gun show loophole rant

Quote: s2dbaker

I'm willing to bet that a lot of people with children they've buried thought the same thing. Good luck!!

I'm willing to bet that a lot of people who own cars never thought they'd drive drunk either.

Do you own a car? If so, good luck!!

Quote: treetopbuddy

400,000 Homeland Security employees, going to a million....works out to 2500 rounds per fed on recent purchase.....

Who the hell are they securing us FROM? If this was a
country in S America, we would know what was up.
As far as the US goes, ever see the movie Seven Days
in May? Wiki it if you haven't. Congress is asking questions
and they're all being avoided by this 'transparent'
administration. What the hell is going on.

Quote: s2dbaker

I'm willing to bet that a lot of people with children they've buried thought the same thing. Good luck!!

I would doubt it.

But again if you don't want a gun in your home don't buy one. Why do you care what other do in their own homes?

currently one homeland security hooplehead, AGAINST, 750 citizens......give it ten years and the ratio will be closer to 1 hooplehead, against, 300 citizens. How did I miss the word "hooplehead'?

Quote: AZDuffman

I would doubt it.

But again if you don't want a gun in your home don't buy one. Why do you care what other do in their own homes?

I don't really. Like I said earlier, that means fewer children on airplanes and only good things can come of that.

One thing I don't understand or agree with, is no reliance on electronic prevention. We fly in airplanes and drive depending on critical items not failing.

Yet, people don't apparently trust that an electronic device could secure your gun from at least immediate use, or make it useless without a finger print or some other type of recognition. The idea being that the device still gives the owner almost instant access.

Quote: rxwine

One thing I don't understand or agree with, is no reliance on electronic prevention. We fly in airplanes and drive depending on critical items not failing.

Yet, people don't apparently trust that an electronic device could secure your gun from at least immediate use, or make it useless without a finger print or some other type of recognition. The idea being that the device still gives the owner almost instant access.

Seems a very high cost/benefit balance. And part of the cost is what if a dead battery or other malfunction makes the product fail when needed most.

Quote: s2dbaker

I don't really. Like I said earlier, that means fewer children on airplanes and only good things can come of that.

For someone who doesn't care you really seem to put a lot of effort into caring. You even go so far as to warn B9 about it.

Quote: AZDuffman

And part of the cost is what if a dead battery or other malfunction makes the product fail when needed most.

True, but what are the odds that one time you need something that will be when it decides to fail?

Yes, I know everyone probably experiences going to get something you rarely use, and bingo, the battery has died. But usually this occurs because someone didn't follow directions about regular checks (just like fire extinguishers or smoke alarms that aren't checked at intervals will probably not be there for you)

Quote: EvenBob

Who the hell are they securing us FROM? If this was a
country in S America, we would know what was up.
As far as the US goes, ever see the movie Seven Days
in May? Wiki it if you haven't. Congress is asking questions
and they're all being avoided by this 'transparent'
administration. What the hell is going on.

I wouldn't expect an answer, nor would I trust one if supplied.

But I wouldn't worry about it.

Actually, I think the closest things to solution, is a ring you could wear on your finger with a microchip perhaps, or perhaps a unique engraving that would interface with the gun.

Much like my cycle has a chip that works with a coresponding key program.

Quote: AZDuffman

For someone who doesn't care you really seem to put a lot of effort into caring. You even go so far as to warn B9 about it.

I'm just sayin'. Sometimes even an Army Specialist may believe that they won't get hurt by a gun and then BANG, you're dead.

Quote: s2dbaker

I'm just sayin'. Sometimes even an Army Specialist may believe that they won't get hurt by a gun and then BANG, you're dead.

So tell your cop buddy you don't want I go shooting because you are afraid you will hurt yourself and let those of us who can handle guns responsibly do so without draconian restrictions.

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: s2dbaker

I'm just sayin'. Sometimes even an Army Specialist may believe that they won't get hurt by a gun and then BANG, you're dead.

So tell your cop buddy you don't want I go shooting because you are afraid you will hurt yourself and let those of us who can handle guns responsibly do so without draconian restrictions.

This is interesting, what draconian restrictions are you talking about? As for my cousin's husband, I haven't taken him up on his offer yet.

Quote: rxwine

True, but what are the odds that one time you need something that will be when it decides to fail?

