The Gun Culture is Somewhat In Denial About Gun Safety.

Post Reply New Topic

umm... do you mean less then 00.00001 percent. or 99.9999 percent don't murder?
cause as i read it less then 99.9999 could mean that 98.9999 do murder. or am I reading it wrong o.O

Less than 00.0001 or so. I forget the exact number, but it shouldn't be hard to do the math.

Her father said she didn't carry the gun for safety. She carried it because they are "gun people" and that's part of it. to me that's just hog wash. Just an excuse to not put safety first. I am of the mind you should have a reason to carry the gun or leave it at home or whatnot.

I should emphasize that this show http://www.rockymountaingunshow.com/ is produced by some of the most strident Utah firearm owners who specialize in antique firearms. In other words, these are the guys who produce and attend the show to buy and sell their various new and old collectible firearms. Several of my Second Amendment friends help organize this show and are state-certified firearm instructors. While all shows in Utah include concealed-firearm permit classes, this one is unique in how it includes hunting and safety classes as well as permit classes.

First there would have to be an actual problem to solve. You’re being upset over one incident (sincere or not) doesn’t just justify the effort.
I could go on and detail several issues with your plan for smart guns or whatever….


“Ethics” is an ambiguous term. Who’s “ethics, there’s or mine?


A gun in the home as in singular? I have lots of them in my home so I must have died several times already.
Your wishful assertions about the NEJM study don’t deserve more of a well thought out reply than this.


I’d like to see what all those 30k deaths included. Lawful defensive shootings by citizens and the police do not count and neither do suicides. The number itself is probably inflated.


It’s none of any doctor’s business what anyone has in their home including guns. I would cease doing business with any doctor over that alone.


Hyperbole. Next you’ll be telling us that the NRA is the world’s largest terrorist organization. Another ant-gunner in this forum has already claimed exactly that in a past thread.


Your country relatives are not the definitive end all of end all. Few of the many people that carry in public make a show of it or go around announcing it. Even though it may be legal to open carry in public most prefer concealed.

To me it's obvious what happened. These people spend too much time thinking about guns than perhaps they need to. You don't have to think about guns all the time and always be around one to be classified as a "gun person."

Anyone who has guns is a gun person.

Anyway, the two year old child saw the parents with guns quite often, probably saw them shooting them, and he being a two year old, couldn't really understand the full implications of picking up a gun, pointing it and pulling the trigger. He had just seen it all around him and whether his parents let him fire a gun for the first time prior to this hasn't been stated.

At that age though, he is way too young to really understand what guns are and what they do. That much is clear.

And as far as always having a gun in your purse, it might not be a good idea because purses are one of the worse places to have a gun due to the fact they are so easy for others besides the owner to get into and that is one of the things gun owners are supposed to avoid, other people taking their weapons.

Just going to respond to 2 things in your post and then I will likely go back to my ignore gun threads policy.

You can look up the study if you want to. It isn't any kind of secret. And trying to paint the NEJM as anything other than a credible source does not paint you in the greatest light.



Then pull up Google and track down the info. I know 3 minutes of your time is something you have trouble sparing, but seriously, it is all public information. Spoiler alert: it does include firearm suicide, but does not actually include deaths at the hands of the police in any realistic way (since it is voluntary self reporting by departments, with many states/precincts being allowed to decide what counts). So yes, those numbers are way way too high to be a claim for any type of "accidental" death.



These state bans on asking about firearms accomplished nothing in favor of gun rights. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. The cases that were presented involved psychiatric patients who were suicidal. The firearms questions were in the same portion of the patient interview as other high risk factors. Firearm confiscation attempts in this country have done more for gun rights than those foolish laws.




I know you think the NRA is the greatest thing ever, but they only represent gun hobbyists and their highest bidders. They even opposed a measure to curtail illegal ivory trading with only a tenuous (at best) connection to ANYTHING firearm related. They consistently support congressional candidates who have no problems privatizing and tearing up some of the best hunting land in the nation. They opposed an individual business owner's decision to sell smart guns that they successfully stopped him without any rational argument at all. They take boatloads of cash from several fossil fuel companies. They are as bad as some of the worst unions in this country: make bold claims about how much they represent and protect you while turning around and focusing the bulk of their time and resources into self promotion and extension of power bases rather than relevant action.

you're right. i misspoke. they were adjusted for, not controlled for.

as for those elsewhere on this thread suggesting my science knowledge is insufficient, i have a bachelor's in biology during which i took statistics and an MD. i have read hundreds of medical articles and can most likely judge much better than you what articles are credible. i have even performed some research (into the potential use of accelerometers to diagnose osteoarthritis). i know a little about research.

i am not a gun expert, but am a good target shooter, so not a no-nothing. i am an ex-NRA member. there was a time when the NRA was for responsible gun ownership. now they just say they are.

as far as doctors asking about guns, it's the same as them asking if you take calcium or wear your seatbelt or smoke. it's a safety issue. they can encourage folks to store guns safely if they have them. they can inform of the risks so a person can make a more informed decision. that is a doctor's job. it is your perfect right to choose a less conscientious physician.

as far as claims of bias, NEJM (the most respected medical journal in the world) has nothing to gain by publishing something showing gun danger. The NRA, on the other hand, has a vested interest and is therefore vulnerable to believing what they want to believe, as we all are.

the appropriate response to biased research is to do research that shows the facts, not to pass laws that stop the potential for more and better information. the only reason to pass laws against research is if you suspect that the facts won't be on your side.

What caused to you leave it?

There is something that seems appealing about hunting and trapping for existence, because you don't have to follow no ones rules. However, actually living like an armed hobo is terrible for a lot of reasons.

they used my money to support one too many backwards politicians.

The idea that every human can hunt and gather their own food in this day and age is simply impossible. We cannot feed ourselves without a lot of farming of some kind.

No, really, take a hard look at the methodology and tell me it's legit with a straight face, I posted a small sample of the problems with it a few posts back.

these confounding factors were taken into account. it's done all the time in medical studies.

just about every day, i get something like this on my facebook page:


http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/videos/ky- ... ght-video/

i do lobby against cigarettes.
and i totally agree that most folks with mental illness should be allowed access to guns. the vast majority of folks affected are not violent.