or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Positions on Guns in America
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Positions on Guns in America - Page 7

Poll Results: How do you feel about guns in the US? (click all that apply)

Poll expired: May 12, 2007 This is a multiple choice poll
  • 19% (38)
    It is too easy to buy a gun in the US.
  • 3% (6)
    The proper systems are in place to control guns.
  • 6% (12)
    Gun control laws already go too far.
  • 7% (15)
    Guns save lives.
  • 14% (28)
    Guns are dangerous and should be strictly controlled.
  • 10% (21)
    Guns are a menace and should be banned.
  • 4% (9)
    The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct (assuming it allows possession).
  • 13% (26)
    The 2nd Amendment is out of touch with modern America (assuming the same)
  • 3% (7)
    College student should have the right to protect themselves with guns
  • 17% (34)
    College campuses are no place for weapons
196 Total Votes  
post #241 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Nowhere have I ever stated that "everyone" should have a gun. It is a matter of personal choice and not being in the NICS system. That's all.

You said, in effect, "more guns = less crime." That is even more ridiculous, IMO, than "less guns = less crime."
post #242 of 367
Personally, I'm torn on the issue. Living in a relatively high crime area with a handgun ban (meaning the gang members and other criminals are armed but victims unaffiliated with gangs aren't), I don't have the delusion that many gun advocates have about the risk of an innocent, non-gang member being shot during a crime. Even in a high crime area, the risk is so extremely low it's virtually nonexistent.

On one hand, I believe (but don't know) that more yuppies with handguns would result in fewer muggings. However, I also know that the people committing the crimes don't care about life or their safety very much, and if they have a gun they would like to be given an excuse to use it. Therefore, it seems very likely that an increase in the number of handguns victims have will almost certainly result in attacker/innocent victim shootings that currently just don't ever happen (seriously, like never).

While I lean toward fewer gun controls and would like to have a handgun again myself, I can't stand gun advocates. Take this quote from an almost identical PO thread (seriously, same people even) 2 1/2 years ago:
Quote:
When somebody comes at you with a gun, there's a fair chance that you're going to be killed.

This is just complete and utter shit and is a clear indication that this person has virtually no experience with living in a high or moderately high crime area. But those are the kinds of things that rabid gun advocates believe and it's what makes them come across as so clueless.
post #243 of 367
The question being: if you remove all threats to the criminal, will they still act in the same way? No they won't. We are caught arguing about a deterrence that I believe is there, and most of you do not. The criminal has the same self-preservation instinct that most people have, and there is absolutely no real threat in attacking a person you know to be unarmed. Its a field day, you understand...
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #244 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

You said, in effect, "more guns = less crime." That is even more ridiculous, IMO, than "less guns = less crime."

Nope. Your inference is wrong. More guns in the right hands = less crime. Just passing out guns is ridiculous, and I think you'll find that very very few people actually advocate no gun control at all. Don't put extremist words in my mouth.

Keep mental cases and felons from getting guns, and maintain the right of the rest of us to protect ourselves as we see fit for our situation.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #245 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

The question being: if you remove all threats to the criminal, will they still act in the same way? No they won't. We are caught arguing about a deterrence that I believe is there

I totally and completely disagree wrt to violence itself. Random violence is more of a concern for someone who is big and intimidating.

Like I said, I believe that more guns might reduce muggings, but muggings very, very rarely result in violence. In about half of cases I've read about or know about (a grad school project partner of mine was even mugged last night 2 blocks from my house, and muggings occur here on at least a weekly basis), the mugger doesn't even get anything and runs away. So if victims being armed results in fewer nonviolent muggings, but also results in shootings that wouldn't otherwise have occured, is it a good thing?
post #246 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Keep mental cases and felons from getting guns, and maintain the right of the rest of us to protect ourselves as we see fit for our situation.

What of the gun owners who become 'mental cases' or 'felons'?