Yes, I know everyone probably experiences going to get something you rarely use, and bingo, the battery has died. But usually this occurs because someone didn't follow directions about regular checks (just like fire extinguishers or smoke alarms that aren't checked at intervals will probably not be there for you)

I would refer to Wiz's advice on hedging life changing situations. Same as you hedge a big life changing dollar amount I want my gun to work reliably if someone is threatening my life or wants to do me grave harm. On the cost side it would not be worth it to me as I wouldn't even buy a trigger lock. I have no kids around and when they visit I can stow the gun out of reach.

Such a device I think would be mostly useful for cops or COs who have a bigger chance of their gun being taken away more often. In most civilian situations it is more likely the perp runs when he sees you are armed and will move on to the house with the NRA symbol and a red circle and slash over it.

Quote: AZDuffman

So tell your cop buddy you don't want I go shooting because you are afraid you will hurt yourself and let those of us who can handle guns responsibly do so without draconian restrictions.

Here's a guy who thought he could clean his gun yesterday, without draconian restrictions (whatever the heck that means). He thought that he was a responsible gun owner and that he could handle his weapon, right up until the point where he shattered his femur with an accidental 9mm slug of liberty.

Quote: s2dbaker

Here's a guy who thought he could clean his gun yesterday, without draconian restrictions (whatever the heck that means). He thought that he was a responsible gun owner and that he could handle his weapon, right up until the point where he shattered his femur with an accidental 9mm slug of liberty.

For those who do not understand, "draconian restrictions" are laws about how you need to keep your gun disabled in your own home. For example, requiring trigger locks be on it when not in use; the gun be kept in a safe when not in use; or the gun be kept unloaded or disabled at all times when not in use.

Although I must say, for someone who continues to insist he does not care what people do with their guns at home you seem to like to spend a great deal of your time digging up examples of what are claimed to be "gun cleaning accidents." I am still unsure what kind of point you are trying to make.

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: s2dbaker

Here's a guy who thought he could clean his gun yesterday, without draconian restrictions (whatever the heck that means). He thought that he was a responsible gun owner and that he could handle his weapon, right up until the point where he shattered his femur with an accidental 9mm slug of liberty.

For those who do not understand, "draconian restrictions" are laws about how you need to keep your gun disabled in your own home. For example, requiring trigger locks be on it when not in use; the gun be kept in a safe when not in use; or the gun be kept unloaded or disabled at all times when not in use.

That's what gets characterized as "draconian"? Okay, I think I'm beginning to understand what's going on in your head. Well, not really "understand" as much as figure out. More evidence of what's going on in the next statement:

Quote: AZDuffman

Although I must say, for someone who continues to insist he does not care what people do with their guns at home you seem to like to spend a great deal of your time digging up examples of what are claimed to be "gun cleaning accidents." I am still unsure what kind of point you are trying to make.

Emphasis mine. The story that I dug up appeared in my newsfeed between the last post in this thread and the time I posted it. In other words, the guy is probably still bleeding.

Quote: Access North Georgia

Sheriff Joey Terrell said the unidentified man apparently shot himself in the thigh with a 9-mm handgun while cleaning the firearm or preparing to clean it around 3:30 p.m.

That's Eastern time so about 12:30pm by the timestamp clock on this board. But I'm really digging deep for these. srsly!

Quote: Access North Georgia

Terrell said a gun-cleaning kit was found in the room with the man, and there’s no reason to believe the shooting was anything other than accidental.

I'm not claiming that this was a "gun cleaning accident", the Sheriff doing the investigation is claiming that. But that's okay, in Az's world, it's all a conspiracy.

Quote: s2dbaker

That's what gets characterized as "draconian"? Okay, I think I'm beginning to understand what's going on in your head. Well, not really "understand" as much as figure out.

Yes, telling a person how they must store a gun in their own home, especially to say it must be stored in such a way as it cannot be used in an emergency, is draconian.

That's Eastern time so about 12:30pm by the timestamp clock on this board. But I'm really digging deep for these.

Use whatever term you like for "digging up." I am calling it that in that you seem to look for said stories and post them here for whatever reason.

Try not to feel too oppressed!

