Gun in nightstand

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Actually, Vermont is less restrictive on guns than New Hampshire, though both are rural. No permit needed for concealed carry. Less restrictive than TX or GA, too.

Vermont also has the least minority population by percentage (tied with Maine)of any state.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Breakdown_by_state

It also has a higher than average personal income. It is more rural than any other state, when measured by average town size.

But we have to be careful about how we view those statistics, some ugly conclusions could easily be drawn, should we choose to do so...


They may be ugly, but let's face some realities in that a good amount of gun violence and non suicide/accidental death comes from the inner cities. While "gentrification" is occurring more and more, what demographics make up those populations? Im not saying to make any broad-stroke claims or designations, but if much of the violence is associated with a few specific scenarios, then for the population having nothing to do with them, it may be moot.

If you remove the inner cities from the gun violence numbers, is it really an issue in most places? If you remove certain demographics, is the remainder any substantial number? Maybe in some southern states, but Ill bet it looks far different in places like PA, MD and IL as examples.

 

[opus1]

I was about 5 years old when my Dad was working nights and bought my Mom a gun for protection while he was away. We all went to the gun store to buy it, I distinctly remember him showing it to the neighbors when we came home, and I knew exactly where it was stored. It must have been a defective gun because it never once removed itself from storage, placed itself into my young hands and forced me to be irresponsible with it.

That, or maybe it was the fact that my parents didn't hide the gun from me, and made it very clear that it was not a toy and was not to be played with?

 

[stockrex]

Originally Posted By: opus1
I was about 5 years old when my Dad was working nights and bought my Mom a gun for protection while he was away. We all went to the gun store to buy it, I distinctly remember him showing it to the neighbors when we came home, and I knew exactly where it was stored. It must have been a defective gun because it never once removed itself from storage, placed itself into my young hands and forced me to be irresponsible with it.

That, or maybe it was the fact that my parents didn't hide the gun from me, and made it very clear that it was not a toy and was not to be played with?


I never wore a seat belt or sit in child a seat when I was young. I ate table food with my gum probably since I was 4 months old. I miraculously I am still alive.

Parenting is the key for kids, some mother spend more time on their Cellphone texting and talking than they spend with own children.

 

[hattaresguy]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Actually, Vermont is less restrictive on guns than New Hampshire, though both are rural. No permit needed for concealed carry. Less restrictive than TX or GA, too.

Vermont also has the least minority population by percentage (tied with Maine)of any state.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Breakdown_by_state

It also has a higher than average personal income. It is more rural than any other state, when measured by average town size.

But we have to be careful about how we view those statistics, some ugly conclusions could easily be drawn, should we choose to do so...


They may be ugly, but let's face some realities in that a good amount of gun violence and non suicide/accidental death comes from the inner cities. While "gentrification" is occurring more and more, what demographics make up those populations? Im not saying to make any broad-stroke claims or designations, but if much of the violence is associated with a few specific scenarios, then for the population having nothing to do with them, it may be moot.

If you remove the inner cities from the gun violence numbers, is it really an issue in most places? If you remove certain demographics, is the remainder any substantial number? Maybe in some southern states, but Ill bet it looks far different in places like PA, MD and IL as examples.


In CT for example if you take out all the gang bangers popping each other in the cities their is virtually no gun violence other than a rare shooting. Most of those shootings like the one that just occurred in my city are done by people who live in the cities.

Rural areas typically have lower violence, no drug culture to support it and less social services to draw them in.

VT's statistics are skewed by all the people who are not from VT and have houses up their, VT is a very poor state.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: stockrex

I never wore a seat belt or sit in child a seat when I was young. I ate table food with my gum probably since I was 4 months old. I miraculously I am still alive.

I never wore seatbelts as a child in the '50's. I sat between my parents on a little wooden seat so I could see out the front window.

I had a childhood friend who died when she went through the windshield. So she isn't here to claim she is still alive.

 

[Mykl]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
Not a metaphor, you tried to use a logical fallacy, already pointed out in this thread.


If you don't know what a metaphor is I'm not going to break it down for you. It's unlikely you'd accept the very definition of the word anyway, given that you're in "attack mode" and are uninterested in humorous observations.

 

[dlundblad]

Originally Posted By: opus1
I was about 5 years old when my Dad was working nights and bought my Mom a gun for protection while he was away. We all went to the gun store to buy it, I distinctly remember him showing it to the neighbors when we came home, and I knew exactly where it was stored. It must have been a defective gun because it never once removed itself from storage, placed itself into my young hands and forced me to be irresponsible with it.

That, or maybe it was the fact that my parents didn't hide the gun from me, and made it very clear that it was not a toy and was not to be played with?


You mean they didnt paint it a pink hello kitty theme and leave it loaded on the couch along with the remotes??

