So, what would make you worry?There's just no reason to worry about something like school shootings, even though they happen much more here than other countries, they still happen incredibly rarely.
Worry about my physical safety? I don't tend to worry about it, I live in a pretty safe place, driving is the most dangerous thing I do.
I worry generally about financial issues, having to talk to waiters or other strangers, getting a traffic ticket, having my car break down, things like that.
Of course, we can barely afford halfway decent buildings, heat or AC or actual supplies for teaching for most of our schools, but we probably will shell out for complete security refits. There'll be some federal money, but most of it will come from the regular school budget.
These decisions come from your local school board and are directly related to the property taxes in your area; I would really push for improved funding to local schools, not just for safety and security, but also for arts, music, mental health.
http://video.pbs.org/video/1428499965/
I had a Mr. Rogers moment there.. I remembered his testimony about PBS and his explanation that there are people who don't have a regular "expression of care". Maybe Auxmaulous is onto something.. Worse schools, worse mental health?
Maybe we should all do a Mr. Rogers and go ask people to properly fund the school system?
So, what would make you worry?There's just no reason to worry about something like school shootings, even though they happen much more here than other countries, they still happen incredibly rarely.
Worry about my physical safety? I don't tend to worry about it, I live in a pretty safe place, driving is the most dangerous thing I do.
I worry generally about financial issues, having to talk to waiters or other strangers, getting a traffic ticket, having my car break down, things like that.
These are all low risk, high frequency events.. we're accustomed to dealing with them. It's really hard to think about high risk, low frequency events like this and put them into a frame of reference.
I just don't have anything to compare it to.
|
So, those...no, you prefer false security instead of being prepared to defend yourself
I do not see how not having a 4-inch knife is a great loss compared to safety of that society. I mean the goverment DO have power an authority over you.
You have a car but there are speed limits, you can drink bur only afther certain age, you can smoke marih... (oh wait), etc.
Ido not see how the "right" to have weapons, particulary high powered weapons, can be so important to some people.
Nicos, I find your view regretable. Why should you not have the right to be adequately armed, in order to defend yourself. Do you really believe anyone who would seek to rob you or do you harm in some way is going to be concerned with the law prohibiting having an unauthorized weapon on their person? They won't, and they will be armed. Why should you be at the mercy of someone who would do you harm. I comprehend that to some on these message boards, that sounds strange or extreme. I deal with people in prison on a daily basis who have used weapons & firearms in the commission of crimes. It happens every day. In today's world, I would not tell you that you should have to beg a government for the ability to protect yourself.
Limitations are not the same as prohibitions. I don't oppose limitations on certain things. I am not in favor of minors having firearms. Brain formation does not complete until the early 20's. Life experience also helps in improving one's decision making skills. If you're an adult, and not an immediate threat to yourself of others, carrying a knife shouldn't be an issue for your government to intrude on.I am just saying that i prefer A safer society instead of the false security of a gun.
Compared to other developed countries the US is incredibly dangerous, I do not undesrtand how your society coexist with that much violence without realizing that something have to change.
Ask some of the rape victims there if they would have liked a gun
Ask some of the rape victims there if they would have liked a gun
Because that doesn't happen to people with guns right? Happens every two minutes matey.
http://www.rainn.org/statistics
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's worth considering that, if gun ownership guarantees safety, Adam Lanza's mother should have been the "safest" person involved in the incident.
She wasn't, by any means. She was just the first victim, and the guns she owned, assumably for the sake of self defense, were used to perpetrate the crime.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It takes away the most effective means to defend oneself.
The most effective means to defend yourself against an armed attacker is to hide or run and get in touch with the authorities. If you are very highly trained, having a firearm immediately at hand (and I mean immediately) might help.
The media does a good job of whipping you guys into a frenzy to end guns but never talks about how few gun owners do any wrong and how many save lives.
First, I don't think many of us played off the media for this.
Second, we don't care how many gun owners do nothing wrong. We're not punishing gun owners. We're simply requiring additional safeguards against abuse of firearms.
I would love to see you guys have the balls to tell a woman that fought off a rapist that you would prefer her raped than armed.
I'd love to see you try an argument that is anything other than intellectual-dishonesty-bordering-on-insane-hostility. I very much doubt that will happen, though.
|
|
It's worth considering that, if gun ownership guarantees safety, Adam Lanza's mother should have been the "safest" person involved in the incident.
