Hi, how you've been? I hope that all of you are fine and well. :azn:
I don't pretend to offend you and I don't know everything about gun control laws of U.S.A., but I've been watching news about incidents with guns in the United States, and I've been thinking: is there really a serious problem or it's just the media? the last one was about a little girl who killed a gun instructor with a sub-machine gun, and maybe it's just an isolated case and the press is just giving it much attention or not, I don't know, but do you think there should be new laws about gun control? more strict ones I mean? I mean surely every country have gun related crimes, and I've heard that the problem is worse in some places than others, like Los Angeles, but it could be just an stereotype, but maybe people could compromise and reach a middle point? right?
So, what are your thoughts?
Yes, there really is a very serious problem with guns, they kill too easy, and with poverty on the increase, the ability to make large sums of money selling and producing drugs when jobs are not available, gangs, crooked police and politicians, it can only get worse. Also, over population also contributes to the problem, in fact it may be the mother of all the problems we have. And religion isn't helping with the ignorant, "just say no," and saying, "birth control is wrong," and the idiotic Quiver Society. Solitary
It is not "the media." If anything, the media is failing in its duty to report the true scope of the problem.
No, the problem is quite simply that there are too many fucking morons walking around with guns.
Here's a list of 100 incidents.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/17/1312237/-100-GunFAILs-GunFAIL-LXXVII (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/17/1312237/-100-GunFAILs-GunFAIL-LXXVII)
Read it and weep.
Holy crap! I guess that answers the question. Thanks for the info! Solitary
Yes, there really is a problem. (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013/09/19/u-s-has-more-guns-and-gun-deaths-than-any-other-country-study-finds/)
For some, what seems like large numbers of gun deaths, a hundred here, a hundred there, are insignificant based on the entire population, and falls well within acceptable parameters considering the overwhelming personal safety guns provide. When you're in a mall or a bar, when some guy starts looking at you funny, it's just not worth being short on guns. For others, one senseless gun accident, or killing by a drunk spouse, is one death too many. For the rest of us, we're just glad to make it to our sunset years without being the victim of an armed robbery or stray bullet in a culture gone berserk. We count it as a blessing.
Quote from: Rob4you on August 30, 2014, 11:53:11 PM
Hi, how you've been? I hope that all of you are fine and well. :azn:
I don't pretend to offend you and I don't know everything about gun control laws of U.S.A., but I've been watching news about incidents with guns in the United States, and I've been thinking: is there really a serious problem or it's just the media? the last one was about a little girl who killed a gun instructor with a sub-machine gun, and maybe it's just an isolated case and the press is just giving it much attention or not, I don't know, but do you think there should be new laws about gun control? more strict ones I mean? I mean surely every country have gun related crimes, and I've heard that the problem is worse in some places than others, like Los Angeles, but it could be just an stereotype, but maybe people could compromise and reach a middle point? right?
So, what are your thoughts?
This is such a hot button topic that it becomes difficult to figure out who is telling the whole truth. There are tons of studies and statistics that exist. And nearly everyone will skew whatever numbers they can if doing so will lend favor to their particular argument. So its tough to know who to believe exactly.
And this is especially true of the american news media because at the end of the day, they're all for-profit enterprises which need an audience in order to sell their advertising and make their budgets work. This is also true of the non-profit public radio type media. They all need to keep and/or grow their audience or their business' go away. So you, me and everyone else will claim that what we really want is an unbias news source that we can trust yada yada yada. But the sales figures don't lie, and some of the things that sell news best are blood and fear.
Any pilot will tell you that off airport landings in small single engine aircraft are not at all uncommon. They happen all the time and most are without incident or injury. But if there's video of it happening? Or even if there's just video of the plane on the ground after the fact with unharmed people standing nearby, that will be the big story on the six o clock news in every market within 1000 miles of the event. There might have been 12 multi car pile ups on the interstates that day within that 1000 mile radius with multiple injuries and or deaths but those accidents won't be reported on at all. The top story will be PILOT NARROWLY ESCAPES DEATH IN FRIGHTENING PLANE CRASH!!!! Sure the pilot wasn't injured and sure the 'crashed' plane didn't have a scratch on it, but that won't stop the media from cashing in on the story. That kind of shit happens every single day.