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Not a metaphor, you tried to use a logical fallacy, already pointed out in this thread.


If you don't know what a metaphor is I'm not going to break it down for you. It's unlikely you'd accept the very definition of the word anyway, given that you're in "attack mode" and are uninterested in humorous observations.


It clearly wasn't a metaphor, it was sarcasm, at best.

 

[Mykl]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
It's because the pro-gun-rights crowd believes the problem is the person, not the tool.

We believe that only those who were responsible before are going to be responsible when there are more laws.

But it's not PC to lock people up and keep them locked up if they've demonstrated repeated failures to follow the law. Instead of addressing the law breakers, people want to take guns away from the law abiding citizens.

Because if you craft more laws, do we really expect those who have not followed the current set of laws and safe practices to suddenly become model citizens when a new law is passed?

Address the real problem, which is behavior.

Until we do that, there are no gun laws that will address the issue.


Yes, exactly, the problem is the person. We agree.

When you combine people who are a problem with easy to access tools designed to kill, you end with... people getting killed. Suicide, homicide, accidental, whatever.

Then, enter the NRA/GOA, that work hard to block almost any attempt to keep guns out of the hands of the people who are the problem, and we end up with more people getting killed than if we approached the problem in a way that acknowledges that death happens when guns get into the wrong person's hands.

Obviously we can't go all Minority Report on this, but with gun shows and private transfers happening without any sort of vetting process, the wrong people are going to keep getting guns.

We aren't even trying to keep guns out of the hands of the people who are the problem.

 

[javacontour]

Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Not a metaphor, you tried to use a logical fallacy, already pointed out in this thread.


If you don't know what a metaphor is I'm not going to break it down for you. It's unlikely you'd accept the very definition of the word anyway, given that you're in "attack mode" and are uninterested in humorous observations.

Better take a look at your reflection in the screen Mr posts logical fallacy definitions as his response.

 

[Mykl]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
Better take a look at your reflection in the screen Mr posts logical fallacy definitions as his response.


If the thought that an asteroid could kill you at any moment ever entered your mind when forming your opinion on this subject, nothing I could say to you would have any impact.

Someone who thinks like that can't be reasoned with, so there's no point in spending much time talking to them. May as well just advance the conversation to insults, because that's where it was going to go anyway.

 

[javacontour]

So why not ask a clarifying question, instead of using the gift of assumption?

You come across as it's ok for you to use your various literary devices, sarcasm, etc. But if someone else does, you deem them unreasonable.

You come across as describing yourself, and that's all I have to say on that matter.

If you have a means to address gun violence without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens, I'm all ears. But what I gather from your view is that the proliferation of the guns is the problem, and therefore, one must address the availability of guns.

From my 5 decades of living, I've yet to see a gun jump off a nightstand, table or any other place and go kill or injure someone. Any shooting is the result of a behavioral choice. It could be negligence, it could be criminal. But guns don't just go off. Someone has to load them, chamber a round and pull the trigger.

Given that the weapons are out there already and that criminals will not be any more obedient to new laws, the problem must be addressed with those who will not behave properly. If you commit a crime with a gun, you go to jail. No probation, no tolerance of gun crime, period.

If you get out and do it again, why not life in prison? And not a country club prison. Something that doesn't cost the taxpayer anything. They go to prison, they grow their own food, make their own furniture and other goods. They work 80 hours a week and can access to the law library in their free time.

I would have no problem against this being a right that can be taken away. BUT only if one has demonstrated they are not trustworthy with a weapon by being convicted of a gun related crime.

Someone simply saying they don't feel safe around someone would not be enough to have that right taken away. But if they kill or injure someone with their firearm, they are at risk of losing that right. Certainly loss if it's criminal. Permanent loss if it's a criminal death and/or it's an illegally owned weapon. I.E. stolen from another or purchased on the black market, etc.

It's the innocent until proven guilty approach.

We do this with cars, and they are not even a constitutional right. Why not the same approach with firearms? If you are trustworthy, few if any limits. If you demonstrate you are not to be trusted, eventual total loss of the right to bear arms and possibly the right to remain in society.

Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Better take a look at your reflection in the screen Mr posts logical fallacy definitions as his response.


If the thought that an asteroid could kill you at any moment ever entered your mind when forming your opinion on this subject, nothing I could say to you would have any impact.

Someone who thinks like that can't be reasoned with, so there's no point in spending much time talking to them. May as well just advance the conversation to insults, because that's where it was going to go anyway.

 

[Mykl]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
BLAH BLAH BLAH

But what I gather from your view is that the proliferation of the guns is the problem, and therefore, one must address the availability of guns.

BLAH BLAH BLAH

Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Better take a look at your reflection in the screen Mr posts logical fallacy definitions as his response.


