The Gun Culture is Somewhat In Denial About Gun Safety.

Post Reply New Topic

Aright, please explain to me, Dox47, with all your knowledge and experience on this issue, why every measure to keep weapons out of the hands of dangerous types shouldn't be implemented? That's the part that truly baffles me.

In the US, I currently enjoy fairly broad rights in owning and using firearms. There are people who think this is wrong or a bad idea for any number of reasons, and would like to curtail my rights in various ways in furtherance of their own beliefs. This situation is analogous to a court case in that the party wishing to impose sanctions, the "prosecution" if you will, has the onus to establish their case that the proposed restrictions would actually work, and thus the erosion of my rights is justified.

So, for those of you who favor gun control, the challenge is to present examples of successful gun control programs in action, showing why these measures are necessary and demonstrating that the purpose is really to save lives or prevent violence, not just some vague unease around or dislike of firearms. If you just don't like guns, this isn't the thread for you.

Now, the caveats. The US is awash in guns and has a wide range of socio-economic issues unrelated to guns that affect crime and violence, so in order for a valid comparison to be made, the policy in question has to have been:

• Imposed on a country where gun ownership was previously common.
• Imposed on a country where violence was an actual problem, preferably comparable to the US.
• Be shown to have acted independently of other socio-economic variables
• Shown to have reduced total violence, not just "gun violence" by significant levels

So, Japan, for example, which never had many guns nor much violent crime, would not count.

I'll briefly mention a few commonly proposed gun control schemes and some of my personal objections:

Registration: Only good at catching someone after a crime has been committed, and only in certain narrow circumstances. Has been expensive and ineffective where it has been implemented, e.g. Canada's long gun registration. Also, it has proven effective as a confiscation list for governments passing retroactive restrictions, such as England. Licensing creates similar problems.

Ballistic "fingerprinting": Expensive and ineffective; fails to account for the fact that metal parts erode with use and the "fingerprint" of the gun changes over time. Easily defeated with rudimentary tools as well.

Assault weapons bans: Restricts a class of weapon not commonly used in crime; primary distinction of "assault weapons" are cosmetic features.

Magazine capacity restrictions: Like "assault weapons", not commonly used in crime, a statistically insignificant number of high profile shootings notwithstanding.

Restrictions on concealed carry: Licensed carriers are much more law abiding than baseline citizens; record number of US citizens now carry while crime is at a 30 year low.

Restrictions on the number of guns one can own: US gun sales are at record highs while violent crime is at record lows.

Closing "gun show loophole": There is no such thing, the term was invented by the anti-gun lobby to describe informal sales at garage sales and such. An insignificant number of criminally employed guns come from gun shows.

Confiscation: Would lead to a larger bloodbath than what it was trying to prevent.

Aright, please explain to me, Dox47, with all your knowledge and experience on this issue, why every measure to keep weapons out of the hands of dangerous types shouldn't be implemented? That's the part that truly baffles me.

This debate is hysterically lopsided.

Cars aren't purpose-built for killing people.

I understand the vicarious kicks people get out of believing they decide what and who lives or dies, but that doesn't justify their gambling human lives.

Sure, you can be personally affronted by this because you make your money off instruments of death but that's probably because you're in the happy majority of the U.S. which has never watched anyone die.

The chain reaction between granules in a shell or cartridge isn't really all that different from the mechanics of a thermonuclear warhead. I know of no greater expression of human weakness than the production of machines that kill people just like you.

We could recycle our tremendous investment in weaponry into greater material wealth for everyone and use it to build pretty much anything we want. All that lead would be great radiation shielding for lunar installations where we could source enough helium 3 to power every machine in the world for centuries.

Aright, please explain to me, Dox47, with all your knowledge and experience on this issue, why every measure to keep weapons out of the hands of dangerous types shouldn't be implemented? That's the part that truly baffles me.

Someone brought cars into the argument...look at what you have to go through just to legally operate a car. Now let's take a look at guns. To have one in your home, all you have to do is prove you haven't been committed to a mental institution or are a felon. You aren't supposed to have it in public but you can have a million of the things in your home without any training or education whatsoever.

it is somewhat alarming someone with a concealed weapons permit was walking around with an unsecured firearm in her purse and thinking nothing of it.

it is somewhat alarming someone with a concealed weapons permit was walking around with an unsecured firearm in her purse and thinking nothing of it. If she hadn't been killed, she would have just gone on unless she had a sudden epiphany or something, and perhaps we would hear about how the gun accidentally discharged and killed some stranger and she wouldn't have been charged with any crime.

We had a local case of a woman getting shot by her five year old son and she was in the National Guard so you know she, at least, has access to info about guns and gun safety.

Then there's this lady in Idaho named Veronica Rutledge and here's some more about her:



http://www.khq.com/story/27730567/koote ... at-walmart

She is obviously an educated professional with a concealed weapons permit which means she had to take gun classes. These two women, above all others, should be the most educated about gun safety yet both of them managed to get shot and killed by their own young children. I am thinking the reason this is happening is a disconnect between the gun culture and gun safety. It's the only thing that explains two competent people ending up in these situations.

Both of them were women so model choice could be a factor. Is it certain women who are failing to see they need to secure their handguns?

This really saddens me. When a child loses a parent it's one of the worse traumas and to this happen because of something someone does when they are too young to even remember it. It is going to tear at his heart for the rest of his life. He will never know his Ma. It should never happen.

Members of WP have no interest in gun safety. Discussing firearms safety in WP is like trying to discuss Quantum Physics with a chicken salad sandwich.

Yeah, and millions of people are driving around unsafely and thinking nothing of it, no matter their driver's license.

The only difference is that one is common to most people, so they understand it, and one isn't as common.