Boy shoots his brother

[Michael]

Somehow the answer to this will be "more guns". Sigh.

Accidental gun shootings are, unfortunately, common and 100% avoidable, just like other accidents with anything you want to mention: swimming pools, cars, snow skiing, etc. There are also some less common stories of very young children grabbing their parents' car keys left "loaded" on the kitchen table and the kid going for a joy ride.



I remember a Vice President of the USA who accidentally shot someone so bad that the victim apologized for getting shot. When that same VP launched illegal wars in the Middle East, did any of you demand to restrict his guns then? That VP is a psychopath on a murder spree with a body count in the hundreds of thousands, not to mention the current psychopath in chief, who holds a meeting every week to write up a new kill list. Do you want to restrict his guns? Will restricting the president's clip size end those wars?



The message of gun restriction being advocated now is that the great majority of people, who have committed no crimes, can not be trusted with the basic technology of guns because of the potential for accidents, even though the results of their mistakes are not remotely comparable to the outright crimes already committed, and currently being committed, by those you trust with this simple tool, as well as much more potentially dangerous technology.

[Steve James]

did any of you demand to restrict his guns then?

Cheney was using birdshot. Nobody's suggested restricting shotguns or hunting.

The message of gun restriction being advocated now is that the great majority of people, who have committed no crimes, can not be trusted with the basic technology of guns because of the potential for accidents,

That wasn't quite the argument made here, especially not by me. Rather, the point was that having the weapon didn't decrease the likelihood of anyone being killed in the home. The argument made by "gun advocates" is that more guns make everywhere and everyone "more" safe. Not only can't that be shown, it can be shown that homes without guns have fewer gun accidents. Yep, they still have fires, etc., and kids do manage to get their hands on things they shouldn't.

Just because there are car accidents, that doesn't imply that if everyone drove the roads would be safer. Licensing and insuring might not prevent accidents either. As Graham pointed out, often the typical response to gun violence is that more guns would improve the situation.

Who says we trust Cheney anyway? or that we agree with his war policies. Besides, if that's your serious argument, then we should be trying to restrict the current administration's use of weaponry (pretty sophisticated weaponry at that) as well as restrict other uses of weapons. It seems strange to use Cheney's mistake as an argument for gun ownership.

It's funny, though. Go to an "inner city" neighborhood in NYC, Chicago, LA, etc., and you'll find that many people are turning in guns. Go figure.

[Steve James]

What year does the cartoon cover? I only ask about the date because, iirc, 20 children were killed in the Newtown shooting. Anyway, it's ironic. It might to some that hammers are more dangerous than AR-15s. I'm sure that it wasn't meant to suggest that we should restrict cars, hand guns and hammers before looking at ARs. Well, when it describes deaths from bare hands, one could say that every weapon requires a human hand to operate. Also, I'd say that drunk driving and auto accidents should simply be combine.

Anyway, I'm sure that you'd feel much safer if everyone you knew were armed.

[Michael]

??? Cheney was using birdshot. Nobody's suggested restricting shotguns or hunting.

Why aren't they suggesting to restrict massive, actual killers like Cheney and Obama instead of potential, miniscule accidental injurers or killers in the general population who have no background to suggest they are a specific risk?

The message of gun restriction being advocated now is that the great majority of people, who have committed no crimes, can not be trusted with the basic technology of guns because of the potential for accidents,

Who says we trust Cheney anyway? or that we agree with his war policies.

Restrictions on gun rights or availability and use of weapons has only been directed at "the people" and not at government sanctioned use, that kills more.

[Steve James]

Why aren't they suggesting to restrict massive, actual killers like Cheney and Obama instead of potential, miniscule accidental injurers or killers in the general population who have no background to suggest they are a specific risk?

Ya mean, why aren't people complaining about the war, drone strikes etc? Where have you been?

Restrictions on gun rights or availability and use of weapons has only been directed at "the people" and not at government sanctioned use, that kills more.

Frankly, this line of thought is not worth the time.

[Michael]

What year does the cartoon cover? I only ask about the date because, iirc, 20 children were killed in the Newtown shooting.