So needless to say when this very same news media reports that gun violence is out of control, its kind of hard to know whether you can believe them or not. Here's what I do know. The US government's own bureau of justice statistics has reported that gun related violence has declined between 1993 and 2011. http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?iid=4616&ty=pbdetail (http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?iid=4616&ty=pbdetail) Now that's not to say that there isn't still a problem or that there's no need for better gun laws. But figuring out what the exact problem is or what truly effective laws would be is a problem that requires a level of knowledge and intelligence which far exceeds what can be found in just about anyone who is stupid enough to try to run for public office.
I just heard about this from the amazing atheist. I'm not really sure whether or not the instructor was doing something wrong, because all of the ranges that I've been to have dividers in between each space which I think is bullet proof. But To be honest I don't think a 9 year old girl should be firing an UZI. It would be one thing if it was a 9mm pistol, and even at that point 9 years old is still probably a bit young. I can't believe that I live in a country where you must be 18 to vote, 21 to drink, and 16 to drive, but only 9 to fire a machine gun, good ol' Murica
My thoughts on all this:
The younger you teach kids the proper way to use a gun the better. You need to take the "mystery" away from it, I grew up in Detroit and it wasn't uncommon for a kid to come out and show off his dads handgun or something like that. It was good that I was taught at a young age how to check and see if its loaded. This also allowed me to show the other idiots around me how to check it and handle it in a safe way.
When you get a kid who has never been around them they will be way more impressed and want to "play" with it, but will not know the safe way to go about this. Now I agree that the 9 year old shooting the instructor is horrible but unfortunately accidents do happen. Iam sure if you look hard enough you can find accidents like this with almost anything.
If a kid accidentally stabs someone you don't try to outlaw knives. If a kid grabs the car keys and accidentally starts it and hits something you don't outlaw cars. Yet for some reason anytime a accident happens with a gun people scream that we need to get rid of them.
Gun laws just take guns away from law abiding people, its rare to find a case where some one with a CPL/CCW misuses a gun or uses it in a crime. Its always someone who shouldn't have had the gun in the first place. So you can try to convince yourself that making laws on guns will make them harder to get, but the reality is that it will just make it harder for lawful people to get them. The criminals and gangsters will still be able to get them with no problem but now they will know that anywhere they go they will be the only people to have them. This will just encourage more crime and more innocent people getting hurt or worse.
In conclusion or to sum it up: Gun laws don't work. They just take guns out of the hands of people who should have them and take away peoples ability to protect themselves.
Thank you,
PureEvil
I don't buy the "for your protection" nonsense. The chances of you being able to get your gun that is hopefully in a safe and locked place and operate it flawlessly under stress are extremely unlikely. By the time you realize that your house or whatever has been broken in to you are almost certainly too late.
I'm on my cell phone so I'll look later, but I have watched studies showing what people are capable of with a gun while being in a situation of high stress and unpredictability... The results were not good.
People like guns because they like to shoot at stuff for fun... This protection argument is weak at best.
You'll be more likely to blow your own head off than you will protect yourself using your weapon.
The protection issue is very true, there was a case in the small town iam in now where a kid broke in and tried to rob the place. The owner grabbed his gun when he heard something and went to check on it. When he did the guy robbing the place shot him, but the owner was able to shoot the robber as well. Both lived and due to the robbers injures he had to go to the hospital where he was caught and is now sitting in jail with a 15 year sentence.
Here is a good site for lots of cases where people use guns to protect themselves, there family, and property: http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx (http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx)
The problem is that the news rarely covers these cases and only seems to like to cover the cases where guns are used for the wrong reasons.
I personally have a CPL and always carry my gun on me. Most people have no idea that I have it and like most people that are like me we like to keep it that way. I look at it this way: I would rather have it and not need it, then need it and not have it.
As far as having guns just for target shooting, competitions, or hunting I agree that a lot of people have them just for that purpose and there is nothing wrong with that either. Again these are people who have a hobby, are legal law abiding citizens, and enjoy having and shooting guns. There is no reason to deny them the right to do this.