She wasn't, by any means. She was just the first victim, and the guns she owned, assumably for the sake of self defense, were used to perpetrate the crime.
nothing is a guarantee, but if she had one on her and loaded she would have had more of a chance. He could have killed her with anything
But banning guns feels good and dealing with the crazy is mean to them
This is what conservatives actually think liberals believe.
|
|
It takes away the most effective means to defend oneself.The most effective means to defend yourself against an armed attacker is to hide or run and get in touch with the authorities. If you are very highly trained, having a firearm immediately at hand (and I mean immediately) might help.
The media does a good job of whipping you guys into a frenzy to end guns but never talks about how few gun owners do any wrong and how many save lives.First, I don't think many of us played off the media for this.
Second, we don't care how many gun owners do nothing wrong. We're not punishing gun owners. We're simply requiring additional safeguards against abuse of firearms.
I would love to see you guys have the balls to tell a woman that fought off a rapist that you would prefer her raped than armed.I'd love to see you try an argument that is anything other than intellectual-dishonesty-bordering-on-insane-hostility. I very much doubt that will happen, though.
so better raped than armed, got it. Hope to outrun, hope to live til the cops show. Hope they let you live.
nothing is a guarantee, but if she had one on her and loaded she would have had more of a chance. He could have killed her with anything
Yeah, that's what I thought.
"If everyone owned guns they would be able to defend themselves!"
"But the first victim was a huge gun enthusiast with half a dozen different firearms!"
"Well she should have had it strapped to her waist and loaded while in her own home, gun safety guidelines be damned!"
Brilliant. We should just let you talk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is what you showBut banning guns feels good and dealing with the crazy is mean to themThis is what conservatives actually think liberals believe.
Only in your head, Andrew R. As others have pointed out, it's a scary, confused place.
Hope to outrun, hope to live til the cops show. Hope they let you live.
Yeah, reality sucks sometimes.
"If everyone owned guns they would be able to defend themselves!"
"But the first victim was a huge gun enthusiast with half a dozen different firearms!"
"Well she should have had it strapped to her waist and loaded while in her own home, gun safety guidelines be damned!"
You forgot to add...
"and had it cocked, loaded, and pointed at her son at all times...just in case. Can't be too carefull when protecting your Freedom!"
nothing is a guarantee, but if she had one on her and loaded she would have had more of a chance. He could have killed her with anythingIt's worth considering that, if gun ownership guarantees safety, Adam Lanza's mother should have been the "safest" person involved in the incident.
She wasn't, by any means. She was just the first victim, and the guns she owned, assumably for the sake of self defense, were used to perpetrate the crime.
Andrew, are you seriously suggesting that, rather than limiting the access to firearms of anyone living in a household with dangerous individuals, we should just tell people living in such households to carry a loaded gun continually?
Speaking as a gun owner, your idea of responsible gun ownership scares me.
|
It's worth considering that, if gun ownership guarantees safety, Adam Lanza's mother should have been the "safest" person involved in the incident.
I think it would be a safe assumption that she did not feel threatened by her son...
At any rate, I do not think anybody has stated that gun ownership is any guarantee of safety...
She was just the first victim, and the guns she owned, assumably for the sake of self defense, were used to perpetrate the crime.
Assuming the mother did not feel threatened by her son, it could also be reasonably assumed that she trusted him with her firearms, as he apparently had access to them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At any rate, I do not think anybody has stated that gun ownership is any guarantee of safety...
Are we reading the same thread?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whilst I don't recall any explicitly stating this as an absolute 100%, the sentiment is pretty clear about where they stand. They seem very convinced that guns = safer (as in lots and lots safer).
Having a gun on your person during an assault increases the odds of you being shot by about 4.5 times.
Most accidental shootings of children happen in homes with guns.
These are all low risk, high frequency events.. we're accustomed to dealing with them. It's really hard to think about high risk, low frequency events like this and put them into a frame of reference.
I just don't have anything to compare it to.
