I think we need a morons with guns thrad

[SR71]

Originally Posted by SkepticX

Very emotionally evocative, but would you care to address the actual points that have been made, or would you prefer to continue behaving precisely as fundamentalist believers do when their apologetics are failing and they're not willing to consider their beliefs honestly?

This is not about gun safety then? It's about random action in the universe, fatalism and the pointlessness of it all? I don't get you.

[SkepticX]

Originally Posted by SR71

This is not about gun safety then? It's about random action in the universe, fatalism and the pointlessness of it all? I don't get you.

My bad ... didn't see this post in the flurry, with ChuckF and chunksmediocrites getting the clown routine going, and you getting into it with them. At least you did actually get into some substance here. It was just buried in the clamor to make noises in protest.

Originally Posted by SR71

The gun owner is at fault. He didn't take adequate measures to safeguard the weapon. You don't leave a loaded gun around where kids can get at it without you knowing about it, especially if kids are present.

You're assuming a lot here, it would seem.

I don't bother with childproofing my house--no need. No kids. If someone came by with a kid, unannounced, would I then suddenly be expected to have had my house childproofed? Would I be expected to think of things that might be dangerous to a kid and take care of them more or less immediately, such that if the kid beat me to something it's my fault? A loaded gun sitting in plain view and easily accessible on a table or counter top in my house while someone's home (that means me or my wife and that's it) is safely stored. If someone else changes that environment unannounced, am I immediately responsible for that sudden change?

Originally Posted by SR71

That's total gun safety fail.

Yeah ... I know that's your assertion already.

Originally Posted by SR71

Why can't you see that?

Perhaps because I'm not emotionally invested in the idea, and because I'm applying the information we actually have to the situation at hand in a real world manner?

Originally Posted by SR71

Are you saying the owner isn't at fault because he forgot or didn't care that the loaded gun was laying around?

If you want to put it in terms that impose the greatest burden of doubt, but that's not really honest.

No, I'm not saying the owner isn't at fault because he forgot or didn't care, I'm just going with the actual information we have in the context of the real world. And I'm not invested in finding a villain or in making sure someone is punished because something bad happened. You don't reasonably hold someone responsible for changing his situation without notice into one that turns out badly, even tragically. You don't reasonably expect people who don't have kids or have kids visit to maintain childproofing standards as if they did. That's expecting pre-hindsight (i.e. clairvoyance).

Originally Posted by SR71

No, the victim was visiting a friend, and apparently did not have a gun with him or if he did it did not fire at anyone. Definitely not at fault for getting anyone shot.

The victim is the one who created the situation in every way that was hazardous though. He introduced an unannounced child into the environment and either allowed him to wander off or wasn't keeping an eye on him. I don't think he's really at fault, but he's probably the most at fault. It's just that this is a case that has no real blame to hand out.

Originally Posted by SR71

Yes, the kid is not at fault, he is a kid that didn't know any better.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure there'll be no disagreement on that one.

Originally Posted by SR71

The owner should treat his weapon as if it could kill someone, always and everywhere. That is a responsibility that goes with owning a firearm. The gun owner fucked up. The accident was preventable and the owner failed to ensure his weapon was used safely. It's his fault. Happy now?

Addressed!

Not so much addressed as reasserted, yet again. It's no better addressed or argued than it has already been though.

According to the way you're interpreting gun safety, it would be a total gun safety fail to use a gun for self-defense, to pretty much ever have a gun that's ready to fire if it's not on your person. That's naive--not very applicable to reality. You're using a very fundamentalist pattern of thinking--all absolutes, all black or white, no grey. You don't seem to think it's possible to have a gun accident without fault.

[ceptimus]

If a hundred innocent people are killed or injured by gun accidents for every one occasion where a gun is successfully used to 'defend' against a genuine attack, then that is a small price to pay for freedom!

It's not about innocent people getting killed, my friends, it's about our essential freedom to have loaded guns lying around all over the place! We give up that freedom at our peril.

[SkepticX]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

If a hundred innocent people are killed or injured by gun accidents for every one occasion where a gun is successfully used to 'defend' against a genuine attack, then that is a small price to pay for freedom!

It's not about innocent people getting killed, my friends, it's about our essential freedom to have loaded guns lying around all over the place! We give up that freedom at our peril.

Do you think any of that has anything to do with anything anyone has posted in here, or are you just not even bothering with the idea of making straw men seem attached to an existing argument on the table?

