Either these people were shot dead or they were not. Thanks to the worship of firearms US has by far the highest gun homicide rate in the developed world. Choose to evade that essential fact as much as you want
I have lived in a home with a pipe bomb in it for 25 years. I have had 0 accidents. Not a scratch. My family is not at risk to pipe bombs. They aren't stupid. Maybe you are incapable of handling pipe bombs safely, but I'm not. Nor is my father. Funny. He never had an accident either. Weird. Maybe you are more likely because YOU can't handle safety?
Again. Fear of pipe bombs is OK, but you shouldn't let it cloud your mind.
This weekend, 3 days, 75 people on horses carrying not one, but two firearms, in an enclosed area, constant movement and activity....not a single accidental discharge. Yes, the ammo is black powder blanks but that has nothing to do with incidence. Age 13 and above.
Yeah, they're 'death machines.' :doh
Oh my god the horror!!!! Whoever orchestrated that should be killed or jailed for life for putting all those people in danger!!!!
Stop being dramatic. You responded to ME, and what I said, so your comments were directed at me... unless you were just soapboxing. And yes, you did comment on my position. My comment was this:
Here is your response:
This addresses my position. Now, here's the problem. In my comment, I SUPPORTED safety training for adults. Therefore, your comment makes no sense in context unless you are either agreeing with me, which you did not indicate either via comment or "like" or you were soapboxing, using my comment as a springboard, but presenting it as disagreeing with what you said. Hence the confusion over whether you were disagreeing with me... and doing so by misrepresenting my position, or you were just talking and using one of my comments as a springboard. Let me know what you had intended to communicate so this kind of confusion does not occur.
Er, who IS to blame in 2?
But more broadly, except for 1...and the many purposes of guns besides killing are all valid (including killing), the yearly, even daily, slaughter by personal vehicles is much higher and all the same things apply: 2-5.
Are we insane to be driving our vehicles and walking on sidewalks near vehicles?
And it doesnt matter how those people are killed or injured....dead is dead (or injured).
We seem to happily accept one. And now some people in the US are starting to object to the other. But only some
Springboard.
Not misrepresenting. But not exactly agreeing, if I inferred from your response that basic safety training is not very useful.
Again, this is psychosis example number 1. A car is DESIGNED to transport people from one place to another. A gun, particularly a handgun, is DESIGNED to kill and maim people. A vehicle is not.
Besides we have literally hundreds of laws on the books restricting who can own vehicle, who can drive a vehicle, under which conditions they drive a vehicle. We have strict licensing protocols for operating a vehicle. If you violate any one of these laws and injure or kill someone you almost certainly will go jail.
Now take gun laws. The only legislation restricting gun ownership from the gun rights advocates point of view is minimal or nonexistent. Licensing is considered a way to track gun owners in order to confiscate their guns...psychosis.
Laws restricting the ability purchase guns is seen as attempt to prevent anyone from ever purchasing a gun...psychosis.
Laws preventing people from carrying guns are seen as actively preventing people from defending themselves...psychosis.
To more directly answer your first question...The near unfettered availability of guns in this country is directly responsible for large amount of gun violence in this country. That is a no-brainer. Anyone telling you otherwise is selling you something...probably guns.
... though basic safety training can reduce that.
That's the key missing phrase.
And the more intense the safety training, the greater reduction.
A mandatory intensive safety class seems to me to be a positive thing to require for gun ownership, especially handgun ownership.
So what? You are just as dead or injured in either case. How does that matter? If anything, it demonstrates that guns fulfill their purpose properly and cars are misused in the extreme and their design **is not safe.**
And yet the death and injury toll is so much higher, with all those laws and restrictions. They dont seem to be working well enough. They do not *keep people safe from cars.* Why would you expect different results when applied to guns? (Shall I quote Einstein and remind what he said about doing the same thing and expecting a different result?)
Why do you think registration is required? It is definitely to track who owns a particular gun(s) and one potential reason would be confiscation. I'll ignore your insults as you dont seem to have a very good grasp of this issue or reality.
Of course it can do that. Background checks are different in each state but they cover varying levels of mental illness diagnoses and criminal behavior. So it's FACT that using background checks to restrict gun purchases can prevent someone from ever purchasing a gun commercially. So, again, you might want to reexamine the 'psychosis' label...
It doesnt prevent them from defending themselves, it removes a valid option for doing so. What gives you the right to gamble with other people's lives by telling them what they can use to save their own lives or their families? Do you know their jobs, their neighborhoods, their circumstances?
I have never seen a single record of an innocent bystander being shot when a concealed carrier used their firearm in public. So, apparently you have a very active imagination which has enabled an irrational fear. (Hmmm....there are those labels again!)
Do you have a source for this? Criminals and gangs are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in this country, not law-abiding citizens.