SD, do you really not care for your rights to think laws can be made just because. Imagine someone coming into your house unannounced, and just says I want to just look around through your things to make sure it's all legal. It's a right to privacy you're just taking for granted. I don't care how many die from guns, if you lose the right to defend yourself, the government can do anything. Let's just move on and find something we can all agree on.
You can't even buy milk or honey in a store and even be sure it is what they claim. We can't go backwards, but we are to the days before muckraking. So on and so on. So many people die from all sorts of negligence such as medical mistakes etc., much more than guns. To put it in casino terms, these so-called political fights are like worrying about ATM fees when winning BJ hands pay 2:3, pushes lose. These kinds of things are not being addressed, because it's the sugar the politicians sell.

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: s2dbaker

Here's a guy who thought he could clean his gun yesterday, without draconian restrictions (whatever the heck that means). He thought that he was a responsible gun owner and that he could handle his weapon, right up until the point where he shattered his femur with an accidental 9mm slug of liberty.

For those who do not understand, "draconian restrictions" are laws about how you need to keep your gun disabled in your own home. For example, requiring trigger locks be on it when not in use; the gun be kept in a safe when not in use; or the gun be kept unloaded or disabled at all times when not in use.

Although I must say, for someone who continues to insist he does not care what people do with their guns at home you seem to like to spend a great deal of your time digging up examples of what are claimed to be "gun cleaning accidents." I am still unsure what kind of point you are trying to make.

Well don't move to Canada then. We have *all* of those "draconian" laws in place. Our home invasion rates are not out of control as a result, and we consider ourselves a fairly free country. The "gun accident death rate" for the last year it was available was 4 times less than yours. Our murder rates and suicide rates are way lower than the US's. Mind you we have universal health care, pay higher taxes, and have gay marriage. We must be some crazy ass-backwards commune here. Let's see, how are we doing economically? Pretty good. How is our banking system? The best in the world.

Quote: boymimbo

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: s2dbaker

Here's a guy who thought he could clean his gun yesterday, without draconian restrictions (whatever the heck that means). He thought that he was a responsible gun owner and that he could handle his weapon, right up until the point where he shattered his femur with an accidental 9mm slug of liberty.

For those who do not understand, "draconian restrictions" are laws about how you need to keep your gun disabled in your own home. For example, requiring trigger locks be on it when not in use; the gun be kept in a safe when not in use; or the gun be kept unloaded or disabled at all times when not in use.

Although I must say, for someone who continues to insist he does not care what people do with their guns at home you seem to like to spend a great deal of your time digging up examples of what are claimed to be "gun cleaning accidents." I am still unsure what kind of point you are trying to make.

Well don't move to Canada then. We have *all* of those "draconian" laws in place. Our home invasion rates are not out of control as a result, and we consider ourselves a fairly free country. The "gun accident death rate" for the last year it was available was 4 times less than yours. Our murder rates and suicide rates are way lower than the US's. Mind you we have universal health care, pay higher taxes, and have gay marriage. We must be some crazy ass-backwards commune here. Let's see, how are we doing economically? Pretty good. How is our banking system? The best in the world.

You also have Jennifer Jones. Not sure where the correlation lies. I prefer freedom to an illusion of security. Without the first you lose the second.

Quote: AZDuffman

I prefer freedom to an illusion if security. Without the first you lose the second.

They have the second QED they have the first as well.

Quote: onenickelmiracle

SD, do you really not care for your rights to think laws can be made just because. Imagine someone coming into your house unannounced, and just says I want to just look around through your things to make sure it's all legal. It's a right to privacy you're just taking for granted. I don't care how many die from guns, if you lose the right to defend yourself, the government can do anything. Let's just move on and find something we can all agree on.
You can't even buy milk or honey in a store and even be sure it is what they claim. We can't go backwards, but we are to the days before muckraking. So on and so on. So many people die from all sorts of negligence such as medical mistakes etc., much more than guns. To put it in casino terms, these so-called political fights are like worrying about ATM fees when winning BJ hands pay 2:3, pushes lose. These kinds of things are not being addressed, because it's the sugar the politicians sell.

I'll try to interpret that later.

Quote: AZDuffman

Yes, telling a person how they must store a gun in their own home, especially to say it must be stored in such a way as it cannot be used in an emergency, is draconian..

What's this safe thing she's using in the Glock commerical?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=H1cZdvJUf-k#t=60s

Quote: rxwine

What's this safe thing she's using in the Glock commerical?

Did she purchase the "safe thing" on her own, or did the state mandate that she buy it? Unless you know for certain that it's the latter, I don't see the point here.

