Gun Safety

Duck and cover
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert
Contact:

Re: Gun Safety

Postby Paul Anthony » Thu Jun 16, 2016 4:40 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:A smart would-be terrorist is not on any list. The 9/11 terrorists were not.

The 'solution' to the problem in the USA is bloody obvious, because it has been applied successfully by every westernised wealthy nation EXCEPT the USA. From that list, the second worst nation is Finland, with half the number of guns and half the number of murders per capita compared to the USA. The lowest number of guns is Japan, which also has the least murders. Do you need any stronger hints?


Over-simplify much?

It's not the number of guns as much as it is the culture. Japanese are less prone to kill others, but more inclined to commit suicide. Each country has a long history of culturally acceptable behaviors. The US has always been more violent than most other western nations. Our movie industry has glamorized crime and violence and our video games continue the trend. Most Americans are bored watching a French film because their is less action and more conversation. Americans don't like to think. They want action and bloodshed (and nudity, but that's not necessarily a bad thing).
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6001
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Gun Safety

Postby Flash » Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:23 am

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
So, they're in the US because the shadow government wants them here?

You are calling the US state department and the CIA the "shadow government"? What are you a conspiracy nut? :mrgreen:
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6001
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Gun Safety

Postby Flash » Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:37 am

Paul Anthony wrote:
Most Americans are bored watching a French film because their is less action and more conversation. Americans don't like to think.

Yes, there is more conversation in the French films but also a lot of ass and tits. I have always suspected that the French films are pretty banal but they look very sophisticated because with all those tits nobody in America has the time to read the subtitles and understand what's going on.

I still remember Brigitte Bardot stripping on the screen, Who the hell could follow the plot in those movies.
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Gun Safety

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 16, 2016 7:36 am

Paul Anthony wrote:It's not the number of guns as much as it is the culture.


The mark of a dishonest shill is to utilize the SIN OF CONFLATION and characterize a complex multi-layered interactive system like hooman culture and boil it down to the one issue that you have been paid to tout, or that you have for whatever reason a personal mania about.

Gun Nuts come in both flavors.

Heard a good analogy on the Tube other day. Take airplanes. Fly a couple of them into buildings and the talk is all about how to make airplanes safer. Not about the culture of the hi-jackers.

Now....pull your pants back up, wipe the whipped cream off your grinning drooling face...... and be a good boy.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10215
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Gun Safety

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Jun 16, 2016 8:35 am

Paul is clearly a supporter of 'gun freedom' otherwise known as the freedom to murder.

The number of guns is not the only factor involved in number of murders, but it is up there as one of the most important. That is why the Harvard researchers found a clear cut correlation across 50 states between murder rate and number of guns. They also found the same correlation across westernised wealthy nations.

Note that it is not gun access in the USA. With the exception of Hawaii, everyone in the USA has the same access to guns, since if their own state restricts access, they just drive across a state border to where guns are more easily obtained,.

I suspect that the number of hand guns, rather than total gun numbers, would line up even more closely with numbers of murders. Sadly, no one can check this since such statistics gathering is blocked by the government.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7622
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Gun Safety

Postby TJrandom » Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:51 am

Paul Anthony wrote:... Sadly, President Obama and his allies would prefer to play politics with this issue".[/i]


You lost me with this... is Obama one of the Republican congressmen who oppose gun control, against the urgings of the NRA? :roll:

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19788
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Gun Safety

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Jun 16, 2016 10:18 pm

Questions for open carry fans:

1. If a criminal walks up behind you and double taps you will you do the appropriate thing and refuse to allow him to have your gun?

2. I understand that you think you are competent to safely carry a firearm in ANY environment. What I don't understand, and hope you'll tell us, why we should agree with your self-estimation? Wouldn't our safest course of action be to evacuate the area around to the safe distance appropriate for the weapon you carry?

3. If the criminal in #1 kills fifteen first graders with your gun would you feel bad or would you still be dead?
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19788
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Gun Safety

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Jun 17, 2016 12:59 am

Tap, tap, tap. Is this thing on?
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6001
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Gun Safety

Postby Flash » Fri Jun 17, 2016 2:39 am

That's three taps. It doesn't count because you said that the criminal has to double tap you. The details are important you know.
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10215
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Gun Safety

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:25 am

The hard data, whether you compare the 50 American states or the 25 odd westernised wealthy nations, is that fewer guns means fewer murders. Duh!

