Every day, 20 US Children Hospitalized w/Gun Injury (6% Die)

[Raider5678]

To mention something, I'll dig another trap and jump in to see what happens.

I AM a kid. I was taught what guns are, how to safely use them, and to NEVER touch one without their permission. Now we keep it inside a large gun safe, downstairs, that you can't get to quietly. None of the guns are loaded, the ammunition is all separate and at a different spot in another safe, and nobody knows the passwords to either of the safes. Now is this proper gun control in your opinion?

[StringJunky]

To mention something, I'll dig another trap and jump in to see what happens.

I AM a kid. I was taught what guns are, how to safely use them, and to NEVER touch one without their permission. Now we keep it inside a large gun safe, downstairs, that you can't get to quietly. None of the guns are loaded, the ammunition is all separate and at a different spot in another safe, and nobody knows the passwords to either of the safes. Now is this proper gun control in your opinion?

That's pretty much what's required in the UK. I would call that responsible storage and control. The US gun fatality statistics would plummet if everyone was as responsible as your family.

Edited May 22, 2016 by StringJunky

[Delta1212]

That's not gun control. That's gun safety and responsible storage.

[StringJunky]

That's not gun control. That's gun safety and responsible storage.

You don't consider 'control' and 'safety' as synonyms in this instance? Or are you being a pedant?

[Delta1212]

You don't consider 'control' and 'safety' as synonyms in this instance? Or are you being a pedant?

Just as it is technically possible to use 'gay marriage' to mean a happy marriage but that isn't usually what it is understood to mean, 'gun control' is generally understood to mean legal regulation of firearms rather than physically maintaining control of your own weapons.

[StringJunky]

Just as it is technically possible to use 'gay marriage' to mean a happy marriage but that isn't usually what it is understood to mean, 'gun control' is generally understood to mean legal regulation of firearms rather than physically maintaining control of your own weapons.

Yes, after I made that post I did consider that you meant 'control' by statutory outside agencies.

 

 

 

Just as it is technically possible to use 'gay marriage' to mean a happy marriage but that isn't usually what it is understood to mean,

Not anymore. I can remember being called 'gay' several times as a youngster, in it's old meaning,

Edited May 22, 2016 by StringJunky

[iNow]

Now we keep it inside a large gun safe, downstairs, that you can't get to quietly. None of the guns are loaded, the ammunition is all separate and at a different spot in another safe, and nobody knows the passwords to either of the safes. Now is this proper gun control in your opinion?

Would you be an advocate or an obstacle if people tried to change laws to make this example set by you and your family a legally required minimum practice for all citizens?

[rangerx]

'gun control' is generally understood to mean legal regulation of firearms rather than physically maintaining control of your own weapons.

 

Just like personal security and public safety being two very different things.

 

Gun owners don't have the right to put others at risk for their own security, yet that's what's happening here.

[Raider5678]

Would you be an advocate or an obstacle if people tried to change laws to make this example set by you and your family a legally required minimum practice for all citizens?

No. Well maybe they could use 1 safe if they aren't very rich, but at least 1 safe, and they can only have a gun that fits inside their safe. No rifles if you only have a pistol safe.

[iNow]

What if the government gave rebates or coupons for free safes if families can't afford them? That way you can still be safe and secure even if you're not rich. Would that be something you could support?

[zapatos]

 

 

Gun owners don't have the right to put others at risk for their own security, yet that's what's happening here.

 

 

That doesn't sound right. If someone shoots at me I can shoot back, and me shooting back surely puts people at risk. It's a matter of degree.

 

While I probably cannot open up on someone with an Uzi in a movie theater to protect myself, I can shoot at an intruder in my home. Both actions put people at risk, but one would be lawful and the other would not.

[iNow]

I read the point differently, namely that ones right to self defense is often mistakenly conflated with and falsely asserted as equivalent to ones right to firearm ownership.

[Raider5678]

I read the point differently, namely that ones right to self defense is often mistakenly conflated with and falsely asserted as equivalent to ones right to firearm ownership.

They are related, but their limited in their relationship. The founding fathers couldn't have meant you could use your gun to shoot the intruder. Back then it took 20 seconds to load the gun if you were really quick! They meant you could have it for milita use. If someone were to invade america today, while we wouldn't be able to completely stop invaders if their military, we could put some SERIOUS hassle in doing so. Hunters have rifles that could shoot from long distances, so they would have to make sure if they ever traveled it would have to be in armoured vehicles, or out in the wide open where hunters couldn't hide. WHich is just about nowhere. They would have to SLOWLY invade america using guerrilla tactics, which would be next to impossible due to our sheer size, and the fact we have a powerful military that could easily fight most armies. Obviously there are exceptions. If say for example, China, Russia, England, France, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, etc all invaded, we wouldn't stand much of a chance. And it wouldn't take anywhere near that many either. But that's just a point. They could also nuke us, with the risk of getting blown up themselves, which they would also risk the same thing if they invaded. In other words, it DOES offer protection, but its limited to a wide scale invasion pretty much. Or a rebellion, which wouldn't do anything.