Quote: rxwine

What's this safe thing she's using in the Glock commerical?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=H1cZdvJUf-k#t=60s

That's the exact safe I own. Works great to keep my 4yr old unperforated. Does nothing to keep it from a burglar should my house be robbed. If like AZ I was childless, I wouldn't own it.

Quote: rxwine

What's this safe thing she's using in the Glock commerical?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=H1cZdvJUf-k#t=60s

All that ad needs to make more realistic is a chainsaw attached to the girl's thigh. Maybe some rocket launching boob appliance.

Quote: Beethoven9th

Did she purchase the "safe thing" on her own, or did the state mandate that she buy it? Unless you know for certain that it's the latter, I don't see the point here.

The point is they think they know how to run your life better than you do.

The girl is kind of cute. Suprised she isn't married. Good looking and can handle a firearm, a winning combination for any real man!

Quote: AZDuffman

The point is they think they know how to run your life better than you do.

I don't think they understand that there's nothing "draconian" if the woman bought the safe of her own accord. OTOH, if the state mandated that she do so, then that's a whole different (draconian) story...

Quote: Beethoven9th

I don't think they understand that there's nothing "draconian" if the woman bought the safe of her own accord. OTOH, if the state mandated that she do so, then that's a whole different (draconian) story...

Not all that much different than the home or car full of safety regulated items that having nothing more than do than keeping the users from dying or killing their visitors (electrical wiring, fire resistent material, etc., etc., etc.,)

Quote: rxwine

Not all that much different than the home or car full of safety regulated items that having nothing more than do than keeping the users from dying or killing their visitors (electrical wiring, fire resistent material, etc., etc., etc.,)

Actually quite different as locking up the gun makes no difference to safety except to an intruder. When my response time in getting to my firearm is increased it makes the intruder more safe.

Quote: rxwine

Not all that much different than the home or car full of safety regulated items that having nothing more than do than keeping the users from dying or killing their visitors (electrical wiring, fire resistent material, etc., etc., etc.,)

Regulations for cars are easily enforced by going straight to where the cars are manufactured. OTOH, the only way to enforce the use of a safe by gun owners is to knock on their doors and enter their homes against their will. That, my friend, is draconian.

Quote: Beethoven9th

Regulations for cars are easily enforced by going straight to where the cars are manufactured. OTOH, the only way to enforce the use of a safe by gun owners is to knock on their doors and enter their homes against their will. That, my friend, is draconian.

I agree. Good thing no one is suggesting such a straw man.

Quote: rxwine

Not all that much different than the home or car full of safety regulated items that having nothing more than do than keeping the users from dying or killing their visitors (electrical wiring, fire resistent material, etc., etc., etc.,)

This sign is starting to apply to this thread.



How they going to enforce it? There's only one way that I can see, that's spot checking your house. And they can



because



(yay, signs!)

Quote: s2dbaker

I agree. Good thing no one is suggesting such a straw man.

You must not be keeping up with this thread or the message to which I was replying.

Quote: Beethoven9th

Regulations for cars are easily enforced by going straight to where the cars are manufactured. OTOH, the only way to enforce the use of a safe by gun owners is to knock on their doors and enter their homes against their will. That, my friend, is draconian.

The way the country is going we will be lucky if they knock.

Quote: AZDuffman

The way the country is going we will be lucky if they knock.

Come and knock on our door
We've been waiting for you
Where the kisses are hers and hers and his
Three's company, too!

Quote: rxwine

Come and knock on our door
We've been waiting for you
Where the kisses are hers and hers and his
Three's company, too!

Haha! Thx for lightening the mood, rxwine.

Who the heck doesn't love Three's Company?? :)

It took some time, but I finally found a news story where a home intruder was shot dead by a responsible gun owner in the name of freedom and liberty.

Quote: Orlando Sentinel

The boy told police he shot Christian because he thought his brother was an intruder trying to break into his family's Lake Nona home

Quote: s2dbaker

It took some time, but I finally found a news story where a home intruder was shot dead by a responsible gun owner in the name of freedom and liberty.

Are you deliberately misrepresenting the facts of the story or do you really think the 16 year old was the gun owner?

And what is this "freedom and liberty" nonsense? The boy thought his brother was an intruder, what has that got to do with freedom or liberty?