Quote from: wolf39us on September 02, 2014, 12:57:15 AM
I don't buy the "for your protection" nonsense. The chances of you being able to get your gun that is hopefully in a safe and locked place and operate it flawlessly under stress are extremely unlikely.
Biometric safes are cheap and readily available and they allow you to keep a firearm safely locked up where no one but you can get to it and yet allow you to have access to it in under 10 seconds. My cell phone charges on the kitchen counter every night. We don't have a land line phone. I don't have a handgun because I don't have a need for one where I live. But if I did, I'd have it in a finger print safe in my night stand and if that were the case, I'd be able to have my hands on it WAY sooner than I could get to a phone, call the police, wait for 20 minutes or more for one of the two on duty LEO's to get from where they are to where I am.
Does that guarantee I could then take down an armed intruder or otherwise get through the situation safely? Nope. But at the same time you have to admit the thought of bringing a cell phone to gun fight doesn't exactly instill confidence. At least it doesn't for me.
The safe is only one small bit. Studies show that you are significantly more likely to be shot while in possession of a firearm than while not.
I really don't think the numbers favor the defense argument. Most people want a gun because they want to be able to shoot targets and pretend to feel protected. In reality a gun will put you in significant more danger.
Yes I'm sure there are cases of successful defense but I don't think the risks outweigh any sort of protection that you might think you have.
I've been a shooter and owner since 1964. I hold a federal firearms license. I currently own "a few" guns, mostly antiques, some of which are capable of full automatic.
I would never, ever, let a 9 yo rock-and-roll.
I also believe there are far too many guns in this country.
Quote from: wolf39us on September 02, 2014, 07:53:22 AM
The safe is only one small bit. Studies show that you are significantly more likely to be shot while in possession of a firearm than while not.
I really don't think the numbers favor the defense argument. Most people want a gun because they want to be able to shoot targets and pretend to feel protected. In reality a gun will put you in significant more danger.
Yes I'm sure there are cases of successful defense but I don't think the risks outweigh any sort of protection that you might think you have.
The only successful "defense" with a firearm would be show that you are willing to use it. Many people buy firearms but wouldn't have the cojones to shoot someone even if it meant saving their own lives.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 02, 2014, 08:05:12 AM
The only successful "defense" with a firearm would be show that you are willing to use it. Many people buy firearms but wouldn't have the cojones to shoot someone even if it meant saving their own lives.
Which can all be thrown out the window once any attacker decides to come right in. You're stressed, scared, and are not about to start thinking too clearly.
The gun enthusiasts that I know do not keep their guns in safes for safety reasons. They use safes to prevent possible theft. In fact, most keep at least one gun loaded and in the open for easy access in case their home should be invaded. There seems to be a divide between gun owner talk, and gun owner behavior. Everyone knows the NRA talking points, which are cherry picked for political appeal. Then there is reality, which doesn't necessarily reflect the talking points.
It makes no sense to keep all your guns locked in safes, if your main reason for having guns is self defense.
Quote from: SGOS on September 02, 2014, 08:12:41 AM
The gun enthusiasts that I know do not keep their guns in safes for safety reasons. They use safes to prevent possible theft. In fact, most keep at least one gun loaded and in the open for easy access in case their home should be invaded. There seems to be a divide between gun owner talk, and gun owner behavior. Everyone knows the NRA talking points, which are cherry picked for political appeal. Then there is reality, which doesn't necessarily reflect the talking points.
It makes no sense to keep all your guns locked in safes, if your main reason for having guns is self defense.
Which is fine and dandy, until other people are in your home... especially kids.
Quote from: PureEvil on September 02, 2014, 01:14:30 AM
The protection issue is very true, there was a case in the small town iam in now where a kid broke in and tried to rob the place. The owner grabbed his gun when he heard something and went to check on it. When he did the guy robbing the place shot him, but the owner was able to shoot the robber as well. Both lived and due to the robbers injures he had to go to the hospital where he was caught and is now sitting in jail with a 15 year sentence.
Here is a good site for lots of cases where people use guns to protect themselves, there family, and property: http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx (http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx)
The problem is that the news rarely covers these cases and only seems to like to cover the cases where guns are used for the wrong reasons.