I don't know for which years the average is taken. Seems to jibe with yearly stats of the past decade.

Anyway, I'm sure that you'd feel much safer if everyone you knew were armed.

I do feel safer, or more comfortable in general, around people who are competent and skilled at something, whether they are drivers, cyclists, outdoorsmen, or gun nuts. There's nothing I hate more than being around a bunch of people who don't know what they're doing and don't take adequate precautions. I feel perfectly safe around people who are skilled with weapons, including safety measures, and have the mental focus and moral character to carry that responsibility.

I do think that if a significant percentage of people in society were properly trained in fighting with weapons, including safety measures and the full spectrum of knowledge needed for that responsibility, that there would be less violent crime of the physical kind. It's obvious that depending on the authorities to deal with it is not only hit and miss, but those so-called authorities are often responsible for the roots of the violence, e.g. improper methods of drug restriction that create high price and increased demand, as well as aiding the importation of the drugs and sellers who create a lot of the violence.

[Steve James]

I don't know for which years the average is taken. Seems to jibe with yearly stats of the past decade.

So, it's propaganda. It can be used as evidence because it's just vague.

I do feel safer, or more comfortable in general, around people who are competent and skilled at something, whether they are drivers

Yeah, right. As if you know who's skilled and who ain't. As if most of the people you vaguely refer to are trained, skilled or even careful. So, saying that you feel safer around people who are skilled with weapons is just bs. Who doesn't feel more comfortable with trained people? That wasn't the question anyway. Since you can't tell who's skilled and who's not, by looking anyway, the question was about people with guns in general in your home or around your wife and kids, if you had any.

And, nope, I can't tell who is trained and who isn't either. So, I don't trust anyone in my home who is armed. That's kind of a rule. I assume, if he's armed, that he's not careful, that his weapon is loaded, and that he might be a fool. For me, that's basic gun safety for the home.

[Michael]

If you think my answer is bs, I think it's because of where you put your focus. I answered your questions like a real person, not like someone who plays games most of the time.

[Steve James]

If you think my answer is bs, I think it's because of where you put your focus. I answered your questions like a real person, not like someone who plays games most of the time.

Either that's more bs or you really don't see that you simply deflect questions, not answer them like a "real person." I asked how you would feel about guns in your home or around your children (hint: check the thread title), but your response is that it's ok if the people who have them are trained. Personally, since I am a parent, I expect people to recognize the problem. Anyway, maybe we have different povs because there's there is little chance that there will be people with guns in your house or schools around your children. See, for me, it's not a game at all; it's not academic, and the points are not moot. It makes a "real" difference to me.

Afa arguing that I play games, that's game. A while back I think you mentioned something about push hands and "tricks," iirc. Well, ime, good push hands is the opposite of using tricks. Anyway, in this case, my argument comes from the heart. So, I won't be bringing up any connection between the thread topic and larger conspiracies to disarm the people so they may be enslaved.

[Michael]

If we both assert sincerity, then there's just some kind of recurring disconnect.

Don't blame me if we're off the thread title, I was talking to Graham, and previously to Craig and Greg on other threads, when you decided to, IMO, misinterpret me.

FWIW, I think we are in agreement about gun safety. To clarify what i said before, when I see someone in action with a gun, or a motor vehicle, or a bicycle, or a computer, I immediately know something about the person's skill I'm observing, especially regarding safety measures. I do not say this with the intention to deflect your question about feeling safe around people who are packing heat, I say it to *fully* answer your question by anticipating what I thought would be a kind of follow up. If you need me to just say yes and no, I can slow down to crawling speed so the conversation can continue without collisions.

I thought my response included a clear answer to your rather obvious question. I feel fine around people with weapons if they know what they're doing. How do I know if they're capable? The point is you can't know the potential skill or trustworthiness of other people without observation in context, which is very limited to one person's experience. There is risk. Some advocate licensing to have children, all to prevent risk. Do we want a risk-free society?