I don't actually expect you to respond, you never do when someone confronts you with your distortions, but I think everyone else here should exercise the same right and stop responding to you, it's a complete waste of time. Your behavior in this thread is nothing short of trolling and if you think there's any possibility of winning anyone over to your way of thinking you're sorely mistaken. I doubt you've noticed but the other posters on your side of the debate on this thread aren't exactly falling over themselves to back up your play here. Maybe you should take a short break from scouring the web to find accidental shooting stories and ponder why that might be.

If you do bother to respond I expect it to be one of your snarky (read: lame) attempts at deflection, it seem that's the only other thing you know how to do besides be sarcastic.

s2dbaker's point is that people die in gun accidents all of the time. The "freedom and liberty" is the ability to own and keep loaded guns in your home to the detriment of innocent victims. Another poster claims that most of these accidents are (and I'm paraphrasing) homocides or suicides. His links, IMO, are to illustrate that this isn't the case.

I don't believe in the right of someone having the right to kill another unless their life is in danger. I would rather lose property than have the conscience of killing someone else. But that's just me. I won't push that on other people because clearly property is as important as life to them.

The media's been using exactly what s2dbaker's been doing to change public opinion. If you open these links, you see stories about innocent people dying due to senseless gun accidents which could be prevented. Maybe enough of these stories might convince others to change their opinion, though I highly doubt it. Even reasonable arguments carry no weight around here -- people are too glued to their beliefs.

Quote: boymimbo

s2dbaker's point is that people die in gun accidents all of the time.

And that's a fine point to make. You just did it very well. s2dbaker's approach is abrasive (the nicest way I could think to put it without being suspended).

Quote: boymimbo

The "freedom and liberty" is the ability to own and keep loaded guns in your home to the detriment of innocent victims.

Did you read the article? There was nothing about freedom and liberty to it. The older brother thought there was an intruder. This "freedom and liberty" nonsense from s2dbaker is disingenuous.

Quote: boymimbo

Another poster claims that most of these accidents are (and I'm paraphrasing) homocides or suicides. His links, IMO, are to illustrate that this isn't the case.

And it's fine to disagree about the actual nature of the incidents, but if you don't find s2dbaker's posts on the matter offensive I think perhaps you should read them again.

Quote: boymimbo

I don't believe in the right of someone having the right to kill another unless their life is in danger. I would rather lose property than have the conscience of killing someone else. But that's just me. I won't push that on other people because clearly property is as important as life to them.

I think you're veering ever so slightly into s2dbaker territory with the above statement. You implication seems to me that you are in some way superior to others due to your beliefs. If you don't know what I mean read your last sentence above again. If you'd like I can rephrase it using other examples where the snooty bias is maybe more clear.

I think it's the condescending attitude of the gun control crowd that gets under the skin of the gun owner crowd (to broadly generalize the two groups). You can certainly have your opinions, everyone has a right to them, but how you express them will tend to engage others or alienate them. For the most part in this thread your behavior has been exemplary.

Quote: boymimbo

The media's been using exactly what s2dbaker's been doing to change public opinion.

Emphasis mine.

I would strongly disagree with the above statement. I've not seen s2dbaker's level of snark in the mainstream media at all. If you have then please share the source. If you have the mainstream media saying things like "...that means fewer children on airplanes and only good things can come of that. " in reference to children dying I really, really want to see that. I don't believe the mainstream media is doing exactly what s2dbaker is doing.

Quote: boymimbo

If you open these links, you see stories about innocent people dying due to senseless gun accidents which could be prevented. Maybe enough of these stories might convince others to change their opinion, though I highly doubt it. Even reasonable arguments carry no weight around here -- people are too glued to their beliefs.

I think the articles are easily dismissed by responsible gun owners because they wouldn't engage in the behavior that causes these accidents. I hate to use the car analogy but do you think most car accidents are caused by mature adults exercising the proper care and caution while driving? I would suspect not, in fact the majority of the motoring public drives everyday without incident. I'd imagine that responsible car owners feel the same way in that they can hear about a horrible car accident and it doesn't occur to them to get rid of their car. So then, these accounts of idiots and their weapons gone wrong are just the same to responsible gun owners.

Yeah, my point does have a bit of bias to it of course. I feel that I really don't have a right to kill someone else, even if they are breaking into my home to get property. I'd rather flee. And yes, that's my opinion. My last statement is just that and maybe it might make someone think about whether they would kill someone else over property. I'm fine with that.

