us out if we got into an accident.
Click to expand...
 
Seat belts are also not all that they are cracked up to be. While they can reduce the chance in injury in head-ons and roll-overs. Those type of accidents account for less than half of all accidents and in all oher type of accidents, wearing a seat belt can actually make an injury worse.
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
Do you see where you were wrong about children and gun accidents?

By the way, my babysitter’s son was killed by accident. No crime was involved.
Click to expand...
I don’t see where I was wrong because I wasn’t wrong.

I’m sorry to hear about your babysitter’s son but that is no excuse to infringe upon the duty that civilized society has to protect itself with firearms (as they are the most advanced and effective means we have).

Someone who lives in Chicago ought to know that.
royal_archer said:
I have also heard several people say they are much more polite themselves when armed because they know that an argument that got out of hand could put them in a possition where they were forced to use the weapon. Of course that would probably only refer to law abiding citizens, criminals may feel empowered to be more aggressive when armed or as part of a gang.
Click to expand...
Simply visit an area where criminal activity is high and gun control is strict. Our own nation’s capital used to be the best example of this; gun control was pretty much absolute in that a normal citizen could not own a gun for almost any reason, yet criminal violence (both with and without guns) was sky-high. Even the Supreme Court saw how wrong this was (took them long enough, though) and overturned the DC gun ban.

I suppose gang violence and criminal behavior will just have to increase before more people see the forest for the trees.
 
Lycorth said:
I don’t see where I was wrong because I wasn’t wrong.

I’m sorry to hear about your babysitter’s son but that is no excuse to infringe upon the duty that civilized society has to protect itself with firearms (as they are the most advanced and effective means we have).

Someone who lives in Chicago ought to know that.
Click to expand...
You said you had lived in cities for decades and never heard of a child accidentally killed with a gun. That is highly unlikely.

Firearms are not the be-all and end-all of family protection. I don’t consider them the ‘most advanced method.’ As shown, a dog will prevent a break-in but a firearm will not. A dog will confine his attacks to a felon but a handgun round can penetrate a house from one end to another, hitting kids in between. My first boss had his daughter killed by her husband. He was cleaning a handgun and did not eject a round in the chamber and killed his wife in the next room, the bullet penetrating the drywall. A shotgun is better for home protection, but still can have unintended victims.

Plus, the question of what is legally an infringement on the right to bear arms is a political question which has been discussed *ad nauseum.
  • Folks in Chicago know that the US Supreme Court is currently considering who may not infringe and the extent of allowable infringement.
Lycorth said:
Simply visit an area where criminal activity is high and gun control is strict. Our own nation’s capital used to be the best example of this; gun control was pretty much absolute in that a normal citizen could not own a gun for almost any reason, yet criminal violence (both with and without guns) was sky-high. Even the Supreme Court saw how wrong this was (took them long enough, though) and overturned the DC gun ban.
Click to expand...
Heller really had little to do with the amount of crime in DC. The NRA really has taken to heart one of the lessons of the civil rights era: “Choose your litigants carefully.” You knew that Rosa Parks was not the first person to challenge the segregated seating in Montgomery in the fifties, right?

Now, the NRA in the McDonald case says, in brief, that the litigant lives in a ‘high crime area’. Actually, the guy lives in one of the lower crime areas of the city, but the brief is trying to make an emotional case.
Lycorth said:
I suppose gang violence and criminal behavior will just have to increase before more people see the forest for the trees.
Click to expand...
Well, that is irrelevant.
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
You said you had lived in cities for decades and never heard of a child accidentally killed with a gun. That is highly unlikely.

Firearms are not the be-all and end-all of family protection. I don’t consider them the ‘most advanced method.’ As shown, a dog will prevent a break-in but a firearm will not. A dog will confine his attacks to a felon but a handgun round can penetrate a house from one end to another, hitting kids in between. My first boss had his daughter killed by her husband. He was cleaning a handgun and did not eject a round in the chamber and killed his wife in the next room, the bullet penetrating the drywall. A shotgun is better for home protection, but still can have unintended victims.
Click to expand...
Realy, dogs only attack fellons? What about all of those kids killed by dog attacks. Besides have you ever watched Dog Whisperer it is amazing how quickly a vicious dog will listen to a trained person. Besides, dogs are easily killed by criminals. Yes a dog’s barking can be a deterent but so can the cycling of a pump action shotgun. Some dog’s are also good at sensing intruders before they break in. This early detection is great for giving you time to grap your gun. Likewise alarm systems are good if you have the power to back them up. However dogs and alarm systems alone just make a lot of noise and let the criminals know they have limmited time to steal, murder, and kidnap.
 
royal_archer said:
Realy, dogs only attack fellons? What about all of those kids killed by dog attacks. Besides have you ever watched Dog Whisperer it is amazing how quickly a vicious dog will listen to a trained person. Besides, dogs are easily killed by criminals. Yes a dog’s barking can be a deterent but so can the cycling of a pump action shotgun. Some dog’s are also good at sensing intruders before they break in. This early detection is great for giving you time to grap your gun. Likewise alarm systems are good if you have the power to back them up. However dogs and alarm systems alone just make a lot of noise and let the criminals know they have limmited time to steal, murder, and kidnap.
Click to expand...
Yes, many innocent children and adults are viciously atacked, terrorised and killed by dogs.
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
A shotgun is better for home protection
Click to expand...
If somebody breaks into my home, my FIRST priority is to ensure that ALL of my family is safe. That means getting everyone into the same room. Mostlikely the master bedroom. I can maneuver down hallways, around corners and past doorways much more effectively with a handgun than with a shotgun or rifle. A rifle or shotgun is too easy to grab.The last thing that I want is to find myself in a struggle with an attacker.
 
Sir_Knight said:
If somebody breaks into my home, my FIRST priority is to ensure that ALL of my family is safe. That means getting everyone into the same room. Mostlikely the master bedroom. I can maneuver down hallways, around corners and past doorways much more effectively with a handgun than with a shotgun or rifle. A rifle or shotgun is too easy to grab.The last thing that I want is to find myself in a struggle with an attacker.
Click to expand...
I’m sure that the “the cycling of a pump action shotgun” as stated earlier will not only act as a deterrent, but will send them running for the hills.
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
If you use a dog or a handgun to protect your home, which deadly force would be only confined to the person breaking in?
Click to expand...
The dog will be preocupied with only the first person breaking in. My gun will address the first 5 intruders.
 
gamewell45 said:
I’m sure that the “the cycling of a pump action shotgun” as stated earlier will not only act as a deterrent, but will send them running for the hills.
Click to expand...
Chambering a round in a 45 has much the same effect but not quite as loud.
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
As shown, a dog will prevent a break-in but a firearm will not. A dog will confine his attacks to a felon but a handgun round can penetrate a house from one end to another, hitting kids in between.
Click to expand...
Our landloard has rules against pets, so I’ve got little other alternative other than my guns. We had a kid a couple blocks away who got killed by a guard dog only a few months ago. They finally rounded up a neighbor with a gun to kill the dog so they could get the “by then” dead kid loose from him. I did hear of an accidental shooting in a village several hundred miles away earlier in the fall so I cant say I havent heard of such things, but this was much closer to home as far as I’m concerned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top