[ceptimus]

No. I just find it hilarious that you continue to argue that a toddler shooting someone to death with a gun is somehow an unforeseeable and unpreventable accident.

[SkepticX]

This needs to be posted in pretty much every gun thread to help with perspective--hopefully help keep emotional hijackings from crippling too many intellects:

Thinking Rationally About Guns

[Ari]

Originally Posted by SkepticX

He introduced an unannounced child into the environment

Since clearly,
Unannounced loaded and ready to fire gun is
Unannounced child is

It was certainly just not possible for him to ask the father and son to wait outside while he put away his dangerous weapons. Who can even keep track of all their loaded and read to fire weapons they have laying around anyway? It would have kept the two waiting for like 30 seconds, which is inexcusable!
(Although I think there was more going on here, than reported)

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by Ari

It was certainly just not possible for him to ask the father and son to wait outside while he put away his dangerous weapons.

Certainly not! Think what might have happened if an armed intruder had rushed in on the three of them after the weapons had been made safe!

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by SkepticX

This needs to be posted in pretty much every gun thread to help with perspective--hopefully help keep emotional hijackings from crippling too many intellects:

Thinking Rationally About Guns

Seriously? You think you are the unemotional, rational one here?

These 'incidents', innocent bystanders getting shot by kids who pick up guns left around loaded and ready to fire, are an inevitable consequence of having guns ready for self-defence. This is what you patiently keep pointing out to us. And yet when we say it back to you, you call it a strawman.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by Watser?

Seriously? You think you are the unemotional, rational one here?

Well, yeah. None of you are falling over yourselves congratulating SkepticX on his astuteness and logic in pointing out that there are at least some hypothetical scenarios where failing to secure loaded firearms with minor guests wandering about your house is the smart thing to do, for Freedom. Ergo, you are all emotionally fraught, irrational, fundamentalist, gun-hating, cry-baby liberals who hate Freedom and want rampaging mobs of armed intruders to waltz around our houses unopposed raping all our Freedoms.

Fucking follow along here, cheese monkey...

[SkepticX]

Originally Posted by Ari

Since clearly,
Unannounced loaded and ready to fire gun is
Unannounced child is

It's when those things were combined there's a problem. In this case those things were combined. See how that's different than considering them separately as you were doing there? Who imposed the combination upon the other? Who had more foreknowledge by which to be more informed about the combination? Is it more reasonable to expect an ex-Green Beret might have a gun for self-defense, or that an ex-Green Beret buddy will drop by unannounced on some random weekend with his 4 year old? Who was responsible for the child and who was unaware of the child until right before the incident? Or is "Who was the gun-owner!? the only real question yous are considering?

Originally Posted by Ari

It was certainly just not possible for him to ask the father and son to wait outside while he put away his dangerous weapons.

If you kept rat poison out on a shelf because you needed to use it so often (and didn't have kids or pets cruising around to get into it), do you presume you would immediately realize the potential hazard because an old buddy surprised you with a visit and brought his 4 year old with him?

Most gun owners aren't terrified of or fixated upon guns like many anti-gun types are. They don't dominate our perception of the world when they're present, or even just on the table for discussion like they do for many anti-gun types either. I'd guess that in most cases when an old Army buddy drops by unannounced, the unwary host is surprised and happy (kinda the point, usually), and may not immediately run through a threat checklist in his or her mind because the unannounced guest also brought his or her kid, particularly when the surprised host used to functioning one a daily basis without considering children, since they have nothing to do with his or her day-to-day world.

In any case, if you watched the short video which is the full story, you'd know that the event apparently happened pretty quickly when the victim and his kid arrived. Also, it would appear the authorities in this case agree with me. That doesn't mean a lot, but it does suggest it's not so clearly a case of negligence as most gun-naive types in here so obviously want to think.

Originally Posted by Ari

I think there was more going on here, than reported.

Such as? What exactly are you presuming?

[chunksmediocrites]

Originally Posted by SkepticX

You're assuming a lot here, it would seem.

CNN via WPTV:

Acknowledging it appears to have been a tragic accident, [police Sgt. Brandon] Bonney cautioned gun owners

"We want to remind people without making a villain of this person, that if a child is visiting your home, the first thing to do would be put the firearm away."