The "mainstream" media (thank you for pointing out where you lean) injects senseless gun accidents into their newscasts all of the time. This thread really boils down to arguments made between gun control "nuts" such as myself and those "freedom and liberty" lovers who support the right to own guns with the present legislation that the US, states, and localities have now or less.

"Responsible gun owners". What exactly does that mean? At what point does a irresponsible gun owner become irresponsible?

You brought in the car owner analogy. Some car accidents have victims who happen to be responsible car owners or are passengers or bystanders. Some car accidents are caused by otherwise responsible car owners who get into situations over their heads, such as poor weather, fatigue, lack of concentration, or just a bad habit such as forgetting to look in the mirror. the same way that a normally responsible gun owner might forget that their gun is loaded when they take it out of their drawer or might happen to trip. Regulations and laws are in place to protect accidents from happening and to save innocent people from dying. That's why truck drivers have strict limits on how many hours they can drive every day, or seat belt laws, or speed limits, or traffic lights and stop signs. There are already plenty of regulations with guns too, but can the laws be made better?

In the same sense, thoughtful gun laws should be in place that prevent accidents and massacres from happening with the frequency that it does while protecting the 2nd amendment [sarcasm]freedom and liberty that the founders of your nation with their muskets obviously intended for the 21st century modern weaponry [/sarcasm] rights.

I'd like this forum to advance to what those thoughtful gun laws might be but, with the exception of Face, we have a faction of people who believe that everyone should be able to own whatever they want while far fewer others believe that guns should be made illegal.

Quote: boymimbo

s2dbaker's point is that people die in gun accidents all of the time. The "freedom and liberty" is the ability to own and keep loaded guns in your home to the detriment of innocent victims. Another poster claims that most of these accidents are (and I'm paraphrasing) homocides or suicides. His links, IMO, are to illustrate that this isn't the case.

Not really, the point is S2 is a gunphobe who thinks because he does not like guns nobody should be allowed to have them. Nobody denies guns may be involved in a death when misused. This is why the NRA has fine gun safety information and programs. S2s solution, however, is to ban guns, or as stated place enough draconian restrictions on how people keep them in their own homes as to make them useless for home protection.

30,000 people die in car accidents every year, does S2 spend his time looking for stories of car accidents? Does he call for restrictions on car use? 1 million people in the USA have AIDS, does S2 post articles on this and call for restrictions on gay male sex to lower the problem? Not at all.

He will not state what seems to be his position that he hates guns and is not crazy about gun owners. He gets offended if you ask him to. However, he will post a condescending little smart-alek line about how the accident was the fault of a "freedom loving person."

Quote: boymimbo

Yeah, my point does have a bit of bias to it of course. I feel that I really don't have a right to kill someone else, even if they are breaking into my home to get property. I'd rather flee. And yes, that's my opinion. My last statement is just that and maybe it might make someone think about whether they would kill someone else over property. I'm fine with that.

If you're fine with sounding "holier than thou" while making that point there isn't much I can add except, when someone unlawfully enters your home do you know that they are just after the "stuff"? Maybe the "stuff" they're after is you or your family. You may be fine with fleeing while an intruder rapes your children, others aren't. How'd you like how that implication sat? That's what you and s2dbaker sound like, you less than him, but the condescending attitude seems to be there nonetheless.

Quote: boymimbo

The "mainstream" media (thank you for pointing out where you lean)

I don't know what this is supposed to mean. I'm probably the most moderate member in this "debate" if the survey a lot of us took on DT is any indicator*. I say "mainstream media" because I don't want to see examples pulled from far left or right leaning websites/news outlets. I don't want examples from pundits like Rush Limbaugh or Bill Maher. If that's wrong, I don't wanna be right.

Quote: boymimbo

injects senseless gun accidents into their newscasts all of the time.

Sure, because tragedy sells, not because they're pushing an agenda. The only agenda they have involves capturing market share.

Quote: boymimbo

This thread really boils down to arguments made between gun control "nuts" such as myself and those "freedom and liberty" lovers who support the right to own guns with the present legislation that the US, states, and localities have now or less.

"Responsible gun owners". What exactly does that mean? At what point does a irresponsible gun owner become irresponsible?

I doubt I'm qualified to give an all encompassing definition. However, it would be difficult for me to characterize any gun owner that accidentally shot themselves or someone else while cleaning the weapon as responsible. A responsible gun owner would clear the weapon before commencing with cleaning, it would be virtually impossible for a responsible gun owner to do what is in the articles.