I say we arm the bears, elk, deer, geese, pheasants, and other assorted wildlife who live each and every day in fear of being shot! They're innocent bystanders, too!
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
post #247 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiopollution View Post

What of the gun owners who become 'mental cases' or 'felons'?

It is already illegal for those people to have guns. Do we make it double-secret illegal to let them know we are serious? Again, we need to ENFORCE THE FSCKING LAWS before we go looking to make silly, useless new ones.

Quote:
I say we arm the bears, elk, deer, geese, pheasants, and other assorted wildlife who live each and every day in fear of being shot! They're innocent bystanders, too!

I agree about arming wildlife. It would make hunting much more fun. I've almost quit it because of the boredom and my love of watching wild creatures.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #248 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

It is already illegal for those people to have guns. Do we make it double-secret illegal to let them know we are serious? Again, we need to ENFORCE THE FSCKING LAWS before we go looking to make silly, useless new ones.

Yes, it's already illegal (though to uncertain success) for them to own a gun. What I'm being an asshole about are those legitimate gun owners who go off the deep end.

For example:

Sane Joe is a fine upstanding citizen. Coincidentally, he is also a mail carrier. Sane Joe buys a gun to hunt rabbits on the weekend. Rabbit stew is enjoyed occasionally for quite some period of time. One day, Sane Joe gets laid off work because the Post Office is in a budget crunch. Joe is livid! Joe's not so Sane any more. Out comes the gun and ...

I guess we need guns to protect us from the folk who want to protect themselves, too, in those cases.

Good thing I'm a kung-fu master who can pinch bullets out of the air.
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
post #249 of 367
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
post #250 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiopollution View Post

Yes, it's already illegal (though to uncertain success) for them to own a gun. What I'm being an asshole about are those legitimate gun owners who go off the deep end.

For example:

Sane Joe is a fine upstanding citizen. Coincidentally, he is also a mail carrier. Sane Joe buys a gun to hunt rabbits on the weekend. Rabbit stew is enjoyed occasionally for quite some period of time. One day, Sane Joe gets laid off work because the Post Office is in a budget crunch. Joe is livid! Joe's not so Sane any more. Out comes the gun and ...

I guess we need guns to protect us from the folk who want to protect themselves, too, in those cases.

Good thing I'm a kung-fu master who can pinch bullets out of the air.

While I bow to your clearly superior and mighty kung-fu abilities, what is to stop Joe if he wants to (in his crazy haze) steal a gun, buy a machete, or drive his truck filled with fertilizer into the same post office? Until we eliminate crazies, we are not going to eliminate acts of craziness. We can only hope that they will be short and someone will be able to stop the craziness in process.
Until we are all robots controlled by the government or religion, people are going to do everything from litter to kill other people. Antisocial and murderous behaviour is a common thread throughout history... the way it is stopped is by those who are not crazy being able to effectively stop the insanity.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #251 of 367
Follow-up to my Sane Joe tale:

If we posit that Sane Joe was already at risk of becoming Insane Joe when he legitimately purchased his gun (or in fact was Insane Joe all along, and he hadn't had an experience that triggered this change in behaviour) then who is to blame in these cases? (Not that I'm looking for someone to blame, other than Insane Joe ... I'm just curious what you think.)

Is it unreasonable to submit to some form of mental health exam prior to a gun purchase?

Obviously, you can't ask someone if they're purchasing a gun for illegitimate needs and expect an honest answer. Nor can you ask someone if they're sane.
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
post #252 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiopollution View Post

Obviously, you can't ask someone if they're purchasing a gun for illegitimate needs and expect an honest answer. Nor can you ask someone if they're sane.

Wouldn't that be profiling? And profiling is bad, right?

The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. Putting the government in the shrink's chair and the People on the couch is a very Orwellian thought to be sure.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #253 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

While I bow to your clearly superior and mighty kung-fu abilities, what is to stop Joe if he wants to (in his crazy haze) steal a gun, buy a machete, or drive his truck filled with fertilizer into the same post office?