That's the point, that these kinds of dangers are hard for the human mind to come to grips with, and most people have a vastly overstated fear of them. I'm irrationally afraid of snakes, and getting sent to prison, but I don't think I should be taking extra care to check my toilet for snakes, or make sure I have alibis in case I'm accused of something.
|
|
nothing is a guarantee, but if she had one on her and loaded she would have had more of a chance. He could have killed her with anythingIt's worth considering that, if gun ownership guarantees safety, Adam Lanza's mother should have been the "safest" person involved in the incident.
She wasn't, by any means. She was just the first victim, and the guns she owned, assumably for the sake of self defense, were used to perpetrate the crime.
Andrew, are you seriously suggesting that, rather than limiting the access to firearms of anyone living in a household with dangerous individuals, we should just tell people living in such households to carry a loaded gun continually?
Speaking as a gun owner, your idea of responsible gun ownership scares me.
What im suggesting that you do not live with anyone that dangerous. Do not take to the guns, take the crazy
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But taking them from law abiding citizens will guarantee safety according to someAre we reading the same thread?A lot of people have said it that it helps bolster one safety, but I do not remember reading anyone having said that it absolutely, positively, guarantees one's safety...
Not guarantee - just significantly mitigate the consequences when people decide to go postal or run amok in the future.
Just as better health care will reduce the likelihood of people dropping off the mental cliff.
Both is much better than one on its own.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But taking them from law abiding citizens will guarantee safety according to someAre we reading the same thread?A lot of people have said it that it helps bolster one safety, but I do not remember reading anyone having said that it absolutely, positively, guarantees one's safety...
We're not talking about taking guns from law-abiding citizens. We're talking about making it harder for guns to fall into the hands of the mentally unstable, both by ensuring that the mentally unstable receive the attention that they require, and by ensuring that the process of getting ahold of a gun weeds out those who either a) cannot be trusted to use a firearm responsibly, or b) might allow the firearm to be used by someone who cannot be trusted to use it responsibly.
Stop acting like this is a huge deal.
|
|
But taking them from law abiding citizens will guarantee safety according to someAre we reading the same thread?A lot of people have said it that it helps bolster one safety, but I do not remember reading anyone having said that it absolutely, positively, guarantees one's safety...We're not talking about taking guns from law-abiding citizens. We're talking about making it harder for guns to fall into the hands of the mentally unstable, both by ensuring that the mentally unstable receive the attention that they require, and by ensuring that the process of getting ahold of a gun weeds out those who either a) cannot be trusted to use a firearm responsibly, or b) might allow the firearm to be used by someone who cannot be trusted to use it responsibly.
Stop acting like this is a huge deal.
How do you decide who deserves the second amendment? Are other amendments on the table here? What steps are you calling for people to do to "not allow" their guns to fall into the wrong hands?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do you decide who deserves the second amendment?
I'm getting pretty tired of people acting like this is nothing but liberals spitting on the second amendment. It's time you grew a halfway decent understanding of what the Constitution is and what it means.
What steps are you calling for people to do to "not allow" their guns to fall into the wrong hands?
Read the thread. I'm sick of repeating myself for your benefit.
|
|
Having a gun on your person during an assault increases the odds of you being shot by about 4.5 times.
Most accidental shootings of children happen in homes with guns.
Like I said before in this thread: educate people! Train them to properly handle a firearm, train them to properly secure and store a firearm...
|
|
How do you decide who deserves the second amendment?I'm getting pretty tired of people acting like this is nothing but liberals spitting on the second amendment. It's time you grew a halfway decent understanding of what the Constitution is and what it means.
What steps are you calling for people to do to "not allow" their guns to fall into the wrong hands?Read the thread. I'm sick of repeating myself for your benefit.
I'm not the one trying to hold its rights from others, you try reading it. of course i get the feeling you are one of the folks that think it is outdated and you know better than those long dead men what people should and should not have.
Having a gun on your person during an assault increases the odds of you being shot by about 4.5 times.
Most accidental shootings of children happen in homes with guns.
Like I said before in this thread: educate people! Train them to properly handle a firearm, train them to properly secure and store a firearm...
Perhaps some of the people that advocate tighter gun control can get behind some of California's firearms laws...
With any handgun purchase, the purchaser must demonstrate to a licensed gun dealer that they can properly AND safely handle the firearm before being allowed to take possession of it.