More unsupported fear?
And what your statistics did not reflect at all was that most of those were criminals and gang members.
What is the connection between vehicles and guns. None.So what? You are just as dead or injured in either case. How does that matter? If anything, it demonstrates that guns fulfill their purpose properly and cars are misused in the extreme and their design **is not safe.**
And yet the death and injury toll is so much higher, with all those laws and restrictions. They dont seem to be working well enough. They do not *keep people safe from cars.* Why would you expect different results when applied to guns? (Shall I quote Einstein and remind what he said about doing the same thing and expecting a different result?)
Why do you think registration is required? It is definitely to track who owns a particular gun(s) and one potential reason would be confiscation. I'll ignore your insults as you dont seem to have a very good grasp of this issue or reality.
Of course it can do that. Background checks are different in each state but they cover varying levels of mental illness diagnoses and criminal behavior. So it's FACT that using background checks to restrict gun purchases can prevent someone from ever purchasing a gun commercially. So, again, you might want to reexamine the 'psychosis' label...
It doesnt prevent them from defending themselves, it removes a valid option for doing so. What gives you the right to gamble with other people's lives by telling them what they can use to save their own lives or their families? Do you know their jobs, their neighborhoods, their circumstances?
I have never seen a single record of an innocent bystander being shot when a concealed carrier used their firearm in public. So, apparently you have a very active imagination which has enabled an irrational fear. (Hmmm....there are those labels again!)
Do you have a source for this? Criminals and gangs are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in this country, not law-abiding citizens.
More unsupported fear?
As long as you are responsible and keep your pipe bomb away from kids....what's the problem? You are right...inanimate objects are not generally a danger to others.
An nuclear warhead is an inanimate object too so shouild we just let everyone have one of those ?
Again, this is psychosis example number 1. A car is DESIGNED to transport people from one place to another. A gun, particularly a handgun, is DESIGNED to kill and maim people. A vehicle is not. Besides we have literally hundreds of laws on the books restricting who can own vehicle, who can drive a vehicle, under which conditions they drive a vehicle. We have strict licensing protocols for operating a vehicle. If you violate any one of these laws and injure or kill someone you almost certainly will go jail.
Now take gun laws. The only legislation restricting gun ownership from the gun rights advocates point of view is minimal or nonexistent. Licensing is considered a way to track gun owners in order to confiscate their guns...psychosis. Laws restricting the ability purchase guns is seen as attempt to prevent anyone from ever purchasing a gun...psychosis. Laws preventing people from carrying guns are seen as actively preventing people from defending themselves...psychosis.
To more directly answer your first question...The near unfettered availability of guns in this country is directly responsible for large amount of gun violence in this country. That is a no-brainer. Anyone telling you otherwise is selling you something...probably guns.
Toddler wounds both parents with 1 shot from handgun
Toddler was a good shot, too bad the parents were stupid enough to leave wife's purse with a loaded gun in it for the kid to reach.
More irresponsibility from gun owners.
Authorities have taken their child away from them for the time being, but maybe too late.
Well there's something to be said about Darwinism.
There is only one problem with your anti-gun rant...in your comparison of guns to cars: There is no Constitutional right to own or operate a car.
There isn't actually one for guns, either.
Ummm...
Perhaps you haven't ever heard of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America?
If not, you really have no business commenting in a thread like this.
Lursa said:So what? You are just as dead or injured in either case. How does that matter? If anything, it demonstrates that guns fulfill their purpose properly and cars are misused in the extreme and their design **is not safe.**
Lursa said:And yet the death and injury toll is so much higher, with all those laws and restrictions. They dont seem to be working well enough. They do not *keep people safe from cars.* Why would you expect different results when applied to guns? (Shall I quote Einstein and remind what he said about doing the same thing and expecting a different result?)
Lursa said:Why do you think registration is required? It is definitely to track who owns a particular gun(s) and one potential reason would be confiscation. I'll ignore your insults as you dont seem to have a very good grasp of this issue or reality.
Lursa said:Of course it can do that. Background checks are different in each state but they cover varying levels of mental illness diagnoses and criminal behavior. So it's FACT that using background checks to restrict gun purchases can prevent someone from ever purchasing a gun commercially. So, again, you might want to reexamine the 'psychosis' label...
Lursa said:It doesnt prevent them from defending themselves, it removes a valid option for doing so. What gives you the right to gamble with other people's lives by telling them what they can use to save their own lives or their families? Do you know their jobs, their neighborhoods, their circumstances?
I have never seen a single record of an innocent bystander being shot when a concealed carrier used their firearm in public. So, apparently you have a very active imagination which has enabled an irrational fear. (Hmmm....there are those labels again!)
There is only one problem with your anti-gun rant...in your comparison of guns to cars: There is no Constitutional right to own or operate a car.