I feel this attitude is the root of the problem. Some people live in fear and want to protect themselves from other people-- understandable. However Americans in particular have adopted the idea that the best way to protect oneself is with a lethal response, preferably a gun. A gun is a great way to protect yourself if you don't mind killing people. Unfortunately for me, and I'm apparently the only American who feels this way, I believe killing people is almost always a bad outcome. I would never own a handgun because I don't want to shoot people. I'm not saying I could never kill anyone, I know I could, and that is why when I am in my rational mind I make a conscious decision not to have a lethal weapon available when I am in a panicked, fight-or-flight situation when my primitive brain overrides my frontal cortex. Just like I know not to buy cookies during the day because I won't be able to resist them at night, I don't buy a lethal weapon when I am calm because I know I might use it when I am panicked. If I was afraid for my safety I would take non-lethal precautions like investing in home security, buying a Taser, pepper spray and such.
I was at a Christmas party and people were talking about guns and if you shoot someone who comes to your door be sure to bring their corpse inside to avoid legal complications. Everyone was totally serious and completely okay with killing someone who threatened you on your property. I'm sitting their thinking "really? Like there are no other options in this scenario?" Of course these people are all Christians, so they don't share my values, but it was still very disturbing.
I don't think gun laws are going to help as long as people believe that shooting someone who threatens you is an appropriate response.
(http://static.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/MjAxMi00NDIxODAyMzc4MzVhM2M2.png)
I keep a 12 gauge shotgun as my home protection. I load it with bean bag rounds. Simple and non lethal(mostly). If needs be the 4th round(the last I keep loaded) is a deer slug. If 3 bean bag rounds don't change your mind about being in my home without my permission then I can safely assume that you mean me or mine harm and I shoot to kill.
Quote from: Moralnihilist on September 02, 2014, 02:11:20 PM
I keep a 12 gauge shotgun as my home protection. I load it with bean bag rounds. Simple and non lethal(mostly). If needs be the 4th round(the last I keep loaded) is a deer slug. If 3 bean bag rounds don't change your mind about being in my home without my permission then I can safely assume that you mean me or mine harm and I shoot to kill.
That's an interesting method LOL
Quote from: Moralnihilist on September 02, 2014, 02:11:20 PM
I keep a 12 gauge shotgun as my home protection. I load it with bean bag rounds. Simple and non lethal(mostly). If needs be the 4th round(the last I keep loaded) is a deer slug. If 3 bean bag rounds don't change your mind about being in my home without my permission then I can safely assume that you mean me or mine harm and I shoot to kill.
I rather like that, actually.
That is the way to go! :super: Solitary
Quote from: wolf39us on September 02, 2014, 07:53:22 AM
The safe is only one small bit. Studies show that you are significantly more likely to be shot while in possession of a firearm than while not.
Studies also show you are significantly more likely to be in a plane crash if you learn to fly airplanes. Didn't stop me from learning to fly nor did it stop me from flying for a living. And yet, here I am still kicking. Must be a miracle that I survived I guess because according to the statistics, I should have been dead long ago. Statistics don't always tell the whole story nor do they always tell the true story.
Quote from: wolf39us on September 02, 2014, 08:07:11 AM
Which can all be thrown out the window once any attacker decides to come right in. You're stressed, scared, and are not about to start thinking too clearly.
Nah, I eleven katanas stashed around the house. Krook-ka-bobs anyone?
Quote from: wolf39us on September 02, 2014, 07:53:22 AM
The safe is only one small bit. Studies show that you are significantly more likely to be shot while in possession of a firearm than while not.
Most of those are suicides though so that data isn't as telling as it seems. Not that guns are any less dangerous because it makes suicide easier but it's not criminals overtaking you and using your gun against you.
Also we are really talking about handguns.
The self defense argument by the NRA seems to be the most popular of the arguments. I find that odd. I have owned several guns over the years, but my reason was for hunting. I never really thought about someone invading my home. I know it could happen, but the home defense argument strikes me as exaggerated paranoia.