Any purchase of a hundgun MUST be made through a licensed gun dealer no matter if that purchase is made at a gun store, or from a private party. Also, the purchaser must wait California's mandatory 10 day waiting period (and in 2014, a law will take effect that will require this of long guns as well).
California bans magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds (unless that magazine was owned prior to the ban, which was January of 2000)...
California also has an "Assault Weapons" ban...
Most are named by make and model (e.g. Colt AR-15, Bushmasher XM-15, Cobray/Ingram Mac-10, etc.).
California also defines an assault weapon that is not on the list as having the ability to accept a detachable magazine and any one of five different features: a pistol grip, a forward hand grip, a flash hider/suppressor, a folding/telescoping/thumb-hole stock, or a grenade or flare launcher.
However, many (but not all) of these firearms can be purchased or owned legally provided the firearm in question has been configured/modified so as it no longer falls under the classifications under the ban. An example of this is the AR-15 patterned rifle: if one wishes to own one, that person can keep the features listed above so long as a device is added that locks the magazine in place (requiring a tool in order to remove). This device is often-times called a "Bullet Button" as it...
None of this addresses the fact that:
If you have a gun in your possession (ex: you have a concealed carry permit and are currently carrying the gun) and are the target of a crime, you are 4.5 times more likely to be shot during that crime.
Being a legal owner of a gun is actually more dangerous than not owning a gun.
nothing is a guarantee, but if she had one on her and loaded she would have had more of a chance. He could have killed her with anythingIt's worth considering that, if gun ownership guarantees safety, Adam Lanza's mother should have been the "safest" person involved in the incident.
She wasn't, by any means. She was just the first victim, and the guns she owned, assumably for the sake of self defense, were used to perpetrate the crime.
Right..... so now you are advocating parents carrying weapons to hand to defend themselves from their kids. Scary world you live in.
|
|
Perhaps some of the people that advocate tighter gun control can get behind some of California's firearms laws...
With any handgun purchase, the purchaser must demonstrate to a licensed gun dealer that they can properly AND safely handle the firearm before being allowed to take possession of it.
Any purchase of a hundgun MUST be made through a licensed gun dealer no matter if that purchase is made at a gun store or from a private party (and in 2014, a law will take effect that will require this of long guns as well). California's 10 day waiting period applies to both handguns and long guns...
California bans magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds (unless that magazine was owned prior to the ban, which was January of 2000)...
California also has an "Assault Weapons" ban...
Most are named by make and model (e.g. Colt AR-15, Bushmasher XM-15, Cobray/Ingram Mac-10, etc.).
California also defines an assault weapon that is not on the list as having the ability to accept a detachable magazine and any one of five different features: a pistol grip, a forward hand grip, a flash hider/suppressor, a folding/telescoping/thumb-hole stock, or a grenade/flare launcher.
However, many (but not all) of these firearms can be purchased or owned legally provided the firearm in question has been configured/modified so as it no longer falls under the classifications under the ban. An example of this is the AR-15 patterned rifle: if one wishes to own one, that person can keep the features listed above so long as a device is added that locks the magazine in place (requiring a tool in order to remove). This device is often-times called a "Bullet Button" as it places a shroud over the existing magazine release catch that prevents someone from simply dropping the magazine using their finger; they must use a tool in order to do so, and under California gun law, a bullet is considered a tool...
If a firearm has one of these "Bullet Buttons" installed on it, then one cannot insert a magazine that is capable of holding more than ten rounds (even if that magazine was owned prior to the ban) because that firearm then becomes an "Assault Weapon" (possession of which is a felony).
Using the AR-15 patterned rifle as an example again, instead of adding a bullet button or other magazine locking device, you could just make sure it does not have any of the features that classify it as an assault weapon (no pistol grip, a fixed butt-stock, no flash hider, etc.). Going this route, the firearm retains the use of a detachable magazine, and the user is allowed to use magazines that hold more than 10 rounds (again, if that magazine was owned prior to the ban)...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not the one trying to hold its rights from others, you try reading it. of course i get the feeling you are one of the folks that think it is outdated and you know better than those long dead men what people should and should not have.How do you decide who deserves the second amendment?I'm getting pretty tired of people acting like this is nothing but liberals spitting on the second amendment. It's time you grew a halfway decent understanding of what the Constitution is and what it means.