NRA Gun Safety Rules:

Store guns so they are not accessible to unauthorized persons.
Many factors must be considered when deciding where and how to store guns. A person's particular situation will be a major part of the consideration. Dozens of gun storage devices, as well as locking devices that attach directly to the gun, are available. However, mechanical locking devices, like the mechanical safeties built into guns, can fail and should not be used as a substitute for safe gun handling and the observance of all gun safety rules.

NRA Information for Parents:

Gun Owners' Responsibilities
Most states impose some form of legal duty on adults to take reasonable steps to deny access by children to dangerous substances or instruments.

Goddamn, it is a rash of assumptions! A lot, even!

Originally Posted by SkepticX

I don't bother with childproofing my house--no need. No kids. If someone came by with a kid, unannounced, would I then suddenly be expected to have had my house childproofed? Would I be expected to think of things that might be dangerous to a kid and take care of them more or less immediately, such that if the kid beat me to something it's my fault?

Do you mean are you liable for the safety of those on your property? In many cases, yes.
FindLaw:

Homeowners' liability for injuries suffered on their property will vary depending on the legal rules in place in the state where the injury occurred. In some states, the court will focus on the status of the injured visitor in determining the liability of the owner or occupier, i.e. whether that person was an "invitee", "licensee", or "trespasser".
Invitees
When a homeowner invites or induces others to enter the premises for any lawful purpose, this triggers the homeowner's duty to exercise ordinary care to keep the premises safe. An invitation may be expressed (i.e. through words such as "please come in"), implied from known customs or use of the premises, or inferred from the homeowner's conduct. Contractors are typically considered invitees.

Feel free to consult your state laws in regard to this.

Originally Posted by SkepticX

A loaded gun sitting in plain view and easily accessible on a table or counter top in my house while someone's home (that means me or my wife and that's it) is safely stored.

Weird. I have yet to see a gun safety guide anywhere that suggests this to be safe storage. For example: LearnAboutGuns.com, a proponent of gun-rights:

Safe and Responsible Gun Storage
Gun ownership is a sacred right, and with the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms comes the responsibility to safely and responsibly store those guns. This article addresses various means of securing firearms to prevent theft and/or misuse by children.

None of their suggestions include putting your loaded weapon on a table or counter top. What irrational leftists! They assume too much!

Originally Posted by SkepticX

No, I'm not saying the owner isn't at fault because he forgot or didn't care, I'm just going with the actual information we have in the context of the real world. And I'm not invested in finding a villain or in making sure someone is punished because something bad happened. You don't reasonably hold someone responsible for changing his situation without notice into one that turns out badly, even tragically.

Please quote the people in this thread who are asking the owner of the gun to be punished. And unless the friend forced his way in, then the owner was given notice. Right there in the real world you are all attuned to and explaining and shit.

[SkepticX]

Originally Posted by Watser?

Seriously? You think you are the unemotional, rational one here?

I wouldn't put it like that, and I certainly wouldn't say I'm the "only" one whose emotions haven't hijacked my intellect to a problematic degree, but more or less--yeah. Most of yous are using wild hyperbole and mockery and deceptively reinterpreting or ignoring points and all that kind of thing--the things we see when TEA Party types get all worked up over the gays and such. I'll admit I have trouble ignoring all of it rather than throwing it right back at yous, but I think I do a pretty good job of it, particularly when half a dozen tantrums are going on all at once, all of which demonstrate fairly probable (to obvious) self-deception and intellectual cowardice.

Originally Posted by Watser?

These 'incidents', innocent bystanders getting shot by kids who pick up guns left around loaded and ready to fire, are an inevitable consequence of having guns ready for self-defence. This is what you patiently keep pointing out to us. And yet when we say it back to you, you call it a strawman.

Not even close. In fact I've pointed out that this is a pretty anomalous and tragic situation because there was no apparent neglect at all--if anyone it was the fault of the victim, but that would require a pretty harsh, rigid judgement. My argument is that, based upon the information we have it isn't reasonable to expect it should have been avoided, just as the local authorities have obviously determined.

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by SkepticX

gun-naive types in here

That's me. In the UK there is a total ban on handguns. We're allowed to own non-automatic rifles and shotguns, but if you want to keep them at home, they have to be kept in locked cabinets, unloaded, and with the ammunition stored in a separate locked cabinet. The vast majority of people here do not own guns, and don't wish to own them either.

Of course, to an American, this looks like we have totally surrendered our freedoms to an overbearing government. But actually, the majority of people here are wholly in favor of the gun laws.