I was a member of the NRA for a short time. The idea of a group for hunting enthusiasts, even just plain gun enthusiasts, seemed like a reasonable idea. But that's not the image of the NRA. It's more like a group of fanatics that have lost perspective and see guns as a replacement for ordinary conflict resolution. I tend to think they represent the gun industry more than gun owners. That's not what I wanted from the NRA and I quit. They bugged me to rejoin for years. I told them why I was no longer interested, but they kept calling, and calling, and calling. I actually, wondered if I would have to file a restraining order. That was before they had don't call laws.
I saw the links of Hydra and Minimalist, and it seems that there is a problem, but as Johan said it becomes difficult to figure out who is telling the whole truth. :confused2:
But I think that even if there isn't a huge problem still there is a problem, because I think it's a bit strange that in the U.S.A. you must be 18 to vote, 21 to drink, and 16 to drive, but only 9 to fire a machine gun? :confused2: I think the instructor and / or the gun school should not let kids that young learn to use a gun, btw which is the minimum age according to the Law?
IMHO if you really have to teach your kids to use a gun, at least the kid should use something smaller, not automatic, maybe one of those hunt rifles with only 1 bullet and manual reload...
Anyway, thanks for commenting :smile2:
There really isn't a minimum age to fire a gun legally. There are common sense "rules" to age limits. But as we all know common sense is no longer common.
In regards to the whole teaching kids to shoot guns "issue", IF done properly and responsibly, can be a great parent child bonding thing. As an adult, you most likely won't like the same music, cars, movies, or whatever as your child. However if both of you enjoy target shooting, that can be a point to start up conversations or whatever it is parents are supposed to do with their kids(no kids here). And lets be honest, a box or 2 of .22's is cheap for a parent child thing.
I know its anecdotal, but, I still remember my first bullseye. I had been shooting for 3 years, my father would only let me shoot using iron sights(no scope), but the sense of accomplishment I got when I finally hit that bullseye at full range length was amazing(to a 12 year old). Its memories like that that remind me that even though my father is a right wing looney at times he still cared for me and did the best he could for us as a family.
Quote from: Rob4you on September 04, 2014, 03:20:49 AM
But I think that even if there isn't a huge problem still there is a problem, because I think it's a bit strange that in the U.S.A. you must be 18 to vote, 21 to drink, and 16 to drive, but only 9 to fire a machine gun? :confused2: I think the instructor and / or the gun school should not let kids that young learn to use a gun, btw which is the minimum age according to the Law?
While I get what you're saying, I think it should be pointed out that you're sort of comparing apples to oranges a bit here. It true that you must be 18 to vote, no getting around that. But everything else? You need to be 21 to buy alcohol. But different states have different laws on the age you must be in order to consume alcohol and in many cases, those laws only apply to consumption in public places. In the privacy of your own home there is no minimum legal limit on the consumption of alcohol. Indeed I went to school with a few kids who had wine with dinner every night from the age of 12 on because that's what their family did. Same with driving. You have to be 16 to drive on public roads. On your own property? It is not unusual at all for 9 year olds to drive pickups on their farms around here. In fact its not unusual at all to see 12 and 14 year olds driving HUGE farm tractors on the local roads here. Perfectly legal. In some states 13 and 14 year olds can also drive pickup trucks on public roads so long as they're driving in conjunction with doing farm work.
The point is with many things, legal age limits don't apply to all situations. And so it is with guns as well. In many states, there is no age limit for firing a gun. Being the registered owner of the gun is a different story in most cases, but firing a gun has no age limit.
I agree with you that allowing such a young person to handle a weapon capable of fully automatic firing is beyond stupid. But its not something that is regulated by law. Now we could probably stamp our feet and yell that there should be such a law and maybe we'd be right. But at the same time this might well be one of those situations where the realities of liability will end up solving the problem all on its own.
Gun clubs and shooting ranges generally have insurance. Often, the insurance policies dictate as many of the organizations rules and regulations as state and federal laws do. If the law suits start flying, this gun range and most others may quickly find themselves in a position where they have to impose minimum age limits for shooters or find themselves uninsured.
Now I have no idea whether or not that will happen, but I think its at least plausible that it might. And I say that as a gun owner who believes gun should be strongly regulated by law. But I also say that as someone who believes that pointless, ineffective and/or redundant laws are something we need less of.