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert
Contact:

Re: Gun Safety

Postby Paul Anthony » Fri Jun 17, 2016 6:30 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Paul is clearly a supporter of 'gun freedom' otherwise known as the freedom to murder.

The number of guns is not the only factor involved in number of murders, but it is up there as one of the most important. That is why the Harvard researchers found a clear cut correlation across 50 states between murder rate and number of guns. They also found the same correlation across westernised wealthy nations.



Oh. well, if someone at Harvard did a study everyone else must be wrong.

The number of guns in the US has risen at the same time as the murder rate has declined. But let's ignore that because Harvard did a study.
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3283
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Gun Safety

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Jun 17, 2016 8:04 am

US murder rate has declined, yes, but much less than in other countries. And the fact that there are more guns is pretty much irrelevant: the number of gun owners has declined, and there is a point of saturation where you can't murder more people with 3 guns but only 2 hands.

No, total number of guns, the ease to get them legally and the resulting simplicity of getting them illegally (simple supply-demand) is on of the main reason why the US still has a way more gun deaths than any other country.


On their Freakonomics website Dubner in 2008 asked for ideas to reduce gun deaths.
http://freakonomics.com/2008/08/22/what ... cs-quorum/

I particularly like the idea of rewards for reporting illegal firearms, proposed by Jens Ludwig.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19788
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Gun Safety

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Jun 17, 2016 10:48 am

Flash wrote:That's three taps. It doesn't count because you said that the criminal has to double tap you. The details are important you know.

Forgot my ammo bag.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert
Contact:

Re: Gun Safety

Postby Paul Anthony » Sat Jun 18, 2016 3:40 am

ElectricMonk wrote:US murder rate has declined, yes, but much less than in other countries. And the fact that there are more guns is pretty much irrelevant: the number of gun owners has declined, and there is a point of saturation where you can't murder more people with 3 guns but only 2 hands.

No, total number of guns, the ease to get them legally and the resulting simplicity of getting them illegally (simple supply-demand) is on of the main reason why the US still has a way more gun deaths than any other country.


Actually, if you look at the cities in the US with the highest murder rates, it's probably the simplicity of getting them illegally that has kept the murder rate as high as it is. Making it harder for law-abiding people isn't likely to change that. AND YET, that's what most anti-gun folks demand.

As bobbo would say...stoopid humans.
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Gun Safety

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jun 18, 2016 4:15 pm

Paul Anthony wrote:Actually, if you look at the cities in the US with the highest murder rates, it's probably the simplicity of getting them illegally that has kept the murder rate as high as it is. Making it harder for law-abiding people isn't likely to change that. AND YET, that's what most anti-gun folks demand.........

Hard to call "it" a Demand, when said demand has been mostly refused over the past decades. More a lament?

but........lets parse: ..."it's probably the simplicity of getting them illegally that has kept the murder rate as high as it is." /// So...what is the indicated solution? A range of possibilities from the NRA position of arm everybody. How do you think that would work out?

Then the polar opposite: take guns away from everyone. How do you think that would work out? NRA is against that.

THEN there is is: make it less simple to get a gun illegally. eg: close loopholes? NRA is against that.

The Supremes and the Republican Congress and Most of the Dumbos: bought by or afraid of the NRA....................so, its guns for everyone. Filibusters notwithstanding.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19788
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Gun Safety

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Sat Jun 18, 2016 4:46 pm

Criminals get shadow market or stolen guns. Guns bought legally by transferees. Guns stolen from legal owners. There's no manufacturer producing guns for the criminal market, is there?
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Gun Safety

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jun 18, 2016 4:51 pm

When you advertise "The Street Sweeper"....who is your market?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert
Contact:

Re: Gun Safety

Postby Paul Anthony » Sat Jun 18, 2016 6:09 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:When you advertise "The Street Sweeper"....who is your market?


Uh, I don't know...someone in the market for a broom?
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Gun Safety

Postby Blacksamwell » Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:31 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:Let's approach the subject of gun rights and controls from a different, hopefully less controversial angle:

my question is: what, if any, are the constitutional or moral objections to making guns less accident prone?

Well, technically speaking modern firearms are built with many features that make them very unlikely to accidentally discharge.

It is the negligence of the humans that are supposed to be responsible for the guns that are the problem.