What steps are you calling for people to do to "not allow" their guns to fall into the wrong hands?Read the thread. I'm sick of repeating myself for your benefit.
If those "long dead men" could see what some people are trying to claim the 2nd was meant to mean I think they would wish they had spent a bit more time clarifying the wording.
And plus if protecting the broader population means that the "rights" of others are restricted n some way, then so be it. That is what life in a civilised society is all about. Or are you advocating things like no speed limits anywhere, drink driving is fine, etc etc.
None of this addresses the fact that:
If you have a gun in your possession (ex: you have a concealed carry permit and are currently carrying the gun) and are the target of a crime, you are 4.5 times more likely to be shot during that crime.
Being a legal owner of a gun is actually more dangerous than not owning a gun.
Fine...
I separated my post...
But that first part of that original post (advocating the education of people) does pertain directly to what you said.
It does significantly reduce accidental shootings, but education will never prevent them.
I've linked it in a previous thread, but there's even been stories of a police officer's kid accidentally shooting himself. In fact, there are two stories just from this past year about the death of the child of a police officer who was accidentally shot in the home. I'm just guessing here, but I think police officers probably receive a fair amount of training about firearm safety.
Also, the scientific evidence is very doubtful that programs like the NRA's Eddie Eagle have any positive impact in preventing accidental shootings.
|
|
It does significantly reduce accidental shootings, but education will never prevent them.
Never said it would totally prevent them... I thought the point of advocating for tighter gun control (in this thread at least) was not to eliminate gun violence and death such as what happened in Connecticut, but to reduce the frequency in which they happen.
And proper training, by your own admission would "significantly reduce" accidental shooting. So, only reduce the amount of gun deaths, but totally prevent the accidental shootings?
And I would wager that most accidents involving kids being electrocuted happen in the home as well. In fact, I would wager that just about all accidental deaths of children happen most often in the home (deaths due to car accidents probably are the main exception, but those happen most often probably within three miles of the home).
You mean Conservatism?I don't have a very high opinion of those who are proud of their "rural" nature. In my experience, that label goes hand-in-hand with a lot of other ugly ideological traits.Rural want to be able to take care of themselves.
Urban want to be taken care of by the gov.
There are plenty of us liberals from a rural background, backgrounds we happen to be proud of.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point is this: when a gun rights activist is saying that guns make them safer, they are wrong. That the opposite is actually true.
Rural want to be able to take care of themselves.
Urban want to be taken care of by the gov.
That's a generalization both appalling and insulting. Stop embarrassing yourself. Farmers chase subsidies plenty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I would wager that most accidents involving kids being electrocuted happen in the home as well. In fact, I would wager that just about all accidental deaths of children happen most often in the home (deaths due to car accidents probably are the main exception, but those happen most often probably within three miles of the home).
Name a utilitarian purpose for a gun that doesn't involve hurting a person or animal.
|
|
when a gun rights activist is saying that guns make them safer, they are wrong. That the opposite is actually true.
That is a pretty broad brush you are painting that picture with...
Yes, for the majority of gun owners this would probably be true, but there are innumerable responsible gun owners; gun owners that practice and train with their firearm(s) on a regular basis...
And those gun owners have very few to no accidents (and sure, the possibility is still present, but it is as minimal as it can possibly be in their cases).
So, all I'm proposing is that we educate more people. Give them the tools to be responsible around firearms. Organizations like the NRA are trying to do this, but most gun owners are not members of the NRA, nor do they even read gun related magazines or web sites...
|
|
by skirting the edge of the law, like with your "Bullet Buttons" and California's law.
The California Department of Justice has approved the use of certain bullet buttons as lawful additions to a firearm that would otherwise be classified as an assault weapon without one, and have even stated such in court that these certain specific "models" of bullet buttons are legal to use on the firearms that would otherwise be classified as assault weapons without one.
Besides, other than what the California DOJ specifically approves of after it makes an evaluation (which is not very often), California's gun laws are VERY specific. The laws list EXACTLY, to the letter, what a person CANNOT do to or with, a firearm. The laws state EXACTLY what a person CANNOT have on a firearm. The laws state SPECIFICALLY what firearms are just flat out illegal. At no point do the laws EVER tell a person what is permissible concerning firearms or what is legal concerning firearms.
So no, these "bullet buttons" do not skirt any law...