Progress!

Here's an extension of this position:

is a man intending to carry out a crime more likely to arm himself with a gun if he suspects that his intended victim may be armed?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #254 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Wouldn't that be profiling? And profiling is bad, right?

The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. Putting the government in the shrink's chair and the People on the couch is a very Orwellian thought to be sure.

Yes, fellow Prole.
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
post #255 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Progress!

Here's an extension of this position:

is a man intending to carry out a crime more likely to arm himself with a gun if he suspects that his intended victim may be armed?

Ask Halle Berry... extensions never come out as good as the real thing...

To answer your worthwhile question... No, he is going to get a gun because it is provides the ability to use whatever force (including deadly) that is necessary to accomplish his task. He's going to use a gun anyway. Why not, if you are going to be a criminal, be a criminal with the best chance of success?

"Bring enough gun" as it were. \

Heck, if he were attacking audiopollution, not knowing about his Kung Fu skills, do ya think he might make SURE that he has enough force to overwhelm ANY contingent threat? Of course he will.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #256 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Ask Halle Berry... extensions never come out as good as the real thing...

To answer your worthwhile question... No, he is going to get a gun because it is provides the ability to use whatever force (including deadly) that is necessary to accomplish his task. He's going to use a gun anyway. Why not, if you are going to be a criminal, be a criminal with the best chance of success?

"Bring enough gun" as it were. \

Heck, if he were attacking audiopollution, not knowing about his Kung Fu skills, do ya think he might make SURE that he has enough force to overwhelm ANY contingent threat? Of course he will.

But as you pointed out, why not a machete? Or a truckload of fertilizer? Or a board with a nail in it.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #257 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

But as you pointed out, why not a machete? Or a truckload of fertilizer? Or a board with a nail in it.

... because my skills extend beyond bullet-catching.

I look forward to the day that my bike ride to work will resemble a John Woo film. Exciting stuff, indeed.
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
post #258 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

To answer your worthwhile question... No, he is going to get a gun because it is provides the ability to use whatever force (including deadly) that is necessary to accomplish his task.

Jubelum, that's just simply not the way the world works. Each person's reasons for and path to committing a crime are different than the next person's. Muggers most certainly DO NOT use guns in most cases. Fuck, they don't even usually have knives, even if they sometimes pretend they do. In urban areas, guys with guns generally are into other, gang-related criminal activities, not attacking or even bothering with random people.

Muggings certainly happen with guns from time to time, but the attacker virtually never intends to use the gun. If someone robs someone with a gun, it's usually because they need quick cash, already have the gun lying around for other reasons and realize they can use it to quickly and effortlessly get the money and take off.
post #259 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by giant View Post

Jubelum, that's just simply not the way the world works. Each person's reasons for and path to committing a crime are different than the next person's. Muggers most certainly DO NOT use guns in most cases. Fuck, they don't even usually have knives, even if they sometimes pretend they do. In urban areas, guys with guns generally are into other, gang-related criminal activities, not attacking or even bothering with random people.

Muggings certainly happen with guns from time to time, but attacker virtually never intends to use the gun. If someone robs someone with a gun, it's usually because they need quick cash and know that with a gun they can quickly get the money and take off.

I know how the world works, giant. My world, indeed that of my family as well, was saved because I had a gun in the right situation. So lecturing me on "how the world works" when I have experienced "how the world works" make you look daft.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #260 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

But as you pointed out, why not a machete? Or a truckload of fertilizer? Or a board with a nail in it.

Wether you use a pocket knife or a .45, it is still armed robbery. What is the difference to the criminal... they are going to use a less powerful tool because it is less illegal? ('cause it's not...)
They are going to select the tool that gives them the best chance of success. That instrument is a gun, no matter how they have to get it.