I noticed you declined my offer to show where the media is doing exactly what s2dbaker is doing. Why is that?

Quote: boymimbo

You brought in the car owner analogy. Some car accidents have victims who happen to be responsible car owners or are passengers or bystanders.

Passengers, bystanders, or the hapless victim of someone else I would buy. The other things you mention aren't the actions of a responsible car driver.

Quote: boymimbo

Some car accidents are caused by otherwise responsible car owners who get into situations over their heads, such as poor weather,

Can't see? Road is slippery? Stop driving, that's the responsible thing to do.

Quote: boymimbo

fatigue, lack of concentration,

Again, driving under those conditions are not the actions of a responsible driver.

Quote: boymimbo

or just a bad habit such as forgetting to look in the mirror.

Responsible drivers don't have such a "bad habit".

Quote: boymimbo

the same way that a normally responsible gun owner might forget that their gun is loaded when they take it out of their drawer or might happen to trip.

Doesn't matter, a responsible gun owner has the safety set, and/or checks the weapon when retrieving it. They certainly don't yank it from the drawer and go skipping down the stairs with it.

Quote: boymimbo

Regulations and laws are in place to protect accidents from happening and to save innocent people from dying. That's why truck drivers have strict limits on how many hours they can drive every day, or seat belt laws, or speed limits, or traffic lights and stop signs. There are already plenty of regulations with guns too, but can the laws be made better?

As far as I can tell? No, not really. The biggest problem is stupid isn't illegal, and criminals ignore gun laws. Improve away, what difference do you hope to make?

Quote: boymimbo

In the same sense, thoughtful gun laws should be in place that prevent accidents and massacres from happening with the frequency that it does while protecting the 2nd amendment [sarcasm]freedom and liberty that the founders of your nation with their muskets obviously intended for the 21st century modern weaponry [/sarcasm] rights.

I have a thoughtful reply to this but I'm withholding it as I think the sarcasm was completely unnecessary and frankly, beneath you.

Quote: boymimbo

I'd like this forum to advance to what those thoughtful gun laws might be but, with the exception of Face, we have a faction of people who believe that everyone should be able to own whatever they want while far fewer others believe that guns should be made illegal.

I think you're mis-characterizing the "gun nuts" on this forum. I don't see anyone saying they should be allowed to own fully automatic machine guns, or the other laughable example, nuclear weapons. I don't think that sort of approach is going to get you that advance you purport to wish for. I thought you and Face were able to make some headway toward the "advance" but on the other hand I think you're destroying it with the condescending way you're stating your view.

* I actually fall slightly on the liberal side, but I find it much easier to talk to conservatives. With conservatives you get what you see, they don't attempt to sway you to their side with emotion, it tends to be cold (sometimes too cold) logic. Liberals on the other hand tend to come off as judgmental jerks which is odd because they're the ones that paint themselves as being so sensitive. You want insensitive, have an argument with a liberal (see almost any of s2dbaker's posts in this, or any other thread). Conservatives may be insensitive as well, but they don't try to hide it (see almost any of EvenBob's posts).

People drive when they shouldn't because they have to get somewhere (ie, work or home) and believe that they have the driving skills necessary to complete the task at hand. And yeah, you can drive for years with a bad driving habit and get away with it before you get into an accident. Is that irresponsible? You can even pass driver's license driving tests with a bad habit or two. And certainly, as you get older and get more habitual in your routine, it's far more likely that you will develop bad habits that will only get you in trouble because the driver around you didn't notice you exercising said bad habit.

The same is true with gun ownership. You can call yourself a "responsible gun owner" because you haven't had an accident YET with your gun. Why do you think gun accidents happen? Would you characterize every gun accident as being an "irresponsible gun owner"? Gun accidents often happen because of a bad habit or because the gun owner just didn't know any better because s/he wasn't required to take any courses in what gun responsibility looks like. This leaves the gun buyer to simply exercise their best "judgement" as to what "responsibility" is. How does the gun owner know to set the safety and to check the weapon? What course did they take to know that? Word of mouth?

And given that plenty of gun owners have an IQ far less than 100, you put a deadly weapon in the hands of someone without any education as to how to use said deadly force. Here's a law for ya, education. You want to own a gun, take a course on handling it and owning it responsibly. You get the gun when you complete the course. Is that thoughtful, or is it just restricting one's 2nd amendment right?

