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

[overtone]

"Where do you suppose they got that idea? "

Did you rule out NRA/ Republican propaganda?

Doesn't explain the numbers.

 

 

Others were chosen too, but they were unconstitutional

 

No, they weren't. Either one.

 

 

The fundamental point you are missing is that you only get gridlock when people are pushing in two directions a,d it won't go away until one of them backs down

I'm missing the point I've made most frequently in this thread. Right.

 

Why shouldn't the side that's killing the kids be the one to back down?

 

And so it goes. Is my point driven in yet? Does anyone need an even bigger hammer?

Or as posted: " This is damaging, politically. This is - once again - the core of the gridlock problem. It doesn't matter how many people think reliable and universal background checks, trigger locks in family homes, legal standards for responsible ownership and carry, for example, would be a good idea in a better world (It's over 85% of the NRA membership even, last I checked): they aren't going to hand political power over to people who think like that, talk like that, and preen themselves in public on a moral and ethical superiority they nowhere near possess"

Edited April 15, 2016 by overtone

[dimreepr]

they aren't going to hand political power over to people who think like that, talk like that, and preen themselves in public on a moral and ethical superiority they nowhere near possess"

 

 

I do realise that our reality/culture differs and that creates a natural barrier to understanding, but such an obvious and fundamental moral question ordinarily bridges that barrier.

 

So suggesting an objection to the, avoidable, death of innocents is mere pious posturing, says rather more about you than I imagine you wanted to display.

Edited April 15, 2016 by dimreepr

[waitforufo]

All other criticism of Overtone aside, iNow, he does mention...

 

!- Reliable and universal background checks

2- Trigger locks for privately owned guns

3- Legal standards for responsible ownership

$- Legal standards for responsible carry

 

He also mentions ( I don't have the stats myself ) that 85% of NRA members are in favour of these provisions.

Isn't this enough common ground to at least begin a serious discourse ?

 

Oh, and I had addressed my post to John Cuthber.

Sorry for the confusion.

!) We have universal background checks in the US; https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics . Is the question their reliability? Is it that you are surprised that the government is incompetent?

2) The supreme court in Heller ruled that it is unconstitutional to require citizens to put trigger locks on there guns because they make guns less effective for self defense. So those are out. Also the first thing you are taught in firearms safety training is never trust a safety device. Ever wonder why? A simple google search will show you that trigger locks are dangerous a frequently fail. Touching the trigger with any object is never safe.

3) There are standards. They are provided in this form. https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download .

$) There are legal standards for responsible carry. Wikipedia does a good job summarizing them for my State of Washington. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Washington

 

 

One way to break it would be for the side which owns the guns that kill the kids to accept responsibility for that and stop insisting that it's the other side that should change.

I own lots of guns. So do all of my family members. None of them have killed kids so you must not be talking to me. Now my family has a long tradition of firearms safety training. Gosh maybe that's what we should do. Maybe if we could simply admit that our nation is awash in guns and provide firearms safety training in the public schools. No real guns required in the schools. Simply showing videos would be enough.

Edited April 15, 2016 by waitforufo

[John Cuthber]

 

And so it goes. Is my point driven in yet? Does anyone need an even bigger hammer?

Don't get a hammer, get a mirror.

Have a look at yourself. It takes two to bring about deadlock.

 

This isn't gridlock, it's more like two drivers meeting on a narrow lane with no passing place.

Nobody is going anywhere until one reverses.

 

 

Why should the one who isn't killing kids be the one to back up?

Also the first thing you are taught in firearms safety training is never trust a safety device.

So, by your own acknowledgement, nobody should carry a gun "for safety".

Feel free to stop doing so, and to explain this to others.

[dimreepr]

I own lots of guns. So do all of my family members. None of them have killed kids so you must not be talking to me. Now my family has a long tradition of firearms safety training. Gosh maybe that's what we should do. Maybe if we could simply admit that our nation is awash in guns and provide firearms safety training in the public schools. No real guns required in the schools. Simply showing videos would be enough.

 

 

This is what I don’t understand, which is possibly/probably cultural; why do you resist, so vehemently, the idea of a check for competency when you’re so obviously competent? Surely you’d rather a gun owner is safe to own it rather than risk your family with an idiot who just randomly pulls the trigger for fun?

[waitforufo]

Don't get a hammer, get a mirror.

Have a look at yourself. It takes two to bring about deadlock.

 

This isn't gridlock, it's more like two drivers meeting on a narrow lane with no passing place.

Nobody is going anywhere until one reverses.