All of this is silly talk. Criminals do not obey laws- not even your silly laws on guns. Only the good guys do. A disarmed populace is a personal safety plan for a violent criminal.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #261 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

I know how the world works, giant. My world, indeed that of my family as well, was saved because I had a gun in the right situation. So lecturing me on "how the world works" when I have experienced "how the world works" make you look daft.

Yeah, we've heard about your single incident. Going through one extreme incident and thinking about it repeatedly after the fact is also likely why your view is shaped more by your inferences and emotion than by living with ongoing experience characterized by both breadth and depth.
post #262 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by giant View Post

Yeah, we've heard about your single incident. Going through one extreme incident and thinking about it repeatedly after the fact is also likely why your view is shaped more by your inferences and emotion than by living with ongoing experience characterized by both breadth and depth.

Trauma changes people, Mr. Smug. You are no better a person because you have not had to deal with "real life" in a certain way. Sooooo take that "I'm better than you because of (imagined) breadth and depth and shove it diiiiiii-rectly....."

You have no idea the number of people I have worked with who have been in the same situation, those that have had to kill people, et al. Don't pretend that you "get it all" just because you think yourself more enlightened than those around you.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #263 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Trauma changes people

I mention breadth and depth for a reason. "Trauma." The fact that you assume it's foreign to others betrays how unusual of a situation it is in your environment.
Quote:
You have no idea the number of people I have worked with who have been in the same situation, those that have had to kill people, et al.

I find that very hard to believe. Situations where someone needs to actually kill another person are extremely rare, even when surrounded by violence and crime.
post #264 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by giant View Post

Situations where someone needs to actually kill another person are extremely rare, even when surrounded by violence and crime.

I dunno, giant (and welcome back!). I can think of a few times on these boards....
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #265 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Or a board with a nail in it.

Quote:
That board with a nail in it may have defeated us. But the humans won't stop there. They'll make bigger boards and bigger nails, and soon, they will make a board with a nail so big, it will destroy them all!

In seriousness, guns do make killing easier and more impersonal, all you do is point and squeeze from a distance. Swords, knives, baseball bats and boards with nails all require you to get up close and personal with the killee. Not only does this put the killer in physical danger, it results in greater exposure to the grim realities of violent death: spurting arterial blood, loosened bowels, cries of agony...
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #266 of 367
iPoster: I was hoping someone would get that joke.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #267 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by giant View Post

I mention breadth and depth for a reason. "Trauma." The fact that you assume it's foreign to others betrays how unusual of a situation it is in your environment.

Listen, buster, you are the one who came up with the "how the world works" thing, not me. The spot where some of us live is foreign to you. I don't expect you to understand from your hallowed perch. "assume"? It is OBVIOUSLY foreign to you!

Quote:
Quote:
I find that very hard to believe. Situations where someone needs to actually kill another person are extremely rare, even when surrounded by violence and crime.

Since you missed it, I am an instructor for personal defense with a firearm and yes, I deal with people who have justifiably used guns in anger both on the street and the battlefield. Many of which are military and law enforcement, other are just average people. Some of them do exactly what I do on a daily basis professionally. Almost all of them spend years and years in therapy. Its serious business, you see...
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #268 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I can think of a few times on these boards....

Oh, stop it and go put your head back together.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #269 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Sorry, most of us are not giving up our guns for your utopian "common good" argument. Don't want a gun? Don't buy one. Guns save lives. My life, specifically.

And there you go.

Selfishness. Your picture in the dictionary. And your entire motivation for supoprting gun rights.

Option 1) Less guns = More robberies (acording to your theory) and fewer killings.
Option 2) More guns = More killings, and fewer robberies.

It's a simple choice for anyone with the slightest modicum of empathy for our fellow humans.

You obviously consider the VT dead to be collateral damage in the war against gun control. I'm sure the dead's families will hold a special place in their heart for you.
post #270 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And there you go.

Oh man. It's a pathos-off!