And yeah, there is a faction of people on this forum who would advoctate ownership of fully automated machine guns, missiles, and aircraft carriers, for example. There is certainly a large group of people who don't want ANY more gun laws.

Your statement "no, not really" to whether more gun laws make sense indicate that you've already thought about it, and you've decided that there's no law that will help.

Laws that keep guns out of criminal's hands would be very helpful, for example. Given that guns used by criminal are obtained mostly through private sales (where no checks are required) or theft, laws that restrict private sales (a registry) or force users to lock guns at home (to reduce theft) would keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

None of these proposed laws impact one's 2nd amendment rights. However, the laws do have the ability (perhaps) to reduce gun accidents and perhaps crime (by keeping new guns out of the hands of criminals).

Quote: boymimbo

People drive when they shouldn't because they have to get somewhere (ie, work or home) and believe that they have the driving skills necessary to complete the task at hand. And yeah, you can drive for years with a bad driving habit and get away with it before you get into an accident. Is that irresponsible? You can even pass driver's license driving tests with a bad habit or two. And certainly, as you get older and get more habitual in your routine, it's far more likely that you will develop bad habits that will only get you in trouble because the driver around you didn't notice you exercising said bad habit.

And you're willing to characterize such drivers as responsible? We really are on different pages.

Quote: boymimbo

The same is true with gun ownership. You can call yourself a "responsible gun owner" because you haven't had an accident YET with your gun.

I like the "YET". As if it's inevitable. I think your bias is showing.

Quote: boymimbo

Why do you think gun accidents happen? Would you characterize every gun accident as being an "irresponsible gun owner"?

I would hesitate to paint with that broad of a brush. The latest article cited by s2dbaker was a person that wasn't the owner of the gun doing the shooting and it was certainly an accident (or appears to be to me).

Quote: boymimbo

Gun accidents often happen because of a bad habit or because the gun owner just didn't know any better because s/he wasn't required to take any courses in what gun responsibility looks like. This leaves the gun buyer to simply exercise their best "judgement" as to what "responsibility" is. How does the gun owner know to set the safety and to check the weapon? What course did they take to know that? Word of mouth?

I don't think you're describing responsible gun owners, at least not the way I see them.

Quote: boymimbo

And given that plenty of gun owners have an IQ far less than 100, you put a deadly weapon in the hands of someone without any education as to how to use said deadly force.

It doesn't take a genius to check if the chamber is clear, or set a safety.

Quote: boymimbo

Here's a law for ya, education. You want to own a gun, take a course on handling it and owning it responsibly. You get the gun when you complete the course. Is that thoughtful, or is it just restricting one's 2nd amendment right?

I don't think that's restrictive at all. I will add that I know many gun owners and all of them know how to handle the weapon responsibly and I don't think any of them took a formal class to get that training, unless you count the military or duck hunting with Uncle Jeb as a formal class setting.

Quote: boymimbo

And yeah, there is a faction of people on this forum who would advoctate ownership of fully automated machine guns, missiles, and aircraft carriers, for example. There is certainly a large group of people who don't want ANY more gun laws.

I agree with the second sentence, I think the first contains too much hyperbole to be taken seriously.

Quote: boymimbo

Your statement "no, not really" to whether more gun laws make sense indicate that you've already thought about it, and you've decided that there's no law that will help.

Thanks for clearing that up for anyone that might have misconstrued my position.

Quote: boymimbo

Laws that keep guns out of criminal's hands would be very helpful, for example.

We have those and yet somehow criminals still manage to get guns. How many more laws will it take before the criminals get the message that we don't want them to have guns?

Quote: boymimbo

Given that guns used by criminal are obtained mostly through private sales (where no checks are required) or theft, laws that restrict private sales (a registry) or force users to lock guns at home (to reduce theft) would keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Would you believe a source like PBS disagrees with you? Here ya go, enjoy: How criminals get guns

Quote: boymimbo

None of these proposed laws impact one's 2nd amendment rights. However, the laws do have the ability (perhaps) to reduce gun accidents and perhaps crime (by keeping new guns out of the hands of criminals).

It's the "perhaps" part that is the sticky bit. You've built your analysis on faulty data, thus the conclusion is not certain.