 

 

Why should the one who isn't killing kids be the one to back up?

So, by your own acknowledgement, nobody should carry a gun "for safety".

Feel free to stop doing so, and to explain this to others.

Do you have some evidence that overtone is a child killer? Any evidence that I have? You talk like that and think you are being reasonable? You wonder why there is gridlock?

 

I don't own or carry guns for safety. I own and carry them for self defense. How many times do you have to be told?

 

 

This is what I don’t understand, which is possibly/probably cultural; why do you resist, so vehemently, the idea of a check for competency when you’re so obviously competent? Surely you’d rather a gun owner is safe to own it rather than risk your family with an idiot who just randomly pulls the trigger for fun?

I frequently pull triggers for fun. There are lots of firearms related sporting activities.

 

I'm against test for competency because firearms ownership is a right. That right can be infringed by a government that creates the test which may restrict ownership. You see, I don't trust the government. Yes, you are correct, this is a cultural thing. I also don't trust my fellow citizens who do trust the government.

Edited April 15, 2016 by waitforufo

[dimreepr]

I frequently pull triggers for fun. There are lots of firearms related sporting activities.

 

 

None of which are random.

 

 

I'm against test for competency because firearms ownership is a right. That right can be infringed by a government that creates the test which may restrict ownership. You see, I don't trust the government. Yes, you are correct, this is a cultural thing.

 

 

 

So you’re happy to give terrorists all the guns they want? This thinking isn’t so much cultural as it is idiotic. “One often meets ones destiny on the path one chooses to avoid it”

[waitforufo]

 

 

None of which are random.

 

 

 

 

So you’re happy to give terrorists all the guns they want? This thinking isn’t so much cultural as it is idiotic. “One often meets ones destiny on the path one chooses to avoid it”

Interesting that you don't comment on the links I provided in post 1053. Instead you make personal attacks on me. Again, do you really wonder why there is gridlock?

[dimreepr]

It’s no accident that recent terrorist attacks in the UK are committed with knives rather than guns.

 

 

Interesting that you don't comment on the links I provided in post 1053. Instead you make personal attacks on me. Again, do you really wonder why there is gridlock?

 

 

the idea of a check for competency when you’re so obviously competent?

 

 

 

In what way is this a "personal attack"?

Edited April 15, 2016 by dimreepr

[waitforufo]

I was looking at this line.

This thinking isn’t so much cultural as it is idiotic.

[dimreepr]

That's not a personal attack, it merely attacks your argument.

[waitforufo]

That's not a personal attack, it merely attacks your argument.

No, it was calling me an idiot.

 

Still you have not commented on my links in post 1053. We have background checks. We have standards for gun ownership. They include restrictions on non citizens, mentally incompetent, fugitives from justice, drug addicts, convicted felons and so on. It's against the law for felons to even attempt to purchase firearms. Yet when felons do make these attempts and are caught by our instant background check system, no arrests are made. We also have standards for carrying weapons. The one thing we don't have is trigger lock and safe storage laws. Those have been ruled unconstitutional. So you have what you want. This will be post 1062. How much longer do you think this nonsense topic will carry on?

[iNow]

We have background checks. We have standards for gun ownership. They include restrictions on non citizens, mentally incompetent, fugitives from justice, drug addicts, convicted felons and so on.

They're also not universal nor are they performed on every transaction or trade, so you're being a bit disingenuous.

 

The one thing we don't have is trigger lock and safe storage laws. Those have been ruled unconstitutional.

In the form specifically brought to the court in the Heller case. You understand our system well enough and are not so ignorant of civics to be oblivious to the fact that new legislation can be crafted that respects the constitution, respects the Heller decision, and which still in parallel changes the ease with which children and thieves can pull the trigger on the gun of otherwise law abiding responsible owners, whether that be a lock or biometric device or other is peripheral to this core point.

 

How much longer do you think this nonsense topic will carry on?

Nobody is forcing you to participate. You are here by choice, and frankly I'm glad you are. You represent an important viewpoint that's critical to understand, but you're also too recalcitrant for my taste and seem to unfortunately prefer snark and barbs over collaboration and progress.

[waitforufo]

They're also not universal nor are they performed on every transaction or trade, so you're being a bit disingenuous.

 

In the form specifically brought to the court in the Heller case. You understand our system well enough and are not so ignorant of civics to be oblivious to the fact that new legislation can be crafted that respects the constitution, respects the Heller decision, and which still in parallel changes the ease with which children and thieves can pull the trigger on the gun of otherwise law abiding responsible owners, whether that be a lock or biometric device or other is peripheral to this core point.