I'll see your saved life and raise you one 8 year old who found a gun in the house and killed his 4 year old brother.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #271 of 367
Perhaps I've got a compromise.

You gun freaks always use innocent women being assaulted or stalked in your hypothetical scenarios.

What about if gun sales for self-defense were restricted to women?

I could see many advantages to such an arrangement.

1) You allow guns to legally be in the hands of those who you clearly believe to be most in need of self-protection.

2) You make it harder for those who clearly are much more dangerous with a gun in their hand, i.e. the men.

Whatdy'a say.

How much does anyone gues the answer will be "no"...
post #272 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And there you go.

Selfishness. Your picture in the dictionary. And your entire motivation for supoprting gun rights.

Option 1) Less guns = More robberies (acording to your theory) and fewer killings.
Option 2) More guns = More killings, and fewer robberies.

It's a simple choice for anyone with the slightest modicum of empathy for our fellow humans.

You obviously consider the VT dead to be collateral damage in the war against gun control. I'm sure the dead's families will hold a special place in their heart for you.

Selfishness? To want a means to live when threatened with death?
Well, OK then. Guilty as charged. Are you happy with your fantasy moral high ground?

I have empathy for innocents that are targets of senseless crime. Why don't you?

and finally... How dare you sir, to try and make personal use of the VTech tragedy to try to score some cheap bullshit point on a faceless message board. I'm sure the families appreciate that as well... I guess those dead are just collateral damage in your quest to show that victim disarmament actually works? I have not the time for your brand of cheap-shot demagoguery. I spend more time that you ever will teaching firearm safety, teaching school kids on my own time about the dangers of guns, and work tirelessly to see to it that those who have guns handle them responsibly. So here YOU go- FUCK YOU. What the hell have you done to help the problem besides advocate that we all be disarmed, open to more and larger Virginia Techs?

GUN CONTROL DID NOT STOP VIRGINIA TECH... in fact, YOUR side's bullshit "gun-free zone" condemned many to death that could have been saved. Just like the rest of these shooting galleries they call "gun free zones." Cho appreciated that assurance. Gun control is a simplistic, knee-jerk reaction. It does not work because you are passing laws to control people who do not care about law... criminals.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #273 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

...one 8 year old who found a gun in the house and killed his 4 year old brother.

I expect you to join NRA so that this can be stopped. Hell, I'll even pay for your membership. In the past 19 years, the NRA has taught the Eddie Eagle safety program to over 20 million school children. Far more education than any other organization, including the Coalition to Stop Handgun Violence, the Brady Center, and the VPC. They can't hold a candle to what WE, the eeevil gun owners have done to keep kids away from guns.

Read more here, if you dare.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #274 of 367
Thread Starter 
How dare you, sir (???), suggest that the VT shooting could have turned out differently had the stduents been armed. You were not there. You do not know the circumstances. You do not know the layout of the building. You do not know how much or little training any of the students might have had. You do not know if any of them would have had the control to actually kill another human being, regardless of how ruthless he was behaving. You do not know if, in the process of stopping Cho, John shot Mary, too, killing her, thus compounding an already horrific situation. Heard of friendly fire? It happens and it is difficult to live with. You also do not know that one of them had not had a bad night the night before and became the shooter himself, all trianed and ready kill per your desire to protect.

About the Eddie program... great promo stunt. Kids learn about the dangers of drinking, smoking and srewing around, but they still do all those things.

http://www.kidsandguns.org/study/fact_file.asp

As they quote other sources, I will quote them:

Every nine hours a child or teen was killed in a firearm-related accident or suicide in 2002.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics, "Deaths: Final Data for 2002." NVSR Volume 53, Number 5. 116 pp. (PHS) 2005-1120 .
Annual Totals (2002, 0-19 year-olds): Accidents=167, Suicides=828. (2002 is the most recent data available.)
On average, 4 children died every day in non-homicide firearm incidents from 1999-2002.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics, 1999-2002.
From 1997-2002, more than 1,324 children were killed in firearm accidents.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics, 1997-2002.
In 2004, there were 13,846 kids injured by a firearm -- and an additional 15,214 kids were injured from BB or pellet guns.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, "National Electronic Injury Surveillance System All Injury Program," 2002.
On average during each of the last 10 years (1993-2002), 1,213 kids committed suicide with a firearm each year; more than 135 each year were kids under 15-years-old.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics, 1993-1998, 1999-2002.
The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children aged less than 15 years was nearly 12 times higher than among children in 25 other industrialized countries combined.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 46(05): 101-105, February 07, 1997.

1.69 million kids 18 and under in the United States are living with loaded and unlocked household firearms.

Okoro et al., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Prevalence of Household Firearms and Firearm-Storage Practices in the 50 States and the District of Columbia: Findings From the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2002," September 2005.
In 30% of handgun-owning households, the handgun was stored unlocked and loaded at the time of the survey.

National Institute of Justice, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," May 1997. PDF files require Adobe Acrobat Reader.
28% of gun-owning households with children do not always keep guns locked in a secure place.

Peter Hart Research Associates, "Americans’ Attitudes on Children’s Access to Guns: A National Poll for Common Sense about Kids and Guns," July 1999.
Of gun-owning households with children, one quarter only "occasionally" lock and store the bullets in a separate place from the gun.

Peter Hart Research Associates, "Americans’ Attitudes on Children’s Access to Guns: A National Poll for Common Sense about Kids and Guns," July 1999.
Among homes with children and firearms, 40% had at least one unlocked firearm and 13% kept their unlocked firearm loaded or stored with ammunition.

The RAND Corporation, "Guns in the Family: Firearm Storage Patterns in U.S. Homes with Children," March 2001, an analysis of the 1994 National Health Interview Survey and Year 2000 objectives supplement. Also published as Schuster et al., "Firearm Storage Patterns in U.S. Homes with Children," American Journal of Public Health 90(4): 588-594, April 2000.
48% of gun-owning households with children do not regularly make sure that guns are equipped with child safety or other trigger locks.

Peter Hart Research Associates, "Americans’ Attitudes on Children’s Access to Guns: A National Poll for Common Sense about Kids and Guns," July 1999.
Only 39% of homes with children and firearms keep their firearm locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition.

The RAND Corporation, "Guns in the Family: Firearm Storage Patterns in U.S. Homes with Children," March 2001, an analysis of the 1994 National Health Interview Survey and Year 2000 objectives supplement. Also published as Schuster et al., "Firearm Storage Patterns in U.S. Homes with Children," American Journal of Public Health 90(4): 588-594, April 2000.

And there is a lot more. This is pretty scary.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #275 of 367
Promo stunt. Sure. Tell my wife that with how much I am gone these days. I don't call 20 million kids educated a promo stunt... but what the hell. There is no convincing you of a damn thing. Your mind is made up. So is mine.

I'll say again, what the hell are you doing to actually try to reduce these deaths? I mean, besides trying to throw out part of the Constitution? Are you teaching gun safety classes to kids? Are you volunteering time to hand out gun locks? Anything at all besides screaming "take em all away..." ?

I thought so.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #276 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Promo stunt. Sure. Tell my wife that with how much I am gone these days. I don't call 20 million kids educated a promo stunt... but what the hell. There is no convincing you of a damn thing. Your mind is made up. So is mine.

I'll say again, what the hell are you doing to actually try to reduce these deaths? I mean, besides trying to throw out part of the Constitution? Are you teaching gun safety classes to kids? Are you volunteering time to hand out gun locks? Anything at all besides screaming "take em all away..." ?

I thought so.

YOU tell your fife why you are gone so much.
There is no need to go through all that safety, locks, etc.