In my social circles only those new to firearms refer to "accidental" discharges. Once you understand how firearms work and the safety mechanisms they use you realize that there's always a human error in the chain of events that leads to a gun going off when no one intended it to. As such, they are more correctly called NEGLIGENT discharges.

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Gun Safety

Postby Blacksamwell » Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:40 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:When you advertise "The Street Sweeper"....who is your market?

Wealthy folks with a pristine background check?

After it was declared a destructive device in 1994 due to a lack of a sporting purpose those are the only people who could buy one. Had to complete the same background check required to own a fully automatic weapon and pay an additional $200 tax.

Of course, anyone with those means isn't likely to desire one of those turds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uoy14h6K5TY

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Gun Safety

Postby Blacksamwell » Wed Jun 29, 2016 5:01 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:THEN there is is: make it less simple to get a gun illegally. eg: close loopholes?

Even in face to face transactions between individuals where a background check is not required it is still against federal law for the seller to sell to someone they know to be a member of a prohibited group. The seller can legally sell to a prohibited person as long as they are not aware that they are a prohibited person. Of course, in this situation, the buyer is actively breaking the law... So is it truly a loophole if one has to break the law to utilize it? Are guns acquired illegally in this fashion actually being used to commit crimes? Some states have laws prohibiting face to face transactions without a background check. Do those states show lower rates of illegal guns being used in their crimes or reduced crime rates?

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19788
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Gun Safety

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Jun 29, 2016 5:03 pm

"Hi, I'm Jesse James and I can't buy a gun legally. This is my sister, Juliet James. She wants to buy a gun."
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3283
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Gun Safety

Postby ElectricMonk » Wed Jun 29, 2016 6:26 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:"Hi, I'm Jesse James and I can't buy a gun legally. This is my sister, Juliet James. She wants to buy a gun."


As a kid, I used to drag my elderly Grandmother into shops to buy firecrackers - "Look! This is my grown-up! Now give me the biggest one you got!"
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Gun Safety

Postby Blacksamwell » Wed Jun 29, 2016 7:11 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:"Hi, I'm Jesse James and I can't buy a gun legally. This is my sister, Juliet James. She wants to buy a gun."

Do you consider straw-man purchases a loophole?

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19788
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Gun Safety

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Jun 29, 2016 8:16 pm

Blacksamwell wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:"Hi, I'm Jesse James and I can't buy a gun legally. This is my sister, Juliet James. She wants to buy a gun."

Do you consider straw-man purchases a loophole?

All shadow market sales use loopholes.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Gun Safety

Postby Blacksamwell » Wed Jun 29, 2016 9:44 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
Blacksamwell wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:"Hi, I'm Jesse James and I can't buy a gun legally. This is my sister, Juliet James. She wants to buy a gun."

Do you consider straw-man purchases a loophole?

All shadow market sales use loopholes.

When it comes to matters of law, I would consider any action that takes advantage of a loophole to be a LEGAL action. A loophole allows one to subvert the intent of the system without violating the rules of the system. When one closes a legal loophole they alter the law to make the previously legal action illegal.

Based on my understanding of loophole, straw purchases don't qualify since they are explicitly illegal.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19788
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Gun Safety

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:03 pm

Point taken. The essence of gray/shadow market sales is to get around the law.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert
Contact:

Re: Gun Safety

Postby Paul Anthony » Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:06 pm

Blacksamwell wrote:
Based on my understanding of loophole, straw purchases don't qualify since they are explicitly illegal.


Yes. Of course, criminals never break the law, so more laws will reduce crime. This is the illogic behind most arguments for gun control.

Stoopid hoomans, indeed.
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19788
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Gun Safety

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Jun 29, 2016 11:28 pm

Lawlessness IS definitely superior, isn't it?
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Gun Safety

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 30, 2016 12:10 am

Blacksamwell wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:Let's approach the subject of gun rights and controls from a different, hopefully less controversial angle:

my question is: what, if any, are the constitutional or moral objections to making guns less accident prone?

