The Gun Culture is Somewhat In Denial About Gun Safety.

Post Reply New Topic

Let's keep this about gun safety, please. Heated arguments tend to close threads and I truly believe this thread might raise awareness about gun safety which is my goal.

I hope everyone reading this has their gun in a safe location.

And if anyone has anything to add on gun safety, I would be grateful.

And this isn't intentionally provocative?
Oh, I get it; it's okay as long as you're the one doing it.

About the NRA and racism or whatever; if we're going to hold people's feet to the fire over past transgressions let's not forget that it was the Democrats that wanted to keep blacks enslaved. Does every democrat deserve to have their nose punched?

"The Gun Culture Is Somewhat In Denial About Gun Safety".
Preceding the words "gun safety" you kicked the bees nest with that little dig against the "gun culture", a term that you can't seem to define let alone have any knowledge about.
Again, it was you that started this fire.

This is because I was trying to figure out WHY these events occurred? What was it that caused these two ladies to leave their guns in such places and how widespread is their thinking?

It is simply a matter of attempting to delve into the minds of these two ladies so we can, perhaps, see errors in thinking.

Technically, due to the relative strength of the thumb, a trigger might be too hard for a child to pull if it's pointed at someone else (the child would need enough strength in a finger other than his thumb to fire the gun while it was pointed at someone else. That child could, however, pull that same trigger with his thumb if the gun were pointed at himself.

the purpose of my post was to show that the safest condition is to not have a gun. my mom is a state NRA rifle championship contender and i'm not a bad target shooter. if your pleasure in having a gun outweighs the significantly increased chance of death, by all means have a gun. but don't get a gun for safety. "nothing stops a bad guy with a gun except a good guy with a gun." who's going to stop the good guy with a gun?

my cousin-in-law is a police officer who shot himself in the hand while cleaning his gun. my uncle-in-law committed suicide with a gun. i don't know tons of people, but among those few i know, adverse outcomes with guns happen way too much.

I was referring to the attitude of individuals like yourself. You are arrogant to the point of undermining yourself. You are incapable of having a civil discussion.

You are incapable of seeing this as anything other than a zero-sum game because you lack the moral development.

It is not only possible to virtually eradicate violence in general without touching anyone's guns or reducing people's access to guns, but it can be done more cheaply and more effectively while preserving the current laws. The most cost-effective methods involve targeted law-enforcement initiatives.

Your type are over-reliant on distorted statistics and dubious, discredited studies. Statistically, the laws that are currently on the books are highly effective. An outright gun ban, on the other hand, would simply be a waste of money.

The part that you are not going to like is that the same study explains why Lott's conclusions are faulty: countries where gun crime has never been a problem simply do not have any reason to impose gun bans. Since gun bans really don't have any impact either way, they end up with high violent crime and a lot of frustrated gun enthusiasts...and a lot of money down the crapper.

In the end, reasonable gun laws--like those currently in place--constitute a win-win outcome. Those who want guns, if they follow the law and are generally of sound mind, may have them, but restricting the access of people who have a history of violent behavior helps keep us safe. Far from being a compromise, it is an ideal outcome.

i am having to create another post here because whoever created this system didn't really ponder the idea that some edits might be necessary for clarification, such as situations like the above, where it is unclear whom I am talking about.

I meant to state that the study I linked in my post above suggests that countries with high violent crime, on the other hand, are more likely to enact gun bans. Such bans being essentially either weak or altogether ineffective, they end up with both a serious crime problem and frustrated gun enthusiasts.

Although the Harvard study does not find support for the bans, it does debunk the "deterrence" argument.

Essentially, it supports my own position that guns are not really relevant except where people with a history of violent behavior are involved, and such individuals are not known for their capacity for forethought.

Well, another point is that I consider those people who view themselves as the "good guy with a gun" are pretty dangerous unto themselves. They have this fantasy that they are heroes out of some western, and they see guns as a solution to their problems. How should we expect them to behave when a landlord trying to collect rent becomes the villain in their fantasy?

The only real "good guy with a gun" is someone who has a realistic perception of guns.

There is no "Gun Culture"
There ARE people angry at having their rights and safety threatened for ret*d and paranoiac reasons. It's not limited to guns.

If we are going to assume everyone is a gangstah outlaw then we should just kill everyone and let the next species have a go.

A gun is not going to make you any safer. This is a stupid belief. You think you're tough? The hoodlum mugging you kills people for a living and is a better shot. The best policy is "Do not escalate."

According to the American Journal of Criminal Law, "[y]ou are far more likely to survive violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun."

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts ... uto,88,720

Also, law-enforcement agencies and their officers are advising citizens of their cities to buy guns because the agencies and their officers "can't protect" them:

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/a ... ost-issues

http://www.infowars.com/st-louis-cop-ge ... otect-you/

Last edited by AspieUtah on 03 Jan 2015, 6:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

- A gun can make one very much safer if it makes the threatening bio-unit dead.
- Sure knowledge of a gun present can prevent many "escalations."
- A gun does NOT make one tougher.
- No one "makes a living killing people." except for rare and mythical hitmen, even soldiers do a lot more things than kill people, many never even do that.
- "Hoodlums" will get stopped very quickly, they rarely go 30 years then retire with a gold watch.
- Better shot? BS. Where do they practice?
- The mugging IS the escalation.
- Mugging is stealing valuables, it does not necessarily lead to murder and therefore didn't get to practice shooting.
- Shooting someone that is mugging you is not always the best choice and therefore will not always be chosen.
- "Hoodlums" are not the only threat on this planet.

You are citing a pro-gun think-tank???

I'm going to go and watch Judy Dench.

Yeah, I do think I'm tough.*
I don't carry.
I don't even own a gun.
Month ago two guys did try mugging me and a friend.
I told them to F*uck Off. (so much for "Do not escalate.")
They did, shortly.
They thought I was tough too.*




(*we're probably both wrong)

Hey, Jesus-boy, I found something on Newscientist, and I will find something better when I get done with Judy Dench, sleep, and some Sodomy.

Here.