No Guns = No Problems.
MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
post #277 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by 100mph View Post

YOU tell your fife why you are gone so much.
There is no need to go through all that safety, locks, etc.

I told my fife, but all it does is whistle back...


Let me give you a non-simplistic hand here...

Quote:
No Guns in the Wrong Hands = No Problems.
No Guns in the Right Hands = Open Season.

Glad I could help. And by the way, there is a *little* issue of a Constitution here, but meh, who cares? Why let a little thing like that pesky "rule of law" and "Bill of Rights" get in the way. You are acting just like Bush.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #278 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

hallowed perch.

Oh, Jubelum, it's nothing like that. This is not a competition.

The statements you are making about guns and criminals and attacks on random people are just wrong. With muggings, it's uncommon for it to escalate to a punch, and having it escalate beyond that is very rare. In crimes where the victim is innocent and random, the attacker rarely employs a gun with the intention to use it. It's typically just an intimidation tool to provide an advantage in order to get what they want with less trouble.

And not every criminal has a gun. Guns are a status symbol and not as readily available to petty criminals.

Not only do I recognize the impulse to take a limited set of extreme experiences and apply it to others, I even do it myself. Due to extreme events in my past, I refuse to enter the nice, tree-lined neighborhood to my south in which many of my friends live unless I can have tight control over the circumstances. I do, however, recognize that my reaction to that area is not entirely rational.

I do feel that I have a set of experiences that give me good perspective on the issue. On an immediate level, I live in an area populated by professionals and families, making it a target for criminals from neighboring areas. In addition, I've also been on the other side and have an intimate understanding of how that muggers, gang members and drug dealers think and how muggers view and approach people that they victimize.

I recognize that you will take what I say, discard it and continue on, and there's nothing I can do about that. It highlights my original point, however, that it's unfortunate that many gun advocates are so rabid because it distorts the debate. The irrationality of rabid gun advocates is a central part of the reason that people like me who would like our local handgun ban lifted have no chance of it happening. Many people who live in these settings just can't take you guys seriously.
Quote:
Many of which are military and law enforcement,

Then it makes sense, then. However, you should be able to recognize that their experiences are going to be of a far different character than what most people experience.
post #279 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Selfishness? To want a means to live when threatened with death?

You see. There you go. You're once again being intellectually dishonest by ignoring the FACT that you wouldn't be threatened with death if the criminal thought you didn't have a gun. You'd lose your wallet, and almost NEVER your life.

Not to mention that yes -- although some criminals might still have access to guns, most would not. And you might be threatened with a knife instead.
post #280 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

How dare you, sir (???), suggest that the VT shooting could have turned out differently had the stduents been armed. You were not there. You do not know the circumstances. You do not know the layout of the building. You do not know how much or little training any of the students might have had. You do not know if any of them would have had the control to actually kill another human being, regardless of how ruthless he was behaving. You do not know if, in the process of stopping Cho, John shot Mary, too, killing her, thus compounding an already horrific situation.

Even if John accidentally killed Mary before stopping Cho, how is that not preferable to Cho killing both of them and ten others after that?

Not to mention that even in the extreme situation, Mary's risk of getting hit by John isn't all that big. Even smaller is her risk of getting killed by John. (A quick googling found ratios such as 1:5 of lethal bullet wounds to nonlethal bullet wounds - on a Croatian battlefield, shooters being soldiers actively trying to score the best hit they can - unlike John who isn't trying to hit Mary at all.)

It would seem you have no idea of what the dynamics of a physical conflict are and how to survive one. Please don't take that as ad hominem. It's surprisingly difficult to develop that understanding (as opposed to regurgitating what other people say, or knowing a bunch of trivia). "Learning by doing" is out of the question because the cost is too high. There's research you can read, there's the knowledge of those who have "been there", and then there's emulating and "mock up" of physical training. Even reaching conscious incompetence, and having a real basis for discussing things, takes work. For me it took several years.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Positions on Guns in America