Well, technically speaking modern firearms are built with many features that make them very unlikely to accidentally discharge.
You are avoiding the question completely. with your obvious technical knowledge base, this must be intentional??? Ha, ha. No....the accidents being addressed are the most likely household use of deadly force hubby vs wifey, or kiddie vs the universe. ie: Bio Locks...or thumbprint ID required to fire the weapon. What the NRA is firmly against. There can be no legitimate objection to such regulations.
xxxxxxxx
Blacksamwell wrote:It is the negligence of the humans that are supposed to be responsible for the guns that are the problem
//// Why the instance on single issue analysis to dumb things down? Its always the combo plate. Its people and guns that form the matrix of the problem. Any intelligent society will address all relevant elements.
xxxxxxxx
Blacksamwell wrote:In my social circles only those new to firearms refer to "accidental" discharges.
What term do you use for the 3 yo killing his sister?
xxxxxxxx
Blacksamwell wrote:Once you understand how firearms work and the safety mechanisms they use you realize that there's always a human error in the chain of events that leads to a gun going off when no one intended it to. As such, they are more correctly called NEGLIGENT discharges.
Ummmmm....you post as if the intentional use of firearms is not even relevant? You do know.... more people than Paul Anthony reads these threads?
xxxxxxxx
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Gun Safety

Postby Blacksamwell » Thu Jun 30, 2016 2:08 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:What term do you use for the 3 yo killing his sister?

Negligence.

The firearm didn't go off by accident. It was fired by the 3 yo actuating the firing mechanism. The fact that the child obtained access to the firearm indicates negligence of the firearm owner.

The owner of that firearm bears a responsibility to maintain control of it at all times. I believe this is codified into law in most states and/or cities and the owner of said firearm will often face charges. Here's one example: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/woman-who-was-accidently-shot-her-4-year-old-son-b/nqsg9/

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Gun Safety

Postby Blacksamwell » Thu Jun 30, 2016 2:14 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Blacksamwell wrote:Once you understand how firearms work and the safety mechanisms they use you realize that there's always a human error in the chain of events that leads to a gun going off when no one intended it to. As such, they are more correctly called NEGLIGENT discharges.
Ummmmm....you post as if the intentional use of firearms is not even relevant? You do know.... more people than Paul Anthony reads these threads?
xxxxxxxx


The points I'm addressing specifically relate to the distinction of accidental vs negligent. The topic of intent when it comes to intentional shootings simply wasn't part of the discussion. I'm not acting like it isn't relevant. It just wasn't the subject I chose to address.

Accidental discharges are rare. The technology of modern firearms systems do a very effective job of preventing the gun from going off when the safeties are engaged and the trigger isn't being pulled.

Negligent discharges are too frequent. These involve failure of the most important safety; the one that's between your ears.

If you're curious as to my views on intentional shootings, you're welcome to ask.

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Gun Safety

Postby Blacksamwell » Thu Jun 30, 2016 2:39 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Blacksamwell wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:Let's approach the subject of gun rights and controls from a different, hopefully less controversial angle:

my question is: what, if any, are the constitutional or moral objections to making guns less accident prone?

Well, technically speaking modern firearms are built with many features that make them very unlikely to accidentally discharge.
You are avoiding the question completely.

What question do you think I'm supposed to be addressing? I'm merely offering details that should facilitate an informed discussion and in this instance I'm specifically addressing the difference between an accident and negligence when it comes to firearms.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:With your obvious technical knowledge base, this must be intentional??? Ha, ha. No....the accidents being addressed are the most likely household use of deadly force hubby vs wifey, or kiddie vs the universe. ie: Bio Locks...or thumbprint ID required to fire the weapon. What the NRA is firmly against. There can be no legitimate objection to such regulations.

If any adult person intentionally fires upon another I would consider that neither an accident nor negligence.

Biolocks could potentially prevent negligence that results in harm. Any potential benefit has to be balanced against potential downsides. I understand that police departments have considered the biolock technology for their officers weapons and when they weighed the benefits they ultimately decided that there were legitimate objections to such a system. To my knowledge no law enforcement organization has adopted such technology although some have voluntary programs to let their officers test out the tech.

I participate in a lot of pistol shooting competition so I regularly practice my draw and am familiar with how long it takes me to get my pistol up and aligned with the target. Fractions of a second count for me and I'm just playing a game with paper targets. If biolock tech adds any time at all or is not 100% reliable I can't picture police or military adopting it. When thinking about having to use a gun for self defense I personally don't want to have to mess with any delays or failures. As a responsible gun owner I agree with the need for firearm owners to secure their gear and prevent negligent shootings. I simply don't feel the biolock tech is ready for prime time and would resent having it forced on me. Make it work instantly 100% of the time, give me the ability to adjust the settings so that I can lend my firearm to friends for hunting or shooting matches, and implement it without adding to the cost, and my objections are gone.