 

Nobody is forcing you to participate. You are here by choice, and frankly I'm glad you are. You represent an important viewpoint that's critical to understand, but you're also too recalcitrant for my taste and seem to unfortunately prefer snark and barbs over collaboration and progress.

No background check will ever cover every firearm transaction or trade. People frequently disobey nuisance laws. Parents will always give there kids guns as presents. Even Sara Brady did. http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/brady-shady-gun-rules-control-backer-son-rifle-article-1.477603. Where I live people sell guns at garage sales all the time. The local news paper has a classified add section for "Guns and Ammo". Sure that section of the classifieds starts with a statement that says something like "Please follow State and Federal laws when selling and purchasing firearms", but do you really think people are going to do this when it is there natural right to purchase firearms? You may be outraged by this, but you're dreaming if you think this will ever change. Even with this free availability of firearms and ammunition, felons and the mentally ill still walk into gun stores, fill out ATF form, wait for their instant background check, get denied, and no one ever arrests them. Do you really think more laws are going to help? Dreaming.

 

Go ahead and try to reverse or sidestep Heller. I wish you luck. It is a very well written decision.

 

You see progress as rolling back human rights. That never works. I suggest we stay free instead. Yes there is a price to pay but it is better than the alternative.

[overtone]

Have a look at yourself. It takes two to bring about deadlock.

 

So far you haven't seen a single post from me claiming that the US did not need better gun control, in the form of State and Federal laws that restrict gun ownership and gun handling significantly more than they are restricted right now. You have seem many directly otherwise.

You haven't seen a single post from me claiming all significant gun restrictions would violate the Constitution, or that the Constitution cannot be amended, or that the Constitution is perfect and all-wise and sacrosanct in the first place.

You have seen no posts from me even favoring, let alone recommending, handgun ownership (the core and source of America's problems, imho) for male self defense, or anything else actually. You have seen me mock some - not all, but a significant percentage - of the people I meet carrying guns (for example, guys I have seen pack camping in the north woods with 9 millimeter automatics - in case of wolves, bears, etc). You have heard me describe specific, named factions of the American gun culture as crazy, and the consequences as tragic, and the politics of its membership as dysfunctional.

I'm a fellow gun control advocate. And you think you are gridlocked with me. Does this suggest anything to you?

 

This is what I don’t understand, which is possibly/probably cultural; why do you resist, so vehemently, the idea of a check for competency when you’re so obviously competent?

The other thing you don't understand is that that is a real question.

There are reasons people in the US who think themselves competent - including those who are in fact right, are in fact competent - resist so vehemently a governmental check for competency. That's "reasons", not psychiatric symptoms. And a whole lot of people agree that they are pretty good reasons.

-> And you have seen some of them.

So how is it that you don't "understand"?

 

So suggesting an objection to the, avoidable, death of innocents is mere pious posturing, says rather more about you than I imagine you wanted to display.

Oh, I don't give it that much of a pass. It's far from mere posturing.

Edited April 15, 2016 by overtone

[Endy0816]

Require something like this?

 

 

Make allowances for anyone who for disability reasons cannot use the scanner. Main complaint in Heller was that locks restricted people's ability to use their weapon.

 

They've actually declined to hear a recent case.

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/08/412917394/supreme-court-rejects-nra-challenge-to-s-f-gun-rules

 

What SCOTUS giveth, SCOTUS taketh away.

[John Cuthber]

Do you have some evidence that overtone is a child killer? Any evidence that I have? You talk like that and think you are being reasonable? You wonder why there is gridlock?

 

Thank you for explaining why we have a stand off- it's because people like you will leap to the wrong conclusion, rather than remembering that "you" is a plural as well as a singular.

 

The relevant variation on the theme of that question would be " do you have any evidence that those who staunchly oppose gun ownership are not responsible for shooting children?"

And the answer is " yes- they don't have guns"

[iNow]

Make allowances for anyone who for disability reasons cannot use the scanner. Main complaint in Heller was that locks restricted people's ability to use their weapon.

Precisely, hence earlier mention of biometric tech and your reminder of it here today as one mutually agreeable approach to saving a few scores of lives, adolescent or otherwise.

Edited April 16, 2016 by iNow

[overtone]

- -

The relevant variation on the theme of that question would be " do you have any evidence that those who staunchly oppose gun ownership are not responsible for shooting children?"

And the answer is " yes- they don't have guns"

 

 

I don't have any guns either.

So the question between us is which one of us is more responsible for other people shooting children.