Depends on your point of view, I suppose. Violent crime has been in decline for decades and the percentage of households where guns are owned is down by about a third since the 1960s, though there tend to be more guns per household that has them these days. So is it worse than it used to be? Not necessarily. Our war on drugs likely drives much gun violence, but those incidents rarely make national news.
I feel like people should have guns in case the government needed to be overthrown. Maybe I'm just being naive, and I understand how powerful modern US weapon systems are, but it would be better than nothing.
Quote from: ParaGoomba Slayer on September 06, 2014, 12:13:56 AM
I feel like people should have guns in case the government needed to be overthrown. Maybe I'm just being naive, and I understand how powerful modern US weapon systems are, but it would be better than nothing.
Yes, because we have seen how well historically violent revolutions have worked out for the normal people...
Oh, wait, they haven't. Arguably the two best examples of the U.S. and France... France got a dictatorship (like 90+% of violent revolution countries do) and the U.S. had a broken government for years and years that was only fixed through peaceful means.
Revolution does not have a very stellar track level. In most cases the situation stays the same, at worse an even more repressive regime takes it place. I'll pass.
Yes.
(http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y108/rschilla/545504_465231863487797_933540432_n.jpg) (http://s4.photobucket.com/user/rschilla/media/545504_465231863487797_933540432_n.jpg.html)
You're being naive.
It is indeed naïve to think you can trust your government. However, it also naïve to think that the Michigan Militia is going to protect you from the government with their AK47s. Justifying gun ownership so you can blow away the Feds with your 16 gauge shotgun when they come for you is naïve. There are certainly realistic justifications for gun ownership, but that's not one of them.
I'm an American myself, and I do like the fact that I can legally own an assult rifle (because some part of me deep down wants it in case the country becomes a TRUE Police state) but I do not agree with small children shooting guns or people with felonies/mental issues having them.
Quotebecause some part of me deep down wants it in case the country becomes a TRUE Police state
If this bunch of clowns...
(http://ww3.hdnux.com/photos/25/72/21/5743730/3/628x471.jpg)
Ever saw these guys coming at them...
(http://www.wstoa.org/images/team_profile_pics/yakima.jpg)
They would shit their pants, throw down their guns and run like rabbits.
And that second image represents the low end of military firepower, there's lots of much nastier hardware. And I've played enough Total War to guess which side would rout first.
Quote from: Johan on September 04, 2014, 09:29:26 PM
While I get what you're saying, I think it should be pointed out that you're sort of comparing apples to oranges a bit here. It true that you must be 18 to vote, no getting around that. But everything else? You need to be 21 to buy alcohol. But different states have different laws on the age you must be in order to consume alcohol and in many cases, those laws only apply to consumption in public places. In the privacy of your own home there is no minimum legal limit on the consumption of alcohol. Indeed I went to school with a few kids who had wine with dinner every night from the age of 12 on because that's what their family did. Same with driving. You have to be 16 to drive on public roads. On your own property? It is not unusual at all for 9 year olds to drive pickups on their farms around here. In fact its not unusual at all to see 12 and 14 year olds driving HUGE farm tractors on the local roads here. Perfectly legal. In some states 13 and 14 year olds can also drive pickup trucks on public roads so long as they're driving in conjunction with doing farm work.
The point is with many things, legal age limits don't apply to all situations. And so it is with guns as well. In many states, there is no age limit for firing a gun. Being the registered owner of the gun is a different story in most cases, but firing a gun has no age limit.
I agree with you that allowing such a young person to handle a weapon capable of fully automatic firing is beyond stupid. But its not something that is regulated by law. Now we could probably stamp our feet and yell that there should be such a law and maybe we'd be right. But at the same time this might well be one of those situations where the realities of liability will end up solving the problem all on its own.
Gun clubs and shooting ranges generally have insurance. Often, the insurance policies dictate as many of the organizations rules and regulations as state and federal laws do. If the law suits start flying, this gun range and most others may quickly find themselves in a position where they have to impose minimum age limits for shooters or find themselves uninsured.
Now I have no idea whether or not that will happen, but I think its at least plausible that it might. And I say that as a gun owner who believes gun should be strongly regulated by law. But I also say that as someone who believes that pointless, ineffective and/or redundant laws are something we need less of.