The amount of deaths and injuries here due to shootings (both deliberate and accidental) are at a much much lower level than in the USA. That's a kind of freedom too, and one we don't wish to give up.

[SkepticX]

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

None of their suggestions include putting your loaded weapon on a table or counter top. What irrational leftists! They assume too much!

Really? You really think you want to be that pedantic?

What did they say about shooting after relieving yourself? How about shooting with sore feet or in a red shirt? I guess if they didn't okay those specifics, according to you we also have to consider all of those things unsafe.

As pretty much the entire planet is well aware, safety rules and regs are always extreme, and as you've chosen to ignore here is that they also always come with qualifiers. The qualifiers mean we're meant to actually consider reality when we think about the rules and regs, such as if children aren't an issue in your situation, don't worry about the rules and regs that are about children. If we all went by your standards here the military couldn't function, for example, and armed self-defense would be problematic at best. Of course I expect the latter makes your take here more appealing, but if we're interested in what's real and true we shouldn't be at all concerned about what's appealing to our personal sensibilities.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by SkepticX

Most gun owners aren't terrified of or fixated upon guns like many anti-gun types are. They don't dominate our perception of the world when they're present, or even just on the table for discussion like they do for many anti-gun types either.

And yet, if he had let the deadly and ready-to-fire weapon sitting out in his house "dominate" his perception a little bit more, his friend might not be dead now.

Funny how that works.

I'd guess that in most cases when an old Army buddy drops by unannounced, the unwary host is surprised and happy (kinda the point, usually), and may not immediately run through a threat checklist in his or her mind because the unannounced guest also brought his or her kid, particularly when the surprised host used to functioning one a daily basis without considering children, since they have nothing to do with his or her day-to-day world.

We don't know how often he interacts with children so we can't say whether it was reasonable for him to not have a set "plan" for when kids come over. But anyway...

I guess you're making a good case for this being a rule for parents of young children: Don't visit gun-owners, because their houses are not safe for kids.

Right? I think the NRA should go with that. "Gun-owners are not safe around your kids."

[ChuckF]

This does expose the irrational agenda of the left. If they really care about reducing violence, they might spare a thought for controlling unannounced four-year-old children. How many of our youth have been needlessly cut down in four-year-old-fueled gang violence? How many of our brothers and sisters have, in despair, committed suicide using an unannounced four-year-old child? What these fundamentalists don't understand is that the unattended loaded gun on the kitchen counter isn't the problem when we stipulate that it is being stored safely and isn't the problem - in fact, when we stipulate that it has nothing to do with anything, that gun has nothing to with anything. It's a red herring.

CHECKMATE ATHIESTS

[SkepticX]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

That's me. In the UK there is a total ban on handguns. We're allowed to own non-automatic rifles and shotguns, but if you want to keep them at home, they have to be kept in locked cabinets, unloaded, and with the ammunition stored in a separate locked cabinet. The vast majority of people here do not own guns, and don't wish to own them either.

Good! Hopefully you can keep it more or less that way for a good while. There may be a problem when this changes though. (See: history, weaponry, distribution.)

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Of course, to an American, this looks like we have totally surrendered our freedoms to an overbearing government. But actually, the majority of people here are wholly in favor of the gun laws.

No, it sounds like a society that hasn't yet been flooded with guns to the point that they're easily accessible to those who use them for predatory violent crime. That's a good thing, obviously. That's not the way it is in the US, also obviously, and I'm afraid it's almost certainly a matter of time (hopefully more rather than less) before it's no longer true there either. (See above reference.)

Originally Posted by ceptimus

The amount of deaths and injuries here due to shootings (both deliberate and accidental) are at a much much lower level than in the USA. That's a kind of freedom too, and one we don't wish to give up.

No kidding!

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by SkepticX

Also, it would appear the authorities in this case agree with me. That doesn't mean a lot, but it does suggest it's not so clearly a case of negligence as most gun-naive types in here so obviously want to think.

Your out-of-the-blue introduction of the term "manslaughter" made me suspect this, but now I'm pretty sure that you might be missing a few key concepts about what "negligence" means, how conduct is determined to be negligent, who makes that determination, and the standard of proof associated with that determination. I'm pretty certain that there has not been any kind of determination that any conduct in this case was or was not negligent.

[chunksmediocrites]

Originally Posted by SkepticX

Really? You really think you want to be that pedantic?