If the thought that an asteroid could kill you at any moment ever entered your mind when forming your opinion on this subject, nothing I could say to you would have any impact.

Someone who thinks like that can't be reasoned with, so there's no point in spending much time talking to them. May as well just advance the conversation to insults, because that's where it was going to go anyway.


I guess you choose not to read the last post where I tried to take you seriously.

I told you that I thought the problem was exactly the one you presented, the wrong people having guns.

This is how I know I shouldn't take you seriously. When I agree with you, you ignore it, which tells me that all you really want here is to argue with someone. The tactic of shouting someone down or burying them in a bunch of words doesn't make you right, it just makes you annoying.

 

[javacontour]

Sorry, I've only slept about 4 hours in the last 40.

If I missed it, I'll own it. If you didn't say there are too many guns out there too easy to get, I'll eat my words.

Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: javacontour
BLAH BLAH BLAH

But what I gather from your view is that the proliferation of the guns is the problem, and therefore, one must address the availability of guns.

BLAH BLAH BLAH

Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Better take a look at your reflection in the screen Mr posts logical fallacy definitions as his response.


If the thought that an asteroid could kill you at any moment ever entered your mind when forming your opinion on this subject, nothing I could say to you would have any impact.

Someone who thinks like that can't be reasoned with, so there's no point in spending much time talking to them. May as well just advance the conversation to insults, because that's where it was going to go anyway.


I guess you choose not to read the last post where I tried to take you seriously.

I told you that I thought the problem was exactly the one you presented, the wrong people having guns.

This is how I know I shouldn't take you seriously. When I agree with you, you ignore it, which tells me that all you really want here is to argue with someone. The tactic of shouting someone down or burying them in a bunch of words doesn't make you right, it just makes you annoying.

 

[Mykl]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
Sorry, I've only slept about 4 hours in the last 40.

If I missed it, I'll own it. If you didn't say there are too many guns out there too easy to get, I'll eat my words.


Yeah that sucks, never any fun. No worries then. I'll reiterate...

When you say bad people having guns is the problem, which I'm pretty sure is your stance, I totally agree.

I guess where we may disagree is that I think that there are some reasonable steps that can be taken that protect a good person's right to have a weapon, while making it more difficult for bad people to get weapons.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: Mykl
I guess where we may disagree is that I think that there are some reasonable steps that can be taken that protect a good person's right to have a weapon, while making it more difficult for bad people to get weapons.


Thus the red flag raised by gun ownership advocates. Who gets to decide who the "good" and the "bad" are?

I don't disagree with the principle of restricting gun ownership. But how that selection set is restricted is a very slippery slope. Some default to "everyone" and some default to "no one". I can't support either of those extremes, but the line in the sand in the middle can be drawn about 400 million ways...

 

[Mykl]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Thus the red flag raised by gun ownership advocates. Who gets to decide who the "good" and the "bad" are?

I don't disagree with the principle of restricting gun ownership. But how that selection set is restricted is a very slippery slope. Some default to "everyone" and some default to "no one". I can't support either of those extremes, but the line in the sand in the middle can be drawn about 400 million ways...


I think a good start is to work towards doing a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of people we've already decided shouldn't have guns.

There's a crime report from the FBI that was published in 2011 floating around out there somewhere (I'm having a difficult time finding it) that suggests that a majority of homicides by gun are committed by people who are already convicted felons.

Correct me if I'm wrong.... but I was under the impression that convicted felons are not allowed to have firearms.

Let's say, as if by magic, that it was impossible for a felon to get a gun, that immediately stops something like 10,000 to 13,000 homicides a year. Even putting a dent in that number by suggesting that some felons got their hands on guns or used swords or crossbows instead, that number still gets a lot smaller.

*edit* - a little more searching and I see it's not so simple as "felons aren't allowed to have firearms." It's a little more complicated than that. Some may have their firearm rights restored, but it looks like this is the exception rather than the rule.

 

[JustinH]

CHL carrier here.

I keep my guns unloaded in locked cabinets built into my wall.

Ammo is locked in a separate cabinet with a different combination.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Myki,

I think Georgia just passed an expanded CC law allowing felons to possess firearms.


I really wish the NRA would allow some serious government studies on the matter. Their obstruction at every turn makes them look guilty.

 

[redbone3]

Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
That is not the fact though! Homicides, accidental gun deaths amongst both adults and children, have been on the DECLINE over the last 3 decades while gun ownership has increased.


"DECLINE" and "NON-EXISTENT" or "LOW" do not mean the same thing.

Despite being in decline, you are five times more likely to die a violent death in the United States than you are in almost any other first world western country. It's going to have to decline a lot more to close that gap.


Those statistics include suicides. Not having guns would only shift suicides to a different method.