Yeah I see what you're saying. You would think that at this point all of humanity would know that 9 year olds + UZI's don't mix.
QuoteAnd I've played enough Total War
Me, too. Beta testing Europa Barbarorum II right now.
Quote from: MagetheEntertainer on September 09, 2014, 09:50:27 PM
You would think that at this point all of humanity would know that 9 year olds + UZI's don't mix.
I would also think that at this point all of humanity would know that man created god in his image, not the other way around. But alas, humanity continues to disappoint me.
Everyone is a responsible gun owner until they're not. You might be an expert marksman, but one fuckup, one stray or ricochet landed in your own kid's head disqualies you from being a responsible gun owner. Everyone is a fucking expert until they're not.
Oh for fucks sake. Every driver is a responsible driver until they're not. Every parent is a responsible parent until they're not. Every teacher is a responsible teacher until they're not. Next.
A few thoughts on the incident where the 9 year old shot the gun range employee.
First, I am not fundamentally opposed to someone that young shooting a machine gun. Having said that the way this range went about it was obviously flawed. You don’t give a kid an Uzi, let them fire one round, then flip the switch and let them go full auto on the next shot with a full magazine. You work your way up to that point. Several single rounds followed by automatic fire with limited rounds. Start the automatic fire with two rounds in the magazine. Then increase the number of rounds slowly accessing the shooter’s ability to control the weapon each step along the way before proceeding to the next level. You stop the exercise if it becomes apparent that the shooter is not able to exercise reasonable control over the weapon.
I have also read several comments about the stupidity of the range instructor with regards to his positioning. What many of you probably don’t realize is that the technique he was employing was theoretically designed to stop what happened from happening. Right hand on her back to help support her, and left hand in front of her and above the weapon to help control the weapon itself. Now I don’t know enough about this technique to say if it is fundamentally sound or not, but I would bet that it had been employed by both the range and the instructor successfully on numerous similar occasions prior to this tragic event.
What I suspect is it wasn’t the technique that was flawed rather the instructor’s implementation of the technique. The sequence of events should have started with the child standing with the weapon on safe, pointed down range and finger off the trigger. The instructor should have reached over, selected auto, positioned his left hand correctly then give the ok to shoot. What it looked to me like happened is the girl was allowed to fire one round in semi mode. She was still standing there with her finger on trigger. After the first round the instructor immediately reached over and placed the weapon in auto and told her to shoot in in very rapid succession. He told her to shoot before his left hand was positioned to control the weapon, and she pulled the trigger with tragic results. If so then it was a failure on his part to follow proper procedures that got him killed rather than some fundamental flaw in the design of the technique itself.
Quote from: Johan on September 12, 2014, 10:01:55 PM
Oh for fucks sake. Every driver is a responsible driver until they're not. Every parent is a responsible parent until they're not. Every teacher is a responsible teacher until they're not. Next.
Well there you are then.. Everyone is a responsible commenter on AF until they're not. Next..
From here (Canada) it sure looks like you have a serious problem.
I remember a few years ago when a family member from Tennessee was visiting here and she was practically amazed when she discovered almost nobody carried a gun here. It was as if it was mandatory to her, like a wallet or something.
There's the obvious notion you need to carry a gun because everyone else does, but in America there's more to it then that; its as if some people need them or... hysteria will ensue.
I speak of course of the kind of paranoia that pervades when a notorious mass shooting occurs, causing firearm sales to temporarily skyrocket out of fear that the weapon involved will no longer be made available. Apparently Its not enough to just have a gun, but every single available feature and accessory is somehow desperately needed.
And who is coming up with these bizarre pro-gun arguments? Is the gun industry using its vast resources to circulate insane nonsense?
For example comparing guns to cars? I suppose more people in America die from car accidents then from gunfire, but cant you at least spare a moment to think this one out? The argument dies instantly when you consider the function and purpose of both.
Quote from: Johan on September 02, 2014, 07:11:37 PM
Studies also show you are significantly more likely to be in a plane crash if you learn to fly airplanes. Didn't stop me from learning to fly nor did it stop me from flying for a living. And yet, here I am still kicking. Must be a miracle that I survived I guess because according to the statistics, I should have been dead long ago. Statistics don't always tell the whole story nor do they always tell the true story.