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Gun Safety

Postby Blacksamwell » Thu Jun 30, 2016 2:55 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Point taken. The essence of gray/shadow market sales is to get around the law.

Yes, agreed. As long as one considers blatantly flaunting the law by willing breaking it to be a form of getting around the law.

Is it useful to think of any "grey" market as being made up of transactions between criminals and transactions between a non-criminal and a criminal?

Criminals trading guns with criminals is illegal every which way. I wouldn't consider this a loophole of any sort. Everything about the transaction is illegal and they're not getting around the law they're just breaking it.

It is possible in some states for a non-criminal to not break any laws while selling a firearm to a criminal. The criminal in the transaction is breaking the law, but the seller isn't as long as they don't know that the buyer is a prohibited person. I suppose this could be considered a loophole for the seller as I think it subverts the intent of the law while not breaking any of the rules.

Anyone know if there are crime metrics available that show where the gun came from? What percentage of gun crimes are committed with stolen guns traded between criminals vs those that were sold by a non-criminal to a criminal. We could require background checks for all transactions and that would eliminate the loophole but would it impact the numbers of guns criminals use in committing crimes?

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19788
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Gun Safety

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Jun 30, 2016 3:05 pm

I am assured by many voices that the speakers would NOT turn in their guns if guns were outlawed. This admission of latent lawlessness isn't surprising, of course.

The way to reduce gun crimes is to reduce the number of guns in circulation.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Gun Safety

Postby Blacksamwell » Thu Jun 30, 2016 3:18 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:The way to reduce gun crimes is to reduce the number of guns in circulation.

Possibly. Certainly if one eliminates all guns from circulation this would be true. Of course with a situation like the U.S. that's not a simply executed solution.

Of course, reducing the numbers of guns used in crimes may not result from a reduction of the number of guns in circulation. Others have noted that while the number of guns owned in the U.S. has risen dramatically, the number of gun owners hasn't. Guns in circulation has gone up. Violent crime in general, including gun crimes, has gone down. Should we expect that reducing the numbers of guns would make an impact on gun crimes in the way you predict when the contrary pattern isn't being seen? If the vast majority of legal gun owners never commit a crime using their gun and the rise in guns being owned is simply a case of those gun owners continuing to obey the law while owning more firearms should we really expect much of a reduction in crime if we simply focus on overall gun circulation?

If the vast majority of gun crimes are committed by people who weren't legally possessing the gun to begin with should we maybe focus on reducing the illegal possession of guns instead to get more return for our efforts? Is that not possible?

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19788
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Gun Safety

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Jun 30, 2016 3:40 pm

No gun is manufactured for the illegal market, every gun in criminals' possession started as a legal sale. Foreign countries come here for guns for their own illegal market. We are creating and fostering a problem in other countries as well as our own.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Gun Safety

Postby Blacksamwell » Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:15 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:No gun is manufactured for the illegal market, every gun in criminals' possession started as a legal sale.

Well, I'd be careful of making absolute statements in this regard. For example, in the Philippines there is a long tradition of illegal gun manufacturing in backyard shops. In the U.S. it is legal to acquire what's called an 80% lower which is the frame of a gun that is 80% complete and to then complete the work to finish the gun in your garage. It is possible for 80% lowers to be manufactured for an illegal market although I'm not aware of any evidence that this is in fact occurring.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccO1Day60sA

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Foreign countries come here for guns for their own illegal market. We are creating and fostering a problem in other countries as well as our own.

Do you have a citation on the foreign countries buying and exporting guns for their illegal markets? Are you sure you phrased that correctly? Are you saying that there are instances where a foreign government acquired guns from the U.S. and funneled them back to be illegally sold in their country?

In know of circumstances where criminals have illegally acquired and smuggled guns home for nefarious purposes, but I've not heard of foreign governments doing so.
Last edited by Blacksamwell on Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19788
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Gun Safety

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:19 pm

I said nothing about governments.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: Gun Safety

Postby Blacksamwell » Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:27 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:I said nothing about governments.

Well, that's why I thought it strange that you made reference to "countries".

So what you meant is that foreign criminals illegally acquire guns from the U.S. and illegally smuggle them into illegal foreign markets, correct?


Return to “Guns”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: SemrushBot and 1 guest