I think it's you.

[iNow]

I don't have any guns either.

 

So the question between us is which one of us is more responsible for other people shooting children.

 

I think it's you.

 

And that's ridiculous.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

I don't have any guns either.

So the question between us is which one of us is more responsible for other people shooting children.

I think it's you.

Through what possible mechanism?

 

I don't own or carry guns for safety. I own and carry them for self defense. How many times do you have to be told?

 

It doesn't make sense, no matter how any times you say it.

Defence is about safety. If you were safe you wouldn't need defending.

[waitforufo]

Require something like this?

 

 

Make allowances for anyone who for disability reasons cannot use the scanner. Main complaint in Heller was that locks restricted people's ability to use their weapon.

 

They've actually declined to hear a recent case.

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/08/412917394/supreme-court-rejects-nra-challenge-to-s-f-gun-rules

 

What SCOTUS giveth, SCOTUS taketh away.

Does it shoot when the battery is dead? If you have to shoot with your left hand due to your right hand being incapacitated by an assailant does it work? If not, then it is no longer effective for self defense.

 

I can also see a person trying to figure out why it won't shoot due to improper use or momentary malfunction shooting themselves or others standing near by. These devices are not safe.

 

Thank you for explaining why we have a stand off- it's because people like you will leap to the wrong conclusion, rather than remembering that "you" is a plural as well as a singular.

 

The relevant variation on the theme of that question would be " do you have any evidence that those who staunchly oppose gun ownership are not responsible for shooting children?"

And the answer is " yes- they don't have guns"

Yes I understand that the word "you" can be plural. You, singular, are including overtone and I in that plural group. Even John Cuthber above understands that.

 

 

It doesn't make sense, no matter how any times you say it.

Defence is about safety. If you were safe you wouldn't need defending.

Life is full of risks.

Edited April 16, 2016 by waitforufo

[John Cuthber]

 

 

Life is full of risks.

And safety is about things that reduce them.

So you still need to explain at least a couple of things:

Why is this not a contradiction "I don't own or carry guns for safety. I own and carry them for self defense. "

And you still need to answer this

 

 

"I don't have any guns either. So the question between us is which one of us is more responsible for other people shooting children.

 

I think it's you.

Through what possible mechanism?"

[Endy0816]

Does it shoot when the battery is dead? If you have to shoot with your left hand due to your right hand being incapacitated by an assailant does it work? If not, then it is no longer effective for self defense.

 

 

 

Most of weapons we are concerned with here, are left idle while the primary owner is sleeping(or for longer periods during the day). This would be a perfect time to handle any necessary charging. A wireless charging pad next to the bedside would be simple and keep the gun within easy reach.

 

Additionally we can certainly have a low power indicator. Not like it suddenly not working needs to be your first indicator.

 

What if the assailant incapacitates both hands? Then the vast majority of all guns will no longer be effective for self defense.

 

You can what-if all day, but you could also search right now for "officer/homeowner shot with own gun" and see a number of cases where an assailant gaining control of the rightful owner's firearm led to the owner's demise.

 

If people won't stop picking up the deadly snake, we can at least make sure it only bites when the owner wishes it to.

 

 

I can also see a person trying to figure out why it won't shoot due to improper use or momentary malfunction shooting themselves or others standing near by. These devices are not safe.

 

So you feel that mandating loaded chamber indicators would be a useful way to make guns safer?

 

What evidence do you have regarding a lack of safety? I can produce a vast number of links where someone else gaining control of the weapon can be traced directly to a death. Sounds like an easy way to vastly improve a weapon's safety along with allowing it to be stored in a more accessible manner.

Edited April 17, 2016 by Endy0816

[CharonY]

And safety is about things that reduce them.

 

 

And to add (or rather repeat, as it has been stated earlier in this thread) it is a balance between the risk of having a gun, having a gun but having it secured or not having a gun at all. Each year according to the CDC there are about 500-600 unintentional firearm-related gun deaths (see Fatal injury reports).

Using FBI data this report mentions that in 2012 around 250 justifiable deaths using firearms were recorded. Considering that more people die from accidental than justifiable shooting it seems to be safer that securing guns (as I believe it is done in Canada with a 4 fold lower incidence) may be a better option. It should be noted that firearm-related death due to accident as well as justifiable use are rare events, and framing the discussion exclusive in the context of self-defense seems a bit odd. They will be used far more commonly for sport or hunting.

 

For example, other rare events (that could have been prevented by better handling) include gun-shot injuries (and deaths) committed by toddlers and dogs.