I do not negate your statements about assuming anyone with a gun is a danger until you have verified otherwise. This is part of the overall debate about accidents with guns that I am attempting to enlarge into an examination of accidents with other tools in order to demonstrate that it is fundamental problem of human nature and not limited to guns. This probably goes without saying, but if so, why all this hand wringing about guns in particular?

Most people learn by trial and error and do not take the time to develop sufficient basic skill and safety practices before "going live", whether it's behind the wheel, on the shooting range, or the first time they lose their training wheels. This is human nature. So, do we ban bikes, pools, horse riding, snowboarding AND guns, or just guns? The damn shame is that unlike driving or many other activities, you can learn everything you need to know about keeping a gun safe (when it is not in active use) in a matter of hours. I don't blame the guns because the owners fail on something as easy as this.

It would be easy to demonstrate how poor most people's driving skills are, both in regards to safety measures, ability to physically control of vehicle, mechanical knowledge relating to tires and brakes, and the statistics back this up with thousands of avoidable deaths. Do we ban or restrict cars? If you got the cash, you can have any go-fast machine you want, don't even need a license to purchase it.

There's a recent story from D.C. about an 11 y.o. kid was being mauled by 3 pit bulls. Neighbor shot one dog, cop shot another two. The kid got hit in the foot. So do we ban dogs or feet? Doesn't matter, they're probably going to prosecute the neighbor for illegal gun ownership.

[Steve James]

Hey, like I said, it wasn't a complicated question. You can bring up all the other issues you want. I don't understand why you haven't pointed out that most people die in the home from accidents, and that I think we should ban bath tubs or banana peels. The issue was gun safety. I don't think we agree because I have no clue what you mean by safe or who you think is qualified. Shucks, I agree with the NRA about safety of guns in homes. I forget when you entered the thread. Iirc, I posted about children and guns in the home before you posted. Maybe you should ask some of the parents on the board how they handle it. I can only speak for myself.

[Steve James]

OK, simpler still, Graham wrote:

Somehow the answer to this will be "more guns". Sigh.

That's in reference to the article that was posted. So, I agree with Graham that "more guns" is exactly what some people will advocate (as a way to secure their children). All I've said is that "more guns" never equals "more safe" when it comes to children and the home. You and anyone else are free to disagree.

[Michael]

All I've said is that "more guns" never equals "more safe" when it comes to children and the home. You and anyone else are free to disagree.

I have always agreed with you on this point. Things could be different if people learned and practiced basic gun safety, but human nature says no. I think that CCW licensing is showing how this can be improved. I wonder about accidental shooting rates for homes with guns back when kids took their guns to school, and presumably learned safety like drivers education.

The thing I don't go along with is someone else who said that if there are more guns there will be more accidents. This is true in the same way that if there are more people there will be more accidents with increased exposure to banana peels and bathtubs. Should we all get sterilized to prevent future accidents?

The focusing on gun accidents in the middle of the gun control debate is to say that they pose an unnecessary risk, which is avoiding the origin of the necessity of guns to deal with risk, and greater still ignoring the risk in life, the universe, and everything.

[Steve James]

I have always agreed with you on this point.

Then that's it. The "gun debate" in general doesn't mean much to me.

The focusing on gun accidents in the middle of the gun control debate is to say that they pose an unnecessary risk,

"In the middle"? Naw, accidents and misuse are at the center of the "Gun Safety" debate. We are not arguing because there have been no accidents or abuses, are we?

which is avoiding the origin of the necessity of guns to deal with risk,

You have no business talking about the "necessity of guns to deal with risk." Who "needs" guns, iyo?

and greater still ignoring the risk in life, the universe, and everything.

Pig intestines. It's got nothing to do with the universe, and it's a joke to say that people are arguing against unrestricted gun ownership because they are not concerned about "life." It's Orwellian: "Guns for peace." I've heard the argument before. Now, which side of the fence is Cheney on in this debate again??

[Michael]

No point talking with you when you know enough to tell me what's my business or what isn't. I'd appreciate if you let others respond to posts when directed at them. But I don't know, maybe Graham wants the person who told him that women are stronger and faster athletes than men to speak for him.