The true story might be that people who are in real danger of being shot are more likely to acquire their own gun for protection. Do the statistics include suicide, the number one gun death situation in US rural areas? You can probably not worry about that one if you're not suicidal...but it's something to take into account if you have, oh say, a teenager.
Quote from: Cocoa Beware on September 16, 2014, 09:07:47 AM
And who is coming up with these bizarre pro-gun arguments? Is the gun industry using its vast resources to circulate insane nonsense?
For example comparing guns to cars? I suppose more people in America die from car accidents then from gunfire, but cant you at least spare a moment to think this one out? The argument dies instantly when you consider the function and purpose of both.
What is the function and purpose of alcohol?
Plot twist: Cocoa is a teetotaler. :P
(could be the case, you never know)
So...someone like that wouldn't be using it as a beverage.
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 16, 2014, 09:25:12 PM
So...someone like that wouldn't be using it as a beverage.
It doesn't change the fact that thousands of deaths each year can be directly attributed to alcohol. And yet no one is calling to outlaw alcohol. Therefore it doesn't change the fact that the function and purpose of a car is irrelevant to the previously made point that everyone is a good driver until they're not yada yada yada.
Quote from: Johan on September 16, 2014, 09:38:10 PMIt doesn't change the fact that thousands of deaths each year can be directly attributed to alcohol. And yet no one is calling to outlaw alcohol.
This is simply a repackaging of your earlier argument comparing guns to cars.
No. Its showing that my earlier argument is valid. BTW my earlier argument was not comparing guns to cars. Rather it was showing that the notion that 'every gun owner is a good gun owner until they're not (therefore they need to be stopped)' is a pointless bullshit argument. I used gun owners vs drivers to do it but I could just as easily use gun owners to drinkers or gun owners to smokers or gun owners to gamblers. I also used parents and one other example which escapes me now and which I'm too lazy to go look up.
The point is in every case, people get hurt inadvertently. In every case, there are regulations in place which is as it should be and nearly everyone is perfectly happy with those regulations. Except guns.
I have no idea where you live but I can almost guarantee you that tonight within 200 miles of where you are, a drunk is going to get behind the wheel of a car and hurt or kill someone. It won't even make the morning news unless there's also a fire involved AND good video of it. Drunks? We could give a fuck. Bad drivers? Who cares. But guns? Oh my god you gun owners are mad and must be stopped because you can just never be sure when one of them will snap. Sorry, its a lame argument that couldn't hold water if it had a bucket.
And again, I say that as a gun owner who believes guns should be more difficult to get and more tightly regulated. But if you're going to bring an argument, bring a valid one. And if you can't be bothered to bring a valid argument, expect to have its lack of validity pointed out.
Quote from: Johan on September 16, 2014, 11:28:14 PMAnd again, I say that as a gun owner who believes guns should be more difficult to get and more tightly regulated.
This is precisely my stance, as well.
Quote from: Hydra009 on September 16, 2014, 09:15:31 PM
Plot twist: Cocoa is a teetotaler. :P
(could be the case, you never know)
Well kind of... I prefer smoking weed. You still get a kind of hangover, but its not near as uncomfortable.
Anyways, it turns out that we are all in agreement, because I also think limitations on gun ownership is probably the most sensible course of action.
The industry seems more focused on opposing this rather then an all out ban, since the providing of extraneous gun features and accessories has proven to be an absolute money making machine.
I feel an all out sudden ban is foolish, dangerous and (especially) unrealistic; I should have been more clear on that, my bad.
Quote from: Cocoa Beware link=topic=6050.msg1041218#msg1041218bad.
date=1410957089
Well kind of... I prefer smoking weed. You still get a kind of hangover, but its not near as uncomfortable.
I remember back in the 70's, probably while high on pot, a friend of mine came up with this half serious observation. He said that alcohol was better for you than pot, because the hangover from alcohol would remind you to exercise moderation.
And so it is with guns. Moderation is fine, but when you realize you just shot and killed someone, it would remind you to exercise more moderation in the future with your guns.
OK, I don't know why I made that comparison. I think my blood sugar might be too low.