What did they say about shooting after relieving yourself? How about shooting with sore feet or in a red shirt? I guess if they didn't okay those specifics, according to you we also have to consider all of those things unsafe.

Ah- you see, the link and the topic was not the firing of a weapon, nor random variables of your bladder and feet and clothing. The topic was gun storage, and your argument that storage of your loaded firearm on a table or counter is safe storage. It is not considered safe storage, and not recommended, even by gun advocates.

Originally Posted by SkepticX

As pretty much the entire planet is well aware, safety rules and regs are always extreme, and as you've chosen to ignore here is that they also always come with qualifiers. The qualifiers mean we're meant to actually consider reality when we think about the rules and regs, such as if children aren't an issue in your situation, don't worry about the rules and regs that are about children.

Unless children enter your property. In which case, in many states, including possibly your own, you are legally liable for their safety. Are you arguing that if you let a child into your house and they get access to the gun you store on your table and shoot someone, you are not liable?

Originally Posted by SkepticX

If we all went by your standards here the military couldn't function, for example

1. Not my standards- the standards of the Phoenix Police Department, the NRA, and at least one gun advocacy site- in respect to home gun storage and safety. 2. The context is gun storage in the home. How did you get from there to the ability of the military to function?

Originally Posted by SkepticX

...and armed self-defense would be problematic at best.

Please explain how the safety guidelines put forth by the NRA and pro-gun groups would be problematic for armed self defense.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by SkepticX

Not even close. In fact I've pointed out that this is a pretty anomalous and tragic situation because there was no apparent neglect at all--if anyone it was the fault of the victim, but that would require a pretty harsh, rigid judgement. My argument is that, based upon the information we have it isn't reasonable to expect it should have been avoided, just as the local authorities have obviously determined.

So again you are saying it is an inevitable byproduct of having guns ready for self-defence. Only this time you are saying it is a very rare byproduct.

[SkepticX]

Originally Posted by erimir

And yet, if he had let the deadly and ready-to-fire weapon sitting out in his house "dominate" his perception a little bit more, his friend might not be dead now.

Funny how that works.

We don't base crime and punishment on what might have turned out better, though. That's not the issue here. That's why it's a tragedy. No one has argued that it's best not to recognize a hazardous combination of a new chaotic element (a 4 year old) introduced into a situation which doesn't allow for that kind or level of chaos, I've been arguing it's not reasonable to expect one to do so, particularly not in the conditions of this actual case ... again, as the authorities involved also determined.

Originally Posted by erimir

We don't know how often he interacts with children so we can't say whether it was reasonable for him to not have a set "plan" for when kids come over. But anyway...

Where there's doubt you can accept it as an unknown, you can offer its benefit, or you can impose it as a burden. I'm accepting it as an unknown. Those arguing against me are imposing it as a burden.

Originally Posted by erimir

I guess you're making a good case for this being a rule for parents of young children: Don't visit gun-owners, because their houses are not safe for kids.

More burden of doubt thinking--very right wingnut of you.

For those who want to be reasonable rather than judgemental, it would better be put that it's not a good idea to visit others unannounced in general, but particularly if you're bringing an inquisitive child. And if you do so, you need to keep the child contained, primarily for the child's protection.

To that end I'd recommend actually keeping a hold of a child in the situation of the story (like holding a child's hand when crossing the street) and only allowing the child free movement incrementally as you, the guardian, are assured of the environment's safety regarding inquisitive children.

I wonder if there'd be a similar reaction if it were a car enthusiast and the kid drank a bunch of anti-freeze?

No, I don't, really.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by SkepticX

I wonder if there'd be a similar reaction if it were a car enthusiast and the kid drank a bunch of anti-freeze?

No, I don't, really.

Well certainly not if the anti-freeze was being stored safely in a drinking glass on the kitchen counter.

(Also most automotive antifreezes are propylene glycol based and not particularly toxic.)

[SkepticX]

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

Ah- you see, the link and the topic was not the firing of a weapon, nor random variables of your bladder and feet and clothing ..

You may need to look up "pedantry" and maybe see if you can find commentary about how it can effect one's interpretations of things--how a pedant can completely fail to grasp very basic concepts because of trivial semantics and things that others have no difficulties with ... that sort of thing.

[SkepticX]

So we've already gotten to the point at which my comments and the story are being conflated in order to impose even a great deal more burden than the reasonable doubt affords. Interesting ... and how strikingly disingenuous.